WRITER’S WORKSHOP IN THE INCLUSIVE CLASSROOM:

DOES IT MEET THE NEEDS OF NEWCOMER

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS?

By

Anne Josephson

A Capstone submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English as a Second Language

Hamline University

Saint Paul, Minnesota

September 2006

Committee: Margaret L. Farrell, Primary Advisor Ann Mabbott, Secondary Advisor Shelly Kinzer, Peer Reviewer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………..1 Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………….6 Effective Program Models for English Language Learners………...6 ESL Program Models in Minnesota………………………………..10 ESL Program Models in One District………………………………12 One School’s Model………………………………………………..17 Inclusion……………………………………………………………17 Effective Co-Teaching……………………………………………..21 ESL Instructional Approaches……………………………………..25 Effective Instruction for ELLs……………………………………..27 Needs of Newcomer ELLs…………………………………………34 Writing and the English Language Learner………………………..36 Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………43 Setting and Participants…………………………………………….44 Writer’s Workshop…………………………………………………47 Data Collection Methods…………………………………………...53 Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………60 Introduction………………………………………………………..60 Lesson Plans……………………………………………………….60 Lesson Adaptations and Modifications……………………………64

Anecdotal Notes and Observations………………………………..78 Student Work and Checklists………………………………………93 Chapter 5: Conclusion……………………………………………………104 Major Learnings………………………………………………….104 Implications………………………………………………………111 Limitations……………………………………………………….112 Future Research………………………………………………….113 Communicating and Using Results………………………………114 Appendix A: Co-Teaching Arrangements………………………………..116 Appendix B: Minnesota English Language Proficiency Standards K-12..118 Appendix C: NCEE Writing Standards- Grade 2………………………...121 Appendix D: Daily Checklist of Beginning Writing Skills………………125 Appendix E: Checklist of Overall Writing Performance…………………127 Appendix F: Lucy Calkins Lesson Plan…………………………………..129 Appendix G: Student Work Sample- All About Book……………………139 Appendix H: Student Work Sample- Poetry Unit…………………………149 Appendix I: Student Work Sample- Repetition Poems……………………151 Appendix J: Student Work Samples- Authors as Mentors………………...158 References………………………………………………………………….165

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Co-Teaching Arrangements…………………………………….22 Figure 2 Daily Checklist of Beginning Writing Skills…………………...55 Figure 3 Checklist of Overall Writing Performance……………………..57 Figure 4 Checklist Data- All About Books………………………………95 Figure 5 Checklist Data- Poetry………………………………………….96 Figure 6 Checklist Data- Authors as Mentors……………………………97 Figure 7 Overall Writing Performance Checklist Data………………….102

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

The push by some school districts in recent years to implement inclusion models

in English as a second language (ESL) teaching has prompted me as an educator to

closely evaluate one collaborative inclusion model. I want to determine if this ESL

delivery model is an effective one for beginning English language learners (ELLs) who

are new to the United States and the American school culture.

In my research, I examine one part of a newcomer ELL’s school day, the Writer’s

Workshop. The purpose of my study is to investigate whether or not newcomer English

language learners are having their language acquisition needs met in the Writer’s

Workshop within an inclusive classroom setting. Specifically, I want to examine the

writing curriculum and how I adapt it based on proven ESL methods to determine

whether or not students are developing beginning writing skills as set forth in state and

national standards. As I carry out my research, I will attempt to answer this question:

Does the Writer’s Workshop curriculum and my adaptation of that curriculum allow

newcomer ELLs to meet beginning writing objectives within an inclusive, mainstream

setting?

English language learners who are new to the country face unique challenges.

Many enter our schools from pre-literate family backgrounds and are unfamiliar with the

culture of a school setting. I became cognizant of the challenges facing newcomer ELLs

within an inclusive mainstream setting during my first year teaching ESL at an urban

elementary school in Minnesota. As the ESL teacher to first grade learners, I

collaboratively taught writing and math to a heterogeneous group of students. It became

apparent almost immediately that the handful of newcomer students within this group

was struggling to keep up as I taught lessons using the district’s approved curriculum.

Not only did I not find the curriculum particularly accessible to these students, but I also

found it extremely challenging to differentiate my teaching to fit the needs of 25 students

from a broad range of backgrounds.

During that first school year, I was not overly concerned about my newcomers

during writing, because I was more free to use various ESL teaching approaches to make

content comprehensible within my writing instruction. For example, if we were working

on fairy tales, I would take the time to read two versions of the same story- a more

traditional version, along with a more simplified version enhanced with larger pictures. I

used realia, pictures, and my own drawings, and was able to get students physically

involved in literature by having them act out scenes or use puppets to retell a story. These

activities and experiences gave even my newcomer students meaningful context and

vocabulary that they could use during their independent writing time.

In addition, I conducted a Reader’s Workshop separate from the mainstream

classrooms. For one hour a day, the newcomer students joined the other Language

Academy students to participate in a highly contextualized Reader’s Workshop where

survival English skills, basic vocabulary, and literacy skills were also taught. Within the

collaborative program model in place at this school, the newcomer students were able to

benefit from the instruction of two teachers during math and writing times. They were

also able to benefit from the instruction of an ESL teacher in a small group for an hour

each day for reading and language instruction, in addition to a half hour at the end of each

day for more individualized instruction.

The specific language acquisition needs of newcomer students were brought to

the forefront of my teaching during the beginning of my second year as an ESL teacher. I

was assigned to a new school within the same district. Like my first school, this school is

a K-6 elementary building with a high percentage of ELLs. Unlike my first school,

however, the new building has implemented a full-inclusion ESL model that commenced

the fall of 2005. Prior to this school year, ESL instruction was delivered through a

combination pull-out and collaborative teaching model. Through the new model, the ESL

teacher is to spend the majority of the day co-teaching with the mainstream teacher in

his/her classroom. This means that all ELLs, newcomers included, are to spend almost

their entire school day in the regular classroom setting. No longer am I able to hold my

own hour-long Reader’s Workshop for the low-proficiency English language learners,

nor is pull-out of any kind looked upon very favorably.

I have become frustrated with some aspects of the inclusion model in place, not

because I do not believe it valuable for newcomer ELLs to be part of a mainstream

learning community, but because I believe there are certain times of the day when they

are not having their language acquisition needs met. For my research, I am interested in

examining the Writer’s Workshop (Calkins, 2003), which is a daily one hour block of

time beginning with a mini-lesson that is followed by student work time and

student/teacher conferencing. I will investigate the Writer’s Workshop model and my

own teaching to see what the newcomer students are getting out of the current writing

instruction delivery method.

As the second grade ESL teacher working collaboratively with a mainstream

teacher, I have taken over the teaching of Writer’s Workshop to the whole class. The

curriculum approved by the district and in place for use with grades K-2 at my school is

very structured and scripted, and designed to be used with native English speaking

students. I have begun thinking about how I would teach writing to my newcomer and

low-proficiency ELLs if I were not expected to use the standard district/school approved

curriculum. Language Experience Approach, shared writing, contextualized vocabulary

teaching, use of realia and visuals- these are all strategies that to me seem ideal to use

with the newcomer students with whom I work.

The move towards inclusion is an important trend in the ever-evolving history of

ESL service delivery models. The questions I am posing in this paper are relevant to my

students and their parents because we as educators owe them the best model possible for

instruction. If students are not having their language acquisition needs met like they

should be to develop basic communication skills in English, we as educators owe them

instructional practices that will meet their specific needs. Parents deserve to know if the

instructional model and curricula used with their children are the best in helping them

develop the speaking, listening, reading and writing skills necessary to be socially and

academically successful. Because literacy skills and language acquisition are linked

(Krashen, 1992), it is important that students be surrounded by a language-rich

environment created by teachers, peers, and the instructional methods in practice.

Additionally, the topic of my research is relevant to other ESL teachers and

educators at the district level because we need to know how the service delivery model

that is in place benefits or constrains the language acquisition of newcomer students.

Equally important, we need to know how the curricula and models that we are asked to

use are meeting the language development needs of the wide variety of students that we

encounter within our classrooms.

In the following chapter, the literature review presents a historical background on

various ESL teaching models within the state and school district where I teach. The

collaborative inclusion model is then discussed. Instructional components of effective

ESL teaching will also be presented, along with a description of newcomer needs. The

chapter will conclude with a discussion of writing instruction and how it pertains to

English language learners.

In chapter three, the methods used for my research will be discussed. I will also

present the participants and setting of the study, and will describe the characteristics of

my classroom’s Writer’s Workshop in more detail. In chapter four, I will present the

results of the data collection in the form of lesson plans, adaptations, observations, and

student work. A discussion of the results and connections to the research question will

follow. Finally, chapter five will summarize what was learned and will consider possible

implications and limitations to the study.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

The goal of my research is to determine if the Writer’s Workshop curriculum and

my adaptation of that curriculum allow newcomer ELLs to meet beginning writing

objectives within an inclusive, mainstream setting. To examine the review of research,

this chapter begins with a review of a school effectiveness study conducted by lead

researchers in the field of ESL. Next, an overview of the history of ESL teaching models

within Minnesota and the urban district in which I teach is presented. The history of

inclusionary teaching practices within the special education and ESL fields is then

presented. A brief review of effective co-teaching is explained. Next, ESL instructional

approaches are described, along with components of ESL instruction that make up best

practices in ESL teaching. A section is also included describing the specific needs of

newcomer ELLs. I describe the Writer’s Workshop model as it is used in my district.

Finally, the section concludes with research dealing with ELLs and writing skills.

Effective Program Models for English Language Learners

In 1997, Collier and Thomas, researchers well known in the field of ESL for their

collaborative investigation of school effectiveness for linguistically diverse students,

published a paper in which they provide recommendations for programmatic decisions

regarding language minority students. Directed towards state and local education

decision-makers, the data-based research details what will happen in the long-term to

language minority students as a result of educational decisions made now (Collier &

Thomas, 1997). In their study, Collier and Thomas looked at the academic achievement

of ELLs across all grades K-12. This allowed them to gather data over a long period of

time in order to get an accurate representation of students’ long-term academic

performance. The researchers chose to study five school systems within the United States

that had well-implemented programs for language minority students with experienced,

well-trained staff. They were able to present a picture of the long-term potential for each

program type when that program was well implemented (Collier & Thomas, 1997).

Collier and Thomas examined six different program models, ranging from two-

way developmental bilingual education to ESL taught through academic content and ESL

pull-out taught traditionally. They then examined patterns of academic achievement of

cohorts of students who began schooling in the U.S. in kindergarten with no proficiency

in English, through their final year in high school. What they found was that ELLs, no

matter what the language minority group, benefit enormously in the long term from on-

grade-level academic work in their native language. The more ELLs develop

academically and cognitively in their first language at an age appropriate level, the more

successful they will be in academic achievement in English by the end of their school

years (Collier & Thomas, 1997).

In examining programs that did not provide bilingual or native language

instruction (such as a sheltered English program or ESL pull-out program), Collier and

Thomas found that the type of English instruction is the key to English-only program

effectiveness. They state that instruction in the second language must be used to provide

students with access to the full curriculum, and that English should be taught through

cognitively complex academic work while making the content meaningful for students at

their proficiency level in the second language (Collier & Thomas, 1997). They found that

students who received English instruction taught through academic content made greater

progress than students receiving ESL classes focused only on English language

development. Those students who received English instruction through academic content

and made greater progress, were taught by teachers trained in second language

acquisition, the content area specialty, and were socioculturally supportive of students

(Collier & Thomas, 1997).

The other program model for English-only instruction that Collier and Thomas

studied was the pull-out model. The pull-out programs studied by Collier and Thomas

were designed to provide short-term, limited instructional support from an ESL-certified

teacher for a portion of each day. These types of programs are not to be confused with the

pull-out programs used in Minnesota that are content-based and designed to develop

language through social and academic communication skills. ESL pull-out programs

examined in the study were designed to solely address the English language proficiency

of the students, not to integrate cognitive and academic development in an age-

appropriate manner with English language development. Because these pull-out models

did not teach language through content, the students in these programs had shorter

exposure to the pull-out models than they would have had in a sheltered English program

or a bilingual program. For students to continue in pull-out programs long term would

lead to higher gaps in academic performance since students’ cognitive and academic

needs would go unaddressed while they first learned English. At the conclusion of their

study, Collier and Thomas found that students who receive well-implemented ESL pull-

out instruction in their early elementary years, and then receive years of instruction in the

English mainstream, finish school well below their native English speaking peers and

well-below ELLs who received enrichment bilingual education (Collier & Thomas,

1997). In ESL pull-out programs, students receive academic content instruction taught by

the mainstream classroom teacher in a mainstream classroom, but the researchers’ data

suggest that students do not benefit from the mainstream instruction nearly as much as

they do when they receive language through content instruction taught by a well-qualified

ESL teacher trained in second language acquisition and the content area.

While it may sound like a pull-out model is the worst possible option for our

ELLs, this research should not be misinterpreted. Decisions on which English language

development program to implement present a challenge in balancing between separate

schooling for ELLs and integration with the mainstream (Collier & Thomas, 1997). The

researchers suggest that separate classes for part of the school day can serve important

functions for many language minority students. They also explain that some separate

instructional time appears beneficial--especially L1 academic instruction as well as ESL

content instruction--when mainstream classes do not meet ELLs’ needs (Collier &

Thomas, 1997).

Students learning English as a second language require teachers who understand

the process of second language acquisition and can provide students access to both

language and academic content in the early years of schooling. With an experienced

mainstream teacher who can expertly work with a group of students who vary greatly in

their English proficiency, it is possible for ELLs to benefit from time in the mainstream

classroom. However, many mainstream teachers lack the specialized knowledge of

working with ELLs. According to Collier and Thomas, ESL teachers who are trained in

teaching language through content are the crucial providers of appropriate and

meaningful access to the academic curriculum for students (1997).

ESL Program Models in Minnesota

In January 2005, the Minnesota Department of Education published a paper on

program models (Minnesota Department of Education, 2005) that districts within the

state may choose to implement in order to properly serve the needs of ELLs. While

research (including that done by Collier and Thomas) suggests that language taught

through cognitively challenging grade-level content in a student’s native language leads

to an increase in academic success, it is not always possible for all schools/districts to

have the resources needed to serve every ESL student in the state within a bilingual

program model. Because of less-common languages represented by students and a

shortage of qualified bilingual teachers, only a handful of bilingual programs are

currently in place in Minnesota.

In Minnesota, a prevalent model that has been used in the past and continues to be

used in some districts is the pull-out model. Generally used in elementary settings, the

Department of Education describes the pull-out model as one in which students spend a

part of their school days in the mainstream classroom but are pulled out for a portion of

the day to receive instruction in English as a second language in a separate setting

(Minnesota Department of Education, 2005). Strengths of this model are that it promotes

language acquisition, allows for ability grouping by English proficiency levels, and

facilitates small learning groups within a safe environment apart from the mainstream

classroom (Minnesota Department of Education, 2005). On the other hand, many

educators have identified challenges that occur with this model, including scheduling and

lack of coordination of lessons with mainstream teachers, as studied in “Pull-in

programs- A new trend in ESL education?” by Mabbott & Strohl (1992).

The Department of Education outlines other ESL service delivery models that are

being used in the state. Sheltered English instruction and specially designed academic

instruction delivered in English (SDAIE) provide instruction through content. With these

models English is not taught as its own entity. Content is delivered to the students in

English, and teachers use simplified language, physical activities, visual aids, and the

environment to teach vocabulary for concept development in mathematics, science, social

studies and other subjects (Minnesota Department of Education, 2005). Sheltered English

instruction engages all teachers (ESL and mainstream alike) to participate in educating

ELLs. This, in turn, promotes collaboration between ESL and mainstream staff, allowing

each educator to share his/her area of expertise within the content or language aspect of

lessons taught. Challenges to this type of model occur when mainstream staff does not

receive sufficient training on how to make content comprehensible to ELLs.

Alternatively, ESL teachers who are not experts in all areas of the curriculum may lack in

their abilities to teach certain content (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000).

ESL Program Models in One District

The district in which I teach is a large, urban district in Minnesota. The ELL

Department in this district has had to respond to rapidly changing demographics. This

district has the largest number of ELLs in the state. Of the approximately 40,000 students

enrolled in the district, about forty-three percent of them qualify for English language

instruction. The students in the district speak over 100 languages and dialects. Over the

past ten years, overall enrollment within the district has increased by 17.3 percent, while

the enrollment of ELLs has increased by 270 percent. The district has the largest

population of Hmong students in the United States, with 10,600 Hmong speaking

students enrolled in the 2005-2006 school year (Student Demographics, 2006).

In the past, the district has offered a variety of different program models for

serving ELLs. The long-term pull-out model to develop students’ social and academic

English abilities was originally the most common way of serving ELLs in the district and

other districts in the state. In addition to pull-out programs for students who had some

English proficiency, this district developed a self-contained English language

development program called TESOL (Duke & Mabbott, 2000) that was designed to serve

newcomer ELLs. TESOL classrooms contained students of many language groups and

grade levels in one classroom. The teacher serving the classroom had knowledge of

second language acquisition, but was also responsible for teaching the full curriculum,

including math, science, and social studies. Students in a TESOL classroom had very

limited exposure to mainstream students and native English speaking peers. Often class

sizes in the TESOL program were much higher than those in the mainstream classes. The

lack of opportunity for ELLs in the TESOL program to interact with fluent English

speaking peers and large class sizes created dissatisfaction with the model, which then led

the district to reconsider such a delivery method (Duke & Mabbott, 2000). Eventually,

the TESOL program was discontinued.

Due to the rapidly shifting demographics within the district over a short period of

time, dissatisfaction with previous models, and language acquisition research, the district

has been moving away from a pull-out model and towards an inclusive model. In such a

model, collaboration between classroom teachers and ESL teachers is the main focus.

Taking into account the increasingly diverse classrooms of today, the district has realized

that no one teacher can effectively meet the needs of all students. Thus, the district feels

that responsibility for teaching diverse learners must be shared, as must knowledge of

teaching and learning across disciplines (York-Barr, 2005). While all students in this

district must strive to meet and exceed the state’s demanding content standards, the goal

for ELLs is to achieve these grade-level standards while also developing academic

proficiency in English. The district determined that these students must have access to

and support in the general education learning context and curriculum (York-Barr, 2005)

supported by second language acquisition strategies.

Another reason the district has moved from pull-out and TESOL models to an

inclusive model stems from students feeling excluded from classroom activities and

marginalized from their English speaking peers. Adults who went through the

aforementioned English language development programs twenty or more years ago have

expressed feelings of isolation from peers and concern over missing academic content in

the mainstream classroom when pulled out for English language instruction (personal

communication with Margaret Farrell, March 2006). These former students did not want

the same experiences repeated in the education of their children, and made their concerns

known to the district.

The shift in the district is also congruent with research in the field of second

language acquisition that advocates the teaching of language through, not in advance of,

academic content (Language Academy Handbook, 2004-2005). English language

instruction, then, is not seen as a separate subject to be learned away from the mainstream

classroom, but rather can be integrated into literacy instruction taught collaboratively by

the regular education and ESL teachers (Cappellini, 2005).

In order to effectively meet the needs of the diverse student populations within the

district, but not isolate ELLs from English speaking role models or grade-level content

and curriculum, the district has begun using an instructional approach where language is

taught through content. Grade level content is taught to all students and is made

comprehensible using scaffolding and a sheltered English approach to teaching. Small

group intensive ESL instruction may also occur in addition to large group

instruction. Using this approach, the mainstream classroom teacher and the ESL teacher

learn from each other, using both content curriculum and ESL strategies. The language

through content approach allows ELLs to keep up with their grade level peers in content,

while also developing academic English language proficiency (English as a Second

Language, 2006).

The district now offers a variety of programs that meet the different needs of

ELLs. Language Academy is a program for elementary students who are beginning

English language learners (Language Academy Program, 2006). Language Academy

programs are housed in regular elementary schools. A classroom designated as Language

Academy is comprised of both ELLs and native English speakers. Students develop

English language skills as they learn the same academic content as the rest of the class.

