Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners: Is Being a Good Teacher Good Enough?

Full text

Ester J. de Jong & Candace A. Harper
101
Teacher Education Quarterly, Spring 2005
Preparing Mainstream Teachers
for English-Language Learners:
Is Being a Good Teacher Good Enough?
By Ester J. de Jong & Candace A. Harper
Introduction
More and more teachers find themselves teaching students from increasingly
diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. In a recent report (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2002), 42% of the teachers surveyed indicated that they had
English Language Learners (ELLs) in their classroom, but only 12.5% of these
teachers had received more than eight hours of professional development specifi-
cally related to ELLs (NCES, 2002). The significant achievement gap between
language minority and language majority students (Moss & Puma, 1995), along
with an educational climate that encourages inclusionary practices rather than
separate, specialized programs, make it imperative that teacher preparation pro-
grams examine the knowledge, skills, and disposi-
tions that mainstream teachers need to develop in
order to work effectively with both ELLs and fluent
English speakers (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004).
The purpose of this article is to present a frame-
work that identifies areas of expertise necessary for
mainstream teachers to be prepared to teach in class-
rooms with native and non-native English speakers.
Currently, explicit attention to the linguistic and
cultural needs of ELLs is lacking in most teacher
Ester J. de Jong and
Candace A. Harper are
professors in the School
of Teaching and
Learning of the College
of Education at the
University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.

Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners
102
preparation programs. A recent AACTE survey of 417 institutes of higher educa-
tion found that fewer than one in six required any preparation for mainstream
elementary or secondary teachers regarding the education of ELLs (Menken &
Antunez, 2001). This finding suggests a tacit assumption that the preparation of
teachers for diverse, native English-speaker classrooms can be easily extended to
include ELLs. In this article we show that, while good teaching practices for native
English speakers are often relevant for ELLs, they will be insufficient to meet their
specific linguistic and cultural needs (e.g., Grant & Wong, 2003).
The article consists of three parts. In the first part we examine the gap between
good teaching practices for fluent English speakers and effective practices for ELLs
as derived from assumptions about language and literacy development. The second
part explores this knowledge and skill gap in the domain of culture. Based on these
discussions, we then propose a framework that describes the nature of the knowl-
edge and skills that teachers must have in addition to what they acquire through their
regular teacher preparation.
JGT and ELLs
The failure to include bilingual or English as a second language (ESL) courses
as an integral part of teacher preparation stems, at least in part, from the assumption
that teaching ELLs is a matter of pedagogical adaptations that can easily be
incorporated into a mainstream teacher’s existing repertoire of instructional strat-
egies for a diverse classroom. Teaching ELLs is considered a matter of applying
“just good teaching” (JGT) practices developed for a diverse group of native
English speakers, such as activating prior knowledge, using cooperative learning,
process writing, and graphic organizers or hands-on activities.
Indeed, general education discussions assume English language and U.S.-based
cultural experiences for all students. For example, the national content standards
(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000; National Council of Teachers
of English, 1996; National Academy of Sciences, 1995; National Council for the
Social Studies, 1994) describe the disciplinary knowledge base of the content area and
good teaching practices but fail to explain the linguistic foundation underlying these
effective content classrooms. Yet students are expected to learn new information
through reading texts, participate actively in discussions, and use language to
represent their learning by presenting oral reports and preparing research papers.
These extraordinary language and literacy demands remain invisible. By tacitly
assuming that students already possess an oral and literacy base in English for learning
academic content, the national standards documents reflect the JGT, native-speaker
perspective. While there is an emphasis on creating classrooms where students will
“talk to learn,” there is no consideration of how students will “learn to talk,” which
is the additional task facing the second-language learner (Gibbons, 1998a). It is not
surprising, therefore, that recommendations for teacher preparation do not specify the

Ester J. de Jong & Candace A. Harper
103
pedagogical tools teachers need to provide ELLs with equal access to these high-
quality content classrooms (Dalton, 1998).
While we acknowledge the importance and relevance of many JGT practices,
we argue in the sections below that reliance on this approach overlooks the needs
of ELLs within the domains of language and culture. As shown in Figure 1, we
believe that while JGT teacher preparation is an integral part of preparing main-
stream teachers to work with ELLs, teachers must also have the opportunity to
systematically develop additional knowledge and skills related to the domains of
language and culture in order to be effective in integrated classrooms that include
native and non-native speakers of English.
The Language Domain: Making English Visible
Awareness of language development patterns of native English speakers is
important for teachers and can result in classroom practices that support the
language and literacy development of ELLs. However, teachers also need to
understand basic characteristics of second language development and the relation-
ship between first-language (L1) and second-language (L2) learning. Too much
reliance on the similarities between L1 and L2 development may overlook the
impact of differences between L1 and L2 learning on effective oral language and
literacy development and academic achievement for ELLs.
Oral Language Needs
The JGT perspective emphasizes the parallels between the processes of L1 and
L2 oral language development. Both L1 and L2 learners (especially very young
learners) acquire much oral language naturally and without explicit instruction.
Moreover, both groups tend to proceed through stages from simple one-word
Preparation for diverse classrooms, including ELLs
Mainstream teacher preparation: Specific Effective
Preparation for diverse classrooms. ELL-related teaching
knowledge for native
and skills English speakers
and ELLs
LANGUAGE CULTURE
Figure 1
Effective Teacher Preparation for Integrated Classrooms
➛
➛
➛

Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners
104
utterances to complex sentence structures. Many recommended classroom prac-
tices for L1 learners, when based on constructivist and social interactionist
perspectives (Bruner, 1986; Vygotksy, 1978; Wells, 1986, 1981), correspond with
those recommended for L2 oral language development, such as a teacher guiding
a class discussion of authentic literature and teaching new vocabulary in context
(Peregoy & Boyle, 2001). Teachers must also understand, however, the implica-
tions of the differences between L1 and L2 learning for their classroom practices.
First, while L2 learners do progress through different oral development stages,
often including a pre-production (or silent) phase, mainstream teachers cannot
equate limited language production with limited academic or cognitive ability, as
they might do for first language learners. Many L2 learners have had previous
language and academic learning experiences, are cognitively mature, and can
therefore understand significantly more than they can demonstrate through oral
language. Without understanding the complex relationship between cognition and
language proficiency for ELLs, mainstream teachers rely on low-level recall or
knowledge questions when questioning second-language learners with limited
speaking skills (de Jong & Derrick-Mescua, 2003; Kinsella, 2000), or refrain from
asking questions at all in anticipation that ELLs will be unable to respond (Schinke-
Llano, 1983; Verplaetse, 2000). In order to avoid watering down the curriculum for
ELLs, teachers must be able to systematically assess and provide a variety of
question forms appropriate to ELLs’ proficiency levels (e.g., requiring non-verbal,
one-word, or extended responses), while keeping the cognitive demand challeng-
ing. For example, students who can respond only non-verbally in English can be
asked to draw the most important causes of the Civil War and do not have to be
limited to pointing to maps or labeling major sites or people.
Second, while many good L1 teachers understand the role of oral communica-
tion for learning (Cazden, 2001; Edwards & Westgate, 1994) and organize their
classroom to enable students to “name, organize, and process information while
learning to read and write” (Chaney & Burke, 1998, p. 2), they may overlook the
fact that ELLs often need more explicit scaffolding, particularly in performing
academic tasks. Working with native speakers may lead teachers to assume that
ELLs have a similar level of oral language proficiency in English by the time they
enter school or, if not, that their L2 oral language development will proceed quickly
and easily. While this might be true for language proficiency related to the
immediate social context, academic language proficiency develops at a much more
gradual pace, as ELLs attempt to catch up with the developing school-related
language skills of their native English-speaking peers (Cummins, 2000; Thomas &
Collier, 1997). If mainstream teachers do not recognize this distinction between
social and academic language proficiency, they may not pay explicit attention to the
level and development of (academic) oral proficiency for ELLs. Instead, ELLs will
be expected to acquire all aspects of their L2 “by osmosis”; i.e., it is assumed that
simply being in an English-language environment and interacting with native

