Content uploaded by Juan Araujo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Juan Araujo on Nov 09, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
English in Texas | Volume 42.1 | Spring/Summer 2012 | A Journal of the Texas Council of Teachers of English Language Arts
62
NURTURING LIFE-LONG LEARNERS
Cynthia Rodriguez is an assistant professor with the department
of Teacher Education and Administration at the University of North
Texas at Dallas. She teaches Reading Education and her research
interests include language and literacy acquisition and development,
multicultural education and English Language Learners. She can be
reached at Cynthia.Rodriguez@unt.edu.
Juan Araujo is an assistant professor with the department of Teacher
Education and Administration at the University of North Texas at Dallas. His
research uses case-study methodology to document the decision-making
of high school English language arts teachers who work with adolescent
English Language Learners. His research interests include sociocultural
theory, language and literacy research, and multicultural education.
Ratna Narayan is an associate professor of Science Education at
the University of North Texas at Dallas. Her research interests include
scientific inquiry, its development and implementation in science
classrooms, teacher confidence and self-efficacy, multicultural
education, and scientific discourse and English Language learners.
Marco Shappeck is an assistant professor with the department of
Teacher Education and Administration at the University of North Texas
at Dallas. He specializes in teaching Applied Linguistics, particularly the
educational applications of sociolinguistic research in the teaching of
English and Spanish as a second or foreign language.
Glenda Moss is a professor and chair of the department of Teacher
Education and Administration at the University of North Texas at Dallas.
Her research interests include critical narrative ethnography in P-12
school settings, critical pedagogy, and multicultural education.
Cynthia Rodriguez, Juan Araujo, Ratna Narayan, Marco Shappeck, & Glenda Moss
Nurturing Lifelong Language Learners
Abstract
English Language Learners of all ages and levels face a challenge
when they encounter academically rich texts. To understand
more about what literacy practices work with these students and
to explore effective supports to inform our preservice teachers,
University of North Texas at Dallas faculty read and discussed
Academic Language for English Language Learners and Struggling
Readers (Freeman & Freeman, 2009). Three themes emerged
from our reflexive discussions: Nurturing is developing readers
and writers, nurturing is giving access to powerful language, and
nurturing is preparing effective teachers for a labor intensive
profession. As English language arts and content area teachers, it
is crucial that we continue to work diligently toward identifying
and implementing practices for English Language Learners that
are challenging for this ever-growing population of students.
Keywords: developing readers, academic language, language
access, ESL, literacy
We are colleagues working within bilingual, ESL, and grades
4-8 math and science teacher education programs. Situated in
Dallas, we are constantly aware of the shortage of more than
100 bilingual teachers in Dallas ISD alone. Our Division of
Education was recently awarded a federal grant to support
the development of preservice teachers to fill these high-need
areas. Our grant is helping us to connect with Dallas and four
other districts that make up our immediate community. As part
of this grant project, we were each presented with a copy of
Academic Language for English Language Learners and Struggling
Readers (Freeman & Freeman, 2009). The text provided us with
a backdrop for engaging in organic discussions concerning the
complexity of transforming education from a monocultural and
monolingual perspective to education that is both multicultural
and multilingual.
It is through our in depth study of the Freeman and Freeman
text as well as our ongoing collegial discussions about what
practices work when instructing English Language Learners
across content areas that we developed some key areas that we
believe are critical to the success of English Language Learners,
and, truly, to all developing learners. Three themes emerged
from our reading, discussions, and analysis of our work with
preservice teachers: nurturing is developing readers and writers,
nurturing is giving access to powerful language, and nurturing
is preparing effective teachers for a labor intensive profession.
We discuss each of these themes in the following sections and
then conclude by providing bulleted lists of actions that translate
theory into the practice of nurturing readers.
English in Texas | Volume 42.1 | Spring/Summer 2012 | A Journal of the Texas Council of Teachers of English Language Arts 63
a person as existing in an unchangeable state of being. More
appropriately, students have learning “challenges.” It does not
mean they cannot learn or that they in some way are deficient.