Appropriate adaptations, modifications, and differentiations are made with collaborative

co-teaching from the ESL and mainstream teachers. Bilingual support is often provided

from bilingual educational assistants (Language Academy Program, 2006).

Placement in a Language Academy program allows ELLs to be part of the general

education classroom from the beginning of their education experience in the district. In

the mainstream classroom, ELLs are surrounded by English speaking peers who provide

models for speaking and opportunities for social interaction. Additionally, students have

the opportunity to learn from a team of education professionals. The ESL teacher brings

expertise in working with ELLs and second language acquisition, while the classroom

teacher brings knowledge of the general education classroom (Language Academy

Program, 2006).

When an influx of Hmong refugees from Thailand occurred in 2004, the district

created Transitional Language Centers (TLCs) in addition to the Language Academies.

The TLCs are a proactive and innovative program designed to provide quality, short-

term, comprehensive educational services to support the incoming Hmong students

(English as a Second Language, 2006). In addition, the TLCs offer socio-cultural and

social language support services to newly arrived Hmong students (Language Academy

Handbook, 2004-2005), many of whom have never attended school before. In addition to

providing students with pre-literacy instruction and beginning language development, the

TLCs also provide students with knowledge of classroom culture and school behavior

expectations.

TLCs are staffed by a regular classroom teacher and an experienced ESL teacher,

one of whom is a native Hmong speaker. Classrooms are also supported by bilingual

educational assistants. Through collaborative co-teaching, the students receive intensive

English instruction, content support in their native language, and access to the district’s

curriculum and workshop models. The TLCs are designed to provide refugee students

with cultural and educational experiences that will better prepare them to shift into ELL

programs (Language Academy Handbook, 2004-2005). Students spend only a year in a

TLC. They then transition into an already established Language Academy program.

Although the TLCs were set up to serve incoming Hmong refugees from

Thailand, some newcomer students do not begin their academic careers in the district at a

TLC site. Parents have the option of declining a place for their child in a TLC. Some

parents choose to send their newcomers to an elementary school closer to their home.

They also may select an ESL program in an elementary building because relatives of the

family have children who already attend school at a location, making it easier for the new

family to send their children to that site. Therefore, it is not unusual for a mainstream

classroom housing a Language Academy program to have a number of newcomer

English language learners.

One School’s Model

The model currently in place at the school where I teach is a full collaborative

inclusion model. Our school also has a Language Academy program. One or two ESL

teachers are assigned to each grade level. The ESL teachers go into the mainstream

classrooms to collaboratively co-teach lessons in all subject areas with the mainstream

teachers. One or two classrooms in every grade level are designated as Language

Academy classrooms. The ESL teacher does not spend the entire school day with the

Language Academy classroom, however, because the higher-proficiency ESL students in

the remaining classroom(s) must also be served cooperatively between the ESL and

mainstream teachers. In each grade level there are a handful of newcomer Hmong

students whose families chose to send them to our school instead of a TLC site. These

students spend nearly their entire school day in a mainstream classroom. What I aim to

find out from my research is whether or not these newcomer students are benefiting from

spending Writer’s Workshop in the mainstream setting using the model in place.

Inclusion

The inclusion of students in grade-level classrooms is not a new idea. The

motivation behind including ELLs in the mainstream classroom originates from a trend in

special education (Mabbott & Strohl, 1992). In response to a growing need in the

discipline and legislative mandates to instruct students having special needs with

mainstream peers, a merger of special and regular education has occurred nationwide

(Mabbott & Strohl, 1992; Bahamonde & Friend, 1999). Though there have only been a

few studies gathering data on the effectiveness of inclusion with special education

students (Welch et al., 1999), district administrators’ agreement with the suggestion that

special education students are best served in the mainstream classroom has led to the

implementation of inclusion programs for ESL instruction as well.

In order for inclusion to happen, teachers must collaborate in their planning and

execution of lessons. “Collaboration” has become a buzz-word in the field of education.

The request for collaboration continues to increase, but research supporting its

effectiveness has not kept up with the call to teach collaboratively (Welch et al., 1999).

There appears to be little data supporting a collaborative inclusion model in the arena of

special education. Zigmond (2001) and Murawski & Swanson (2001) find there has been

no evidence validating the effectiveness of teaching collaboratively, revealing a need for

data showing the effectiveness of co-teaching. With little data available to support an

inclusion model for special education, even less research exists regarding inclusion in the

mainstream for English language learners. Mabbott & Strohl (1992) contend that ELLs

differ from special education students in that most do not experience any type of learning

disability or problem. Therefore, it is of much importance to examine the application of

an inclusive special education model onto ESL instruction.

Advantages of Inclusive Collaboration for ESL Teaching

Because the ESL and mainstream teachers work together to plan for and deliver

instruction, students benefit from the individualized and differentiated instruction that

having two teachers can bring to a classroom. Often, mainstream teachers lack the

knowledge or training to effectively work with the specific language needs of ELLs. The

ESL teacher brings knowledge of second language acquisition to the team, while the

mainstream teacher contributes specialized knowledge of the various content areas.

Together, the two teachers create content-based lessons that also contain appropriate

language objectives for the language learners. Collaborative inclusion engages all

teachers to share the responsibility of educating students (Department of Education,

2005), thus eliminating the “my students” versus “your students” phenomenon.

Additionally, inclusion allows ELLs a greater opportunity to interact with native

English speaking peers. The ESL teacher acts as a facilitator of communication between

the ELLs and their mainstream peers (Mabbott & Strohl, 1992). The language learners

are not made to feel “different” because they function as meaningful members of the

classroom community. They are not pulled out for large portions of the day as in a pull-

out model, nor are they completely segregated from the mainstream, as they would be in

the TESOL model.

Finally, co-teaching essentially decreases the student-teacher ratio in a classroom.

Many educators believe that decreasing the student to teacher ratio increases student

learning because the teachers are better able to differentiate instruction to fit the needs of

all students.

Disadvantages of Inclusive Collaboration for ESL Teaching

Mabbott and Strohl (1992) found that some teachers working in an inclusive

collaboration model noted a number of disadvantages as well. They offer cautions

dealing with the alignment of planning time, the ability and willingness of teachers to

work as a team, and the elimination of the pull-out model.

First, it is essential that the mainstream teacher and ESL teacher have shared

planning time (and be willing to utilize it) in order to prepare for lessons and execute

them as a team. This is not always possible due to scheduling conflicts, especially if

administration is unsupportive of the initiative.

Second, teachers contend that participation in such a program model should be

voluntary for both mainstream and ESL staff involved. In order to collaborate effectively,

the two teachers need to be able to work as a team. Both teachers should be full partners

in the process.

In addition, teacher reactions to the model, as reflected in the Mabbott and Strohl

paper, suggest that pull-out classes for ELLs should not be eliminated completely. They

contend that both newcomer and more proficient English language learners need some

time away from the mainstream classroom to practice and discuss language issues. The

safe environment of a pull-out classroom allows students to practice oral language skills

and take risks that they otherwise may not take in the presence of fluent English speaking

peers (Mabbott & Strohl, 1992).

Another issue that may arise within the collaborative inclusion model is that the

mainstream teacher may not have sufficient training or knowledge about how to work

with second language learners. Similarly, the ESL teacher may lack knowledge of certain

content areas, making it difficult for both teachers to work effectively with a group of

students (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000).

Effective Co-Teaching

The language through content approach is taught through a collaborative

inclusion model of ESL service delivery. Instead of pulling students out of the

mainstream classroom for ESL services, the ESL teacher is pulled in to the classroom and

engages in co-teaching with the mainstream teacher. Co-teaching is described as two or

more education professionals delivering instruction to a diverse group of students in a

single physical space (Cook & Friend, 1996). A necessary component of the inclusion

model is that ESL and mainstream teachers plan and conduct lessons collaboratively,

allowing for differentiation in instruction for the ELLs in the class. Duke and Mabbott

explain that the name collaborative inclusion allows all children, regardless of their

special needs, to be included in the mainstream classroom and not treated as though they

do not belong with their age and grade-level peers (2000).

Co-teaching emphasizes that both teachers present in the classroom (in this case a

general education teacher and an ESL teacher) are actively involved in the delivery of

classroom instruction. A co-teacher is not in the classroom to assist a teacher or act as a

tutor for individual students, acting as an “extra pair of hands” (Cook & Friend, 1996),

but rather to be a partner for the other co-teacher, sharing continually in the design and

implementation of the curriculum. Various arrangements exist for the physical placement

of teachers and students during co-teaching situations. These co-teaching structures range

from whole-group instruction to small group station teaching and parallel teaching.

Figure 1 shows various co-teaching arrangements, adapted from Friend and Barsack,

1990: (“Arrangements for Co-Teaching” is reproduced in Appendix A).

Figure 1. Arrangements for Co-Teaching Adapted from Friend & Barsack, 1990

In the “one teach, one assist or support” arrangement, both teachers are present

but one takes the lead. The other teacher observes (perhaps taking anecdotal notes related

to students) and drifts among the students, assisting with the lesson. In a “team teaching”

model, both teachers share in the interaction with and instruction of students. The co-

teachers may take turns leading a discussion, demonstrating concepts, or modeling an

activity with a partner (the other co-teacher). In a team teaching situation, the co-teachers

work off of one another, allowing for modeling of appropriate partner behavior, question

asking, or conflict resolution strategies (Cook & Friend, 1996).

Moving away from whole-group instruction, other co-teaching arrangements

include station teaching where the content to be taught is divided and each teacher takes

responsibility for part of it. Some students may also work independently, but by the

conclusion of the session, all students will have participated in all stations. In parallel

teaching, co-teachers jointly plan instruction but each teacher delivers it to only half of

the class at the same time in different parts of the room. This is similar to alternative

teaching in that all instruction occurs in the same physical space (the classroom), yet one

co-teacher instructs a small group of students, while the other teacher instructs a larger

group (Friend & Barsack, 1990). All of the co-teaching arrangements are designed to

decrease the student-teacher ratio, thus increasing the ESL services received by English

language learners.

Along with managing the physical aspects of co-teaching arrangements, co-

teachers need to have clearly defined roles and plans for their teaching situations. Co-

teachers need to remember that effective co-teaching utilizes the expertise of both

educators and results in unique instructional opportunities that could not be accomplished

by a single teacher (Cook & Friend, 1996). In planning for co-teaching, the educators

involved need to consider how co-teaching will reduce calling attention to students with

special needs or those with low-proficiency English language abilities. In addition, the

co-teachers should continuously examine how their co-teaching situation is making

students’ instructional experiences more enriching, coherent, and aligned with grade-

level standards than they would be in a pull-out or other arrangement for service delivery

(Cook & Friend, 1996).

In her thesis on this topic, Martinsen-Holt (2004) examined characteristics and

strategies of effective co-teaching to determine how she, an ESL teacher, could

successfully co-teach with a mainstream classroom teacher while continuing to provide

quality English language instruction. She kept a daily journal about her co-taught lessons,

and later recorded reflections and observations on the effectiveness of her co-taught

lessons. She also kept a log of time spent planning and communicating with her

mainstream co-teacher. She documented all lessons taught, along with all

communications that occurred between her and the co-teacher. On a weekly basis, she

and her co-teacher each assessed how the co-teaching was progressing by filling out a

checklist of factors that make up the key components of co-teaching.

What this study revealed was that co-teaching in this particular situation required

daily communication check-in between both teachers, along with more in-depth weekly

planning of day-to-day lessons. Martinsen-Holt reflected that she felt that she and her co-

teacher could have spent even more time planning to deliver more effective instruction.

Martinsen-Holt also noted that “non-work related time spent together” (p. 150) was

invaluable in building a relationship with her co-teacher.

Results of the weekly checklists filled out by both ESL and mainstream teachers

showed some discrepancy in how the two teachers viewed the success of each lesson.

Martinsen-Holt explains how she struggled to find a balance between teaching ESL and

teaching content- at times feeling like she was successful at making content

comprehensible to her ELLs, yet feeling at the same time that she was not teaching them

language. In examining her lesson plans and the ensuing results after the lessons were

taught, it was found that the ESL teacher and mainstream teacher often rated the success

of the lessons differently. Martinsen-Holt reported feeling that the language objectives

built into the content lessons sometimes were not met, or not met to the anticipated

expectation.

In sum, Martinsen-Holt concluded that she could move from working as a pull-

out ESL teacher to working as a collaborative co-teacher with a mainstream partner, but

that it requires time, planning, relationship building, and compromise. She advises that

co-teaching is a process that cannot be rushed and that requires much trial and error by all

parties involved.

ESL Instructional Approaches

English as a Second Language instructional strategies, along with the delivery

models described above, have been dynamically evolving over the past five decades.

During the first half of the twentieth century, language teachers relied on two approaches

to second language instruction, direct instruction and grammar translation. In the direct

instruction method, students imitate a model- the teacher or a recording- and attempt to

match their pronunciation to the model through imitation and repetition. In the grammar

translation method, language learning is approached through translating written passages

from one language into another. Oral communication in the target language is not a

primary instructional objective. By the 1950s, audiolingual methods that involved

memorization of set phrases, imitation of utterances, and the use of visual transcription

systems surfaced (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996). Twenty years later,

however, these methods were replaced by the communicative method of teaching, which

prepared students to use functional language in meaningful, relevant ways through

thematic and contextualized instruction (Echevarria, 2000). The communicative method

allows students the opportunity to discuss high-interest content material, increasing

motivation to learn and participate in class.

The communicative approach, along with a need for students to succeed in a

school setting, has brought about content-based, or sheltered, ESL instruction where

language educators teach language skills through content in the various subject areas. The

content utilized in this type of instruction should be relevant and meaningful to the

students and should address key topics found in the grade-level curricula. Echevarria,

Vogt and Short (2000), describe how content-based instruction at the primary level is

frequently taught through thematic instruction. They use the example of the theme “Life

on a Farm” to show that while students learn the names of animals, discuss the food

chain, and explore the inner workings of a farm, they also learn question formation, how

to use adjectives, how to illustrate and label stories, and other language functions. This

integration of language objectives into other content areas such as mathematics, social

studies, science and art helps students develop language proficiency by incorporating

information from their grade-level subject areas. ESL professionals today agree that

communicative, content-based instruction should be the norm in English language

teaching (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000).

The goal of content-based or sheltered instruction is to teach content to students

learning English through a developmental language approach (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short,

p. 7). This approach draws from and complements strategies advocated for both second

language and mainstream classrooms, which ideally would fit in well with an inclusive

teaching model where a second language teacher is paired with a mainstream teacher.

However, a sheltered approach using contextualized content presupposes that the students

benefiting most from the modified instruction would receive it in a setting where they can

become familiar with routine classroom activities and the social participation structure

(hand-raising, waiting one’s turn) before they are transitioned into a mainstream

environment (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000). There is a gap in current research

dealing with whether or not newcomer students will be as academically successful if they

are immediately placed into a mainstream classroom without given adequate time and

opportunity to become acclimated to the school culture in a more sheltered setting.

Effective Instruction for ELLs Teaching language through content to newcomer students, the group I focus on in

this study, presents a unique challenge for ESL educators. Keeping in mind the myriad of

factors that go into the education of a newcomer English language learner, teachers must

be aware of essential practices that are agreed upon by ESL professionals in the field.

Essential practices for English language learners as comprised by the National Center on

Education and the Economy (2005) delineate effective instruction for ELLs and are

described below. Also discussed in this section is the importance of content and language

objectives, comprehensible input, and contextualizing instruction.

Five Essential Practices for English Language Learners

1. Develop oral language through meaningful conversation Whether ELLs are in the classroom, on the playground, or waiting in the lunch

line, they need to be engaged in meaningful communicative exchanges in order to

increase their oral proficiency in English. Teachers can have conversations with students

through constant talk and meaningful interactions, not necessarily through direct

instruction. When newcomer ELLs hear a teacher or other student explain what he or she

is doing, thinking, or observing, the newcomers expand their vocabulary and hear

correctly modeled speech. Similarly, oral language is developed when students are

expected to talk with one another on a regular basis as part of a lesson activity through

meaningful conversation (NCEE, 2005). Accepting the language that a newcomer is able

to produce without overcorrecting the student facilitates an environment where the

student is comfortable speaking out and taking risks.

Opportunity to talk in the classroom should be paired with reading in all content

areas. Newcomers should be exposed to hundreds of books read aloud (not just during the

reading time). It is essential that newcomers participate in oral and shared reading in

order to develop an ear for the patterns, sounds, and rhythm of the English language

(NCEE, 2005).

2. Activate schema and build background knowledge

English language learners come to school with varied background experiences.

They will not all share previous knowledge about certain experiences or subjects

discussed in school. Therefore, students’ cultural backgrounds and native languages need

to be valued and considered important resources when selecting materials to use in the

classroom. Through talking, reading, and writing activities, teachers allow students to

connect school, literary, and personal experiences to one another, increasing

comprehension and learning. Language can be discussed and built around universal

themes and experiences that are shared by everyone in the class (NCEE, 2005).

3. Build vocabulary through authentic experiences with words

As background knowledge is built around shared experiences and connections to

students’ lives, vocabulary must also be taught through these meaningful and

contextualized experiences. Activities must be planned that support the three main ways

that vocabulary is learned: via conversation, listening to read alouds, and independent

reading. Even newcomer students may be explicitly taught academic vocabulary.

Consistently exposing students to formal vocabulary while they participate in a

meaningful task increases the opportunity for students to understand and retain a concept

(NCEE, 2005).

4. Teach skills through contextualized instruction as well as explicit instruction

ELLs must be able to attach meaning to new skills. Newly learned skills become

part of a student’s working knowledge when an activity is meaningful to a student’s

experience and life. At times, however, students need very explicit teaching to be taught a

skill or concept that must be retained and transferable in the future. Such explicit teaching

during the study of writing could occur when teaching students a specific grammatical

strategy or instructing them on the use of punctuation.

5. Scaffold instruction and teach meaning-making strategies

When students experience learning language through content, it is important to

provide sufficient support, and later a gradual release of that support as students progress

through their learning (NCEE, 2005). When lessons and activities include teacher

demonstration, shared practice, guided practice, independent practice, and time for

reflection, instruction can be scaffolded and responsibility gradually released to the

students. ELLs need to be explicitly taught strategies to help them comprehend no matter

what the subject area. Teachers should model to students how to visualize, connect,

question, infer, and synthesize information. Even newcomer ELLs should be exposed to

these meaning-making strategies right away in their school experience (NCEE, 2005).

Content and Language Objectives While many second language learners spend most of their time in school in

mainstream classrooms, merely exposing learners to the content in these classrooms is

not adequate (Gibbons, 2002). It cannot be assumed that placing students in the

mainstream classroom will provide language learning opportunities simply because the

students are physically present in the classroom (Mohan, in Gibbons, 2002). It is

essential, therefore, that ESL teaching programs aim to integrate language with content.

Following the inclusion model in place in my teaching situation, ESL and mainstream

teachers must be able to teach content to all the students in the classroom, while at the

same time teach language to the English language learners.

For each lesson that is taught collaboratively in the mainstream classroom, there

needs to be in place a content objective that meets the standards for that particular grade

level and subject matter. Content objectives measure a fact, knowledge, or skill that a

student learns in a certain subject area. For example, in a unit about clouds in science, a

content objective may be “The student will be able to name the four types of clouds.”

For the ESL teacher, it is imperative that the overt teaching of language using

ESL teaching strategies occurs in every content lesson that is taught. Teachers working

with ELLs should not allow the language development that is necessary for future

academic success of our students to be consumed by content goals. Echevarria, Vogt, and

Short (2002) support the belief that lessons should contain both content and language

objectives. Language objectives allow the teacher to present language features while

teaching academic content. A wide variety of language objectives can be planned using

almost any content. In some instances, language objectives may focus on vocabulary

development. Other topics or content material may be conducive to lessons on reading

comprehension or writing skills- objectives that may cross over from language to content

depending upon what is being taught. Often, specific grammar points can be taught, such

as question formation, English morphemes (for example, –ing and –s endings), sentence

syntax, phonemic awareness, and capitalization. Grade level content can be used as the

medium for English language instruction. Using the example of clouds during a science

unit, students could learn new vocabulary, the teacher could teach the students that in

English, plural nouns end in -s or -es, and the students could also practice reading

comprehension skills. Language objectives are guided by the State of Minnesota

Department of Education English Language Proficiency Standards (2005).