Ester J. de Jong & Candace A. Harper
105
speakers through cooperative learning structures will suffice for language develop-
ment (Harper & Platt, 1998). While cooperative learning is important, teachers need
to understand that exposure to native speakers will not necessarily result in
interaction (Valdés, 2001). Moreover, all interaction will not automatically result
in language learning (Watts-Taffe & Truscott, 1998) and academic language often
requires explicit modeling and instructional focus (Echevarria et al., 2004; Tang,
1992). Structured opportunities for ELLs to actively engage in the process of
negotiating meaning through academic language must become an integral part of
curriculum planning (Gibbons, 2002).
Assuming a student’s command over the English language also leads many
mainstream teachers to remain unaware of the role of language in the classroom. As
native speakers of English, many teachers do not realize that even the most
straightforward classroom language can be confusing for ELLs and can limit access
to learning. The challenge of idioms and other commonly used, non-literal expres-
sions in spoken English as well as teachers’ use of colloquial language to manage
the classroom or convey information may be incomprehensible to the ELL student
(Harklau, 1999). Teachers direct students to “take things down,” “make things up,”
“knock it off,” “hang on,” and “hang in there.” At a recent teachers’ meeting, a fifth
grade classroom teacher confided to an ESL colleague that, well into the school
year, an ESL student had lingered after class to ask her quietly (and privately),
“Teacher, what means ‘raise your hand to speak’?” (Pichard, 2002, personal
communication). Good teachers of ELLs monitor their own language use and that
of their students to provide the necessary verbal and non-verbal support structures
for classroom participation and learning.
Finally, mainstream teachers typically have little experience with strategies
that are unique to the bilingual student. While working with native English
speakers, they will not encounter bilingual phenomena such as native language
transfer (Odlin, 1987) or communication strategies such as code switching (Meyers-
Scotton & Jake, 2001; Zentella, 1997). They may incorrectly assume that the use
of the L1 reflects the students’ inability to perform in English and perceive the L1
merely as a crutch in academic learning (or worse, a hindrance to learning in
English). They may misinterpret a lag in second-language production skills as a
“language delay” or borrowing from the native language as “language confusion.”
As a result, they may inappropriately refer the student for special education
services, enforce an English-only policy in their classroom, or tell students and
parents to speak only English. In judging ELLs’ oral skills, teachers may also focus
on their students’ pronunciation as a primary indicator of language proficiency.
This may distract them from considering other, more important language dimen-
sions for academic success, such as grammar, vocabulary, and discourse compe-
tence. Teachers therefore need to develop an understanding of what is developmen-
tally “normal” for bilingual children. They need to be able to interpret bilingual
phenomena appropriately and use students’ L1 as a resource for learning.

Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners
106
L2 Literacy Needs
Effective L1 and L2 literacy approaches have much in common. The set of
practices that support literacy development for native speakers of English, such as
guided reading (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996), process writing (Calkins, 1986; Graves,
1983), and the use of graphic organizers to facilitate reading comprehension
(Moore & Readence, 1984) can also benefit L2 learners (Freeman & Freeman,
2000; Peregoy & Boyle, 2001). These L1-based literacy approaches assume a
strong foundation in oral language and in the vocabulary, grammar, and discourse
structure of English. Such an assumption is not always warranted, however, when
developing reading and writing skills in ELLs.
Reading and L2 Development
Initial reading instruction in English relies heavily on students’ oral skills and
vocabulary. However, ELLs typically do not have the same depth and breadth of
vocabulary and understanding of the structure of the second language. The
exposure of ELLs to even the most familiar words and expressions in English is
shallow in comparison with that of most native speakers. Even before first grade,
many native English-speaking children know approximately 6,000 words (Menyuk,
1999) and have mastered the use of the present, past, and future tense. Their
knowledge of English reflects a wide range of common experiences and is based on
a deep foundation of thousands of encounters with language used in meaningful
contexts over the four to five years before formal schooling begins. In contrast,
ELLs often need more time and many more scaffolded opportunities for language
and background knowledge development to fully participate in reading-based
discussions and to develop their oral and literacy skills in English.
Besides differences in their knowledge of word meaning in English, ELLs’
native languages may differ from English in a number of important ways. For
example, the type of grammatical information carried in the structure of words varies
across languages (e.g., in English, past tense is signaled through “-ed” suffixes on
verbs whereas many Asian languages indicate tense by using separate words). At the
clause and sentence level, the order of words (e.g., subject/verb/object) is fixed and
extremely important in English. The order and consistency of the order may differ for
ELLs who, for example, speak German or Russian as their native language. Finally,
the organization of larger units of text, such as the canonical English paragraph
structure involving a general statement followed by supporting details, can vary
across students’ native languages. Such cross-linguistic differences can limit the
effective use of important cuing systems in reading in English (Birch, 2002; Grabe &
Stoller, 2002). Teachers need to understand language variation and the effect it may
have on their ELL readers. Explicit instruction on word formation and patterns of
sentence and paragraph structure may be necessary for ELLs who do not have the
linguistic competence in English or the instructional experience in U.S. schools to
draw upon in developing their literacy skills in English.

