An oral and conceptual
framework for L2 academic
language development
HANNAH COWELL
MATESOL CANDIDATE
EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Introduction and Abstract
2
Abstract:
 This presentation provides a critical and
sociocultural framework to understand L2 social
language proficiency’s role in L2 academic language
development.
 This topic pertains to adult or adolescent English
learners of limited literacy and/or academic
language competence in their L1.
 Participants will gain insight into oral language
development strategies which will develop academic
language and conceptual thought in the L2.
Blueprint: Where are we going?
3












Introduction and abstract
The achievement gap & a literature gap
My research questions
My background and personal interest in the topic
Distinguish between different types of language
Relationship between L1 and L2 cognitive academic language
proficiency (CALP)
My conceptual framework for understanding and teaching CALP
The role oral language plays in academic development through
vocabulary, structures, and instructional/corrective techniques
Pedagogical implications for language teachers, including linguistic,
metacognitive and oral language strategies
References
Future research and conclusion
Contact information
A gap in the literature on the achievement gap
4
 Achievement gap between English Learners (ELs) and monolingual
English-speaking peers in academic areas is well documented
 ELs often seem to be proficient in English yet the gap in reading,
math, and other academic content areas generally worsens over
time instead of improving (Cummins, 1982, 1984)
 General academic proficiency represents access to higher
education, gainful employment, etc. (Cummins, 2012)
 Low L1 literacy students may come from a culture where print
literacy is not part of the process of socialization but oral literacy is
 Bias toward developing academic proficiency through reading and
writing, not speaking and listening (Soto-Hinman, 2011)
 Studies have traditionally focused on positive academic language
transfer among students who were literate and/or had some formal
schooling in their L1 (Bigelow, Delmas, Hansen, & Tarone, 2006)
Framing my research questions
In this presentation I
will propose a
critical,
conceptual, and
culturally sensitive
framework through
which to explore these
questions:
1. What are the necessary
components of English
CALP and how can
learners with low L1
literacy acquire them?
2. How can L2 oral
language development
and fluency promote
the development of L2
CALP?
My
background
and why I care
6
My background and personal interest
7
 Story telling and oral literacy but little value for/access to print
 Need for academic language in jobs, educational opportunities
 Widespread use of communicative techniques in EFL classes
 How could I teach academic language effectively so my
students could read and write proficiently in English?
 Limited research on CALP related to these types of students
 Reading and writing (which may be initially out of reach for
these learners) often emphasized as THE way to develop CALP,
particularly in my SLA textbooks and even occasionally my
methods book
 CALP (as defined in its broadest sense) is a social, economic,
academic, and employment gateway—it must be accessible to
all learners!
Cummins’ (1982) different types of language
8
BICS
CALP
 Basic Interpersonal
 Cognitive Academic
Communication Skills
 Used in social and casual
interactions
 “Playground language”
 Acquired in 1-2 years
 Context-embedded
 Cognitively
undemanding
 Associated with listening
and speaking
Language Proficiency
 Used in formal and school
settings
 Underlying proficiency
needed for academic
success
 Acquired in 5-7 years
 Context-reduced
 Cognitively demanding
 Associated with reading
and writing
9
Cummins’
Framework
for BICS/CALP
Four quadrants:
Quadrant 1:
Cognitively undemanding
+ context-embedded
Quadrant 2:
Cognitively undemanding
+ context-reduced
Quadrant 3:
Cognitively demanding +
context-embedded
Quadrant 4:
Cognitively demanding +
context-reduced
Taken from Roessingh (2006)
10
The four
quadrants of
BICS/CALP
1. “Here and
now”
2. “My lived
experience”
3. “There and
then”
4. Metaphoric
competence
Taken from Roessingh (2006)
11
BICS, CALP,
CUP – the
acronyms keep
Cummin’
Cummins (1984)
proposed a “Common
Underlying Proficiency”
or CUP between L1 &
L2
Potential for CALP
cross-linguistic transfer
CUP addresses
relationship between
language and thought
Also called the
“Interdependence
Hypothesis”
Ideal representation of Common Underlying
Proficiency (CUP) between L1 and L2
Taken from Roessingh (2003)
Metacognition and CALP
12
 Directing attention
 Metaphorical & symbolic
 Setting goals
 Abstract concepts
 Exploring multiple
 Complex relationships






meanings
Making inferences
Drawing conclusions
Evaluating information
Synthesizing information
Comparing/contrasting
Persuading
 Relates thought to




language
Using learning strategies
Applying prior knowledge
Linguistic transfer
strategies
Pragmatic, Strategic,
Discourse competences
A critical and sociocultural framework for
understanding CALP
13
CALP = specialized vocab + complex syntactic structures?