The Minnesota English Language Proficiency Standards for K-12 were designed

to guide ESL and mainstream classroom teachers in their instruction. The standards are

organized according to four English language proficiency levels: beginning, intermediate,

advanced, and transitional. The standards are also categorized according to reading,

writing, listening, and speaking objectives. For ESL and mainstream teachers working

collaboratively, these English proficiency standards also list benchmarks from the state’s

content standards that are related to the language learning standards. This allows teachers

to align the content area standards that correspond with language learning at each

specified language level (Minnesota Department of Education, 2005).

Throughout my research, I will be using the K-2 English Language Proficiency

Writing Standards to evaluate student writing. I will use standards that fall under the

categories of Communicative Functions, Language Features, and Word Knowledge and

Use. I will also utilize the National Center on Education and the Economy standards

(1999) that are used in the district to determine grade level content standards. These

primary literacy standards focus on reading and writing in kindergarten through third

grade.

Comprehensible Input

Context cannot be made understandable or relevant to a student’s life if the input

he/she receives is not easily comprehended. Krashen (1985) developed the input

hypothesis, which claims that learners acquire language in one way- by understanding

messages that contain structures that are a bit beyond one’s current level of competence.

Krashen calls this i + 1, where i is the current level of competence, and + 1 represents the

next level that will naturally follow i. Krashen (1989) suggests that the major causal

variable in second-language acquisition is the amount of comprehensible input the learner

receives (Krashen, in Spangenburg-Urbschat & Pritchard, 1994, p. 45). Krashen also

contends that exposure to the target language is not enough for a learner to acquire the

language; it must be exposure that the learner is able and motivated to understand. If

input is too far above a student’s level, there will be no comprehension and little

acquisition.

According to the input hypothesis, learners are able to understand one level of

linguistic competence above their current level with the help of context, which includes

extra-linguistic information, knowledge of the world, and previously acquired linguistic

competence. It is the ESL teacher’s job to provide context (via pictures and visual aids)

and discussion of familiar topics (Krashen, 1985). Language delivered by the teacher

must be contextualized, meaningful to the learner, and delivered clearly. The addition of

body language, gestures, visual aids, and realia also help make speech more

comprehensible to learners.

Contextualizing

One aspect of providing comprehensible input to ELLs is being able to

contextualize a student’s learning. It is extremely important for teachers working with

ELLs to recognize that not all students have the same background knowledge or

experiences. Through the use of real objects, photographs, drawings, graphic organizers,

demonstrations, and manipulatives, teachers can create a context for learning. Echevarria,

Vogt, & Short (2000) claim that students are more likely to succeed when they are

allowed to make connections between their background experiences and knowledge and

what they are learning by relating classroom experiences to their own lives. Meaningful

experiences are also described as “authentic” experiences because they mirror real

experiences that actually occur in the learner’s world. These authentic, meaningful, real-

life experiences are especially important for newcomer ELLs because they are learning to

attach labels and names to things already familiar to them.

When teaching ELLs, the need to provide comprehensible input is at the forefront

of a teacher’s responsibility. When an ESL teacher is delivering instruction through

content, the focus must be on providing comprehensible input. One of my goals for this

research is to determine if I as the ESL teacher am providing comprehensible input for

my newcomer students while I teach Writer’s Workshop to the whole class. Another one

of my goals for this investigation is to determine if the Writer’s Workshop curriculum

that I am asked to use with my students provides opportunities for me as the ESL teacher

to contextualize lessons to fit into a student’s life.

Needs of Newcomer ELLs

The need for teachers to use research-based ESL instructional approaches –

lessons using both language and content objectives, standards, comprehensible input, and

contextualized instruction is magnified when teachers must meet the unique needs of

newcomer ELLs.

Newly arrived English language learners bring with them to the classroom a

unique set of needs. Friedlander (1991) describes four challenges facing newcomer

students: lack of proficiency in the English language, pre-literacy in the native language,

lack of educational experiences in the home country, and trauma or hardship based on

refugee status, war, poverty or family issues.

The first challenge Friedlander identifies is that a vast majority of newly arrived

students have no or very little English language proficiency. Friedlander goes on to

explain that what is more challenging when working with these students is that many of

them are preliterate in their native language as well. Many have never attended school in

their own countries, and if they have, have received very limited formal schooling. These

children need special attention to make up for lost time and to be able to function

successfully in school.

Many of the immigrant and refugee students coming to the United States have

experienced personal traumas or hardships prior to coming to this country. Due to war,

poverty, or family conditions, many of these students have felt alienation, loneliness, and

a depletion of self-confidence as they enter this new country (Friedlander, 1991). Key

factors to their success in U.S. schools include encouragement and building of self-

esteem from caring educators and school staff. Added to this challenge is the fact that

newcomer students are unaccustomed to American school systems and how to function in

a classroom. Many newcomers lack experience in having to sit still for long periods of

the day, raising one’s hand to speak, and even holding a pencil. These students need to be

gently oriented to the inner workings of a school day and the classroom culture of their

new school community. A well-structured and safe environment is necessary to build a

bridge between the students’ past experiences and their new lives in an American school

(Friedlander, 1991).

Aside from the unique needs that newcomer refugees and immigrants bring with

them into the school system, they also have academic and linguistic needs that are similar

to the needs of any English language learner. Not only do these students need to develop

their speaking proficiency, but they also need to learn how to read, write, and listen.

Newcomers’ immediate needs are to feel comfortable in their classroom setting. Beyond

that, they need to develop both social and academic language. Cummins (1994) refers to

social language as basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS). This type of

communication is often informal and develops much more quickly than academic

language. Social language may occur on the playground or cafeteria and may be

accompanied by facial expressions, gestures, and body language (Watts-Taffe &

Truscott, 2000). Students develop BICS through context-embedded and meaningful

interactions.

To facilitate English language learning and to ensure that students are receiving

cognitively challenging academic input, it is necessary for newcomers to learn English in

conjunction with academic content. This helps students go beyond using basic social

communication skills in English, to developing cognitive academic language proficiency

(CALP) that will allow them to succeed in academic situations (Cummins, 1994).

Therefore, it is not desirable to postpone academic instruction until students are proficient

English users (Watts-Taffe & Truscott, 2000).

Writing and the English Language Learner

When learners of English have not previously developed literacy skills in their

native language, they experience the difficult challenge of learning to control written

English without the literacy base in a first language. Literacy teaching in the U.S.

presupposes that children have already developed oral language skills in English, and

have internalized understandings about how to use the language. However, this is not the

case for newcomer ELLs who are at the beginning stages of learning how to express

themselves in English, while at the same time are learning a new script, alphabet system,

concepts of print, and grammatical structures of English (Gibbons, 2002).

The process approach to writing is commonly taught in American schools today,

and provides one way to organize writing instruction for ELLs (Boyd-Batstone, 2006).

The writing process outlines a sequence, or stages, that writers work through to produce a

final written product. The stages follow a sequence- prewriting, drafting, revising,

editing, and publishing- but writers often move back and forth between the stages as they

work towards a published piece.

The process approach is often taught in conjunction with a genre approach to

teaching writing. Different forms of literary writing are often referred to as genres. Some

examples include non-fiction, memoir, personal narrative, and poetry. Every genre has a

number of characteristics that make it different from other genres: each genre has a

specific purpose, a particular structure, specific language features, and is shared by

members of a culture (Gibbons, 2002). Thus, in addition to having to learn concepts of

print and develop oral language in English, newcomer ELLs must also become familiar

with American genres as they progress through their writing development. The process

approach to writing, taught through the study of genre, is delivered through the Writer’s

Workshop model in place at my school.

Another way to approach writing instruction for ELLs is through collaborative,

interactive, and individual writing activities. Collaborative activities include writing

experiences that are produced together as a small group or class, like the creation of

collaborative interviews or making class big books. Interactive writing is defined as

“writing between a novice and a more experienced writer [where] the interaction between

the two writers…functions to mediate the development of writing proficiency” (Boyd-

Batstone, 2006, p. 103). Interactive journal writing is a way to utilize this strategy. The

novice writer may establish the theme or content of the writing, and the experienced

writer models conventions of grammar, punctuation, and spelling (Boyd-Batstone, 2006).

Individual writing activities require students to write on their own. They must be allowed

to draw or visually represent their ideas or experiences. As they develop more language

and vocabulary, ELLs will begin to label their illustrations, eventually adding words,

short phrases and simple sentences to their personal stories and books. Boyd-Batstone

emphasizes that collaborative, interactive, and individual writing activities can be

attached to the teaching of the writing process and can provide strategic ways to help

ELLs learn process writing as they become familiar with the different genres (2006).

One method of teaching writing to ELLs in a collaborative manner is through the

Language Experience Approach (LEA). LEA is a whole language approach that

emphasizes reading and writing through the use of personal experiences and oral

language (Taylor, 1992). Using this approach, students describe their experiences to the

teacher, who transcribes them. These written transcriptions are then used as the basis of

other reading and writing activities.

While implementation of the Language Experience Approach may vary among

teachers and settings, one characteristic of LEA remains consistent: the materials for

student learning are learner-generated. Reading, writing, listening and speaking skills are

integrated when using LEA, and the level of difficulty for vocabulary and grammar are

determined by the learners’ own language use. Using this approach, teaching and learning

are a personal, shared, communicative and creative experience (Taylor, 1992).

The Language Experience Approach can be utilized in two ways: individually

(along with a teacher or more experienced learner), or as a group. The most basic form of

the LEA is the simple transcription of a learner’s personal experience. The exchange

between teacher and student begins with a conversation that may revolve around a topic

the learner is interested in, a text that was recently read, or an experience the learner has

participated in. The learner then gives an oral account of a personal experience. The

teacher acts as transcriber and sits with the learner so that the learner can see what is

being written. The transcriber may expand or focus the learner’s account by asking

questions. However, the experience is transcribed exactly as the learner dictates it,

without corrections to vocabulary or grammar. This allows the focus to remain on content

rather than form. Errors can be corrected later as the teacher sees fit, utilizing the process

writing approach of revising and editing (Taylor, 1992).

The Language Experience Approach can also be used with groups of students or a

whole class. An experience can both be set up and later experienced as a group, or stories

can grow out of experiences shared prior to the retell, or even out of personal experiences

from students’ home lives. Classroom experiences such as cooking food, making a craft

project, or participating in a special activity work well as the basis for a Language

Experience retell. In addition, other activities that occur outside of the classroom work

well: raking leaves in the school yard, taking a field trip, or experiencing a holiday or

cultural event outside of the school doors all yield language and discussion from a group

of students. As a group, the learners work together to develop an oral account of the

experience as the teacher writes it down. The written account is clearly visible to the

learners at all times. The teacher does not correct the learners’ language at this point (that

can be done later during a revising/editing stage), but learners may correct each other as

they work together to describe the experience (Taylor, 1992). With a group of beginning

English language learners, written compositions may be very simple, perhaps just a

sentence or two.

Once a written account of an experience has been created, many language and

literacy activities can be based on the written transcription. At first, the teacher may read

the account aloud while the students listen and follow along. During the next re-read, the

students can read along with the teacher, read in partners, or read silently to themselves.

Other extension literacy activities that teachers can create for beginning ELLs include

pulling out specific words to focus on for vocabulary development, using the text to focus

on certain language objectives such as verb tense, use of pronouns, and creating a cloze

exercise where students fill in the missing words themselves (Taylor, 1992). Newcomer

students may benefit simply from re-copying the account into their own notebooks,

illustrating it, and then reading it aloud to a partner or teacher.

The writing process and study of literary genres are easily incorporated into the

Language Experience Approach. Oral accounts of experiences can be edited and revised

as a group at a later time. Following those stages in the writing process, students could

“publish” their own individual pieces of writing based on the same shared writing

experience. The different genres may also be written as a group using the LEA. Songs,

poems, letters, and directions describing how to do something can all be experienced,

discussed, and written about as a group.

In conclusion, newcomer students must use language in meaningful ways. Often,

beginning-proficiency ELLs can participate in writing activities even if their speaking

skills are limited. While much emphasis in writing instruction is placed on teaching

students the process of writing using the various literary genres, newcomer ELLs need to

be able to use experiences from their lives in and out of the classroom to generate ideas

for writing. They can participate in shared writing activities and oral retells that help

them develop oral language proficiency while also acquiring knowledge about the

functions of print.

As this chapter indicates, there are many factors that go into a newcomer student’s

experience in an inclusive classroom setting. My quest to discover if newcomer ELLs are

developing beginning writing skills in the Writer’s Workshop that I facilitate involves a

myriad of factors. Program models, ESL instructional approaches, the background of my

learners, language ability level, and different approaches to writing instruction all factor

into my teaching. A current gap exists in the field of ESL regarding whether or not

newcomer students can be academically successful when immediately placed into a

mainstream classroom before given adequate time and opportunity to become

accustomed to the school culture in a more sheltered setting. I aim to find out if

newcomer ELLs can be successful in developing beginning writing skills the inclusive

Writer’s Workshop. Through this investigation, I also want to determine if the curriculum

I use and the delivery of that curriculum is aligned with the essential practices for the

teaching of ELLs.

In the following chapter, the methods used for my research will be discussed. I

will also present the participants and setting of the study, and will describe the

characteristics of my classroom’s Writer’s Workshop in more detail. In chapter four, the

results of the investigation will be presented, along with a discussion and analysis of the

outcomes. Finally, the conclusion of the study will be detailed in chapter five, where I

will describe what I have learned from the present study and will discuss further research

opportunities, implications, and limitations of the research.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, I will describe the setting and participants of my study. I will also

describe the Writer’s Workshop as it looks and feels in the mainstream classroom where I

teach. Finally, I will explain my data collection methods and data sources.

The purpose of my study is to investigate whether or not newcomer English

language learners are having their language acquisition needs met in the Writer’s

Workshop within an inclusive classroom setting. Specifically, I want to examine the

curriculum and how I adapt and deliver it based on proven ESL methods to determine

whether or not students are developing beginning writing skills from the Writer’s

Workshop that I facilitate. As I carry out my research, I will attempt to answer this

question: Does the Writer’s Workshop curriculum and my adaptation of that curriculum

allow newcomer ELLs to meet beginning writing objectives within an inclusive,

mainstream setting, thus increasing their writing ability?

In order to answer these questions, I will carry out action research within the

second grade mainstream classroom in which I work as a collaborative ESL teacher.

Action research within a classroom is a type of qualitative research that involves acting

upon something that occurs in the classroom and systematically observing what follows

(Allwright & Bailey, 1991). Action research in classrooms follows a particular sequence

of steps, beginning with identifying an issue, interest or problem. The action research

facilitator then seeks knowledge, plans an action, implements that action, and then revises

the plan (Allwright & Bailey, 1991). In my particular study, I will examine what happens

inside the classroom during Writer’s Workshop with my three newcomer students,

focusing on whether or not they are developing beginning writing skills. In this

investigation, I have reviewed literature on newcomer ELLs and writing skills, and have

planned lessons and activities that I will deliver. I will then reflect upon the learning that

is taking place in the classroom and will use that information to inform my future

teaching.

I have chosen to use action research because what happens in the classroom

where I teach is crucial to the language learning of my students. What happens in that

classroom determines what learning opportunities the newcomer students will have. By

examining the behaviors of my newcomer students, as affected by my teaching of the

designated curriculum and their work tasks, I aim to find out if they are meeting

beginning writing objectives for English language learners.

Setting and Participants

The context for this study is a K-6 elementary school in an urban school district in

Minnesota. The school serves 594 students and of those, 81 percent receive free and

reduced lunch. Three hundred ninety students are identified as ELLs, as identified by a

home language questionnaire and language assessment done by the district. Several

ethnicities are represented at the school, with the majority (60 percent) being Asian.

Fifty-five percent of the students speak Hmong. Caucasians make up 14 percent of the

population; African Americans consist of 14 percent of the population; Latinos consist of

11.5 percent, and 1.7 percent are Native Americans (J. DeCosse, personal

communication, April 25, 2006). Other home languages represented include Spanish, Ibo,

Chinese, Vietnamese, and Yoruba.

Due to the large number of ELLs in this school and the move towards

collaboration within the district, our school has implemented a full collaborative

inclusion model for the school year 2005-2006. In the past, the method of ESL instruction

was a mix of pull-out and co-teaching between the ESL and classroom teachers.

I am assigned to work collaboratively with two of the four second-grade teachers

in the school. One of the classrooms is set up as a Gifted and Talented classroom. This

classroom has 22 students, none of whom are newcomer students. The other classroom is

set up as a Language Academy classroom. Language Academy is a program designed for

newcomer students who have had two years or less of academic instruction in the United

States. Language Academy classrooms are established to have fewer students so that the

teachers can provide more individualized instruction.

The Language Academy classroom in which I teach consists of 17 students, one

mainstream teacher, and one ESL teacher (me). The student population within the room

includes two Caucasian native English speakers, one of whom receives special education

services. Eleven of the students are Hmong and identify Hmong as their native language.

Three of the Hmong students are recent-arrivals to the country. These three students will

be the focus of my research. Two other students are Latino and are native Spanish

speakers; two others are African American, and one of these, a Yoruba speaker, receives

ESL services. Fourteen students from the classroom are identified as ELLs. Of these

fourteen, seven of these students are identified as having English language proficiency

levels ranging from three (intermediate) to five (native-like speech). The other seven

ELLs in this class are part of the Language Academy program, meaning they have

received two years or less of schooling in the United States, or that they qualified for the

program at the end of their kindergarten year based on a language proficiency

assessment. Of these seven Language Academy students, three are designated as

newcomers with language proficiency levels of one (beginning English proficiency). The

three remaining students in the classroom are native English speakers.

Hmong Students

Many Hmong children who begin school in the United States do so having had

little exposure to English. Most Hmong families speak Hmong at home, but children

rarely learn how to read or write in their native language. A number of Hmong adults, in

fact, are pre-literate in their home language as well. Parents of Hmong students value

education, but many lack the education and literacy background to be able to support

their children academically (Lee & Pfeifer, 2005).

An additional challenge that Hmong-speaking students face when learning

English involves the fact that the two languages are very different from each other. The

Hmong language is closely related to the minority languages of Southeast Asia and

Southern China, (Hmong Cultural Center, 2006) and shares some characteristics of the

major languages in Asia, including Chinese. Some of these characteristics of the Hmong

language include a preference for monosyllabic words, a lack of inflections (such as -s or

-ing endings as used in English), and multiple verb construction (“I go arrive at his

house). Hmong is also a tonal language, meaning the use of the eight different Hmong

tones changes the meaning of a word. In contrast, English is a stress-timed language that

uses inflections for gender, case, tense, gerund and participle, does not use tones to

distinguish word meaning, and uses many multi-syllabic words. With such complex

differences between these two languages, students face numerous challenges when

learning the English language.

I will be focusing my research on the three newcomer students in my classroom.

All three of them are native Hmong speakers, originating from the Wat Tham Krabok

refugee camp in Thailand. The group of three is made up of one male and two females.

The male student (Student C) entered the U.S. in September of 2005, and was enrolled in

a Transitional Language Center from October to mid-November 2005. His family then

moved, and enrolled him at the school where I teach. He received no formal schooling in

Thailand before coming to the United States. One of the female students (Student A)

arrived in the United States in late summer of 2005. She attended summer school for a

few weeks, and then enrolled as a second grader at this school. She received a few

months of schooling in Thailand before relocating to the United States. The other female

student (Student B) attended five months of kindergarten in a different Midwest state

during the 2004-2005 school year. When her family moved to this city during the

summer of 2005, she was placed in second grade at the school where I teach. This was

the age-appropriate grade level for her.