Ester J. de Jong & Candace A. Harper
107
In addition to differences in language competence at the word, sentence, and
discourse levels, ELLs frequently do not have the same control over the sounds
of English. For example, if a teacher uses a picture of a nail on a phonics cue chart
to represent the vowel sound in the word “nail,” she may fail to see that this
example is rendered meaningless if ELLs do not already know the word “nail.”
Tasks for building phonemic awareness that use minimal pairs to isolate contrast-
ing consonant and vowel sounds (e.g., “big-pig” or “hop-hope”) become ineffec-
tive if an ELL cannot perceive or produce these distinctive contrasts in English
(e.g., /l/ may not sound different from /r/, or the vowel in “pick” is not
distinguished from the vowel in “peek”). Teachers must be able to embed literacy
activities, such as building phonemic awareness, in contexts where ELLs have
access to meaningful vocabulary.
Koda (1995) has also shown that different writing systems (e.g., the alphabetic
system used in Romance languages versus the logographic systems used in
Chinese) draw on different processing strategies. Even languages that use an
alphabetic writing system may differ from English in their sound/symbol associa-
tions and in the consistency of these associations. For example, the Spanish alphabet
uses the letter “j” to represent a different sound than the English alphabet, and the
Spanish alphabet is much more consistent and predictable in its representation of
sounds than the English alphabet. Such orthographic differences can affect the
degree to which ELLs who are already literate in their native language may
efficiently and successfully transfer reading skills from the L1 to English (Grabe &
Stoller, 2002). Teachers need an understanding of the ways in which reading (and
writing) in a second language draw upon a body of knowledge about how language
and literacy interact. They must be aware of learners’ needs based on their prior
literacy experiences and they must be prepared to provide the skills and strategies
to bridge the gaps (Schleppegrell & Colombi, 2002).
A third area where assumed mastery of the oral language may be misleading
is the assessment of reading fluency and comprehension. Reading assessment
techniques, such as running record procedures (Clay, 1979), may lead teachers to
inappropriately diagnose pronunciation-based reading “miscues” (Goodman &
Burke, 1972). Because ELLs are frequently unsure of the pronunciation of English
words, they tend to be overly concerned with their articulation of words while
reading aloud. As a result, their reading fluency and comprehension may suffer.
Alternately, ELLs who are already literate in their L1 and are able to decode fluently
may lead teachers to overlook gaps in their reading comprehension in English.
Teachers need to be able to interpret assessment results in the context of ELLs’
oral and literacy instruction. When checking for reading comprehension, a common
strategy good teachers of native English speakers use is asking students to retell or
summarize a text that has been read. Such production tasks can seriously underes-
timate the comprehension of ELLs who can typically understand more than they are
able to produce in the second language. Teachers must realize that what works for

Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners
108
native English speakers (including remedial readers) will not always work for ELLs
and they must be able to change their practices accordingly.
Writing and L2 Development
Good writing instruction is student-centered and process-oriented without losing
sight of quality writing products. Activities such as writers’ workshop (Graves, 1983)
and dialogue journals (Peyton & Reed, 1990; Peyton & Staton, 1993) aim to develop
students’ confidence as writers and their fluency in writing in a wide range of genres.
These activities are also recommended to support ELLs in becoming fluent L2 writers
(e.g., Samway, 1992; Peregoy & Boyle, 2001), but they will not be sufficient unless
teachers understand how they may have to adjust their writing instruction to respond
to L2 differences in writing development.
First, mainstream teachers cannot assume the same sequential process from
oral language to literacy development for ELLs as for native English speakers. L2
literacy skills develop in a much more integrative manner for school-age ELLs
(Hudelson, 1984). While it is important to consider the oral language as a
foundation for building L2 literacy skills, classroom practices that delay the
introduction of literacy instruction until students have well developed oral skills
may underestimate (and therefore limit) what ELLs can do. Teachers must therefore
organize their classrooms to provide rich and varied opportunities to develop all
four language modes (listening, speaking, reading, writing) in meaningful and
integrated ways (Heald-Taylor, 1991).
Teachers must also be aware of cross-lingual influence in second-language
learning. Many studies have illustrated differences between L1 and L2 learning in
writing processes as well as text features (Grabe & Kaplan, 1989; Hudelson, 1987;
Silva, 1993). Students’ knowledge of L1 writing conventions affects all areas of
students’ L2 writing, including punctuation and orthography (Edelsky, 1982),
vocabulary selection and choice of cohesive devices (e.g., Odlin, 1987; Silva, 1993),
sentence structure (Leki, 1992), and rhetorical patterns such as different interpreta-
tions of narrative or argumentative structures, genre, audience, or text organization
(Connor, 1996; Hu, Brown, & Brown, 1982; Kaplan, 1966; Mohan & Lo, 1985;
Panetta, 2001). As a result of such transfer, bilingual writers often do not meet the
“standard” writing norms for different genres used in school. By overlooking the
influence of the L1, teachers may interpret these differences as deficits in L2 writing
or even thinking ability rather than normal L2 developmental patterns. Teachers need
to understand these linguistic and cultural contexts of writing development.
Furthermore, teachers must understand how access to L1 resources can
facilitate the L2 writing process as well. For instance, Gort (2001) and Homza
(1995) found that first grade ELLs planned and rehearsed their stories in the native
language before publishing them in English (see also Dean, 1995; Edelsky, 1986;
Hudelson, 1987). Such opportunities for brainstorming and discussing topics and
content in the native language have been shown to be important for low-literacy

Ester J. de Jong & Candace A. Harper
109
high school students (Marsh, 1995), though this effect may be mediated by the topic
(Bou-Zeineddine, 1994; both cited in Brisk, 1998). Teachers must understand the role
of the L1 in assessing students’ writing (Escamilla & Coady, 2000) and they must be
able to create opportunities for using the native language as a tool to help ELLs
organize their thinking and as a scaffold for more advanced writing in their L2.
As in the area of reading, writing teachers often make assumptions about
students’ understanding of the structure of English. If mainstream teachers base
their writing instruction on the language and literacy needs of native English
speakers, they may fail to provide appropriate and adequate feedback for ELLs.
Although teachers may be skilled in supporting the craft of writing (e.g., Atwell,
1998), they are less confident when the needs of ELLs require them to address
aspects of the language that may pose difficulties for ELLs but are generally not
problematic for native English speakers. Examples include rules of word order at
the phrase or sentence level (e.g., placement of adjectives before nouns, the
formation of negatives and questions in English), or the use of articles and
prepositions. Moreover, prompts commonly used with native speakers such as
“Does this word make sense here?” or “Does this sentence sound right?” during
teacher-student conferences, or written comments at the discourse level that state
that a paragraph is “awkward” will be insufficient for ELLs because they assume
the same level of access to native-speaker intuitions regarding English and to fluent
L2 language models outside the classroom. As noted, ELLs usually do not share
their peers’ vocabulary base or facility with English language structure. Therefore,
their writing development needs require teachers to provide different and more
specific types of feedback and instruction. In order to respond effectively and
appropriately to this need, mainstream teachers need to understand the structure of
English and how to assist ELLs in developing this competence.
Language Demands in the Content Areas
Teachers are typically aware that their subject area uses a specialized language
and they make their instruction more accessible through the use of graphic
organizers, cooperative learning, and hands-on activities, and by paying attention
to specialized content-specific vocabulary. Providing such “comprehensible input”
(Krashen, 1985) is necessary but not sufficient for ELLs. As Gibbons (1998b)
points out, unlike curriculum planning for native English speakers, for L2 learners
“the construction of new curriculum knowledge must go hand-in-hand with the
development of the second language” (p.99).
The reality is that many content-area teachers assume that ELLs will be taught
English in another class. In a recent study of content-area teachers, one social
studies teacher stated, “I believed that was someone else’s job” (Short, 2002, p.21).
Most teachers, particularly in the upper grades, focus on content mastery and
cognitive development without serious attention to the language through which the
learning takes place. As a result, they may be unaware of linguistic demands that

Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners
110
are particularly challenging for second-language learners. For instance, everyday
vocabulary terms such as “table,” “crust,” or “seat” carry special meaning in math,
science, and social studies and may confuse L2 learners who know only the more
general meaning of these words. The same concept or operation may be expressed
through many synonyms that are familiar to the native speaker but are unknown to the
L2 learner. In math, for example, addition can be signaled through a range of different
words, such as “add,” “plus,” “and,” “increase,” “gain,” “more,” or “sum” (Dale &
Cuevas, 1987). Teachers can also improve access to their content by building on L1/
L2 cognates, especially for speakers of Romance languages. Since content-specific
technical vocabulary is frequently based on Latin roots, such as “hypothesis,”
“demonstrate,” and “equivalent” (Corson, 1997), teachers can provide a bridge
between these students’ L1 and L2 vocabulary development if they are aware of this
relationship and use it to build ELLs’ academic vocabulary in English.
In addition to vocabulary demands, content-area texts typically use syntactic
structures beyond the L2 learners’ level of proficiency (e.g., the use of nominalization,
passive voice, or conditionals) (Carrasquillo & Rodriguez, 1996; Schleppegrell &
Achugar, 2003). ELLs may be unfamiliar with the multiple ways that authors create
cohesion and coherence in their texts (such as through the use of transition words
and phrases like “nonetheless,” “moreover,” or “consequently”). Whereas native
speakers may not need such extensive scaffolding in the grammar and discourse
structure of the language, ELLs need consistent instruction that will facilitate L2
development in these areas, while simultaneously learning the academic content
(Gibbons, 2002). Effective teachers of ELLs therefore integrate language and
content objectives (Cloud, Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000; Echevarria et al., 2004).
For instance, they explicitly model the use of passive voice in reporting the stages
of a science experiment or they teach discourse markers of cause/effect or
chronology in a history lesson. They use graphic organizers not only to display
relationships among concepts, but also as a scaffolding tool to teach the language
needed to express these relationships (Tang, 1992). By understanding the linguistic
demands of the content areas, teachers can purposefully attend to the underlying
“linguistic register” (Short, 2002, p. 20) of their discipline.
The Culture Domain: Making Cultural Needs Explicit
Cultural diversity has received more explicit attention than linguistic diversity
in educational reforms. National content standards include culture in the broad
context of race, class, gender, and ethnicity, and culture is listed as one of the major
themes for effective English language arts and social studies instruction (National
Council of Teachers of English, 1996; National Council for the Social Studies,
1994). Multicultural education encourages teachers to become knowledgeable
about the history and contributions of major ethnic groups that have settled in the
United States (e.g., Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, African Americans)

Ester J. de Jong & Candace A. Harper
111
and to incorporate multicultural literature and multiple perspectives into their
curriculum. Teachers also learn to anticipate and adjust for students’ different
communication and learning styles and abilities, and to accept and value differences
in their classrooms. This approach is not necessarily sufficient, however, to meet the
cultural needs of ELLs. In order to understand the potential for inequity in
multilingual and multicultural classrooms, teachers must understand their own
cultural identity and the cultural assumptions that underlie their instruction as well
as those of their students and their families (Au, 1998; Ballenger, 1992). In this
section, we address three broad areas in which general multicultural education may
fail to prepare teachers for effective instruction for ELLs: the cultural context of
schools, the cultural foundation of literacy, and the cultural identity of ELLs.
The Cultural Context of Schools
Teachers need to use “the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspec-
tives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectively”
(Gay, 2002, p. 106). According to Gay, the ability to provide “cultural scaffolding”
requires teachers to have specific rather than generic understandings of cultural
similarities and differences. Two areas of cultural differences are particularly
important for ELLs who have been schooled in their home country: classroom
participation structures and the role of students’ prior learning experiences.
Classroom Participation Structures
Implicit and explicit rules govern the nature of participation and interactions
among students and teachers. In traditional U.S. classrooms, the values of individu-
alism and egalitarianism dominate and are reflected in the importance attached to
students’ sharing of personal opinions about readings, issues, and current events.
Students are asked to question their texts and their teachers, and do not expect teachers
to have all the answers. Active questioning and peer discussion are fundamental in the
process of learning in effective U.S. classrooms (cf., the content standards’ emphasis
on “talking to learn”). At other times, students are expected to work independently,
and collaboration among students without sanction is prohibited. Understanding that
these values and resulting practices are not universal will help teachers appropriately
interpret student behavior that, when taken at face value, appears to reflect an
unwillingness or reluctance to participate or a lack of comprehension.
Many ELLs come from cultures where teachers are considered to be the final
authority and where questioning the teacher is considered disrespectful. Students
may also be less inclined than U.S. schooled students to publicly display their
knowledge (or lack of knowledge) through questioning, answering, or guessing in
front of a large group (Au & Carroll, 1997; Philips, 1983; Vogt, Jordan, & Tharp,
1987). In a similar vein, students from other cultures may be completely unaccus-
tomed to competing or collaborating with their peers.
Finally, many ELLs attend schools in their home country before entering U.S.

Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners
112
schools. Unlike U.S. born and schooled students, these ELLs may be relatively
unfamiliar with basic school and classroom routines, such as snack, lunch, “dress-
ing out,” lining up, or appropriate forms of address (e.g., “Teacher” versus “Mr.
Jones”) (Clayton, 1996). Good teachers of ELLs attempt to learn more about their
own students’ cultural backgrounds and experiences so that they can anticipate and
respond to cross-cultural differences. They explore alternative explanations for
observed behavior in the students’ own cultural context and refrain from making
assumptions based on their own cultural norms for behavior.
Students’ Background Knowledge and Experiences
Good teachers understand that students come to school with a wide range of
experiences and background learning. Teachers are generally prepared to under-
stand these differences in broad ethnic or racial categories, which are then assigned
certain expected learning styles (e.g., mentally grouping their Japanese, Korean,
and Taiwanese students into a single group of “Asians” or their Puerto Rican,
Venezuelan, and Mexican students into “Hispanics”). Good teachers understand
and accommodate differences, understanding that they must try to avoid stereo-
types and inappropriate expectations or interpretations of student behavior. They
acknowledge that, like native English speakers, L2 learners’ background knowl-
edge (or schemata) have been developed through their cultural experiences and that
these will influence L2 learners’ conceptual learning and language skills (e.g.,
reading comprehension) (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1988; Johnson, 1981, 1982;
Steffenson, Joag-Dev, & Anderson, 1979).
Good mainstream teachers therefore make sure to build on individual
students’ background knowledge. To elicit this prior knowledge, they use a variety
of strategies, including story maps or semantic webs. However, without under-
standing the cultural and linguistic assumptions behind these instructional tech-
niques, teachers may not realize that these activities can be ineffective when used
without modifications for ELLs. For example, a K-W-L chart (what do you Know,
what do you Want to know, what have you Learned; Ogle, 1986) is frequently
recommended for eliciting students’ prior knowledge. Teachers start a new topic by
asking the general question “Tell me what you know about (______)?” and record
students’ responses in each column. This strategy is based on several assumptions
that may be unwarranted for ELLs. First of all, it assumes that all students have the
English language skills to talk about what they know. It expects students to
volunteer publicly to talk about experiences that may be unfamiliar to the rest of the
class, therefore marking them as even more “different” (and even strange or exotic)
than they may already appear. A teacher using this open-floor elicitation technique
may also assume that if one student proposes a relevant concept or acknowledges
a particular experience, then all students in the room share that knowledge or
experience (i.e., it gets “checked off” on the K-W-L chart for the entire group).
Additionally, what a teacher considers “relevant” may fail to recognize other valid

Ester J. de Jong & Candace A. Harper
113
but less common or straightforward student experiences. In short, by using a general
technique to elicit prior knowledge like the K-W-L chart without adaptations,
teachers may be unable to access the appropriate knowledge base for ELLs and may
fail to ascertain whether ELLs in fact have the prerequisite conceptual foundation
on which to extend their learning.
Good teachers also accommodate student differences by getting to know their
students at a personal level. They attempt to find out about family members, favorite
foods, songs, sports or school subjects, or hobbies. The standard “Who am I”
definition may fail, however, to tap into the realities that shape bilingual and
bicultural individuals, including access to literacy events in multiple languages at
home and in the community (Hornberger & Skilton-Sylvester, 2000).
Teachers must be able to recognize ELLs’ strengths in areas often excluded
from monolingual contexts. For instance, many bilingual students develop sophis-
ticated cognitive (e.g., memory, analysis) and meta-linguistic skills as “language
brokers” for their parents at doctor’s offices or other public agencies (Buriel, Perez,
De Ment, Chavez, & Moran, 1998; Tse, 1995). The languages used by the students
and their family members, the students’ cross-cultural experiences, and their L1 and
L2 literacy history are integral parts of ELLs’ knowledge, skills, and identity (Brisk
& Harrington, 2000). Exclusion of such experiences from classroom discourse fails
to identify and draw on the skills and strengths that ELLs bring to school, and
teachers may subsequently miss opportunities to systematically develop these
resources in their curriculum planning and instruction.
Cultural Foundation of Literacy
Expectations for literacy, the purposes for literacy, and ways in which literacy
is valued and displayed vary across cultures (Alderson, 2000) as well as within
cultures. Heath’s (1983) portrait of the diverse literacy practices among families of
children from different racial and economic backgrounds illustrates the sociocul-
tural foundations of literacy (Gee, 1996; Kalantzis & Cope, 2001; Perez, 1998).
Many good teachers who are aware of Heath’s work may still fail to extend the
implications of this work to a broader cultural context necessary for ELLs.
For example, ELLs may have trouble expressing opinions on certain topics,
either because of cultural prohibitions or personal unfamiliarity with a subject (Leki,
1992; McKay, 1989). Mainstream teachers may perceive writing assignments such
as “Discuss how you think the world will have changed in 50 years” or “Describe your
personal goals and how you expect to attain them” as “neutral” topics. An ELL’s poor
performance may be attributed to that student’s writing ability rather than interpreted
in the context of a culturally inappropriate prompt. Teachers may not understand that
students who have learned that it is inappropriate to express their own opinions in
writing or that it is wrong to presume that they can determine their own futures may
be paralyzed when confronted with such an assignment.
The diverse oral and written literacy skills and traditions that bilingual students

Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners
114
bring to school go unrecognized if teachers are unaware of their potential for
instruction. Students from Islamic cultures are able to quote long passages from
memory and may have developed slow, careful reading skills similar to the type of
reading required for studying and remembering details (Wagner, 1993). The latter
is in sharp contrast to the rapid survey style of reading and the skimming/scanning
often required and valued in U.S. classrooms. Teachers praise readers who read
quickly and analytically as they synthesize and paraphrase main ideas. Similarly,
mainstream teachers may be less familiar with ELLs who use a language for which
there is no literacy tradition. There may be no expectation in the home that children
will learn to read and write, nor an understanding that teachers and schools in North
America, Britain, and Australia assume a direct association between literacy,
education, and success and believe that everyone should be literate (Grabe &
Stoller, 2002). Therefore, sending home messages that encourage parents to read to
or with their children may be meaningless in these contexts.
Manifestations of parent involvement in their child’s schooling may not follow
teachers’ expectations. When home and/or prior school literacy practices and
expectations are distinctly different from those promoted in U.S. schools, main-
stream teachers may be less likely to anticipate and respond to students’ literacy
needs. Parent outreach may be ineffective or inappropriate if schools fail to
incorporate cross-cultural differences and attitudes toward school and literacy
(Scarcella, 1990). Teachers must become aware of the cultural assumptions
regarding the nature of literacy, of literacy learning, and of parent involvement, and
incorporate these understandings into their curriculum and instructional approaches.
Cultural Identity
There is a strong and complex link between cultural identity, language use, and
proficiency in two languages (Brisk, 1998). Understanding the socio-psychological
foundations of second-language learning is important for teachers so that they can
respond to a range of student attitudes, motivations, and behaviors. Without taking
into consideration the sociocultural and sociopolitical pressures that may lead to
different acculturation patterns, mainstream teachers may assume that the process
of acculturation is linear and simply a matter of choice.
For instance, mainstream teachers often perceive a students’ apparent inability
to learn English quickly as a sign of a learning disability or a lack of aptitude for
learning a second language. They may interpret students’ acting out or tuning out
in class in terms of disrespectful behavior. Teachers must be able to draw on a
broader explanatory framework and understand that societal and school contexts
influence students’ attitudes toward learning the L2 and the process of acculturation
(Baker, 1996). Some ELLs reject the host culture and language as they see their own
identity and language threatened (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Rumbaut & Portes,
2001). Learning English may be seen as a tacit acceptance of the immigration
process, which may have been involuntary and traumatic for students who are in the

