THE PRACTICE: Roles of the Teacher
Content Presented By:
Center for Resource Management (CRM)
The Education Alliance at Brown University

Research summary

Sections II and III in the research summary below are direct excerpts from Julie Meltzer and Edmund Hamann's Meeting the Literacy Development Needs of Adolescent English Language Learners Through Content Area Learning, Part II (2005). This is a publication of the Education Alliance at Brown University funded by the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory.

1. General Research on Component B: Strategies
2. Research on the Roles of the Teacher
3. Research on Using This Practice With English Language Learners
4. References

General Research on Component B: Strategies

The best practices associated with each of the five headings below are based on an extensive research base and must be used synergistically, in combination with one another, in order to be effective (e.g. Alvermann & Phelps, 1998; Davidson & Koppenhaver, 1993; Langer, 1999, 2001; Schoenbach et al, 1999; Tharp, 1999).

Promising Practices Related to the Roles of the Teacher

Promising Practices Related to Reading and Writing

Promising Practices Related to Speaking and Listening

Promising Practices Related to an Emphasis on Thinking

Promising Practices Related to Creating a Student-Centered Classroom

[top]

Research on the Roles of the Teacher: Modeling, Explicit Strategy Instruction in Context, and Use of Formative Assessment

Teachers need to model, explicitly teach, and regularly assess students' literacy habits and skills in order to determine what to further model and teach. This approach to teaching, discussed here in specific relation to developing adolescents' academic literacy habits and skills, is not currently part of most middle and high school teachers' regular repertoire. As the cycle of modeling, explicit teaching, and assessment undergirds the effective implementation of all of the promising practices discussed later in the paper, it is a fitting place to begin the discussion of effective generic literacy support strategies. If the cycle is implemented as described, the research suggests that it can help teachers meet the academic literacy development needs of diverse learners, including ELLs.

Teacher Modeling

Reading and writing are complex skills that vary by context. For example, reading a scientific journal does not require the same skills as reading a historical novel. Likewise, writing geometric proofs, lab reports, short stories, poems, or persuasive letters all require different approaches and skills. Each reading and writing task, therefore, requires overlapping but not identical sets of skills, some of which are highly context, purpose, or genre specific (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995). Moreover, people who are proficient in some aspects of reading and writing may be novices at others. Yet for all content areas, modeling and using a literacy apprenticeship framework are effective ways to make reading and writing visible and, therefore, to support the development of more sophisticated reading and writing skills (Schoenbach et al., 1999).

Throughout the literature, there is an emphasis on the efficacy of a gradual release model for teaching reading comprehension and other literacy support strategies (Beckman, 2002; Curtis, 2002; Duke & Pearson, 2002; Wilhelm et al., 2001). That is, the teacher models the use of the strategy, practices it together with the students, and has the students try the strategy with one another before expecting them to use the strategy independently. Modeling is a necessary early implementation step for successful strategy instruction. Studies show that teacher modeling has a beneficial effect on student performance (e.g., Alfassi, 2004). According to Curtis (2002), The extent of improvement experienced by learners seems to depend on the degree to which instruction focuses on improving knowledge about when and why to use the strategy-information that seems best gained when teachers and students model the process and talk about its use (p. 8).

The use of think alouds is one clear way that teachers can model how they approach extracting meaning from text. According to Duke and Pearson (2002), studies typically have not examined the effect of teacher think aloud by itself,

. . . but rather as a package of reading comprehension strategies. Therefore, although we cannot infer directly that teacher think aloud is effective, it is clear that as part of a package, teacher think aloud has been proven effective in a number of studies. For example, think aloud is part of the Informed Strategies for Learning (ISL) program (Paris, Cross, & Lipson, 1984), reciprocal teaching...[and] the SAIL program all of which have been shown to be effective at improving student comprehension. It is also an important part of the early modeling stages of instruction in many comprehension training routines, for example the QAR work of Raphael and her colleagues (Raphael, Wonnacott, & Pearson, 1983) and the inference training work of Gordan and Pearson (1983). These studies suggest that teacher modeling is most effective when it is explicit, leaving the student to intuit or infer little about the strategy and its application, and flexible, adjusting strategy use to the text rather than presenting it as governed by rigid rules. Teacher think aloud with those attributes is most likely to improve students' comprehension of text. (pp. 235-236)