Writer’s Workshop

The district where the research takes place has adopted a workshop model for the

teaching of writing. In this model, the writing program is structured around a daily one-

hour Writer’s Workshop. During writing time, students learn about the techniques that

authors use to make writing effective. Characteristics of a writer’s craft (such as drawing

a reader in, varying sentence structure, and closing a piece) are taught explicitly by

analyzing various texts and discussing authors’ strategies (Project for Academic

Excellence, 2004.) The year-long Writer’s Workshop curriculum for each grade level is

delivered via literary genre units and is focused around teaching writing as a process.

Components of the Writer’s Workshop

Each Writer’s Workshop session begins with a mini-lesson presented by the

teacher. The workshop is designed to limit the amount of teacher-directed instruction and

expand the amount of student work time. Therefore, the teacher-led mini-lesson ideally

lasts 5-15 minutes, with the bulk of the workshop hour designated for students to be

working on their writing. While the students write during the work time, the teacher

meets with some students individually. These individual meetings, or conferences,

provide opportunities for students to ask for help with specific writing problems and to

set goals for improving their writing. The conferences also allow the teacher to address

each student’s needs specifically, and to look for areas of writing skill that could be

addressed in future mini-lessons. Each Writer’s Workshop session concludes with a 5-10

minute sharing time when the students and teacher gather back together to revisit the

strategy taught in the mini-lesson and to share examples of student work with the group.

One Classroom’s Writer’s Workshop

The Writer’s workshop that I facilitate meets everyday from 2:20-3:30 in the

afternoon. During this block of time, the second grade classroom teacher and I are both

present. Because of the inclusive collaboration model in place at this school, I spend the

Writer’s Workshop time in the mainstream classroom, as do all of the ELLs, no matter

what their English proficiency levels.

This is the first year that the Writer’s Workshop has been fully implemented in

this school. All classrooms are required to have the Writer’s Workshop in place as

directed by the district’s literacy initiative and the building’s administration. Because I

had delivered instruction through Writer’s Workshop the previous year in a different

building, the classroom teacher with whom I work felt comfortable having me lead the

workshop in her classroom. Since the beginning of the year, I have been responsible for

implementing and running the Writer’s Workshop. I plan all of the lessons on my own,

and then share the plans for the week’s lessons with my co-teacher. I deliver most of the

mini-lessons independently. During the mini-lesson time, the whole class gathers on the

carpet. I sit or stand in front of the group when I teach. I use an easel and charts to present

information to the students. During this time, the classroom teacher may observe my

lessons or may be in another part of the room. At times, she will provide additional

comments or ideas to support what I teach in the mini-lesson. Usually these comments

are unplanned and spontaneous.

Depending on the topic of the mini-lesson, some days are more conducive to a

cooperative teaching model than others. Quite often during a Writer’s Workshop session

students are asked to discuss a topic with a partner. For these activities, it is especially

important that students see teachers modeling how to interact with one another based on

the task they are asked to do. It is during these times that I find it helpful for my co-

teacher to be available to model discussions or partner work with me in front of the whole

group.

The mini-lessons I teach typically begin with a connection to the previous day’s

lesson and the topic involved in the current unit of study. I then present new information

to the students, provide time for them to ask questions, and then send them to their desks

to work on their writing. Many days, the mini-lesson also provides a few minute’s time

for students to “turn and talk” about an idea or writing strategy with a friend sitting next

to them on the carpet.

During the work time, students work independently at their desks. Their desks are

arranged in groups of four. The students are allowed to talk quietly during this time, but if

their talking becomes too loud or the classroom teacher feels a student is talking too

much, the whole class is told to stop talking and focus on writing. Throughout the student

work period, I navigate the room to check that students are working and staying on task. I

also meet with individual students to hold writing conferences. During the writing

conference, I ask the student what he is working on that day. I usually ask the student to

read what he has written. I then pick out one or two things that I would like the student to

work on. We talk about the writing strategy and the student continues working with the

new information provided from our conference. I keep notes for myself on the student

writing conferences so that I can look back and see where students are having problems

and what they are mastering well. These conference notes help me plan future mini-

lessons and help to keep track of what I have taught students individually through writing

conferences. During the work time, the classroom teacher also navigates the room

assisting students. However, she does not keep conference notes.

At the end of the Writer’s Workshop time, the students and I gather back on the

carpet for a sharing time. This is an opportunity for two students to share the writing that

they worked on that day. I have a list of the students’ names posted in the sharing area,

and each day two students share a piece of writing of their choosing. The students share

in the order their names appear on the list. However, they have the option to choose not

to share when their name comes up. After each student reads, I point out characteristics

of the student’s writing that fit in with the mini-lesson of that day or that unit of study.

Sometimes I ask the students to be the ones to identify key components in a student’s

writing. The student audience is also encouraged to ask questions or offer compliments

and comments to the student who shares his work that day.

Newcomers in Writer’s Workshop

The three newcomer students that I will focus on in my research participate in all

aspects of the Writer’s Workshop. They sit with the other students on the carpet during

mini-lessons. If the students are asked to “turn and talk” to a friend nearby them on the

carpet, the newcomer students find someone to participate in this activity with them.

After the mini-lesson, the newcomers know they are to go back to their desks and take

out their writing folders. Sometimes they take out an old piece of writing and they

continue working on it. Other times they go and get a new booklet and start writing on

their own. Frequently, at least one of the newcomer students will take out her writing

folder, and will sit looking at her pieces of writing until a teacher comes around and tells

her specifically what to do.

Once the newcomer students feel confident that they know what they should do

for that day’s writing period, they work diligently on their writing. They rarely raise their

hands to ask for teacher assistance; rather, they wait and do nothing until a teacher

notices they are having a problem. Sometimes they ask a teacher or another student how

to spell a word using English. If they do converse with a neighbor during the writing

time, they always use Hmong with other Hmong speaking students nearby.

Frequently during the writing work period, I pull the newcomer students to a table

within the room to give them more detailed instruction about what they should be

working on. Often we talk using simplified language about their ideas for writing.

Sometimes I write down what they say and they copy what I write, and then illustrate the

words. Later they can practice re-reading their writing. This small-group instruction may

only last 5-10 minutes, and does not occur on a daily basis. I am unable to spend as much

time as I would like with this group of newcomers, as I am the facilitator of the

Workshop for the entire class of students and need to have writing conferences with them

as well.

All three of the newcomer students have participated in the sharing time at least

once. When they do share, I sit next to them to support their reading. They seem pleased

and proud of themselves after they have shared with the group. One of the newcomers

has also recently begun raising her hand to provide a comment after listening to other

students read their writing.

Data Collection Methods

I will collect data over a staggered period of three weeks. The reason for

staggering the weeks is so I can examine writing from three different writing units. I will

collect my data from four sources: the writing curriculum approved for use in my

building; the actual modified/adapted lesson plans that I deliver; my anecdotal field notes

looking at what the newcomer students can and cannot participate in effectively during

the workshop; and student work. In order to analyze the student work, I have developed

two writing checklists to use as my assessment tools.

The first source of data, Calkins’ “Units of Study for Primary Writing: A

Yearlong Curriculum” for the Writer’s Workshop, (Calkins, 2003) is used as the basis for

my teaching of the Writer’s Workshop. (See Appendix E for an example of a Calkins

lesson plan from the nonfiction writing unit). I will utilize three weeks’ lessons taken

from three different units of study (non-fiction report writing, poetry, and author study). I

will base my lessons off of the lessons scripted in the Calkins book, as I have been doing

all year as I teach writing. The first week of my investigation will look at a week of

lessons from the non-fiction report writing unit; the second week that I study will involve

lessons from the poetry unit; and the final week of my research will examine lessons

from the author study unit. I will keep track of each lesson that I use from this series, and

will document exactly which lessons I use to teach each mini-lesson.

As I use the lessons set forth in the Calkins writing series, the second source of

data for my research will include the adaptations and modifications that I make to the

lessons described in the curriculum. In order to make my writing instruction more

accessible to the variety of students in my classroom, I have found it necessary to adapt

and modify many aspects of the Calkins writing lessons. I will continue to do this

throughout my study. In order to document the adaptations I make, I will keep an

electronic journal containing a document for each lesson I teach. I will record how I

adapted each lesson, what I did differently from what was detailed in the Calkins lesson,

and how I modified the ideas from the series. These adaptations and modifications will be

planned ahead of time. I will keep track of my changes to the scripted lessons and record

how the lessons were actually taught.

My third source of data will come from the anecdotal notes that I take each day

during and after the Writer’s Workshop session. In my anecdotal notes, I will record my

observations of the three newcomer students as they work and interact during the

Writer’s Workshop. I will listen in when they participate in “turn and talk” activities,

more in-depth partner experiences, and spontaneous conversations during the work time.

I will also make written recordings about what I see them doing during the mini-lessons

and independent writing period. When the students work in a small group with me, I will

note what we talk about, the kinds of responses they produce, and any other behaviors

that they exhibit during these times.

Finally, I will collect the work that the newcomer students produce everyday

during my research. This work will make up the last source of data for my study.

Everyday, I will examine each student’s writing according to a daily checklist of

beginning writing skills that I have developed based on K-2 state ESL standards (See

Appendix B for the state of Minnesota K-2 English Language Proficiency Standards) and

the writing standards developed by the National Center on Education and the Economy

(NCEE). (See Appendix C for second grade NCEE writing standards). Figure 2 shows

the daily checklist of beginning writing skills: (This checklist is reproduced in Appendix

D).

Figure 2. Daily Checklist of Beginning Writing Skills

Daily Checklist of Beginning Writing Skills K-2 YES NO Sometimes Communicative Functions Communicates a single, simple written idea (ESL)

Labels pictures (ESL) Picture accompanying the writing matches the written words (Researcher’s standard)

Picture is specific to the lesson taught (Researcher’s standard)

Language Features Writes words or phrases (ESL) Spells and combines words with sufficient accuracy (ESL) Rereads own writing, matching spoken words with words written on paper (NCEE K)

Word Knowledge and Use Uses transitional spelling (try/sound-spelling) independently (ESL)

Punctuation Each sentence begins with a capital letter (NCEE 2nd) Each sentence ends with a period (NCEE 2nd) Does the writing stay on topic? (Researcher’s standard) How many words were written this period? (Researcher’s standard)

Notes:

When developing the daily writing checklist, I looked at both the state ESL standards for

grades K-2 and the NCEE second grade standards because as an ESL teacher, I must

constantly teach not only to the grade level standards, but to the ESL standards as well. I

have chosen to measure mostly the ESL standards when looking at students’ daily

writing, as these standards are easily measurable on a day-to-day basis. The ESL

standards are pertinent to my study in that they look at beginning writing skills that

intermediate proficiency level ELLs would be developing. The ESL standards that I

chose were taken from the “intermediate” level of English language proficiency as

determined by the state. Although the learners that I focus on for this study are beginning

English language speakers, I am using the intermediate ESL standards because only two

basic standards exist at the “beginning” level of ESL proficiency according to the state’s

standards. The intermediate standards in place for writing are appropriate to use as a

starting point for the ability levels of my students.

The daily checklist contains four categories with which to examine writing:

communicative functions, language features, word knowledge and use, and punctuation.

Under the communicative functions category, I have placed the two ESL intermediate

writing standards. I have also included two points that I will measure based on my own

experience and what I want my newcomer students to be able to do in their writing.

These two final points- “picture matches written words”, and “picture is specific to the

lesson taught” are two things that I find very important for newcomer students with

beginning writing skills to be able to do. The language features and word knowledge and

use categories include ESL standards from the intermediate proficiency range. The

punctuation category includes two standards as set by NCEE for the second grade.

Finally, I have added two points for my own evaluative purposes: I want to determine if a

student’s writing remains on topic and I want to see how many words a student writes

during a particular writing session.

At the end of my three weeks of classroom observation research, I will evaluate

my newcomer students’ writing abilities with another checklist that I have developed.

This checklist of overall writing performance (Figure 3) contains five categories: Habits

and Processes, Spelling, Narrative Writing, Report Writing, and Vocabulary and Word

Choice. The majority of the points listed on this checklist are taken from the NCEE

standards for grade level content in writing. The checklist of overall writing performance

is shown here in Figure 3: (This checklist is reproduced in Appendix E).

Figure 3. Checklist of Overall Writing Performance

Checklist of Overall Writing Performance YES NO Sometimes Habits and Processes Writes daily (NCEE 2nd) Generates own content and topics (NCEE K, 2nd) Re-reads own writing (NCEE K, 2nd) Spelling Prints upper and lowercase letters (ESL) Writes left to right and top to bottom (ESL & NCEE K) Leaves spaces between words (NCEE K) Frequently represents words with initial consonant sound (NCEE K)

Narrative Writing Tells events in chronological order (NCEE K) Includes drawings to support meaning (NCEE K)

Report Writing Gathers, collects, shares information (NCEE K) Stays on topic (NCEE K) Vocabulary and Word Choice Uses words in writing that are used in conversations (NCEE K)

Uses words from books read to them (NCEE K) Notes:

This checklist also shows that while I am focusing on having students work

towards ESL standards on a day-to-day basis, I am also having students work towards the

district’s content standards as they develop their writing overall. Many of the points being

examined in the overall writing performance checklist come from the NCEE

Kindergarten standards. I have chosen to include the Kindergarten standards because they

cover the beginning writing skills of early learners. The newcomers I am focusing on in

my research are not only new to writing in a general sense, but are new to the English

language as well. Therefore, in order for my students to feel successful, I must set

standards and goals that are realistic and attainable, yet still challenging for them.

According to Vygotsky (1978), the key researcher responsible for developing the social

development theory of learning, instruction should be designed so that students can reach

a developmental level that is just above their current developmental level.

Based on the abilities of my students, I hope to see them able to attain the

kindergarten writing content standards, in addition to the intermediate ESL standards as I

carry out this research project. Had I chosen to include all of the NCEE second grade

standards, I feel I would be setting my students up for failure. It is unreasonable for them

to produce work at a level higher than they are developmentally ready to produce.

In summary, my goal as a researcher is that these classroom action research

methods will allow me to examine an important facet of a newcomer student’s language

acquisition experience- the Writer’s Workshop, within an inclusive teaching model.

Specifically, I aim to find out if the newcomer students are able to meet the beginning

writing objectives set forth within the state and national standards through inclusion in

the mainstream during the daily Writer’s Workshop. I also want to find out how the

newcomers interact during the Writer’s Workshop time, and which activities they are or

are not able to participate in effectively.

In chapter four, the results of this research are provided. I will describe the lessons

that I taught, the modifications and adaptations that were made, and will look at the

results of the lessons and objectives by examining the students’ writing products and

reflecting upon my anecdotal field notes. I will discuss the outcomes of examining the

newcomer students’ work according to the two checklists I have developed. I will also

reflect upon my teaching, the lesson plans, the modifications made, and my field notes as

I observed my students during the work time.

In chapter five, the conclusion, I will summarize the study, reflect on major

learnings, and will discuss the implications and limitations of this investigation. I will

also offer ideas and suggestions for future research.

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Introduction

The intent of this research study was to determine whether or not newcomer

English language learners are developing beginning writing skills in the Writer’s

Workshop within an inclusive classroom setting. In order to conduct this investigation I

utilized four sources of data that will be discussed further in this chapter. Because I was

given a set curriculum and expected to use it as I taught Writer’s Workshop, I present an

overview of the lessons taught during the three different units of study. Along with this, I

present the modifications and adaptations that I made to the lessons based on best

practices in ESL teaching. An analysis of my anecdotal notes and student observations

will be described, followed by the results of the student work checklists that considered

ESL and grade level standards.

Lesson Plans

The lessons in the writing series Units of study for primary writing: A yearlong

curriculum (Calkins, 2003) that I utilized for this study are written from the viewpoint of

Calkins or one of her teaching staff members who conducted the lessons in actual

classrooms in New York City. The lessons are scripted and provide actual student

responses that were solicited as the authors conducted the lessons. Each lesson begins

with notes to the teacher describing where that particular lesson falls in the sequence of

the unit as a whole, what the students have already studied, and where they will be

headed in this lesson. Each mini-lesson contains the same categories that provide a

consistent structure: connection, teach, active engagement, link, and time to confer. Some

lessons also have a “mid workshop teaching point” and an “after the workshop share.”

Along the margins of each page are comments and “coaching” in the words of Calkins.

(Appendix E contains a Calkins lesson plan).

These lessons functioned as a blue print or starting point for the lessons I taught

each day. As a teacher early in my career, it was nice to have this sequential curriculum

to follow so I did not constantly have to think up my own lessons to fit the grade level

requirements. The scripting was helpful for me because it gave me ideas for explaining

different writing techniques that I had never taught before. Alternatively, because I had

never taught many of these concepts before, I often found myself locked into using the

scripts, and felt that the book of lessons was deterring me from speaking freely and

spontaneously as I taught some lessons.

When the scripted lessons provided student responses that were actually given in

the New York classrooms, the lessons would continue based on those responses. Most of

the time, my students did not produce nearly as much language or insightful response as

what was solicited in the Calkins teaching scenarios (my newcomer students often

provided no responses during these times). The scripted lessons would continue based

upon the responses given in the New York classroom, while I often had to take my lesson

in a different direction or back up to fit the needs of the students that I was teaching.

When I began my research, we were in the middle of a writing unit titled

“Nonfiction Writing: Procedures and Reports.” The students had completed and

published a “how-to” book where they wrote and illustrated the steps in a procedure.

During the first seven days of my research I collected data from the section of the unit

where students learn about and write “All About Books.” The students were to determine

something that they were experts at, and compile a book detailing information about their

topic. I began my research on Session VII Introducing All About Books in the Calkins

curriculum and taught the lessons sequentially through Session XI Making Texts that

Teach. Each Calkins session is designed to be used as one mini-lesson. I spent one day on

each session, with the exceptions of Sessions VIII Structuring All About Books, and IX

Planning Each Chapter. I spent two days on each of those lessons.

I collected data for five days at the very beginning of a unit of study on poetry.

For the first three days of the unit, I taught lessons based on Sessions I, II, and III of the

Calkins curriculum. After trying three of the Calkins lessons, I was beginning to feel

frustrated with how my teaching and the students’ poetry were progressing. Students

were asked to look at objects with poets’ eyes, listen for rhythm and line breaks, and to

hear the music in poetry. I found these concepts and the way they were described to be

taught in the Calkins book to be quite abstract for my students, so after teaching the first

three sessions, I decided to create some of my own lessons where the students learned

about different kinds of poems and how to write them. Therefore, in days four and five of

this unit, I taught one lesson on repetition poems, and another lesson on frame poems.

Both of these lessons and types of poems focused on repeating words, phrases, or lines

within the poem. Being able to say and write the same thing more than once in a piece of

writing helps the newcomers develop control over those repeated words and phrases. The

repetition allows the topic being discussed or read to become a familiar topic that, once

grasped, will allow the students to comprehend input on the next level, as mentioned in

the Literature Review (Krashen, 1985).

The final unit of study that I utilized to collect my data was called “Authors as

Mentors.” In this unit, students study the work of one author in-depth, and learn different

writing techniques that they can use in their own writing. The mentor author used in the

Calkins curriculum is Angela Johnson. While Calkins did explain at the beginning of her

unit that a teacher could choose any children’s author who has written a large number of

books with varying writing techniques, I chose to use Angela Johnson because the lesson

plans for her books were already in place and I was able to collect a number of the books

to use with those lessons. I began recording data at the beginning of this unit with session

one and continued documenting my research through session five. This unit was different

from the other two that I examined in that it asked students to return to a type of writing

they had done at the beginning of the year- small moment stories. In these short, true

stories, students write about experiences that have happened in their own lives. They

focus in on one small aspect of an experience, and describe it in detail. This unit involved

reading aloud Angela Johnson’s books to the students, and having them attempt to

emulate some of her writing strategies in their own work.