 CALP is more than the sum of its linguistic parts
 It is academic language + cognitive proficiency (Roessingh, 2003)
 Don’t forget about Vygosky: Language + verbal thought (Bylund, 2011)
 Self-regulatory and metacognitive processes
 Discourse types and literacies vary across cultures (Saville-Troike, 2007)
 Dynamic, socioculturally and educationally-mediated process
 Even cognitive abilities are socioculturally mediated! (Example of oral
literacy) (Aukerman, 2007)
 All meaningful language has a context (Aukerman, 2007)
 Expand ability in identifying, creating & expanding (para)linguistic contexts
 Re-contextualization of familiar social forms as academic metaphors
Oral Language and CALP: Dialogical possibilities
14
 CALP is not merely linguistic structure, but vocab and
syntax are crucial in academic development (Saville-Troike,
2007)
 L2 Oral fluency creates automaticity of processing (freeing
up mental resources for metacognition)
 Some learners are more comfortable learning through the
oral medium
 Oral language and “academic talk” can provide scaffolding
for CALP development (Soto-Hinman, 2011)
 Output elicited from ELs tends to be BICS rather than CALPoriented
 Oral language can support vocabulary, academic structure &
syntax when appropriate instructional and corrective
techniques are used
Oral Language: Vocabulary
15
o Acquiring a word for recognition and automatic retrieval
o
o
o
o
o
requires multiple meaningful encounters (Saville-Troike, 2007)
Enough encounters are not likely to be garnered through reading
alone
To decipher a word from context clues, the reader must
understand 95% of the other words in the text
ELs have a significant vocabulary gap when compared with
monolingual English speaking peers
BICS-type speech only requires about 2,000 words, while CALPoriented speech can require 20,000 words or more (Roessingh,
2006)
Oral structured practice can provide the extra support ELs need
to close this gap
Oral Language: Structures
16
o The most troubling language for ELs tends to be figurative
o
o
o
o
o
and idiomatic language (idioms, phrasal verbs, formulaic
sequences) (Guduru, 2011)
These structures often represent cognitive processes,
complex relationships, and abstract concepts
Multi-word “syntagmatic” chunks are hard to decipher
There is need for explicit instruction and practice in a
medium that students feel naturally comfortable with, i.e.
oral language
Cooperative learning of these forms promotes self-analysis
and reflection on meaning and metaphor
Students with low L1 literacy may rely more on semantic
processing rather than morphosyntactic awareness
Oral Language: Classroom Methods
17
Instructional Techniques
o Explicit instruction!
o Cooperative learning
o Engage with texts
through oral language
o Negotiate meaning
through interaction
o Recognize students’
unique abilities such as
semantic processing,
memorization, and
strategic competence
Corrective Techniques
o Direct metalinguistic
feedback
o Create awareness when
using recasting
o Focus on errors that DO
NOT impede meaning –
these are most likely to
fossilize
o Repeat, repeat, repeat
and be patient!
CALP Summary & Model
18
Automaticity
of processing
Socioculturally and educationally-mediated
Content-area vocab,
passive voice,
subordinates, relative
clauses, etc.