Similarly, we use “developing readers” to describe the concept
that everyone is in the process of advancing their reading skills.
“Developing readers” has a connotation that the students
are progressing as contrasted with “struggling readers” that
connotes a class of deficiency in terms of ability to read.
We have taken the same approach with our preservice teachers,
expecting them to engage in reading scholarly research articles,
to design inquiry questions, and conduct action research
projects as undergraduates. We expect preservice teachers to
write in English in all of our classes and are increasing our
expectations for writing in Spanish for our bilingual preservice
teachers to develop their academic skills in two languages.
Although conventional North American writing structures
continue to challenge our students and our Long-term English
Learners (LTELs) who are professors at our university, we all
continue to engage in scholarly and creative projects to develop
our literacy skills. We are learning from our students from
Honduras, Vietnam, and Mexico that we do too much labeling
in the United States, thinking that students are born with varying
degrees of talents and abilities. Our students have helped us to
see the perspective from their countries, where the belief is that
everyone can learn, and that effort is what differentiates one
student from another.
The labeling game in the United States is extensive. The various
labels used to categorize students who are in the process of
learning English as a second language include English Language
Learners (ELLs), English as a Second Language (ESL), Limited
English Proficient (LEP), and, more recently, Long-term English
learners (LTELs). LTEL identifies students in high school who
“… have been in school for seven or more years and may even
be the children of second- or third-generation immigrants …”
(Freeman & Freeman, 2009, p. 3) and are still labeled “LEP,”
indicating they are not being effectively served in schools.
Native English speakers who speak non-conventional dialects
need support as well.
Developing Preservice Readers and Writers
The majority of the students in the teacher education program
where we work are LTELs and native English speakers with
dialects. Many are proficient in English and Spanish and are
preparing for bilingual teacher certification. Some are more
proficient in Spanish than in English and vice versa. Our students
are expected to acquire new academic language on a daily basis
as they prepare to teach. Learning academic language is a lifelong
process for anyone in the field of education. How can teacher
educators support students’ development of academic English?
The process begins by understanding how these terms have
developed historically and how they are currently defined and
by taking action to ensure equal access to powerful language.
Nurturing is Developing Readers and Writers
Our Beliefs About Readers and Writers
We believe that it is essential for all teachers to develop students’
reading and writing practices regardless of content area—
“every teacher is a language teacher,” as the saying goes (Nabors
Oláh, 2012). To do this, we suggest that teachers reinforce to
students that they are readers and writers and already possess
the knowledge to become academically able. We advocate that
teachers build on the students’ voices and ideas, then mediate
their spelling and grammatical needs through frequent modeling,
reading and writing. Ultimately assisted and unassisted practice
can mediate some of their immediate needs.
What the Research Says About Readers and Writers
As we initiated our reading of the text, we noticed that Freeman
and Freeman (2009) use the term “struggling readers” as part
of the title. Our discussions led us to determine that we take
issue with the term “struggling readers.” Next, is an excerpt
from Freeman and Freeman’s (2009) text where they discuss its
definition.
Struggling readers tend to be notably unmotivated. They
are especially likely to have low confidence in their
reading… These students are likely to lack confidence in
their ability to read or even to improve their reading skill.
In addition to a lack of belief in their reading capability,
struggling readers in middle school are more likely to be
extrinsically motivated than intrinsically motivated. These
students report that their incentive for reading consists of
grades and meeting teachers’ requirements. They are
unlikely to read for their own enjoyment, seek satisfaction
of their curiosity through books, or enjoy the challenge of
a complex plot or intricate knowledge of books. (as cited in
Freeman & Freeman, 2009, p. 106)
We find it problematic to label students as “struggling readers”
because of the deficit tone. The issue of labeling is comparable
to the inappropriate use of “disabled students,” which labels
Three themes emerged from our
reading, discussions, and analysis of
our work with preservice teachers:
nurturing is developing readers and
writers, nurturing is giving access
to powerful language, and nurturing
is preparing eective teachers for a
labor intensive profession.