I found through my study that while the district-supported curriculum provided

me with a foundation and sequence for teaching the second grade writing content, many

aspects of the lessons had to be adapted to be made accessible to the students I was

working with. While I felt these adaptations were meaningful to the students, I still felt at

times that the newcomer students did not appear to be engaged or receiving much

comprehensible input from the mini-lessons that I taught. This was evident in their lack

of attention and interest during lessons, inability to participate in class discussions, and

not knowing what to do when it came time to initiate their own writing.

Lesson Adaptations and Modifications

Everyday I kept track of the changes, adaptations, and modifications that I made

to the Calkins lessons that I delivered to the students. Some of the adaptations were

overarching across all three units of study. For example, an adaptation that I made again

and again throughout the research involved rearranging the order of activities that took

place in a mini-lesson, such as having students turn and talk to one another in the middle

of a mini-lesson instead of at the end as in the Calkins lesson. This adaptation was

intended for the whole class. It was intended to break up the mini-lessons a bit in order to

get the students actively involved with a partner during the lesson so that I could follow

up and alter my teaching based on what I heard partners saying.

As I made changes, adaptations, and modifications to the format and content of

the Calkins curriculum, I kept the five essential practices for English language learners

(NCEE, 2005) in mind. As explained in the literature review, the five essential practices

for English language learners involve, 1.) developing oral language through meaningful

conversation, 2.) activating schema and building background knowledge, 3.) building

vocabulary through authentic experiences, 4.) teaching skills through contextualized and

explicit instruction, and 5.) scaffolding instruction while teaching meaning-making

strategies.

I often eliminated the “mid-workshop teaching point” and “after the workshop

share” in the lessons that I taught. The reason I frequently eliminated the mid workshop

teaching point was because once my students were hard at work on their writing tasks (a

meaningful activity) I did not feel like interrupting them with more teaching. This

adaptation was useful for the class as a whole, but was originally intended for the

newcomer ELLs who tended to get confused if more teaching was done in the middle of

their work time. The students were sitting at their desks at those times, and it was hard to

get full-group attention when their minds were focused on their work. I also chose to

modify Calkins’ “after the workshop share” to allow more students the opportunity to

share their work and increase the oral interaction for the whole class, as described as an

essential ESL teaching practice by NCEE (2005). By this time in the workshop it was the

end of the school day, and the last thing my students needed was more teacher talk. My

post-workshop share was called the “Author’s Chair,” (NCEE, 2001) and each day two

students were able to share their work. While this adaptation was intended for the whole

class, it was also intended to help the newcomers feel more comfortable sharing. They

were able to plan for the day when their name came up on the sharing list, and they could

read any piece of writing that they wished from their writing folders. After the students

shared, they were each able to call on students from the audience to ask a question or give

a compliment about the work shared. Not only did the Author’s Chair closing act as a

conclusion to our workshop each day, but it also acted as a peaceful way to end the

school day.

Another adaptation that I made to the Calkins lessons is that I used completely

different writing samples to teach concepts in my mini-lessons than Calkins did. This was

due to the fact that my students did not have the same background knowledge or

experiences that her students had, therefore it would not make sense to use her personal

stories or her classroom’s shared experiences to teach writing strategies to my students.

One time this adaptation occurred was during the unit on “All About Books”. The topic

the Calkins lesson used to show an example of a completed “All About Book” was “All

About Training Dogs.” I know that not many of my students have pets, and therefore

would not have schema (or adequate vocabulary) (NCEE, 2005) related to house-training

a dog or teaching a dog to heel. I was also taking into consideration the cultural

background of my students, most of whom were Hmong. Many Hmong do not consider

dogs to be pets as Americans do (Fadiman, 1997). I came up with my own topic that I

knew many of the students would be familiar with- cleaning a house. As the days and

mini-lessons for the unit continued, I kept using this topic and taught students how to

write the different chapters of the “All About Books” unit by showing them the sample

writing I had done.

Throughout the unit on “All About Books” I made a variety of other changes to

the school-provided writing curriculum as well. At the beginning of the unit, I spent one

class period immersing the students in non-fiction books that were “all about” certain

topics. In groups, they rotated through different non-fiction book stations to get a feel for

the information that can be included in an “All About” book. For the first lesson in this

unit, I used a non-fiction big book called New Plants (Lawrence Hall of Science, 2001) in

my mini-lesson, instead of The Pumpkin Book (Gibbons, 1999) used in Calkins’ first

lesson. My students were not familiar with The Pumpkin Book, but they were familiar

with New Plants from some previous lessons in Reader’s Workshop. This also provided

the students with a cultural connection, as it was nearing spring and many Hmong

families plant gardens. This book was large in size so it was easy for the students to see

the characteristics I was talking about and to read along with me.

As the unit progressed, I became aware that that the Calkins lessons often

included too much information or required students to be working on more than one new

strategy or writing type at a time. I believe, when working with the student population

that I do, that it is important to only teach one new strategy in each mini-lesson. Thus,

instead of having students working on writing a table of contents, making a cover, and

beginning the first chapter of their “All About” books all in the same day, I divided this

lesson into three separate sessions. Each day was devoted to work on a different piece of

the “All About” book. I also was able to provide scaffolding to my students as they

worked on the four different chapters that I required them to have in their “All About”

books. This allowed me to provide lots of support as each new chapter was introduced,

and gradually release that support to the newcomers at the appropriate place during the

work time (NCEE, 2006).

The Calkins lessons had students freely writing about whatever they wanted to

under the realm of their “All About” topic and letting them choose the type and names of

chapters they wanted to include. I thought this might get confusing for my students (and

more difficult to manage for me), so I told the students that they all had to include the

same four chapters in their books. This allowed me to teach four mini-lessons, each one

showing the students how to write the four different chapters. They were able to see my

modeled writing on “All About Cleaning the House”, and they were also able to

contribute ideas to our class “All About” book.

One significant modification that I made to this unit was done specifically to aid

my newcomers in their writing of their All About books. I found right away when I

attempted to have them brainstorm topics that they knew all about that it was going to be

difficult for them to stay on the same topic over the course of a few weeks within the

same book they were working on. I decided to have all three of them write on the same

topic- All About Playing Outside. I knew they had significant schema about this topic

because we had gone outside during our newcomer pull-out time in the winter and the

spring. We had talked about outside vocabulary, and they went outside everyday for

recess, and liked to talk and write about things that occurred outside. Activating schema

and tapping into student’s background knowledge is one of the five essential practices of

ESL teaching, as supported in the literature review (NCEE, 2005). By utilizing a topic

that the students already had experience with, I was able to focus on teaching them new

concepts that were developmentally appropriate (sentence structure, punctuation) as

explained in the input hypothesis in the literature review (Krashen, 1985).

Using the topic of playing outside also allowed me to work more easily with them

in a small group knowing they were all working on the same topic. In order to give the

newcomers even more exposure to vocabulary, sentence structure, and concepts about

playing outside, I adopted the topic of playing outside as our class All About book that

was created together during mini-lessons.

I began the unit on poetry the same way that Calkins did in her poetry lessons.

The first lesson of the unit had the students looking at real objects at their desks, and then

describing the objects using “poet’s eyes”. This was supposed to get the students used to

describing things in a poetic way, using adjectives, and seeing objects outside the realm

of how they would normally be described. Instead of the ceiling being white, tiled, with

little holes all over it, the ceiling could be described as a “big, white sky to our classroom,

watching over our learning.” Students worked at their desks, drawing their objects and

then writing down descriptions of it what they saw with their poet’s eyes. The class as a

whole had trouble doing this; they had never before been asked to think and write

metaphorically or poetically. The newcomers especially seemed lost and frustrated during

this activity. Not only did they appear perplexed and bored during the mini-lesson (where

we practiced seeing things in the classroom with poets’ eyes), they appeared very

frustrated at their desks. They looked around at what the other students were doing and

proceeded to draw the real objects they had. When it came time to write something about

the real object, they did not know what to write. The newcomers did not know the names

of the objects they were asked to write about, so were unable to write even a word

without help from the teacher. In all, this lesson was not successful. The class seemed at a

loss for how to write about an object in a non-literal sense, and my newcomers were

highly discouraged during this activity. How can students be asked to write poetically

when they cannot even write literally?

I chose to use this Calkins lesson without much modification to see how the

students would perform with a lesson that I simply reiterated from the scripted

curriculum. Because I was using action research and the information gleaned from my

study thus far was informing my teaching, it occurred to me to try a lesson without

adaptations. I found this lesson in theory to be hands-on and interactive, and I even added

my own interactive sharing time at the end of the lesson where the class gathered in a

circle, shared one drawing of their real objects, and described it poetically out loud. What

I found was that by not modifying this lesson (by providing more modeling, stretching

the lesson out over a few days, or spending consecutive days studying adjectives or

poetic language) I set my students up for failure. These findings support the secondary

research detailed in the literature review: Instruction was not contextualized (Echevarria,

Vogt, & Short, 2000), input was not comprehensible (Krashen, 1985), schema did not

exist for thinking poetically (NCEE, 2005), and vocabulary for the newcomers was never

built for these objects around any type of authentic experience (NCEE, 2005). A lesson

that was supposed to have been fun and hands-on became drudgery as the students

worked on a task that was beyond their frustration level. The newcomer students did not

have a successful, positive experience in Writer’s Workshop that day.

The next two days in the poetry unit I continued to use the Calkins lessons as my

base, but added some of my own modifications to make the content more comprehensible

to the learners. In day two of the unit, the students learned how to listen for and create

line breaks to make poems sound more poetic. Instead of using the poem “Aquarium”

that Calkins used in her lesson that had been created by her class, my students and I

created our own class poem called “Snowball.” The previous day we had described a

cotton ball as a white, fluffy snowball, and had written down some descriptive phrases as

the beginnings of a poem. In this lesson, we took that same poem, and as a class worked

on making it sound more rhythmic by breaking the lines in certain places. During this

mini-lesson, I observed the newcomers to be focused on me and paying attention.

Because they had schema related to snow and snowballs, and had been involved in the

previous day’s lesson when the poem was created, they were able to follow along as I

read the poem aloud, and even attempted participation during the shared reading of the

poem. This coincides with Echevarria, Vogt, and Short’s (2000) description of authentic

experiences that have occurred in the learners’ world. The students had seen, touched,

talked about, and made snowballs during the winter, then were able to participate in an

activity because the topic was meaningful to them.

The third day’s lesson in this unit was titled “Hearing the Music in Poetry.”

Students learned that one of the elements of poetry is that it has a certain music and

rhythm to it, like a song does. In the Calkins lesson, the teacher speaks generally about

this concept without any real-life examples or models to which the students may attach

their understanding. For the first part of my lesson, I read the class the book Twinkle,

Twinkle Little Star (Trapani, 1994) as a read aloud. I then played a tape recording of the

song with the same title, and let the students listen for how the book sounded like a poem,

which in turn could be made to sound like a song when put to music. My newcomer

students appeared highly interested in and focused on the read aloud book about the little

girl who meets her star and travels with him through the night. When I played the

Twinkle, Twinkle song (which they had heard before during our morning pull-out time),

they smiled and giggled. An important discovery was made upon teaching this lesson:

Had I been able to pull the newcomer students away from the classroom for a day or two

prior to this lesson during the workshop period, and read and discussed the story Twinkle,

Twinkle Little Star, following up with a hands-on activity, not only would my students

have recognized the story and song during the mainstream mini-lesson, but they may

have been better prepared to participate in a whole group discussion or partner

discussion. This adds merit to Mabbott and Strohl’s (1992) findings that ELLs need some

time away from the mainstream classroom to practice oral language skills, take risks, and

develop background knowledge on a topic before it is introduced in the mainstream

setting.

The next part of this lesson got the students actively involved in a poem by having

them decide how to make their voices sound different when they read to make the poem

sound more meaningful. The poem “Things” by Eloise Greenfield (1978) was used in the

Calkins lesson, and I used this poem in my mini-lesson as well. I had written the poem

out on chart paper and also attached three color photographs to the chart that showed the

different places described in the poem. The use of realia supports Krashen’s (1985)

hypothesis that while discussing topics, real objects or pictures should also be presented

so as to develop a context for the learners. The newcomers were interested in the chart

with the colored photographs, and they followed along with me as I read the poem aloud

the first time. Once the reading and discussion of the poem was finished, however, and

our task turned to the students figuring out how their voices should sound at different

places in the poem, the newcomers appeared to lose interest.

During the last two days of my data collection for the poetry unit, I decided to

forego using the Calkins lessons and created my own lessons to get the students exposed

to some different kinds of poems. I taught one mini-lesson on repetition poems, where a

word, phrase, or line is repeated within the poem. The other mini-lesson taught students

how to write frame poems, where the first and last lines of the poem are exactly the same.

In these lessons, I explained to the class what these poems were, showed a variety of

examples that were read aloud as a class, and we finally created our own class poems

before they had their independent work time where they were to create their own poems.

The newcomers appeared highly motivated by the colorful, picture-laden poetry

examples I shared with them. All three of them tried very hard to read the poems along

with the class. I had the students clap along during the repetition poems when words or

phrases were repeated; the newcomers were able to do this. Student B produced

meaningful responses with her partner during a turn and talk share, because her partner

offered her phrase up as the repeating line in our class frame poem.

This unit was a very challenging one for me to teach. It was very difficult

differentiating instruction on poetry to fit the needs in my classroom. What my newcomer

students needed in a unit on poetry were lots of exposure to songs and rhymes, work on

manipulating simple words to see how they could rhyme, and physical activities to get

them used to the rhythm and intonation of English phrase structure. To teach them

lessons on seeing objects with poet’s eyes and write poetically was way beyond their

current level of linguistic competence. Three out of the five days when I collected data in

this unit, I observed the newcomers’ inattention, boredom, and confusion during mini-

lessons.

The final writing unit that I taught during my study was called “Authors As

Mentors”. In this unit the class adopted Angela Johnson as their mentor author, read

many of her books, and attempted some of her writing styles in their own writing. The

unit began with a review of small moment stories- short, personal narratives about a

moment in one’s life. I reviewed small moment stories with the class. Then, one of

Angela Johnson’s books was introduced as an example of a small moment story. The

authors of the Calkins curriculum had a class set of the book Joshua’s Night Whispers

(Johnson, 1994) that they used continually throughout many of the lessons in this unit. I,

however, did not have a class set of this book. In fact, the only copy of the book I was

able to locate was a small, cardboard book designed for use with small children. So, one

modification that I made right away was to write out the book on chart paper so the

whole class could see the text. Later, the students were also able to interact with and write

on the chart as we located different writing elements.

The Calkins lessons for this unit used the metaphor of a watermelon to describe a

small moment story. I decided I would use this metaphor as well, by adding my own

graphic organizer that students could write on to come up with their own small moment

topic. I explained how the picture of the watermelon was their big idea (such as Angela

Johnson had the “watermelon” idea of her son, Joshua), and that the small seeds within

the watermelon represented the smaller, small-moment ideas within the big “watermelon”

idea. I explained how one of Angela Johnson’s seed ideas was the time her son Joshua

heard noises at night and got out of his bed to look around. I modeled the use of the

watermelon graphic organizer with a topic of my own that the students were used to

hearing about- my dog. During this lesson, the newcomers were paying attention during

the reading of the book Joshua’s Night Whispers and appeared initially interested in the

graphic organizer of the watermelon, but their attention seemed to drift off as I did more

explaining about how to use the watermelon organizer.

In the next mini-lesson, I read aloud another one of Angela Johnson’s books, The

Leaving Morning (Johnson, 1992). Again, the newcomers appeared interested and

engaged in the story. In this final unit, the students once again listened to a fiction story

read aloud everyday in the mini-lesson. The stories they heard contained images of

scenes familiar to them, were told from the perspectives of children their age, and told of

narratives relevant to their own lives. The interest and participation that I noted during

the mini-lessons of this unit correspond to one of NCEE’s (2005) best practices in ESL

teaching- that newcomers need be exposed to books read aloud to them (not just during

reading time). Exposure to read-alouds and participation in shared readings not only

helps students develop an ear for the intonation, patterns, and rhythm of the English

language, but also provides them essential background knowledge and vocabulary for

future activities.

In this lesson we talked about how authors need to plan before they begin writing

a story. I modeled how I plan across each page when I write my story about my dog

stealing steak. We repeated this process as a class with a small moment we all

experienced- the music program. I brought in some photographs I had taken of the music

program so that the newcomers would know what we were talking about, and to jog the

memories of the whole class. During the turn and talk, the students turned to a partner

and described the different things they could write in a small moment story about the

music program. Student C participated with his partner, as the partner shared with me

what student C had said. Student C’s response was related to the music program as was

assigned. This was an example of a time when a newcomer student was able to use his

oral language with a partner because of the adaptation I had made of bringing in

photographs of a shared experience.

The next two days in the unit had the students noticing and trying to write ellipses

in their writing. We used the text Joshua’s Night Whispers for the next two days. This

was helpful as it allowed the newcomers to get used to one text and helped develop their

reading fluency during our shared readings. On the second day, after the students had

learned what ellipses were and that they could silently say “dot, dot, dot” as they are

reading a sentence with ellipses, the newcomers were observed to do this as we

completed a shared reading. Student B was reading along with us, and when we got to the

ellipses she was one of the few students in the class who remembered to pause long

enough to whisper “dot, dot, dot.” This impressed me as it showed she had been paying

attention and was able to internalize the point of the lesson. She also reflected her

knowledge by utilizing ellipses in her independent writing that day.

The final day of my data collection for this unit involved an adaptation to the flow

of the lessons that I had been following. Up to this point, five days into the unit on

Authors as Mentors, the students had only been exposed to two of Angela Johnson’s

books. Although re-reading the same book various days in a row had benefits to the

newcomers and the other students as well, they were getting bored with hearing Joshua’s

Night Whispers everyday. On day five of my data collection, I taught the prepared

Calkins lesson on writing comeback lines (a line that repeats multiple times throughout a

book due to its significance) and told students that they could try writing comeback lines

in their writing too. During the independent work time, one table group at a time came to

the carpet to look through and read the collection of Angela Johnson books that I had

organized for the unit. The rest of the students were working on adding ellipses and

comeback lines to their small moment stories. The newcomers were very interested in

looking at the collection of books. Student B looked quietly through the books, and spoke

in Hmong to another Hmong girl in her group. Student C had the company of the

mainstream teacher as he looked through the books. He said many words and phrases to

her about the books. He was also able to point out ellipses on his own.

In summary, this unit allowed students to revisit at the end of the year a type of

writing they had worked on at the beginning of the year. I felt that the graphic organizer

of a watermelon helped the students conceptualize the larger concept of a story idea, and

then zoom in further to one small moment in time within that larger concept. The

newcomers, however, did not seem to grasp the “watermelon” vs. “seed” idea, as their

work reflects them not staying on the same topic within their graphic organizer. I liked

how this unit utilized read-alouds as the basis for writing instructing in the mini-lessons,

but would have liked to immerse the students in a wider variety of Angela Johnson’s

literature early in the unit, and later revisited those books to drive home the writing

techniques. The newcomers were quite interested in the read-aloud stories, and were most

engaged during those times of the mini-lesson.

Anecdotal Notes and Observations

The daily observations and notes that I recorded also provided valuable

information to my study. I was able to observe the behaviors of the newcomer students

during the mini-lessons, turn and talk sessions, independent work time, and sharing time.

As valuable as these observations were, conditions for conducting observations on three

students were not ideal because I was in charge of instructing the whole class during the

hour-long Writer’s Workshop. Between teaching the mini-lessons, monitoring student

behavior, and managing the classroom happenings in general, I was not always able to

monitor the three newcomers as closely as I would have liked. However, I feel that I

collected some insightful data from the observations I was able to make during the period

of this research study.

Mini-Lessons

Each Writer’s Workshop session began with a mini-lesson when the whole class

would gather on the carpet and I would teach from a chair and easel with whiteboard.

