Effective Strategies for
Developing Academic English:
A Study of Classroom Practices
Shanan Fitts, PhD, Appalachian State University
Erica Bowers, EdD, University of California, Fullerton
SE TESOL 2009
Atlanta, GA
Rationale for Study

Increased testing mandates for ELLs

English learners struggle with text-level
comprehension (August & Shanahan, 2006)

Long-term English learners (Freeman & Freeman,
2009)

Teachers of English language learners report feeling illprepared (Coley & Coleman, 2004).

Increased focus on the concept of academic English in
PD and instructional programs

Teaching advanced literacy is complicated (Fillmore &
Snow, 2000)
2
Purpose of Study
 Observe
upper elementary teachers
to see what strategies they used to
build their students’ proficiency in
academic English
 Observe
of ELLs
classes with high percentages
Research Questions

What kinds of classroom teaching practices
are upper elementary teachers using to help
students develop advanced proficiency with
comprehending and using academic English?
◦ Which kinds of strategies do teachers report to be
effective?
◦ Are these reported strategies observed in the
classroom?
◦ Which strategies appeared to be effectively
implemented?
◦ Of those strategies observed, which needed further
practice, explanation, or development?
Academic Literacy
Students must be
able to develop:
 Vocabulary
 Syntax
 Discourse genres
& Registers
 Identities
(Bailey, 2007; Gee, 1996; Gottlieb, 2006)
Large urban school district in
Southern CA

Classrooms leveled according to student
test performance
◦ 4- Excel or Enriched
◦ 1- Literacy
◦ 3- no special designation
All had students identified as ELL
 “Normal” & Literacy classrooms higher %
of ELLs at beginning & intermediate levels

Teacher Selection

Original pool of 108 survey participants

28 teachers consented to participate
observations

8 agreed to observations
Teacher Selection
High Self-Report Low Self-Report
on Survey of
on Survey of
Strategies Used Strategies Used
=> 3.0/4.0
=<3.0/4.0
High Test Scores
(=>65% proficient or
advanced on CST in ELA)
1
4
1
2
Lower Test Scores
(=<49% proficient or
advanced on CST in ELA)
Overview of the PD
Year 4 of district PD for Language Arts (SB
1066)
 A Focused Approach (Dutro& Moran, 2003; EL Achieve)
◦ Form & Function
◦ Brick words– topic specific
◦ Mortar words– grammatical forms & general
vocabulary
◦ Use of sentence stems
◦ Frontloading (preteaching)
◦ Opportunities for sts to practice language
Overview of the Classroom
Observations

Researcher-developed protocol

Two researchers observed each lesson

4-6 lessons observed in each room

Four broad areas:
◦ Schema building
◦ Comprehensible input
◦ Explicit Teaching of Concepts and Skills
◦ Providing Opportunities for Practice
Overview of the Classroom
Observations

0-3 Rating scale
◦ 0 = Not Observed
◦ 1= Shows ineffective implementation; limited
understanding of strategies. Done w/out
considering sts needs
◦ 2= Partial implementation. Meeting some sts.
needs & trying to take some sts. needs/prior
knowledge into consideration
◦ 3= Effective implementation of strategy. Meets
the needs of the student.
A Portrait of an Effective Teacher

Higher level of student
engagement

Higher teacher engagement

Differentiation

Applying strategies
thoughtfully

Responding to needs of sts

Aware of strengths &
weaknesses

Look to teaching not
blaming sts
Findings for each area
Effective Schema Building

Activate prior knowledge (student’s
personal experiences)

Link past to prior content learning

Use of graphic organizers or semantic
webs to assess & elicit prior knowledge

Preview or teaching vocabulary
T: ….what kind of map is this?
 SS: Bridge map.
 T: the line on this bridge map is going to represent “means.”
Where have you heard ped or pod before? Hands down, I want
to give you time to think. (2 sec) Okay share with your table.
 SS: i-pod
 T: not a brand name
 (T uses selector spinner on overhead to select students from
tables to share.)
 St: pedicure.
 (T writes on the circle map and asks st what the word means).
 (Other sts offer words and informal definitions.)
 T: okay we have lots of words that have ped in them (names
words and underlines the ped part of the word). I want you to
think on your own—what do all of these words have in
common (no wait time for thinking here) talk to your table.
 St—they all have ped.
 T: we already know that they all have ped—I want you to think
about the meaning of the words. What do all of the meanings
have in common?

Effective Comprehensive Input
Emphasizes distinctive features of new
concepts
 Provides examples and/or non-examples to
illustrate new skills/concepts/strategies
 Breaks down skills /strategies/concepts into
smaller/simpler components
 Provides clear input about the concept or
content
 Clarifies instructions
 Wait time
 Leveled questions or tasks

Comprehensible Input

Teachers emphasize key concepts & vocab
◦ Repetition
◦ Choral response
◦ Visuals

Teachers are animated:
◦ Gestures, expression, engaged teaching

Teachers chunk & scaffold:
◦ Reading around the room
Comprehensible
Input
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/092002/images/gold_panning.jpg
Clarifies Instructions

What tools will we be using? (the pick and
the shovel)

Wrote the different mining techniques that
they had discussed on the board

Rephrases to clarify: What is the same about
those pictures? What is one similarity?
Emphasizes distinct features of concepts and
provides examples

Used hands-on activity to emphasize some of the difficulties
encountered in gold mining

Used visuals to teach about mining techniques and about gold.