Specialized vocab and
complex syntax
Idioms, cohesive ties,
logical connectors,
discourse markers,
formulaic sequences
Figurative language &
metalinguistic messages
Summarize, infer,
compare, evaluate,
conclude, selfregulation strategies
Metacognition, abstract
thought, and metaphorical
relationships
Linguistic CALP: Pedagogical Implications
19
 Explicit instruction of specialized, content-area vocab and
complex syntactical structures
 Use collocations by grouping words together; create
semantic maps and group vocabulary meaningfully
 Create dual-language projects/presentations (Cummins,
2012)
 Allow for translation/clarification in the L1
 Model and structure output of formulaic language such as
cohesive ties, logical connectors, discourse markers
 Give explicit corrective feedback especially regarding
errors that do not impede meaning
 Use non-verbal cues to signal correction through recasting
(Saville-Troike, 2007)
Metacognitive CALP: Pedagogical Implications
20
 Teach substantiating thoughts from a text
 Assign roles of summarizing, questioning, predicting,
analyzing, and connecting within group work (Guduru, 2011)
 Show students how to paraphrase and guess from contextual
clues; this can lead to self-reflection
 Teach language, learning, and transference strategies
explicitly
 Make use of thematic units which activate prior knowledge
 Encourage peer response and peer editing groups (after
extensive and structured modeling)
 Model questioning and peer response techniques to elicit
more elaborate responses
Oral Language: Pedagogical Implications
21
 Scaffold students’ oral production through repetition,
paraphrasing, expansion, elaboration, sentence completion,
substitution frames, vertical construction, and
comprehension checks (Saville-Troike, 2007)
 Shadow an EL to assess their use and comprehension of
“academic talk” (Soto-Hinman, 2011)
 Model and demonstrate genuine questioning
 Cooperative techniques such as “think-pair-share”
 Use techniques that promote fluency & automatic
processing such as rehearsal, repetition, consciousnessraising, and use of formulaic sequences and discourse
markers
References
22











Aukerman, M. (2007). A culpable CALP: Rethinking the conversational/academic language
proficiency distinction in early literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 626-635. doi:
10.1598/RT.60.7.3
Bigelow, M., Delmas, R., Hansen, K., & Tarone, E. (2006). Literacy and the processing of
oral recasts in SLA. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 665-689. Stable url:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264303
Bylund, J. (2011). Thought and second language: A Vygotskian framework for understanding
BICS and CALP. Communiqué, 39(5), 4-6.
Cummins, J. (1982). Bilingualism and minority language children. Toronto, ON: OISE Press.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy.
London: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2012). The intersection of cognitive and sociocultural factors in the development of
reading comprehension among immigrant students. Reading and Writing, 25(8), 1973-1990. doi:
10.1007/s11145-010-9290-7
Guduru, R. K. (2011). Enhancing ESL learners’ idiom competence: Bridging the gap between
BICS and CALP. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 1(4), 540-556.
Lightbrown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2011). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Roessingh, H. (2006). BICS-CALP: An introduction for some, a review for others. TESL Canada
Journal, 2, 91-96.
Saville-Troike, M. (2007). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Soto-Hinman, I. (2011). Increasing academic oral language development using English language
learner shadowing in classrooms. Multicultural Education, 18(2), 20-23.
Future Research & Conclusion
23
 Lastly, further research is
needed, particularly in
the area of L1-L2 CALP
transfer in L1 illiterate or
low L1 literacy learners
(Bigelow, Delmas,
Hansen, & Tarone,
2006). This population
is often understudied yet
needs access to CALP
just as much as more
literate students.
 Remember the
importance of explicit
instruction in the area of
CALP whether using the
oral or print medium.
 Good teaching does not
happen by accident and
students cannot run
unless we teach them to
crawl first.
24
Please feel free to
contact me!
hcowell@g.emporia.edu
785-383-5177
Hannah Cowell
Emporia State
University
TESOL Program,
Box 4023
Department of IDT TESOL
1200 Commercial St
Emporia, KS 66801
To view a voice-embedded form of
this presentation, please visit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
5Cyc83bTGDw&feature=youtu.be