Mini-lessons are supposed to be short and to the point, with the majority of the time spent

on teacher-led instruction. The ideal length of time for mini-lessons is 5-15 minutes;

however I found it very difficult to finish a mini-lesson from the Calkins series in 15

minutes (especially when adding my own adaptations to the lesson), so sometimes my

lessons went twenty or even thirty minutes. The Writer’s Workshop that I led took place

in the last hour block of the school day. By this time of the day, the students as a whole

often appeared sleepy, disinterested, and unmotivated. Therefore, I was constantly

challenged to keep my mini-lessons short and interesting.

The three newcomer students were eager to join the class for mini-lessons.

Student C was always the first one on the carpet, and began sitting right in front of me

everyday shortly after I began my data collection. I noticed a difference in attention and

eye contact when the newcomers sat closer to the front. I was able to look them in the eye

and direct instruction to them when they were closer to me. They also paid attention

better and seemed more engaged when they were up close, able to see pictures and charts.

When the newcomers sat in the back or out of my line of vision, they tended to not pay

attention as well, became more easily distracted, and were not full participants in the

lessons.

During the unit on All About Books, most of the mini-lessons detailed how to

write the different chapters of the books. I began each lesson with a link to previous days’

lessons, explained what the students would learn that day, and then would show a model

of my own writing of the chapter being talked about in that lesson. The newcomers were

interested in seeing my own writing and colored illustrations, and often attempted to read

along with the class as we read my writing out loud. When I would continue talking,

however, providing more verbal instruction on how to write the chapters, I could see the

newcomers lose interest. Their eyes would wander; they would play with their shoes, or

simply would stare blankly as if they did not understand what I was saying. They rarely,

if ever, provided responses to teacher questions posed to the whole class. Similarly, when

the mini-lesson moved from me showing the students my own sample writing, to them

coming up with a class writing example, the newcomers did not offer ideas or comments.

They would listen to what the other students suggested and would watch me write things

on the chart paper.

The most interest I observed on the faces of the newcomers at mini-lesson times

during this unit occurred on the day I taught the lesson on writing interesting facts about a

topic. To begin this lesson, I acted out being a really bored student who had attended a

class all about flowers. In the “class” I attended, the teacher did not tell me anything new

about flowers, only said that flowers were nice and pretty. Using voice intonation and lots

of gestures, I played the part of the bored student explaining to the teacher that I wanted

to hear new and interesting things about flowers that I had never heard before. While this

was going on, the newcomers watched me with amazement and giggled at the way I was

talking and acting.

I observed an increase in interest and participation in the newcomers as we moved

into the poetry unit. Each day of the unit, I would bring in poems written on brightly

colored posters embellished with illustrations. I would read the poems aloud to the class

first, and then they would all participate in a shared reading along with me. The

newcomers were very enthusiastic when a new poem was introduced, often calling out

names of things they recognized on the posters and attempting to read words on their

own. All three of the newcomers appeared engaged in the shared readings, and would

follow along or attempt to read with the class. The more times a poem was re-read, the

better the newcomers were able to follow along and read with accuracy. During the

discussion of these poems, I was also able to adjust my questioning to direct questions in

a simple language structure to the newcomers, so that they could also participate and use

their knowledge to discuss a poem.

Other moments of high motivation and interest during this unit occurred when I

read the poetic book Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star aloud and followed that with a

recording of the song. The newcomers were enthralled by the picture book of the little

girl who meets a star from the sky and follows him on an adventure. They giggled when

they heard the song, and made attempts to hum along with the recording. When I used the

poems suggested in the Calkins lessons, I added some visuals by drawing pictures that

went with the poems and attaching color photographs to depict the settings of another.

These visual cues helped peak the interest of the newcomers and held their eyes to the

charts as we read and discussed the poems. Another day when discussing rhythm in

poetry, I had the students clap the rhythm to the poem “Miss Mary Mack.” The

newcomers participated fully in this activity and appeared to enjoy clapping along to the

words that repeated. This helped reinforce rhythm of the English language, and helped to

make them aware, in a physical way, that words can repeat in writing.

One of the most amazing things I recorded in my notes on mini-lessons took place

on a day when the class and I had spent 15 minutes outside on the playground before

beginning our Writer’s Workshop. That particular day I was teaching the students how to

write a frame poem- a poem that’s first and last lines are exactly the same. We looked at

some examples of frame poems, and then I suggested we write our own class frame poem

about playing outside. I chose this topic because we had just all finished a short recess,

and I wanted everyone to have background knowledge on the topic for our class poem.

For the first time that I had noted in my research, the newcomers were able to connect

something we were doing in Writer’s Workshop to a real-life experience that had recently

taken place. They were engaged in the activity and produced meaningful, pertinent

statements to their partners that could be included in our poem about playing outside.

Student B’s sentence of “I like to play outside” became the first and last line of our frame

poem. I observed her smiling face to be a moment of happiness and pride for a girl who

typically sits silent and unable to participate during mini-lessons.

The final unit from which I recorded data also produced interest, motivation, and

participation in the newcomers. During the unit on “Authors as Mentors”, each mini-

lesson included a read-aloud of an Angela Johnson book. The book that we focused on

most during those first five days was “Joshua’s Night Whispers”. I had taken the text

from the book and written it on a chart paper so the class could see to read along, and so

we could make notations in the text. It was a very short book, and the illustrations of the

original book provided a visual aid to the newcomers that helped them understand what

happened to Joshua in the book. Because this book was used in four out of the five days

that I recorded data for this unit, the students because very familiar with it. The

newcomers were quickly able to read along with the book, learned what the word

“whispers” meant, and showed confidence in being able to read something familiar. A

few days into the unit, the students learned about using ellipses in their writing to create

suspense, and I observed Student B during a re-read of the book whispering “dot dot dot”

when we paused for the ellipses in the reading. I was able to see that she had acquired

technical knowledge from one of the mini-lessons, as well as practicing her oral reading

skills.

What I learned from my anecdotal notes and observations taken during the mini-

lessons was that the newcomer students were most interested, involved in, and motivated

by read-alouds, poems containing illustrations and photographs, activities that got them

physically involved (such as clapping a rhythm), songs, and literacy experiences that they

could relate to their own lives. These findings did not surprise me as research in the field

of ESL, best practices teaching, and my own experience has shown that these kinds of

activities increase the amount of comprehensible input that students receive and allow

them to use their prior knowledge to link to new learning. What I found was that twenty

full minutes of teacher-talk, based on a scripted lesson plan, did not help these newcomer

students to develop oral language, learn new vocabulary, or develop their literacy skills

during the mini-lesson time.

Turn and Talk

Embedded within many of the Calkins lessons are opportunities for students to

interact with a partner to link new information from the mini-lessons to their own

experiences. These interactive opportunities are called “turn and talk.” Many of the turn

and talk episodes that I had the students participate in were as described in the Calkins

curriculum. However, I sometimes created my own turn and talk topics to allow for more

student interaction in my lessons, depending on the content of the lesson. During all turn

and talk sessions, students were allowed to use their native language when

communicating with their partners.

When I asked the students during a mini-lesson to turn and talk to their writing

partner or simply to the person sitting next to them, I observed the newcomers acting very

hesitant and unsure of what to do. The students were always given a specific topic or

question to discuss during the turn and talks, but I found the prompts from the Calkins

lessons to contain very complex language and difficult vocabulary, so not only did the

newcomers find it impossible to comprehend the prompts, but the majority of the other

Language Academy students had difficulty understanding the prompts as well. Some

example prompts for turn and talk included:

“think of something you are an expert at and discuss it with your partner.”

“try-on your ideas with your partner.”

“tell your partner what part of your book you’ll zoom in on and label.”

“tell your partner something you noticed” (from the text).

During the turn and talk sessions, the three newcomers did not appear eager to turn to a

partner. If a newcomer was paired with a Hmong speaker who was at an intermediate

level of English proficiency, the two would speak in Hmong, and I had no way of

knowing what was being said. The interactions in this type of partnership resulted in

more conversation (in Hmong) if the newcomers were partnered with someone they were

friends with in the classroom. If I approached the group they would speak very quietly,

and would stop talking when I got near. When a newcomer was paired with a Hmong

speaker who had proficient or native-like English abilities, the group dynamics were even

more difficult. I observed the more proficient English speaker struggling with Hmong or

speaking very insistently to the newcomer, so that he/she could produce a “correct”

answer. When a newcomer was paired with a native English speaker, the interaction was

often non-existent. In these cases, I observed the native English speaker providing an oral

response to the prompt, and then the newcomer would sit there and say nothing.

During these sessions, the newcomers often looked to me for assistance. At times

(such as when the students were asked to “try-on” their expert ideas with a partner), I

found is impossible to explain to the newcomers what to do. In this particular instance, I

was able to help Student B read from her list of possible “expert” topics, and that was all.

Other times, I was able to join a partnership right away, and could tell a newcomer, in

simpler language, something that I hoped would elicit a word or two. One example of this

occurred on day five of the “All About Books” unit. The students were to turn and tell a

partner what facts they knew about playing outside. I told the newcomers to “tell partner

what you know about playing outside” while gesturing towards the playground and

repeating the word “outside.” The result was that Student C (who was partnered with a

native English speaker) gave a simple one sentence utterance, Student A (partnered with

a Hmong intermediate English speaker) repeated a response that I gave her word by

word, and Student B (partnered with a Hmong intermediate English speaker) said

nothing.

As time passed during my research, I noted that the newcomers’ oral responses to

turn and talk sessions did improve and increase in number, even when partnered with a

native English speaker. In February and early March, I recorded few meaningful

interactions between the newcomers and their partners during turn and talks. However,

towards the end of March and again in May when I finished my data collection, the

newcomers were observed to be using more English when they were involved in a turn

and talk session. They also did not appear as frightened and hesitant as they had been at

the beginning of the study.

Overall, Student C was the most verbal of the three newcomers. He would

normally say some English words, or even a simple sentence, when partnered with

someone during turn and talk sessions. On day six of the “All About Books” unit, early

on in the study, I recorded student C as saying “I go to playground” after I had prompted

him to tell his partner about the playground. During the poetry unit, I observed Student C,

while partnered with a native English-speaking boy, to be speaking in English phrases

that were meaningful and relevant to the task I had assigned the students. During the

author study unit when I asked the students to talk about a small moment they

remembered from their recent music program, Student C’s partner (native Hmong

speaker with advanced English) reported to me that Student C told him some things he

remembered. Even though the two boys spoke in Hmong, I learned that Student C

(perhaps with some translation help from his partner) understood the directions I had

given for the turn and talk.

Students A and B, both girls, were very shy and hesitant to speak up in

partnerships. For the first month, I did not record Student B as saying anything in English

while with a partner. Student B became very interested in listening to new poems during

the poetry unit, and I noticed her interactions improving as we went along in this unit. On

day six of the poetry unit, Student B was partnered with a native English-speaking boy at

the back of the room. While I was not able to listen in to their discussion, I knew Student

B produced some meaningful utterances related to the topic of the mini-lesson because

her partner raised his hand to share what she said. Her sentence, “I like to play outside”

became the first and last lines of our class frame poem. Student A learned new

vocabulary quickly and was able to provide responses to questions when I talked with her

one on one. However, in partnerships (especially with a boy) she was very quiet and

often would say nothing, not even in Hmong. I did not record many instances of her

participating in a turn and talk during the first two units. She moved in April, so I do not

have any data for her from the final unit.

Work Time

The newcomers participated in the Writer’s Workshop independent work time

along with the rest of the class. During the first unit on “All About Books”, I pulled the

three newcomers aside to a table at the back of the room five out of the seven days that I

collected data. During this unit, the students were assigned to use special paper that

differed depending upon which chapter they were working on. On the first day of the

unit, when I passed out the paper for brainstorming topics for “All About” books, the

newcomers took it back to their desks and sat there not knowing what the paper was for. I

pulled them aside and tried to get them to tell me things they knew about, but that was a

difficult endeavor. I changed my question to “what do you like?” and then they produced

the words “computers” and “buffalo.” In addition to these, I provided them with some

other topics that they were “experts” at, such as playing outside, riding the bus, and

sisters/brothers. They copied these words with me. When they returned to their desks,

they saw that the other students had taken out their writing folders and began writing, so

the newcomers did the same. They worked independently the rest of the period.

I had the newcomers using the same specialized paper as the rest of the class so

that their finished “All About” books would look the same as the other students’. The day

they wrote the table of contents for their books, I pulled the three students aside and had

them copy a table of contents that I had prepared for them on the topic “Playing Outside.”

I wanted them to be consistent and have the same chapters that we had talked about in the

mini-lessons. Another day when I pulled the newcomers aside, I wanted them to draw

and write a word for different kinds of things they can play with outside. I provided realia

in the form of sports equipment. They got to hold each type of ball, learned the name of

it, and practiced handling it the way they would outside on the playground. This

experience allowed them to connect new vocabulary to an actual object, practice

sounding out and spelling words on their own, and complete a “different kinds of” page

for their book, just like the other students. When the students worked on their chapter

called “Facts About Playing Outside”, I simply told them to draw some different pictures

of outside, and then to write some words to go with the pictures. They did well drawing

on their own, but students A and B especially needed more attention when it came time

for them to describe their pictures in writing.

What I noted during this unit was that the students were eager to work on their

writing, and worked diligently at it, when they understood what to do. Major scaffolding

and pull-away time everyday was the only way I could see to give them the assistance

they needed to participate fully in the Writer’s Workshop during this unit. Even when I

was able to pull the three newcomers aside, I still felt as if I was not giving them the time

and attention they deserved because I had to conference with and maintain control of the

rest of the class. I could also tell that the three newcomers were happy to be in the pull-

out group at a separate table in the classroom. They did not hesitate to come with me.

There were times when I was finished instructing them that I told them they could go

back to their desks if they wanted to, but they chose to stay at the table to finish their

work. In the end of this unit, I was very impressed with the final product they were able

to produce. (See Appendix G for Student A’s completed All About Book).

During the poetry unit, the students were to write their own poems independently

during the independent work time. Even though we had talked about the characteristics of

a poem in mini-lessons, the newcomers, at their beginning-level of literacy development,

were not yet able to write poems. They worked on writing anything they wanted to during

our poetry work times. What they were able to produce were comprehensible words,

phrases, and stories on their own. (See Appendix H for an example of the work that

Student C produced during the poetry work time).

It took the newcomer students two days, however, to become independent

workers during the poetry unit. The first lesson of the unit was very difficult and

frustrating for them. This lesson had the students looking at everyday objects with “poets’

eyes” and describing them in extraordinary ways. For students who did not have

vocabulary to even name the object they were looking at, it was impossible for them to

describe that object literally, much less poetically. I could tell that the newcomers knew

we were studying a different style of writing because on the second day of the unit, when

the rest of the class got to work writing poems, they sat at their desks looking around

wondering what they should be writing. Lacking context in the form of realia, a read-

aloud story, or an experience, they were at a loss for what to write. When I went to each

one and told them they could draw and write about whatever they wanted to, they were

then finally able to begin working. In the remaining three days of the unit, I observed all

three of the newcomers initiating their own independent writing, either revisiting a piece

of writing from a previous day or beginning something new.

I chose to pull the newcomers away to the side table during the work time of the

last two days of this unit when I taught repetition and frame poems. I felt that with some

differentiation and additional attention, the students would be able to produce these two

types of repeating poems. Students A and C understood the idea of writing the same word

or phrase over again in their poem once I showed them some more examples. (See

Appendix I for samples of repetition poems). For the frame poems, I also drew an arrow

from the first line to where the last line of the poem would be, to give them a visual cue

that their first line should again be written in the last line.

During the final unit of this study, Authors as Mentors, I did not do any pull-out

groups with the newcomers. The focus of their work during these five days was to write

stories about themselves. This is what the newcomers had been working on the whole

year- being able to produce words, phrases and sentences that reflected their own life

experiences. At the beginning of this unit, even when they were given special paper in the

form of a watermelon-shaped graphic organizer, the students got to work right away,

filling in the lines and spaces with their words. All three of the students worked much

more independently during this unit than they had at the beginning of the study. This

could be attributed to the fact that everyday they became more familiar with working on

their own, or that each day they developed more vocabulary that allowed them to expand

their story ideas. Also, all three students were able to come up with their own topics

without help during this unit. I noticed that they were able to read their own writing with

much more accuracy than they had at the beginning of the study. (See Appendix J for an

example of Student B’s writing during an “Authors as Mentors” work session).

Overall, my anecdotal notes and observations of my students during work time

told me some very important things about how they developed during this study. At first,

the students would stop working if they did not know how to spell a word. They would

not raise their hands for help, nor would they ask another student near them. While the

other students in the class were eager to help the newcomers, they often delivered

unsolicited advice that leaned towards telling the newcomers what they were doing

wrong. As the weeks passed, Students A and B began talking quietly to each other in

Hmong, often interspersing their conversations with English words that were pertinent to

their writing. After Student A moved away, Student B’s friend was moved to the desk

next to her. The two girls did a lot of conversing in Hmong, with the friend trying to give

Student B lots of help. I noticed an increase in Student B’s motivation and amount of

work completed during this time. Student C, while seated at a table with very talkative

classmates, rarely engaged in conversation with anyone around him. He appeared content

to work on his own.

Even at the end of the study in May the newcomers still rarely raised their hands

for a teacher’s help, but they would ask me for help if I was in close proximity to them. I

was able to get them away from expecting me to tell them how to spell something by

referring them to the word wall, a picture dictionary, or helping them sound out the word

themselves. They did become more independent using these tools.

Sharing

Throughout the first half of the school year the newcomers would sit patiently

during the sharing time, but would never raise their hands to comment on another

student’s writing. They mostly turned down the opportunity to share when their turn

came up. By February when I began my research Student C began offering comments to

other students during the sharing time. Students A and B noticed this and followed his

lead. The comment that was always made by the newcomers during the “All About

Books” unit was “I like your picture.” At first, they were mostly inclined to raise their

hands to comment when the student sharing was another Hmong student, particularly

someone with whom they were friends. This changed as time went on. By May when we

were completing the “Authors as Mentors” unit, all of the newcomers would raise their

hands to comment on a student’s writing almost all of the time, no matter who the student

was who was sharing that day.

All three of the newcomers were shy and reluctant to share themselves. With

some encouragement from me and their other classmates, they almost always agreed to

share during the study when it was their turn. They would read their writing from that day

and show the audience their pictures. They were always very proud after their turn

sharing, as indicated by their smiles when the audience applauded. I would give the

newcomers lots of praise and encouragement as they shared and I could see their

confidence and enjoyment in sharing grow as time went on. When a fellow newcomer

was the person in the Author’s Chair on a given day, the other newcomers were very

inclined to give a compliment to that student’s work. Alternatively, it was nice to see that

the rest of the class was eager to comment on the newcomers’ work, even if it did not

always meet the expectation of that day’s lesson. The sharing time gave the newcomers

an in-class opportunity to use the first names of their classmates out loud, and gave them

oral interaction experiences such as saying “thank you” when given a compliment. The

other students in the class had the opportunity to see the newcomers’ writing skills

develop as the year went on, and admire their impressive illustrating abilities.

Student Work and Checklists

In attempting to answer the question “do newcomer ELLs develop beginning

writing skills within the Writer’s Workshop in a mainstream classroom”, a piece of

substantial data I have collected has come from the student work checklists. I filled out a

daily checklist for each student at the end of each Writer’s Workshop session that I

documented for my study. I also filled out a checklist of overall writing performance for

each student at the end of each unit of study.

The first unit, entitled “All About Books”, was part of a comprehensive unit on

non-fiction. The study of “All About Books” followed a unit on procedural writing, and

took place during late February and early March 2006. I collected data during seven

consecutive days of this unit. I filled out checklists for all three of the newcomer students

during six of the seven days. Day two of this unit had the students writing a table of

contents for their “All About Book” project. The three newcomer students were pulled

aside, and copied the table of contents that I had prepared for them. They did not produce

any independent work on their own that day because the writing period was shortened.