English in Texas | Volume 42.1 | Spring/Summer 2012 | A Journal of the Texas Council of Teachers of English Language Arts
64
The results from these studies on language use have several
implications for how educators at all levels of instruction
conceptualize academic language, develop curricula, create
lesson plans, and interact with students. Importantly, the
mindset should approach non-academic and non-standard
language varieties as legitimate rule-governed language systems
on par with the prestige often granted official standard languages
from around the world (French, Mandarin, Hindi, English, and
the like). Apart from the fact that they actually are legitimate
language systems, giving value to the home dialects of our
students (in kindergarten or the university) helps in clarifying
that what they are attempting to master with academic language
is similar to what they already mastered at home in acquiring
English and Spanish linguistic norms from their family and
community. They will also benefit from comprehending that
many more similarities than differences exist between non-
standard and standard language varieties. For example, the
syntax in (1)“He don’t know no better” and (2)“He does not
know any better” is the same. In (1), the subject-verb agreement
paradigm has been regularized, negation is contracted (typical
of spoken English), and a non-standard type of double negation
is used. Yet, all of the differences (a) have been systematized and
(b) use identical syntax, subject pronouns, content words, and
semantics. In a larger chunk of discourse, we would also observe
sameness with the inflectional and derivational morphology,
verb and noun phrases, and most vocabulary.
Identifying and Exploiting the Vernacular Features Found in
Academic Language
Freeman and Freeman (2009), following Vygostky (1962) and
Gibbons (2002), suggest utilizing our students’ grammatical
competence common in spoken English to scaffold classroom
activities that incorporate academic language. In our course
on Second Language Acquisition (SLA), students create and
perform original lesson plans that employ specified language
teaching approaches [Total Physical Response (TPR), Task-
based, Content-based, and Communicative Language Teaching].
Preservice teachers lead their peers, who assume the role of 2nd
or 3rd graders and act accordingly (i.e., silly).
During the debriefing period the presenter leads his or her peers
in a three-phased discussion while taking note of comments
and suggestions.
Phase One: Preservice teachers talk informally about likes, •
dislikes, fun/boring parts, and other generally affirming topics
related to creativity and materials.
Phase Two: Students are encouraged to incorporate field-•
specific vocabulary in making connections between the
activity and the tenets of the targeted approach (e.g., Total
Physical Response). Here, terms such as modified input,
affective filter, recasting, and corrective feedback are deliberately
used by all the discussants.
Nurturing Is Giving Access to Powerful Language
Distinguishing Between Linguistic Prejudices and Language
Production
Defining the characteristics of academic language and
determining when linguistic production crosses the “fuzzy”
boundary that divides informal and conversational from formal
and written is truly a task of comprehending the “big picture”
of language use. Linguists, bilingual and ESL pedagogues,
science and math methodologists, and special educators must
work through several of the grammatical, sociolinguistic, and
discursive issues related to speech and written language among
diverse student populations.
The prevailing beliefs about the speech of the working class and
their use of non-standard language in the United States, such
as African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and Southern
Appalachian English, supported most scientists’ cognitive
deficit models in the first half of the 20th century. Middle-
class children in school were believed to employ elaborated
codes (i.e., use of subordinated clauses, logical connectives,
original phrasing, explicit reference, and abstract thought)
while working-class peers were limited to restricted ones (i.e.,
simple sentence structure and connectives, clichés, higher use of
pronouns, and emotive and attitudinal expressions) (Bernstein,
1971). Psychologists framed the difference in linguistic codes as
a social justice issue—speakers of restricted codes, they argued,
were marginalized from the type of schooling that would expose
them to the use of elaborated (i.e., white, middle-class) language
norms. Yet, in hindsight, the manner in which Bernstein and
others designated speech as “original” and “abstract” was
tremendously biased toward the dialect that most closely aligned
with the scientists’ way of speaking. This is important for PK-12
teachers and teacher educators to understand because this bias
continues to be present in classroom interactions, impacting
children’s development and motivation to participate and
contribute to the learning community.