Ester J. de Jong & Candace A. Harper
115
U.S. because of decisions made by their parents. Other ELLs feel ambivalent about
their own culture and may reject it in favor of their new language and culture.
Unfortunately, members of the majority culture do not always accept these students
as part of the dominant group (Commins, 1989; Olsen, 1997). Feeling excluded from
membership in both the home culture and the new culture, these ELLs grow up
without a strong sense of belonging and may become marginalized (Brisk, 1998;
Cummins, 1986). Effective teachers of ELLs understand that antisocial behavior may
reflect a student’s state of cultural and linguistic ambivalence or frustration because
the student believes that his or her struggle to find a personal, comfortable accommo-
dation to U.S. culture is futile. These teachers acknowledge that students’ exhaustion
may come from having to concentrate for extended periods in a language that they do
not understand well and are able to place ELLs’ attitudes and behaviors in the context
of L2 learning and stages of the acculturation process (Igoa, 1995).
Teachers also need to understand that their own attitudes toward languages
other than English and toward multilingualism play an important role in how
students respond to the challenge of L2 learning (Delpit, 2002). Teachers may be
unaware that the messages they send through classroom policies can subtly exclude
ELLs. The implicit or explicit rules “Speak English. Be quiet. Do your own work.”
are all too common in mainstream classrooms. Not only do these simple rules
restrict primary vehicles for L2 learning (exposure, interaction, and use); they also
communicate negative attitudes towards the students’ native language (Putney &
Wink, 1998). Insisting on English-only rules inside and outside the classroom may
affect students’ attitudes and motivation to learn English (Gardner, 1985). Even
though mainstream teachers are rarely in the position to provide bilingual instruc-
tion, they can choose to communicate multilingual values (e.g., by using bilingual
books and other L1 resources) and support students’ development of a bicultural
identity (Brisk, 1998; Kanno, 2003; Schechter & Cummins, 2003).
Finally, teachers cannot assume that their concepts of race and social class, or
attitudes towards social class and mobility are the same as those of ELLs and their
parents, and that U.S. categories for racial or ethnic self-identification are universal.
In the U.S. the role of race and the process of “racialization” are extremely important
(Outlaw, 1996) and may be totally unfamiliar to ELLs. For example, a dark-skinned
student from the Dominican Republic may have darker skinned siblings but have
parents with much lighter skin. In their country, none of her family is considered to
belong to a racially designated group. Not being accustomed to identifying herself
in racial terms, this student may have trouble understanding which racial group she
has been assigned to in the U.S. and will almost certainly not feel any in-group
loyalty toward other members. U.S. teachers who assume the universality of
American racial categories may confuse and frustrate students like this one in their
attempts to make them feel part of a group or by ascribing group membership. They
may also be unprepared for potential classroom conflicts when students react
negatively towards other students’ use of particular varieties of their native

Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners
116
language or are unwilling to collaborate with other students from the same language
background based on their social class or country of origin. Understanding how
race, class, and language diversity interact will help teachers anticipate such
conflict and develop the confidence to discuss these issues with their students as part
of their curriculum (Boynton, 1994; Brisk, 1998).
Defining the Gap
Even the most inclusive constructivist approaches to teaching will be inad-
equate when they are oriented toward a mainstream student population because
they assume that “similarities among students override differences related to
ethnicity, primary language, and social class” (Au, 1998, p. 306). The preceding
sections illustrate that a shift from JGT practices to effective teaching practices for
ELLs requires teachers to acquire additional linguistic and cultural knowledge and
skills and learn to apply these to curriculum planning, pedagogy, and assessment for
ELLs. While good teacher preparation programs will support mainstream teachers’
ability to deal with a diverse classroom, they may not adequately prepare them for
teaching ELLs.
In order to effectively meet the needs of ELLs, we have argued, teachers need
to acquire specific knowledge and skills related to language and culture (Figure 1).
From the preceding discussion, three dimensions emerge that help describe the
nature of these ELL-specific knowledge and skills. These three dimensions (pro-
cess, medium, and goals) are displayed in Figure 2. First, teachers must understand
the process of second language acquisition and acculturation. This includes how L1
and L2 oral and literacy development are similar but also how these processes are
different. Additionally, teachers must develop an understanding of how bilingual
processes are manifested in ELLs’ oral and literacy development, and how they can
build on students’ L1 resources. The second dimension relates to teachers’ aware-
ness of the role that language and culture play as media in teaching and learning. For
the language domain, this entails a basic understanding of the structure of English
and of the oral/written and colloquial/academic dimensions of English, as well as
an awareness of the challenges that ELLs face in learning academic content through
a language they do not yet control (Fillmore & Snow, 1998). From a cultural
perspective, teachers need to understand how expectations and opportunities for
learning are mediated through culturally based assumptions regarding classroom
expectations and literacy that may not be shared by all students. The third dimension
considers the importance of including linguistic and cultural diversity as explicit
goals of curriculum and instruction. Mainstream teachers need to be able to identify
language demands in their content areas and organize their classrooms to support
the development of academic language proficiency by integrating their language
and content objectives. Cross-cultural practices and experiences must inform
curriculum planning and implementation.

Ester J. de Jong & Candace A. Harper
117
Though teacher education programs must be informed by these three dimen-
sions, changes in pedagogy will not be sufficient unless teachers’ dispositions toward
ELLs do not also change. Nieto (2000) notes: “Teaching language minority students
successfully means above all challenging one’s attitudes toward the students, their
languages and cultures, and their communities. Anything short of this will result in
repeating the pattern of failure that currently exists” (p. 196). Good teachers of ELLs
embrace their roles as language teachers and cultural facilitators (Brisk, 1998).
Figure 2
The nature of the knowledge and skill gap for mainstream teachers of ELLs.
In order to
move from “just good teaching” to good teaching for all students,
including ELLs, mainstream teachers need additional knowledge and skills.
Process of L2 learning,
bilingualism, and
acculturation.
Nature of language and
culture as a medium of
learning.
Importance of language
and culture as a goal of
instruction.
M
onitor language use
in
the classroom.
Consider alternative
explanations for
differences.
Provide opportunities
for integrated language
development, including
the L1.
Build on L1 and L2
cultural/experiential
differences.
Provide optimal input
and feedback.
Assist students with
process of cultural
adjustment.
Role as language teacher.
Role as cultural facilitator.
High Expectations.
Positive attitudes towards
ELLs.
Understandings about
Language and Culture Effective Practices
for ELLs
Teachers’ Dispositions
lead to

Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners
118
Conclusion
In this article we propose a framework for making the linguistic and cultural
foundations of teaching and learning visible and explicit within the context of
mainstream teacher preparation in order to influence mainstream classroom prac-
tices. In order to be simultaneously effective with native English speakers and with
ELLs, this framework for teacher preparation illustrates that mainstream teachers
must develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that reflect an awareness of
three dimensions: the process of learning a second language, the role of language
and culture as a medium in teaching and learning, and the need to set explicit
linguistic and cultural goals. What distinguishes a classroom that explicitly ad-
dresses the needs of ELLs from the “just good teaching” classroom is that “English
is very much present and accounted for . . . teachers extend practices of good
teaching to incorporate techniques that teach language as well as content” (Diaz-
Rico & Weed, 2002, p. 117).
Our framework draws attention to the overlap and differences between the
preparation teachers for a diverse, mainstream classroom and for ESOL/bilingual
programs. In its current presentation, the model is a conceptual rather than an
empirical framework. Research that compares mainstream and ESOL/bilingual
teachers’ areas of expertise, instructional decision-making, and classroom practices
will be important to conduct in the future to support, expand, or change the model.
Moreover, while we assume the existence of the gap between JGT and effective ELL
instruction, we believe that this gap neither follows a predictable, finite set of
pedagogical practices nor will it remain constant regardless of instructional contexts.
Rather, we would hypothesize that the extent to which teachers must deviate from JGT
practices in order to meet the linguistic, cultural, and academic needs of their students
will be mediated by learner characteristics, such as L1 schooling/literacy levels, age,
and level of L2 literacy and oral proficiency (de Jong & Harper, 2003). For instance,
it is likely that a kindergarten teacher will better meet the needs of ELLs within a JGT
classroom than a JGT high school teacher teaching ELLs with interrupted schooling
experiences. The ways in which learner variables interact with JGT practices will be
important to explore in future research.
In short, as schools are confronted with increasing numbers of linguistically
and culturally diverse learners, a “just good teaching” approach will simply not be
good enough. It encourages a generic approach to teaching that fails to account for
two of the most important learner variables affecting ELLs’ school success—their
linguistic and cultural diversity. Until ELLs are explicitly included at all levels of
educational policy and practice, we can expect them to remain outside the main-
stream in educational achievement. If, on the other hand, we recognize and include
these students and their needs, we have a greater chance of meeting the needs of all
learners.

Ester J. de Jong & Candace A. Harper
119
References
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning
(2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse
backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 297-319.
Au, K. H., & Carroll, J. H. (1997). Improving literacy achievement through a constructivist
approach: The KEEP demonstration classroom project. Elementary School Journal, 97,
203-221.
Baker, C. (1996). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Second Edition.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ballenger, C. (1992). Because you like us: The language of control. Making school reform
work. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 49-58.
Birch, B. M. (2002). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Boynton, S. (1994). Racial diversity and ESOL students. In Cross-cultural communication
and understanding: Part II (pp. 89-91). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of
Education and Center for Applied Linguistics, Sunbelt Office.
Brisk, M.E. (1998). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Brisk, M.E., & Harrington, M. (2000). Literacy and bilingualism. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Buriel, R., Perez, W., De Ment, T., Chavez, D.V., & Moran, V. R. (1998). The relationship
of language brokering to academic performance, biculturalism, and self-efficacy
among Latino adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20, 283-297.
Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Carrasquillo, P. L. & Rodriguez, V. (1996). Language minority students in the mainstream
classroom. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1988). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. In P.
L Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.). Interactive approaches to second language
reading, (pp. 73-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse. The language of teaching and learning. Second
Edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chaney, A. L., & Burke, T. L. (1998). Teaching oral communication in grades K-8. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Clay, M. M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behavior. Auckland, NZ:
Heinemann.
Clayton, J. B. (1996). Your land, my land. Children in the process of acculturation.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction. A handbook for
enriched education. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Commins, N. (1989). Language and affect: Bilingual children at home and at school.
Language Arts, 66, 29-43.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writ-
ing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners
120
Corson, D. (1997). The learning and use of academic English words. Language Learning,
47, 671-718.
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering language minority students. Harvard Educational Re-
view, 15, 18-36.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy. Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Dale, T. C., & Cuevas, G. J. (1987). Integrating mathematics and language learning. In J. A.
Crandall (Ed.), ESL through content-area instruction: Mathematics, science, social
studies (pp. 9-54). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Dalton, S. S. (1998). Pedagogy matters: Standards for effective teaching practice. Santa
Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Dean, N. (1995). Integrating methods for ESOL instruction. In Teaching Excellence and
Cultural Harmony. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education and Jostens
Learning Co.
de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2003). Is ESL just good teaching? CARLA Conference
Proceedings, Minneapolis, MN.
de Jong, E. J., & Mescua-Derrick, M. (2003). Refining preservice teachers’ questions for
second language learners: Higher order thinking for all levels of language proficiency.
Sunshine State TESOL Journal, 2 (2), 29-37.
Delpit, L. (2002). No kinda sense. In Delpit, L. (Ed.), The skin that we speak. Thoughts on
language and culture in the classroom. (pp. 31-48). New York: The New Press.
Diaz-Rico, L. T., & Weed, K. Z. (2002). The cross-cultural, language, and academic
development handbook. A complete K-12 reference guide (2nd ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Dixon, C. N., & Nessel, D. (1983). Language experience approach to reading and writing:
LEA for ESL. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English
language learners. The SIOP model. Second Edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Edelsky, C. (1986). Writing in a bilingual program: Habia una vez. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: The relation between L1 and L2 texts.
TESOL quarterly, 16(2), 211-228.
Edwards, A. O., & Westgate, D. P. G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk. (2nd ed.). London,
UK: Falmer Press.
Escamilla, K., & Coady, M. (2000). Assessing the writing of Spanish-speaking students:
Issues and suggestions. In S. R. Hurley, & J. V. Tinajero (Eds.), Literacy assessment of
second language learners (pp. 43-63). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fillmore, L.W., & Snow, C. E. (2002). What teachers need to know about language.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse of Languages and Linguistics.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading. Good first teaching for all children.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. S. (2000). Teaching reading in multilingual classrooms.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning. The role of
attitudes and motivation. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,