For these reasons, I did not fill out a writing checklist on that day. Student A was in the

nurse’s office for all of the writing period on day 4, thus I do not have data for her work

on that day. This unit consisted of mini-lessons teaching students how to come up with a

topic idea that they know all about, how to create a cover and table of contents for a non-

fiction book, and what to include in chapters titled “How-To”, “Facts About”, “Parts of”,

and “Different Kinds Of” within an All About Book. The mini-lessons also instructed

students on how to make labeled diagrams and illustrate their books based on the

information they wrote.

The daily checklists considered beginning writing skills from the state of

Minnesota ESL standards and the NCEE standards from grades Kindergarten to second

grade. The table in figure 4 shows the number of times that the three students scored in

the three different categories on the checklist of beginning writing skills throughout the

unit on All About Books:

Figure 4. All About Books Checklist DataDaily Checklist of Beginning Writing Skills K-2

YES NO Sometimes

Communicative Functions Communicates a single, simple written idea (ESL) 16 1 0

Labels pictures (ESL) 5 7 5 Picture accompanying the writing matches the written words (Researcher’s standard)

16

0

1

Picture is specific to the lesson taught (Researcher’s standard)

9

7

1

Language Features Writes words or phrases (ESL) 17 0 0 Spells and combines words with sufficient accuracy (ESL) 14 0 3 Rereads own writing, matching spoken words with words written on paper (NCEE K)

12

0

4

Word Knowledge and Use Uses transitional spelling (try/sound-spelling) independently (ESL)

7

1

7

Punctuation Each sentence begins with a capital letter (NCEE 2nd) 6 1 6 Each sentence ends with a period (NCEE 2nd) 8 4 0 Does the writing stay on topic? (Researcher’s standard) 13 4 0 How many words were written this period? (Researcher’s standard)

14.24

The next unit from which I collected data was a unit on poetry. I observed the

students and collected data from Day 1 of the new poetry unit through day five. This unit

took place during the end of March 2006. All three of the newcomer students were

present each day of my data collection for this unit, so I have fifteen checklists total. This

unit consisted of mini-lessons teaching students how to look at everyday objects with a

“poet’s eye”, how to listen for and create line breaks in poems, and how to hear and

utilize musicality within poetry. I also taught the students how to write two different

types of poems: repetition poems and frame poems. We also spent some time talking

about adjectives, rhythm, and intonation.

The table in Figure 5 shows the data that was collected from the first five days of

the unit on poetry:

Figure 5. Poetry Checklist Data Daily Checklist of Beginning Writing Skills K-2

YES NO Sometimes

Communicative Functions Communicates a single, simple written idea (ESL) 11 4 0

Labels pictures (ESL) 2 12 1 Picture accompanying the writing matches the written words (Researcher’s standard)

8

4

3

Picture is specific to the lesson taught (Researcher’s standard)

7 4 0

Language Features Writes words or phrases (ESL) 13 2 0 Spells and combines words with sufficient accuracy (ESL) 12 2 1 Rereads own writing, matching spoken words with words written on paper (NCEE K)

10

4

1

Word Knowledge and Use Uses transitional spelling (try/sound-spelling) independently (ESL)

7

2

6

Punctuation Each sentence begins with a capital letter (NCEE 2nd) 7 4 3 Each sentence ends with a period (NCEE 2nd) 4 9 1 Does the writing stay on topic? (Researcher’s standard) 8 5 1 How many words were written this period? (Researcher’s standard)

24.2

The final unit from which I collected data was an author study unit called

“Authors as Mentors”. I taught five consecutive lessons from the beginning of this unit

during the early part of May 2006. Student A had moved away during the month of April,

so I was only able to collect data from two newcomers, Students B and C. Student C

missed one writing work period, so I only have four days of data on him. I have five days

of data for Student B. During this unit, students revisited narrative writing in the form of

small moment stories. This type of writing was introduced and studied at the beginning of

the year. The mini-lessons during these five days of my data collection reviewed small

moment stories, utilized mentor texts by Angela Johnson to provide writing examples,

and introduced the use of ellipses and comeback (repeating) lines within narrative

writing.

The table of data collected on the checklist of beginning writing skills K-2 is

shown below in Figure 6:

Figure 6. Authors as Mentors Checklist Data Daily Checklist of Beginning Writing Skills K-2

YES NO Sometimes

Communicative Functions Communicates a single, simple written idea (ESL) 8 0 0

Labels pictures (ESL) 0 9 0 Picture accompanying the writing matches the written words (Researcher’s standard)

7

0

1

Picture is specific to the lesson taught (Researcher’s standard)

- - -

Language Features Writes words or phrases (ESL) 9 0 0 Spells and combines words with sufficient accuracy (ESL) 6 0 3 Rereads own writing, matching spoken words with words written on paper (NCEE K)

8

0

1

Word Knowledge and Use Uses transitional spelling (try/sound-spelling) independently (ESL)

4

0

5

Punctuation Each sentence begins with a capital letter (NCEE 2nd) 1 3 5

Each sentence ends with a period (NCEE 2nd) 7 0 2 Does the writing stay on topic? (Researcher’s standard) 5 4 0 How many words were written this period? (Researcher’s standard)

32.6

The patterns that emerged from this data were somewhat surprising. For example,

all three of the newcomers mostly scored “yes” under the Language Features section of

the standards. Even though two of the three newcomers were new to American schools at

the beginning of the school year, by February they were all writing words and phrases,

spelling with sufficient accuracy that the words made sense and could be read by others,

and were able to read their own writing back to a teacher. The poetry unit saw somewhat

lower scores in the language features section. This could be because the newcomers were

more confused as to what and how they should write during this unit. Again, if students

are at the early stages of literacy development in a second language, still learning

vocabulary for everyday objects, how can they be expected to think and write poetically?

My findings in this lesson confirm Vygotsky’s (1978) social development theory of

learning. The writing of poetry was so far beyond my students’ developmental level that

little learning could take place.

Under the communicative functions section, scores varied considerably depending

on the student and across the different units. For the most part, all three of the students

were consistently communicating a single, simple written idea, but this score also fell

during the poetry unit when the writing was supposed to be a bit more abstract. They may

also have been confused by the different-looking format of poems. Another surprising

finding was that the newcomer students rarely labeled their pictures, especially beyond

the first unit in February. The most beginning skill of an English language learner is to

communicate in pictures, and then to move on and label those pictures when vocabulary

is acquired. It seemed that these students were able to move from drawing only pictures

at the beginning of the year to writing phrases and sentences correctly, having bypassed

the stage where the only words they write are labels to pictures. While Students A and B

did label pictures throughout the study, the labels were rarely the only words written

during a particular writing period. They were almost always accompanied by other text as

well. Student C never labeled his pictures, yet produced well thought out phrases and

sentences.

The newcomers did well matching their words to their pictures in the first and last

units, but were not as strong in this standard during the poetry unit. Again, I feel that

because the poetry unit was more abstract they were not as sure of themselves during the

writing work time. The standard of matching words to pictures comes from the NCEE

standards for second grade, therefore was something that was mentioned again and again

in mini-lessons to the whole class. When using my own modeled writing I would make

sure to emphasize that the writing on the page had to match the illustration. I would also

bring this standard to the attention of the newcomers in one-on-one situations during the

work time. If they completed a drawing of something, I would ask them to tell me about

the drawing. I would then point to the text area of their paper and would tell them to write

down what they told me on their paper.

I feel that the standard that I added myself, “picture is specific to the lesson

taught” was quite hard to measure. Due to the nature of the Writer’s Workshop, the

curriculum I was using, and my own beliefs about students writing what they know

about, there was really no way that everyone’s picture could be specific to the lesson

taught. Each student’s picture was required to relate to his/her writing for that day so that

it would match the written words. This was addressed in the previous NCEE standard,

“picture accompanying writing matches written words.”

Under word knowledge and use, I looked at whether or not the newcomers were

using transitional spelling independently, another intermediate-level ESL standard. While

the students were eager to learn new words and add new vocabulary to their writing, they

were very hesitant to ask for help or take the initiative to use our classroom tools for

finding new words. They did improve on taking initiative as the study progressed, but

still had trouble working through the sound-spelling of a word on their own. There was

not much change in the scores of the students using transitional spelling independently

from the first to the last unit. When they finally became comfortable asking me for help,

they would always say, “Ms. Josephson, spell ____.” I consistently had to remind them to

say the word slowly out loud and listen for the separate sounds. Student C could do this

very well without much help; as could Student A right before she moved. Student B,

however, always needed me to sound out words with her, and could then discern the

letter sounds and write down the correct letter. Student B, to my pleasant surprise, went

from being the least risk-taking of the three newcomers when it came to finding new

words to the student who utilized various resources in the room to spell things. She asked

me for a “book” (meaning the picture dictionary) to help her write animal words; would

look to the word wall, walking over and pointing to words; and was the first to notice

when a chart of commonly used words had fallen on the floor.

In the category of punctuation, the newcomers did a better job of using capital

letters at the beginnings of sentences and periods at the end of sentences in February

during the first unit of data collection for the study. This could be because they were at

the beginning stages of writing phrases and I was emphasizing capitals and periods a lot

more during that time. Once they began writing more developed ideas and longer

phrases, I wanted to encourage their creativity and ideas and did not focus so much on the

punctuation. Another reason they may have scored higher at times for using capitalization

at the beginning of sentences is because a majority of their phrases or sentences began

with the word “I”. They learned that when this letter is by itself it is always capitalized.

They also frequently wrote about things they saw and did, therefore many of their

sentences read, “I see ladder,” “I like a heart,” and “I go to the zoo.” I did notice that as

the months passed, the newcomers’ sentences became more complex and they (especially

Student C) included many sentences that did not start with “I”, such as “My brother eat

cake.”

The newcomers were able to keep their writing on topic only some of the time.

This improved somewhat towards the end of the year, but I found it was still difficult for

the newcomers to maintain a topic over a number of pages. Student B, for example,

seemed to think that with every turn of the page comes a change in topic. As far as

number of words written per day, the number increased for all three students as time went

on. This showed me that with the opportunity to write independently everyday, on their

own topics, they were able to increase the amount of writing they produced over the

course of three months.

The checklist of overall writing skills that I developed and filled out for each

student at the end of each unit supplemented the rest of my data. The information I

collected from the overall checklist affirms and supports the data I received from the

daily checklists of writing skills. The table of the checklist of overall writing performance

data is shown below in Figure 7:

Figure 7. Overall Writing Performance Checklist Data

Checklist of Overall Writing Performance

YES NO Sometimes

Habits and Processes

Writes daily (NCEE 2nd) 8 0 0 Generates own content and topics (NCEE K, 2nd) 5 0 3 Re-reads own writing (NCEE K, 2nd) 6 0 2 Spelling Prints upper and lowercase letters (ESL) 7 0 1 Writes left to right and top to bottom (ESL & NCEE K) 8 0 0 Leaves spaces between words (NCEE K) 7 0 1 Frequently represents words with initial consonant sound (NCEE K)

6

1

1

Narrative Writing Tells events in chronological order (NCEE K) 3 4 1 Includes drawings to support meaning (NCEE K) 7 0 1 Report Writing

Gathers, collects, shares information (NCEE K) 0 0 3 Stays on topic (NCEE K) 1 1 1 Poetry Writing Writes a poem (NCEE 2nd) 0 0 3 Vocabulary and Word Choice Uses words in writing that are used in conversations (NCEE K)

7

0

1

Uses words from books read to them (NCEE K) 3 4 1

This data tells me for the most part that the newcomers were able to meet the ESL

and national standards that I had selected for my study. The three newcomers had the

habits and processes down- they wrote everyday of their own accord, and generally did

well when thinking of their own topics and re-reading their own writing, especially in the

spring. Under the spelling category, the newcomers were able to meet the intermediate

ESL standards and the Kindergarten national standards. This tells me they are ready to

move on to the more advanced skills under the ESL standards and the first grade skills for

the NCEE standards. Breaking the writing down into the three different genres, I found

that the students did well at producing writing that matched their illustrations, however

they were still struggling with telling a story in chronological order. The report writing

standards were difficult to measure because I provided so much scaffolding. The

newcomers could do the work with scaffolding, yet would not have been able to complete

an “All About Book” project without it. The newcomers were not able to meet the second

grade standard of writing a poem on their own. I did learn that the newcomers used

vocabulary and language that had been used in conversations, but did not see them using

language from read-alouds as much. This could be because I was not in their classroom

the whole day, and did not know which read-alouds they heard, or could be due to a lack

of read-alouds in some of our writing mini-lessons, especially during the poetry unit.

In conclusion, this chapter describes the results of my data involving the Calkins

lesson plans, my own adaptations to those lessons, anecdotal notes on student

observations, and student work and checklists. Through careful analysis, I determined

that the three newcomer English language learners in my classroom were able to develop

beginning writing skills while participating in the mainstream Writer’s Workshop, but

only through careful adaptations, modifications, and supplements to the given scripted

curriculum.

The final chapter of this paper, Chapter Five, reflects on the major learnings that

have taken place throughout this investigation. I also consider possible implications for

and limitations of the study. Additionally, recommendations for future research will be

presented, along with my own plan for communicating and using the results of my

inquiry.

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

The present study focused on newcomer English language learners in the second

grade, and their development of beginning writing skills while participating in Writer’s

Workshop in an inclusive classroom setting. The newcomers were observed during three

genre units as they participated in all aspects of Writer’s Workshop. Data was collected

in the form of writing samples that were compared to ESL and grade level standards in

the form of checklists. Through this research, my goal was to determine whether or not

the Writer’s Workshop curriculum in place in my teaching situation, and my adaptation

of that curriculum, allows newcomer English language learners to meet beginning writing

objectives within an inclusive mainstream setting.

Major Learnings

In researching this question, I have determined through analysis of my data that

the three newcomer students in my classroom were able to meet most of the beginning

writing objectives with the adaptations and modifications that I made to the scripted

lessons within the provided curriculum. From my own expertise as an ESL teacher and

secondary research on the topic, I knew before my study began that adaptations to

curriculum are almost always necessary when teaching a linguistically varied group of

students. However, it was overwhelming to discover the extent of adaptations necessary

to make this particular writing curriculum accessible to English language learners who

are not only new to the country, but new to the culture of school as well.

I have concluded that the Calkins writing curriculum alone is not sufficient in

providing newcomer ELLs with the experiences and activities they need to remain

motivated and interested in mini-lessons. Nor do the lessons alone provide the necessary

comprehensible input that these students need to increase their use of oral and written

English. The Calkins writing lessons alone did not meet the unique needs of the

newcomer students in my classroom. While the curriculum does have a positive aspect in

that it provides a writing framework that meets grade-level and national standards and

allows newcomers access to mainstream curriculum and writing vocabulary, an ESL

teacher must adapt and supplement this writing curriculum in order to meet the needs of

newcomer English language learners. As determined from my research, newcomer ELLs

can learn from and develop beginning writing skills when given appropriate foundations

and adaptations to the given curriculum.

Which adaptations were most effective in having students develop beginning

writing skills? Those that connected a student’s personal experience and background

knowledge to an activity or skill being taught in the classroom resulted in the most oral

participation, interest, and highest-quality written work. This finding agrees with the

NCEE (2006) report on essential practices for ESL teaching and Krashen’s (1985) input

hypothesis, in that information delivered by the teacher must be contextualized and

meaningful to the learner. Because newcomer students come to the classroom with a

range of background knowledge, it is not always possible to utilize a topic they are

familiar with when teaching a new language or writing concept, especially when teaching

in the mainstream setting. As Echevarria, Vogt, and Short (2000) discuss, another

adaptation that I found invaluable was the use of visual aids and real objects to assist the

newcomers in attaching names and ideas to things presented in mini-lessons.

Something I found surprising as I executed my study was that not all lessons in

the writing curriculum used in my teaching situation utilized a read-aloud. Some of the

lessons referred to a book that the students had theoretically heard previously during a

different part of the school day, or in a previous writing lesson. Because I was not able to

be in this classroom for the full day, I was not able to control which books were read

aloud to the students when I was not in the room. If I used a particular read-aloud at the

beginning of a mini-lesson in Writer’s Workshop, in addition to delivering the content of

the mini-lesson, the result was students who were engaged in the read-aloud, but who

lacked the ability to continue paying attention for the remainder of the lesson. Thus, I

determined that the newcomer students did use vocabulary acquired from read-alouds in

their writing; however, the vocabulary most utilized was not vocabulary that they were

taught or had acquired during Writer’s Workshop mini-lessons. Rather, they most

frequently used vocabulary that related to topics and books that they had studied during

our half-hour newcomer pull-out time every morning.

This realization speaks volumes to the question of whether or not an inclusive

collaboration model is effective in meeting the needs of newcomer ELLs. When I pulled

the three newcomers from this classroom, along with three others from another

classroom, into a separate room for 30 minutes each morning, I did not consciously teach

writing skills or direct my teaching to supplement the Writer’s Workshop curriculum.

The newcomer pull-out time was a separate time away from the challenges of the

English-speaking mainstream classroom where my students learned thematic vocabulary,

participated in shared readings at their reading level, and worked on various activities

related to literacy and language development. What I learned as I analyzed my students’

work during this study was that the majority of the vocabulary and story ideas that they

put on paper during independent work time in the mainstream classroom had stemmed

from shared experiences, stories, and activities that we had worked on during the

morning pull-out times. This finding affirms Thomas and Collier’s (1997) and Mabbott

and Strohl’s (1992) conclusions that some separate schooling can be beneficial and can

serve a very important function for many language minority students. I would like to take

this conclusion one step further and say that it is necessary that newcomer ELLs

participate in some separate schooling for part of each school day. Separate classes, even

for a short period of time each day, are essential for these students to feel comfortable

taking risks and to develop the self-confidence in themselves as learners that are

necessary for their academic success. My findings also suggest that without extensive

adaptations and modifications to the curriculum, newcomers’ time spent in the

mainstream classroom may be wasted with inaccessible lessons and input that is not

comprehensible.

I also determined, however, that the Writer’s Workshop model itself was

beneficial to my newcomer students in a few ways. First, it allowed them to take part in

oral interactions with native and proficient-English speaking peers. This opportunity,

made possible by the inclusion of the ESL students in the mainstream classroom,

eliminated the detrimental effects of the TESOL program (Duke and Mabbott, 2000)

where native English speaking models (other than the teacher) were absent from students’

school experience. While I found that the newcomers often had trouble participating in

turn and talk sessions, they did have the opportunity to experience listening to English

conversations directed towards them and were shown to improve their speaking abilities

as the months went on. They also gained confidence in their speaking and oral interaction

skills during the sharing time. Equally important to the workshop model was the

independent work time. This provided the students a chance to write on their own, for an

extended period of time, on a topic of their choosing. I found this pushed the students to

utilize vocabulary and writing skills they already had, while being challenged to try new

strategies on their own with frequent conferencing from the teacher.

Related to the model itself is the fact that the Writer’s Workshop in place at my

school is intended to be taught collaboratively between the classroom teacher and the

ESL teacher. Cook and Friend (1996) describe co-teachers as being partners for one

another, sharing continually in the design and implementation of the curriculum. Had this

collaboration been implemented as intended in my situation, I predict the newcomers

would have had even more literacy and language successes. As it were, I was the main

planner, facilitator, and evaluator of everything related to the Writer’s Workshop. Mini-

lessons were taught together with my co-teacher only a handful of times. Our joint

planning time, made possible by the administration’s arrangement of coordinated

schedules, entailed my coming to the table with the writing lessons already planned and

explaining to my co-teacher what I was prepared to teach each week. While I cannot

know the success the newcomers could have achieved with two teachers actively

involved in the preparation, delivery, and management of the Writer’s Workshop, I do

believe the experience and expertise of a co-teacher to be invaluable to a classroom of

diverse learners.