Has visuals on the PP and hands out visuals for each method of
mining

“Are the pictures I just passed out modern or from 1848?—what’s
different about this picture?”

Used choral repetition to emphasize some key vocab and concepts.
For example, “everyone say ore. That’s a noun; it’s not the same as
“o-r”

“You swirl it around in the water and then what did we say, is gold
heavier or lighter than the water?” SS: “Heavier!”

Key words and idea are underlined or in italics in the PowerPoint.
Explicit Teaching

Models processes and skills, strategies, or
concepts

Strategy Instruction

Use of Expository Text

Instruct academic language

Explicitly teaches vocabulary
Writing Leveled Questions to
Prepare for a Socratic Seminar
Critical Thinking Question Stems
How did ____ feel about ____?
 What was ______ probably like?
 How is _____ different from ____?
 Why couldn’t ____ do ________?
 Why did _______ do ________?
 Why was ______________?
 How did ____________?
 What caused the __________ to ______?
 What will ____ do next?
 What probably would have happened if
__________?

Modeling with the Titanic
“I have these stems that are gonna help me. A good idea
is to find a fact and go from there. Here’s an interesting
fact: The Titanic was thought to be the world’s first
unsinkable ship. I’m gonna go with this first stem. How did
the passengers feel about being on an unsinkable ship?”
 (Sts. discuss this question with tables and with the class).
 “Okay, so first I’m going to find an interesting fact;
something that makes me think. Here’s one (T underlines
the fact on the overhead)—the fact that only 700 people
got on life boats, but the life boats were suppose to be for
1178 people—that makes me think… that makes me
confused… so I’m gonna ask: “what caused the boat to
carry only 700 people”

Opportunities for Practice

Students orally elaborate concepts

Variety of grouping strategies

Students use content language

Teachers integrate more than one
language skill

Writing in content areas

Students practice academic language
Students are given time to explain
their ideas
Lesson on colonial America:
 Ss had opportunities to tell something they
learned about life in colonial times during the
previous day’s activity.
 “Scholars, if I didn’t call on you, please turn to
your neighbor and tell them what you were going
to say.”
e.g.
 S: traveling wasn’t for fun in colonial times.
 T: what do you mean?
 S: well they didn’t go on vacations or cruises.
 T: so when they traveled it was because they had
to and not for fun. Good point.
Opportunities for Practice

Half of the teachers we observed
provided very few structured
opportunities for students to practice and
apply academic language
Summary of findings
Teachers that rated higher…
Teachers that rated lower…
Used graphic organizers effectively
Used some graphic organizers, but with
a lot of teacher talk
Used leveled questions & sentence
stems
Followed scripted curriculum; not
Used explicit teaching but also
allowed for student construction of always aware of Ss needs, interest, or
level of comprehension.
knowledge
Used a variety of grouping
strategies to scaffold student
participation
Relied mostly on whole class teaching
with less structured use of grouping
strategies
Gave students opportunities to
elaborate or clarify ideas and oral
output
Used I-R-E which allowed for shorter
responses from students
Limitations of current study
Limited number of observations in each
teacher’s class
 All observations conducted at end of the
year within one month
 Unable to collect detailed data on student
output
 Using CST scores to measure efficacy of
teacher when classes are leveled

Conclusion

All teachers were using strategies learned in PD
◦ Some following script
◦ Others incorporating these into their approach and
responding to Ss needs


Each area reinforces the others
Connecting theory to practice:
◦ Some teachers seemed to understand why particular
strategies were important and were able to communicate
that to students
◦ Variation in teachers’ ability to incorporate and apply
strategies



Teachers applied GATE training
Limitations of scripted curricula
What is our definition of effective?
◦ Is effective just a matter of getting the S achievement on
standardized tests?
References
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (2006). Developing literacy in second-language
learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and
youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bailey, A. L. (Ed.). (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to
the test. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Coley, R. J. & Coleman, A. B. (2004). The fourth-grade reading classroom: Policy
information report . Princeton, NJ; Educational Testing Service. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 485193)
Dutro, S. & Moran, C. (2003) Rethinking English language instruction: An
architectural approach. In G. Garcia (Ed.), English language learners: Reaching the
highest level of English literacy. Newark: IRA.
E. L. Achieve. (n.d.). Focused approach - Overview presentation. Retrieved July 29,
2009, from http://www.elachieve.org/
Freeman, D. E., & Freeman,Y. S. (2009). Academic language for English language
learners and struggling readers: How to help students succeed across the content
areas.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English Language Learners: Bridges from language
proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement.
Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
32