Understanding the Function of Language and Its Modes of
Communication
In the last 40 years, researchers have reconceptualized many of
these issues in language and education, overwhelmingly agreeing
on three main axioms: (a) dialects and other non-standard
language varieties are rule-governed and follow an internal
logic that is not, on purely linguistic terms, superior or inferior
to other language systems; (b) spoken and written registers in
English mostly share the same grammar, but generally differ in
three areas—the former tends to be more interactive, situated,
and immediate while the latter is more edited, abstract, and
reported (Biber, 1986); and oral academic language used during
lectures, tutoring, or study groups is not significantly different
from other more informal speech styles used in face-to-face
interactions (Swales, 2005).
English in Texas | Volume 42.1 | Spring/Summer 2012 | A Journal of the Texas Council of Teachers of English Language Arts 65
Teachers at all levels of the educational process can contribute
to their students’ academic language development by providing
them with opportunities to experience powerful text by
developing power vocabulary.
Pinker (1994) found that “educated adult speakers of English
know about sixty thousand words” (as cited in Freeman &
Freeman, 2009, p. 122). Teachers must recognize the vast
amount of new vocabulary that ELLs must acquire, both
conversational and academic. Although students will acquire
new terms through varied opportunities including interacting
with diverse texts and engaging in genuine conversations with
adults and peers, there is content-specific vocabulary that will
be learned only through focused, direct instruction.
Like other Texas teacher preparation programs, we have
recently been exploring the ELPS and working to integrate their
inclusion into our preservice teachers’ coursework. We are in
agreement that it is becoming the expectation in our area that
these language standards be included with the content standards
on all campus lesson plans. This change has been accompanied
by a shift in understanding from how we had previously been
leading lesson planning. In the past, our candidates addressed
only the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Now,
they are expected to also address the ELPS, showing how they
will modify lessons for students who are developing English as
a second language. We are working together to clearly see the
distinction among the two sets of standards and how they each
need to be addressed, whether explicitly or implicitly, in each
lesson being implemented.
Nurturing Is Preparing Effective Teachers
for a Labor Intensive Profession
Meeting the Needs of Our Preservice Teachers
We see ELL preservice teachers who are not successful in
passing high-stakes tests. We wonder if this is due to the lack
of academic language. Freeman and Freeman (2009) attribute
the inability to develop academic proficiency to (a) failure to
support the development of the student’s first language and
(b) inadequate instructional backing. They suggest teaching
both language and content through integrated units of study
as the best approach to facilitate the development of academic
language. We encourage our preservice teachers to integrate
language acquisition strategies they have learned in language
arts while teaching science and mathematics.
We realized that we needed to apply these principles with our
preservice teachers preparing for bilingual certification. We
had been operating on the same assumption that occurs in
many bilingual classrooms. We had assumed that because our
candidates were socially proficient, they were also academically
proficient. That assumption was a mistake—as it is a mistake in
any program. Our critical awareness has led us to work toward
assessing preservice teachers’ academic language proficiency
Phase Three: Students offer suggestions—articulated in the •
technical idiom of Second Language Acquisition (SLA)—for
how the activity could be improved or made age appropriate
for different grade levels and linguistic backgrounds. The
presenter who has led the activity and focus group uses the
information gathered from his or her peers and writes a short
essay structured on the three phases, giving the learners a solid
base on which academic writing can develop and progress.
In this way, the informal and conversational language styles in
phase one can be a foundation for scaffolding academic writing
about cognitively demanding material, which not only prepares
our preservice teachers for classroom instruction but models
instructional techniques that may help their future students
develop competency in using academic registers in the school
setting.
Expository textbooks, in particular, present difficulty for
English Language Learners and their teachers (Duke, 2000).