Similarly, another conclusion I have made from this investigation is that rich,

thematic language experiences in all content areas help students improve their oral

language and literacy skills and increase their self-confidence and willingness to

participate. I found that my students linked experiences that took place during the 30-

minute pull-out time to content studied during the Writer’s Workshop. If thematic

teaching could occur simultaneously in Reader’s and in Writer’s Workshop, with ESL

and mainstream teachers working collaboratively, then students would have even more

exposure to ideas and themes. For example, if students hear poetry at their level with

highly contextualized language cues during Reader’s Workshop (perhaps in a pulled-

aside group with the ESL teacher), they would then be able to connect that learning to the

study of poetry in Writer’s Workshop. These findings support the NCEE’s (2005)

Essential Practices for ELLs, and also exemplify how thematic, cross-curricular

experiences (such as with the Language Experience Approach) (Taylor, 1992), are

beneficial and necessary for English language learners.

As I began my study, I knew my students’ writing skills would improve as the

year went on, yet I was amazed and thrilled at the gains they made by May. Not only had

they succeeded in mastering a majority of the standards of beginning writing skills, but

they were also participating in conversations about their writing with their peers and with

me. When my study ended, these three students- who in September had come to school

speaking only a handful of English words- were able to write stories about themselves,

carry on conversations about their writing, read their writing aloud, and know the rituals

and routines of Writer’s Workshop. They went above and beyond my expectations.

Another discovery that I made during this investigation was that the newcomers

experienced varying degrees of success depending on the writing genre taught. After

being fully immersed in non-fiction with its straightforward facts, structured format, and

emphasis on mechanics of writing, the newcomers had difficulty transitioning into the

poetry unit. The poetry mini-lessons presented different poems, which the students were

interested in, but when it came time for independent work the newcomers were not sure

of how to proceed. My findings indicate that teaching newcomer English language

learners a unit on poetry during their first year in school is beyond their level of

comprehension, affirming Vygotsky’s (1978) and Krashen’s (1989) views that in order

for input to be comprehensible, instruction must be designed at a developmental level just

above a student’s current level. Poetry was much too abstract and lacking the “rules”

(punctuation, capitalization, sentence structure, literal descriptions) that the newcomers

had been working hard on mastering all year. Once the students were again immersed in

the more concrete, narrative genre of, “Authors as Mentors”, they were again able to feel

successful by writing narrative stories about themselves that were expected to follow the

“rules” of English that they were beginning to pick up.

In sum, I would choose not to teach a unit on poetic language and abstract

thinking to a group of newcomer English language learners in the second grade. I do,

however, see the power of using poetry with newcomers to develop phonemic awareness,

rhyming, intonation, rhythm, and vocabulary. Such activities presented in a pull-out

setting with realia and physical movements would be valuable for newcomers at the

beginning stages of literacy and English language development. These experiences could

then be transferred into writing activities with shared poetry writings or guided practice

following a poetry model.

Implications

The implications of this study for ESL policy-makers suggest that separate pull-

out time for students who are included in mainstream classrooms for most of the day may

not only be helpful, but essential to these students’ learning and emotional well-being.

This study shows that perhaps educators should not be asked to institute 100% inclusion

for newcomer ELLs. To experience success in the mainstream classroom, students may

need smaller-group support in a non-threatening setting away from the mainstream

classroom where beginning language and literacy skills can be taught at the appropriate

level of the students.

Also, literacy learning across all content areas should be connected. If ESL

teachers participate in collaborative preparation and teaching with classroom teachers,

then thematic units that connect Writer’s Workshop with Reader’s Workshop allow

students to hear, see, and manipulate similar ideas throughout the day. Supplemented

with some pull-out time for newcomer ELLs to work on survival vocabulary and

language features, these universal themes and experiences will help students develop

background knowledge and schema to support their future learning in all areas.

The implications of this study for teachers and other educators who work with

curriculum are that adaptations and modifications must be made when working with a

diverse population of students. Curriculum cannot be taken as the be all and end all of

instruction; it must be carefully selected and scrutinized to determine if the needed

adaptations are possible for the teaching situation and group of students being taught.

Limitations

Because the field of ESL, program models, and needs of newcomers ELLs are

very large fields of inquiry, this study was designed to focus on one specific question.

Although the investigation was thorough and fulfilled the purpose of answering the

research question, some limitations of this study clearly exist.

This study only looked at three newcomer English language learners from one

language background in one mainstream classroom. A larger sample size with students

from various language backgrounds could be beneficial in determining if performance in

a mainstream Writer’s Workshop varies across language and cultural backgrounds.

The co-teaching situation during Writer’s Workshop was not as it was designed to

be. Under a true collaboration model, where mainstream and ESL teachers are partners in

the instruction of all students in the classroom, one could determine how teaching

collaboratively affects the writing success of newcomer students.

I was challenged through my research in acting as the teacher (participant) and

observer. It was difficult conducting an hour long Writer’s Workshop, while at the same

time listening in to the conversations of three students and recording observations. Added

to this the fact that I frequently had to manage the entire room of students, the

observation situation was not ideal. Again, had my co-teacher and I had the collaborative

teaching relationship as intended in the inclusive model, perhaps my data collection

would have been easier and I would have procured more useful observational data and

anecdotal notes.

Finally, the data collected in this study was mainly qualitative. The addition of

more quantitative data to complement the qualitative data could benefit a future study.

Future Research

As discussed in the previous section on limitations, the present study leaves ideas

and opportunities for future research. There needs to be additional research with a larger

student sample size containing students of varying racial and linguistic backgrounds. It

would also be beneficial to look at the applicability of this particular writing curriculum

on English language learners of intermediate to advanced English language abilities.

What adaptations would work best for them? Would fewer adaptations be needed for

students at a higher level of English proficiency?

Research in a fully-functional collaborative teaching situation, looking at

observations and data from both a mainstream and ESL teacher, would be extremely

beneficial in determining how ELLs perform in the Writer’s Workshop while immersed

in the mainstream classroom setting. Only when two teachers truly teach collaboratively,

delivering mini-lessons together, conferring with students and keeping anecdotal notes,

and reviewing students’ progress during planning time can the success of all students in

the collaborative inclusion model be determined and analyzed.

Finally, I would like to see research looking at newcomer students who regularly

spend time in the mainstream classroom during Writer’s Workshop with the mainstream

and ESL teachers, but who also have the opportunity to frequently participate in some

pull-out time that solely focuses on writing and is taught by the ESL teacher in a separate

room. In such a situation, vocabulary, concepts, and early literacy writing skills could be

taught ahead of time so that when the students returned to the mainstream classroom for

work time, they would have already had more individualized instruction and scaffolding

to give them a head start on their work for that day. They could then participate in

independent work time and sharing time surrounded by their peers. The outcomes of such

an investigation could then be compared to the outcomes of the present study to

determine if a writing-specific pull-out time would increase the success of the newcomer

students in the Writer’s Workshop.

Communicating and Using Results

I intend to share the results of the present study with my fellow ESL teachers and

mainstream teachers with whom I work on a grade-level team. I also intend to

communicate the results of my investigation with building administrators and literacy

coaches. Administration is concerned with how collaboration is working in our building,

and they need to be aware of the needs and challenges collaboration creates. It is also

important that teachers, parents, and administrators know that full inclusion for

newcomer ELLs may not result in high rates of social and academic success without

some separate time in a small-group setting either within the mainstream classroom or in

a separate space. For society at large, this research contributes to present research

involving instructional approaches to teaching ESL, the most effective service delivery

models, inclusion versus pull-out instruction, and the unique needs of newcomer English

language learners.

As researcher, I have documented and learned a great deal from the results of my

investigation. My future students will benefit from the knowledge I have acquired

because I will continue to advocate for pull-out time or separate small-group time for all

newcomer ELLs. I will also work towards more effective collaboration between my co-

teachers and me so that our students will have the opportunity to benefit from not just

one, but two sources of knowledge and expertise. Finally, when reviewing curriculum, I

am now more knowledgeable about how adaptations and modifications will need to be

made for a classroom of students with a wide range of language abilities. Using the

information I have acquired through this investigation, I now consider myself better

prepared to make adaptations to curriculum or to go off on my own and create something

new so that instruction can be made more accessible to newcomer ELLs. The knowledge

I have attained through the process of working on this investigation will allow me to

contribute positively to conversations and decisions involving the inclusion of newcomer

ELLs and the selection of curriculum with which to teach them.

APPENDIX A

CO-TEACHING ARRANGEMENTS

APPENDIX B

MINNESOTA ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY STANDARDS K-12 WRITING STANDARDS- KINDERGARTEN THROUGH SECOND GRADE

APPENDIX C

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY WRITING STANDARDS- SECOND GRADE

National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) Standards - Second Grade

Students will: Habits and Processes of Writing:

Write daily. Generate their own topics and make decisions about which pieces to work

on over several days or longer. Extend pieces of writing by, for example, turning a narrative into a poem or

a short description into a long report. Regularly solicit and provide useful feedback to others. Routinely reread, revise, edit, and proofread their work. Take on strategies and elements of author’s craft that the class has

discussed in their study of literary works. Apply commonly agreed-upon criteria and their own judgment to assess

the quality of their own work. Polish at least ten pieces throughout the year.

Writing Purposes and Resulting Genres: Narrative Writing

Incorporate some literary or writing language that does not sound like speech.

Create a believable world and introduce characters, using specific details about the characters and settings and developing motives and moods.

Develop internal events as well as external ones, telling not only what happened to a character but also what the character wondered, remembered, and hoped.

Write in the first and third person. Use dialogue effectively.

Report or Informational Writing

Have an obvious organizational structure. Communicate big ideas, insights, or theories that have been elaborated on

or illustrated through facts, details, quotations, statistics, and information. Have a concluding sentence or section. Use diagrams, charts, or illustrations as appropriate to the text.

Functional and Procedural Writing

Establish a context for each piece of writing. Identify the topic. Show the steps in an action with enough detail to follow them.

Include relevant information. Use language that is straightforward and clear. Use pictures frequently to illustrate steps in the procedure.

Producing Literature

Write stories, poems, memoirs, songs, and dramas, conforming to appropriate expectations for each form.

Write a story using styles learned from studying authors and genres. Responding to Literature

Provide a retelling. Write letters to the author, telling what student thinks or asking questions. Make a plausible claim about what has been read. Write variations on texts read, telling the story from a new point of view,

putting in a new setting, altering a crucial character, or rewriting the ending.

Make connections between the text and own ideas and lives. Language Use and Conventions: Style and Syntax

Use sentence patterns typical of spoken language. Incorporate transition words and phrases. Use various embeddings such as phrases and modifiers, as well as

coordination and subordination. Use varying sentence patterns and lengths to slow reading down, speed it

up, or create a mood. Embed literary language where appropriate. Reproduce sentence structures found in the various genres they are

reading. Vocabulary and Word Choice

Use words from their speaking vocabulary in their writing, including words learned from reading and class discussion.

Make word choices that reveal they have a large enough vocabulary to exercise options in word choice.

Make choices about which words to use on the basis of whether they accurately convey the intended meaning.

Extend writing vocabulary by using specialized words related to the topic or setting of their writing.

Spelling

Use a discernible logic to guide spelling of unfamiliar words, making incorrect spellings less random.

Produce writing in which most high-frequency words are spelled correctly. Correctly spell most words with regularly spelled patterns such as

consonant-vowel-consonant. Correctly spell most inflectional endings, including plurals and verb tenses. Use correct spelling patterns and rules most of the time. Use specific spelling strategies during the writing process such as

base/prefix/suffix knowledge and reference materials. Engage in the editing process to correct spelling errors.

Punctuation, Capitalization, and Other Conventions

Use capital letters at the beginnings of sentences. Use periods to end sentences. Approximate the use of quotation marks. Use capital letters and exclamation marks for emphasis. Use question marks. Use common contractions.

National Center on Education and the Economy. (1999). Reading and writing grade by grade: Primary literacy standards for kindergarten through third grade. Pittsburgh, PA: Peake Printers.

APPENDIX D

DAILY CHECKLIST OF BEGINNING WRITING SKILLS

Daily Checklist of Beginning Writing Skills K-2 YES NO SometimesCommunicative Functions Communicates a single, simple written idea (ESL) Labels pictures (ESL) Picture accompanying the writing matches the written words (Researcher’s standard)

Picture is specific to the lesson taught (Researcher’s standard)

Language Features Writes words or phrases (ESL) Spells and combines words with sufficient accuracy (ESL)

Rereads own writing, matching spoken words with words written on paper (NCEE K)

Word Knowledge and Use Uses transitional spelling (try/sound-spelling) independently (ESL)

Punctuation Each sentence begins with a capital letter (NCEE 2nd)

Each sentence ends with a period (NCEE 2nd) Does the writing stay on topic? (Researcher’s standard)

How many words were written this period? (Researcher’s standard)

Notes:

APPENDIX E

CHECKLIST OF OVERALL WRITING PERFORMANCE

Checklist of Overall Writing Performance YES NO SometimesHabits and Processes Writes daily (NCEE 2nd) Generates own content and topics (NCEE K, 2nd) Re-reads own writing (NCEE K, 2nd) Spelling Prints upper and lowercase letters (ESL) Writes left to right and top to bottom (ESL & NCEE K)

Leaves spaces between words (NCEE K) Frequently represents words with initial consonant sound (NCEE K)

Narrative Writing Tells events in chronological order (NCEE K) Includes drawings to support meaning (NCEE K) Report Writing Gathers, collects, shares information (NCEE K) Stays on topic (NCEE K) Vocabulary and Word Choice Uses words in writing that are used in conversations (NCEE K)

Uses words from books read to them (NCEE K) Notes:

APPENDIX F

SAMPLE LUCY CALKINS WRITING LESSON PLAN FROM UNITS OF STUDY FOR PRIMARY WRITING-

NON-FICTION WRITING: PROCEDURES AND REPORTS-

PLANNING EACH CHAPTER: CHOOSING PAPERS AND STRUCTURES

Reproduced with permission from: Calkins, L. (2003). Units of study for primary writing: A yearlong curriculum.

Portsmouth, NH: Firsthand.

APPENDIX G

STUDENT WORK ALL ABOUT BOOK- STUDENT A

APPENDIX H

STUDENT WORK CREATED DURING POETRY WORK TIME STUDENT C

APPENDIX I

STUDENT WORK AND CHECKLISTS REPETITION POEMS

APPENDIX J

STUDENT WORK AUTHORS AS MENTORS UNIT

REFERENCES

Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Bahamonde, C. & Friend, M. (1999). Teaching English language learners: A proposal for

effective service delivery through collaboration and co-teaching. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 10 (1) 1-24.

Boyd-Batstone, P. (2006). Differentiated early literacy for English language learners:

Practical strategies. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon. Calkins, L. (2003). Units of study for primary writing: A yearlong curriculum.

Portsmouth, NH: Firsthand. Cappellini, M. (2005). Balancing reading & language learning: A resource for teaching

English language learners, K-5. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). Teaching pronunciation: A

reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Collier, V. & Thomas, W. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students.

Retrieved December 10, 2005 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/resource/effectiveness/thomas-collier97.pdf

Cook, L. & Friend, M. (1996). Co-teaching: What’s it all about? Reprinted from CEC

Today, September. Cummins, J. (1994) The acquisition of English as a second language. In K. Spangenberg-

Urbschat & R. Pritchard (Eds.), Kids come in all languages: Reading instruction for ESL students, pp. 36-62. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Duke, K. & Mabbott, A. (2000). An alternative model for novice-level elementary ESL

education. MinneTESOL/WiTESOL Journal, 17, 11-30. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2000). Making content comprehensible for

English language learners: The SIOP model. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

English as a Second Language. (2006). English Language Learner Programs Fact Sheet. Retrieved September 4, 2006, from http://www.ell.spps.org/sites/f6151329-e58b-4abc-8e3f-3005439078c7/uploads/ESL_programs.pdf

Fadiman, A. (1997). The spirit catches you and you fall down: A Hmong child, her

American doctors, and the collision of two cultures. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Friedlander, M. (1991). The newcomer program: Helping immigrant students succeed in

U.S. schools. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, 8. Retrieved October 23, 2005 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/pigs/pig8.htm

Friend, M. & Barsack, W. (1990). Including students with special needs: A practical

guide for classroom teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gibbons, G. (1999). The pumpkin book. New York: Holiday House. Gibbons, P. (2002) Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second

language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Greenfield, E. (1978). Honey, I love. New York: Harper Collins. Hmong Cultural Center. (2006). St. Paul, Minnesota. Website, retrieved March 1, 2006,

from http://www.hmongcenter.org/index.html Johnson, A. (1994). Joshua’s night whispers. New York: Orchard Books. Johnson, A. (1992). The leaving morning. New York: Orchard Books.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. New York: Longman. Krashen, S. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New Jersey:

Englewood Cliffs. Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence

for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464. Krashen, S. (1992). Fundamentals of language education. Lincolnwood, IL: Laredo

Publishing. Language Academy Handbook. (2004-2005). English Language Learner Programs. Saint

Paul Public Schools.

Language Academy Program. (2006). English Language Learner Programs Fact Sheet. Retrieved September 4, 2006, from http://www.ell.spps.org/sites/f6151329-e58b-4abc-8e3f-3005439078c7/uploads/Language_Academy.pdf

Lawrence Hall of Science. (2001). New plants. University of California at Berkeley.

Delta Education: Author. Lee, T. P., and Pfeifer, M. E. (2005). Building bridges: Learning about the Hmong.

Hmong Cultural and Resource Center, St. Paul, MN. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://www.learnabouthmong.org/presentation/hmong101_files/frame.htm

Lindfors, J. W. (1989). The classroom: A good environment for language learning. In P.

Rigg and V. G. Allen (Eds.), When they don’t all speak English: Integrating the ESL students into the regular classroom, pp. 39-54. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Martinsen-Holt, N. (2004). Pull-out to collaboration: Becoming an effective ELL co-

teacher. Unpublished master’s thesis, Hamline University, Saint Paul, Minnesota. Mabbott, A. S. & Strohl, J. (1992). Pull-in programs- A new trend in ESL education?

MinneTESOL Journal, 10, 21-30. Mohan, B. (1986). Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Minnesota Department of Education. (2005). Minnesota English Language Proficiency

Standards for English Language Learners K-12. Retrieved January 21, 2006 from http://education.state.mn.us/mde/static/002201.pdf

Minnesota Department of Education. (2005). Program Models. Retrieved November 12,

2005 from, http://education.state.mn.us/mde/Learning_Support/English_Language_Learners/Manual/002097.html

Murawski, W. W. & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching

research: Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258-267. National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). (2001). Author’s chair

monograph. Washington, D. C.: America’s Choice, by National Center on the Education and the Economy.

National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). (2005). Bridging into English:

Literary lessons for English language learners. Washington, D. C.: America’s Choice, by National Center on Education and the Economy.

National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). (1999). Reading and writing grade by grade: Primary literacy standards for kindergarten through third grade. Pittsburgh, PA: Peake Printers.

Pellegrini, A. D. (1996). Observing children in their natural worlds: A methodological

primer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Project for Academic Excellence. (2004.) Literacy Initiative. Writer’s

Workshop Training Handbook. St. Paul, MN: Saint Paul Public Schools. Spangenberg-Urbschat, K. & Pritchard, R. (Eds.) (1994). Kids come in all languages:

Reading Instruction for ESL Students. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Student Demographics. (2006). English Language Learner Programs Fact Sheet.

Retrieved September 4, 2006, from http://www.ell.spps.org/sites/f6151329-e58b-4abc-8e3f-3005439078c7/uploads/Student_demographics.pdf

Taylor, M. (1992). The language experience approach and adult learners. National

Clearinghouse on Literacy Education Washington, DC. Retrieved February 19, 2006 from http://www.ericdigests.org/1993/approach.htm

Trapani, I. (1994). Twinkle, twinkle little star. New York: Scholastic. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watts-Taffe, S. & Truscott, D. M. (2000). Using what we know about language and

literacy development for ESL students in the mainstream classroom. Language Arts, 77, 258-263.

Welch, M., Brownell, K., & Sheridan, S. (1999). What’s the score and game plan on

teaming in schools? A review of the literature on team teaching and school-based problem solving teams. Remedial and Special Education, 20(1), 36-49.

Zigmond, Naomi. (2001). Special education at a crossroads. Preventing School Failure,

45(2), 70-4.