Ester J. de Jong & Candace A. Harper
121
53, 106-116.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistic and literacies. Ideology in discourse. Philadelphia:
Routledge Falmer.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (1998a). Learning to learn in a second language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (1998b). Classroom talk and the learning of new registers in a second language.
Language and Education, 12, 99-118.
Goodman, Y. M., & Burke, C. L. (1972). Reading miscue inventory: Procedure for diagnosis
and evaluation. Katonah, NY: Richard Owen.
Gort, M. (2001). On the threshold of biliteracy: Bilingual writing processes of English-
dominant and Spanish-dominant first graders in a two-way bilingual education
program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Boston University.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1989). Writing in a second language: Contrastive Rhetoric. In
D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.). Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 253-
262). New York: Longman.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Reading, MA:
Longman.
Grant, E. A., & Wong, S. D. (2003). Barriers to literacy for language-minority learners: An
argument for change in the literacy education profession. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 46 (5), 386-394.
Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Harklau, L. (1999). The ESL learning environment in secondary school. In: C. J. Faltis, &
P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say. Adolescents, bilingualism & ESL in the secondary
school. (pp. 42-60). New York: Teachers College Press.
Harper, C. A., & Platt, E. J. (1998). Full inclusion for secondary school ESOL students: Some
concerns from Florida. TESOL Journal, 7 (5), 30-36.
Heald-Taylor, G. (1991). Whole language strategies for ESL students. San Diego, CA:
Dominie Press.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and
classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Homza, A. (1995). Developing biliteracy in a bilingual first-grade writing workshop.
Unpublished dissertation. Boston University.
Hornberger, N., & Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2000). Revisiting the continua of biliteracy:
International and critical perspectives. Language and Education, 14, 96-122.
Hu, A., Brown, D. F., & Brown, L. B. (1982). Some linguistic differences in the written
English of Chinese and Australian students. Language Learning and Communication,
1, 39-40.
Hudelson, S. (1984). Kan yu ret an rayt in Ingles: Children becoming literate in English as
a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 221-238.
Hudelson, S. (1987). The role of native language literacy in the education of language
minority children. Language Arts, 64, 827-841.
Igoa, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson, P. (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural
background of a text. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 169-181.
Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge.
TESOL Quarterly, 16, 503-516.

Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners
122
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2001). Transformations in language and learning. Perspectives
on multiliteracies. Australia: Common Ground Publishing.
Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities. Japanese returnees
betwixt two worlds. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language
Learning,16, 1-20.
Kinsella, K. (2000). Questioning strategies for democratic construction of knowledge.
Vancouver, BC: TESOL, March 17.
Koda, K. (1995). Cognitive consequences of L1 and L2 orthographies. In I. Taylor & D.
Olsen (Eds.), Scripts and literacy (pp. 311-326). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London, UK: Longman.
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH:
Bounton/Cook Heinemann.
McKay, S. L. (1989). Topic development and written discourse accent. In D. Johnson & D.
Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 253-262). New York:
Longman.
Menken, K., & Antunez, B. (2001). An overview of the preparation and certification of
teachers working with limited English proficient (LEP) students. Washington, DC:
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Menyuk, P. (1999). Reading and linguistic development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Meyers-Scotton, C., & Jake, J. (2001). Explaining aspects of code-switching and their
implications. In Nicol, J. L. (Ed), One mind, two languages. Bilingual language
processing. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Milroy, L., & Muysken, P. (1995). One speaker, two languages. Cross-disciplinary
perspectives on code-switching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mohan, B., & Lo, W. A. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and
developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 515-534.
Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic
organizers research. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 11-17.
Moss, M., & Puma, M. (1995). Prospects: The congressionally mandated study of educa-
tional growth and opportunity. (First year report on language minority and limited
English proficient students.) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Academy of Sciences. (1995). National science education standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy of Sciences.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Schools and staffing survey, 1999-2000.
Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs
elementary and secondary schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
National Council for the Social Studies (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum
standards for social studies. Waldorf, MD: NCSS Publications.
National Council of Teachers of English. (1996). Guidelines for the preparation of teachers
of English language arts. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education
(3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

Ester J. de Jong & Candace A. Harper
123
Odlin, T. (1987). Language transfer. Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Ogle, D. (1986). A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The
Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.
Olsen, L. (1997). Made in America. Immigrant students in our public schools. New York:
The New Press.
Outlaw, L. T. Jr. (1996). On race and philosophy. New York: Routledge.
Panetta, C. G. (2001). (Ed.). Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2001). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource
book for K-8 Teachers (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Perez, N. (1998). (Ed.). Sociocultural contexts of language and literacy. Mahweh, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Peyton, J. K. & Reed, L. (1990). Dialogue journal writing with nonnative English speakers:
A handbook for teachers. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Peyton, J. K., & Staton, J. (1993). Dialogue journals in the multilingual classroom: Building
language fluency and writing skills through written interaction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Philips, S. U. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on
the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (Eds.). (2001). Legacies. The story of the immigrant second
generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies.
Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 273-295.
Putney, L. G., & Wink, J. (1998). Breaking rules: Constructing avenues of access in
multilingual classrooms. TESOL Journal, 7(3), 29-34.
Rumbaut, R. G., & Portes, A. (Eds.). (2001). Ethnicities. Children of immigrants in America.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Samway, K. D. (1992). Writer’s workshop and children acquiring English as a non-native
language. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, Number 10. Retrieved on 1/27/
02 at http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/pigs/pig10.htm.
Scarcella, R. (1990). Teaching language minority students in the multicultural classroom.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Schechter, S.R., & Cummins, J. (2003). Multilingual education in practice. Using diversity
as a resource. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Schinke-Llano, L. (1983). Foreigner talk in content classrooms. In H.W. Seliger, & M. J.
Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 146-
168). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schleppegrell, M., & Achugar, M. (2003). Learning language and learning history: A
functional linguistics approach. TESOL Journal, 12(2), 21-27.
Schleppegrell, M. J., & Colombi, M. C. (2002). Developing advanced literacy in first and
second languages: Meaning with power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Short, D. (2002). Language learning in sheltered social studies classes. TESOL Journal,
11(1), 18-24.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: the ESL
research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly 27 (4), 657-677.
Steffenson, M. S., Joag-Dev, J., & Anderson, R. C. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on

Preparing Mainstream Teachers for English-Language Learners
124
reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 10-29.
Tang, G. (1992). Teaching content knowledge and ESOL in multicultural classrooms.
TESOL Journal 2(2), 8-12.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students.
Washington, DC National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education
Tse, L. (1995). Language brokering among Latino adolescents: Prevalence, attitudes, and
school performance. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 180-193.
Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not-learning English. Latino students in American schools.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Verplaetse, L. S. (2000). How content teachers allocate turns to limited English proficient
students. Journal of Education, 182(3). 19-35.
Vogt, L. A., Jordan, C., & Tharp, R.G. (1987). Explaining school failure, producing school
success. Two case studies. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 276-286.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, D. A. (1993). Literacy, culture, & development: Becoming literate in Morocco.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Watts-Taffe, S. & Truscott, D. M. (1998). Literacy Instruction for second-language learners:
A study of best practices. National Reading Conference Yearbook; 47, 242-52.
Wells, G. (1981). Learning through interaction: The study of language development.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to
learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual. Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.