Freeman and Freeman (2009) adopt a model of instruction
that suggests teachers should include: knowledge goals, real
world interactions, interesting texts, student choice, strategy
instruction, and collaborative activities. Although it is important
to engage students in critical discussions and activities with
these informational texts, Freeman and Freeman (2009) suggest
that “the kinds of texts teachers select must match the student’s
current ability level” (p. 91). They also provide an explanation
of different types of genres (personal, factual, and analytical)
and suggest that read and retell and text analysis are two tools
teachers can use to understand the different genres students will
engage with including informational and other types of texts.
For teachers who work with ELLs, engaging them in expository
texts in the primary grades (K-2) is not just necessary, but
essential for students to be able to conceptualize and process
abstract ideas like the solar system, democracy, and politics
in concrete ways. We also believe that allowing students at all
English proficiency levels to take part in and experience different
text structures early in the elementary grades prepares them
to practice cognitive flexibility, which is the ability for readers
and writers to adopt a dynamic action plan, then decide what
to do when encountered with academic rich text. As students
move to upper grades, these initial attempts will provide them
a scaffolding source—something to hang on to. It is important
to remember, nevertheless, that these opportunities are given
to students in a place where they are encouraged to take risks
and are rewarded for their performance (Wickstrom, Araujo, &
Patterson, 2011).
This scaffolding process must then continue throughout the
PK-12 educational process and into college. Preservice teachers
in our program engage in a text structure activity to learn how
to read and understand scholarly, peer-reviewed research. The
activity resembles a guided reading activity through which
candidates answer questions about the parts of research,
including the problem statement, research question, literature
review, participants, findings, and discussion and conclusions.
English in Texas | Volume 42.1 | Spring/Summer 2012 | A Journal of the Texas Council of Teachers of English Language Arts
66
Address conventions (i.e., spelling, capitalization, and •
punctuation) only after students have developed critical
thinking, speaking, and writing their perspectives.
Expect students to read powerful texts at all levels, K-18-Life.•
Consistently model reading and writing; read and write with •
students.
Nurturing Is Giving Access to Powerful Language
Do not simplify language in order to help students strengthen •
comprehension; rather, model using synonyms and
paraphrasing as effective strategies for developing language.
Facilitate conversations using academic (both content and •
general) vocabulary.
Be succinct when explaining a new term or concept.•
Provide hands-on examples or visuals because they are most •
effective for learning new terms and concepts.
Engage in genuine conversations with students. Share •
information about yourself and be patient as students work
to respond in English.
Accept students’ attempts at communicating in the new •
language. As they are acquiring language, errors should be
expected as part of the learning process with constructive
feedback consistently provided.
Nurturing Is Preparing Effective Teachers for a Labor
Intensive Profession
Display favorable attitude and high self-efficacy when teaching •
ELLs.
Attend professional development to fill gaps in teacher •
knowledge of second language acquisition and learning.
Explicitly teach the language of mathematics/science with •
grade-appropriate content.
Capitalize on funds of knowledge from students’ home and •
community.
Use ELL students’ home language as instructional support for •
mathematics/science learning.
Incorporate Best Practices such as inquiry activities, small •
group collaboration, and use of manipulatives as part of
everyday classroom practice.
Promote ELL participation in classroom discourse using a •
mathematical/scientific register.
Adopt a multidimensional approach using alternative and •
authentic assessments.
Find time to get to really know your students.•
and strengthening the level of academic proficiency through
reconceptualizing and taking action to change pieces of our
program. We are examining courses to determine how we
can expand beyond only teaching one course in Spanish for
preparation for bilingual education in PK-8 classrooms to
multiple courses.
Academic language cannot be acquired merely through text.
With academic discourse, students are often individually
responsible for constructing meaning and must rely on their
own understanding of both the language and concepts involved
(Jarret, 1999). We firmly believe that successful acquisition
of content and academic language is facilitated by using a
collaborative, inquiry-based interdisciplinary approach that
creates a learning context in which the academic language
and the subject content knowledge are intertwined. Inquiry-
based, hands-on activities provide preservice teachers with the
ideal vehicle to participate both socially and academically in
the ensuing discourse. This type of active participation using
real objects, visuals and real life situations makes the academic
language more comprehensible for preservice teachers and the
PK-12 students they will eventually teach. According to Warren,
Rosebery, and Conant (1989), the approach emphasizes not
only the reasoning processes and conceptual knowledge that
fuel the activities of science and mathematics, but also the
social and linguistic processes that fuel them. All educators are
left with the labor intensive role of nurturing all learners to
develop powerful language needed to actively participate in a
multicultural society.
Translation for Classroom Practice
Content area teachers at all levels should remain cognizant of the
complex challenges ELLs face as they encounter academically
challenging texts. For English learners, it is more than just
learning the content—it is also about learning the language.
As PK-16 educators plan, deliver, and assess instruction,
it is important to think about how to incorporate content
objectives, and social and language objectives. We should not
be afraid to engage learners in academically-challenging texts
but, instead, plan varied opportunities through which learners
can meaningfully interact with texts as often as possible. We
should make every attempt to integrate the use of appropriate
texts with participation in inquiry-based, hands-on activities
that promote student participation in academic discourse.
Next, the authors provide practices teachers can act on when
nurturing English learners.
Nurturing Is Developing Readers and Writers
Reinforce to students that they are readers and can read.•
Integrate reading and writing for developing readers.•
Begin with students’ voices and ideas.•
Expect students to read what they write and write what they •
read.
English in Texas | Volume 42.1 | Spring/Summer 2012 | A Journal of the Texas Council of Teachers of English Language Arts 67
References
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control: Theoretical studies
towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Biber, D. (1986). Spoken and written textual dimensions in
English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language,
62(2): 384-414.
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of
informational texts in first grade. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35(2), 202-224.
Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (2009). Academic language for
English language learners and struggling readers.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (2002) Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning:
Teaching second language learners in the mainstream
classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Guthrie, J., & Davis, M. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in
middle school through an engagement model of
classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 9,
59-85.
Jarrett, D. (1999). The Inclusive classroom: Teaching mathematics
and science to English-language learners. Portland, OR:
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Nabors Oláh, L. (2012). Every teacher a language teacher.
Retrieved from http://www.gse.upenn.edu/node/575
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates
language. New York, NY: William Morrow.
Swales, J. (2005). Academically speaking. Language,4(8), 30-34.
Warren, B., Rosebery, A., & Conant, F. (1989). Cheche Konnen:
Science and literacy in language minority classrooms
(Report No. 7305). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek &
Newman.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Wickstrom, C., Araujo, J., Patterson, L., (with Hoki, C., & Roberts,
J.). (2011). Teachers prepare students for careers and
college: “I see you,” therefore I can teach you. In P.
Dunston, K. H.Gambrell, P. Stecker, S. Fullerton, V. Gillis,
& C. C. Bates (Eds.), 60th Literacy Research Association
Yearbook, (pp. 113-126), Oak Creek, WI: Literacy
Research Association.
Realize that sometimes you will have different points of view •
than your students and that background-building may be
necessary.
Look for quality resources that are culturally relevant, content •
specific, and meet students’ language and literacy needs.
Consider the district curriculum and search for opportunities •
that allow students to inquire about topics that match their
individual interests.
Focus on what can realistically be done with respect to their •
reading and writing academic proficiency while in your
classroom.
Embrace students’ learning opportunities.•
We must reaffirm that these concepts and strategies are effective
practice for ALL developing learners. Any time we, as teachers,
are carefully planning lessons that address the diverse language
and learning styles in our classroom, we are providing valuable
learning opportunities for everyone. However, for our students
who are ELL, these strategies are not only helpful, they are
critical to the deep comprehension needed and, therefore,
impact the overall academic success of the student. This is true
of learners at all levels, as we have learned through our work
with preservice teachers. We must continue to work diligently
toward identifying and implementing practices for English
language learners that are challenging and nurturing for this
ever-growing population of students.