Originally, think alouds were used primarily as a qualitative research tool to determine what readers do as they read. They are now seen as ways for teachers and students to communicate how they are thinking as they read and how they are approaching a given reading task. Using think alouds, a teacher can model the practice for students and thus can model expectations of how to complete an academic literacy task by providing questions about the task, how to fix comprehension breakdown, how to connect the task to prior knowledge about the topic, and how one might go about organizing a thoughtful verbal or written response to text (Kucan & Beck, 1997). The ultimate goal is that the practice of thinking aloud becomes an integral part of the way the classroom community approaches text-that is, to change the classroom academic culture.

From a social constructivist perspective, the potential result of participating in a social situation involving reading and thinking about texts is that individual students can draw upon the teacher and other students to help them construct not only an understanding of text ideas, but also an understanding of what it means to read and think about texts. (Kucan & Beck, 1997, p. 289)

[top]

Explicit Strategy Instruction in Context

The research recommends that literacy skills and strategies be taught and used in the context of reading, writing, and learning rather than solely or primarily practiced in isolation. This is the direct opposite of the skill and drill worksheets often used for remediation (Langer, 2001; Schoenbach et al., 1999). The research does not show strong results for ELL or other students who learn skills in isolation and then are expected to apply or transfer those skills appropriately on their own. However, there is ample evidence that a number of particular literacy strategies, when explicitly taught, modeled, and practiced in context, enhance the ability of secondary school students to use reading and writing skills to learn throughout the content areas (Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Rosenshine, 1997; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994; Rosenshine et al., 1996; Schoenbach et al., 1999). The research emphasizes that reading comprehension can be greatly improved through regular use of certain strategies before, during, and after reading. Explicit teacher and student use of strategies that support the activation of prior knowledge, questioning, clarifying, visualizing, predicting, and summarizing in context leads to improved reading comprehension and content-area reading skills (e.g., Alfassi, 2004; Bakken et al., 1997; Langer, 1999; National Reading Panel, 2000; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Ruddell & Unrau, 1996; Symons, Richards, & Greene, 1995; Wilhelm, 1995). Effective strategies recommended in the literature include the use of anticipation guides, KWL, reciprocal teaching, graphic organizers, question generating, directed reading-thinking activity (DRTA), think alouds, sensory imagery, drama, art, and structured note taking (Billmeyer & Barton, 1998; Buehl, 2001; Christen & Murphy, 1991). The research also supports efficacy of explicit instruction in the use of reading and literacy strategies to prepare students to take tests, a context students are finding to be increasingly consequential (Guthrie, 2002; Langer, 1999).

[top]

When teachers use multiple forms of assessment, it allows them to better modulate instruction to match students' literacy needs (Langer, 1999; Peterson et al., 2000). If assessment purpose and design are shared with students, multiple forms of assessment can help students understand their literacy strengths and areas of challenge, thereby empowering students to take better charge of their learning. Literacy assessment strategies include writing and presentation rubrics; self-assessment inventories; cloze passages; individualized reading inventories (IRI); teacher-created assignments; and, where appropriate or mandated, standardized or standards-based tests.

Ongoing formative assessment provides teacher and student alike with useful information about the student's literacy habits and skills and/or the student's content knowledge and is recognized throughout the literature as critical for improving academic literacy habits and skills (e.g., Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). Use of more than one form of assessment makes it easier for assessment to be responsive to student needs, learning styles, and strengths, greatly improving the chances that, over time, assessments will accurately reflect learning and alert teachers to additional areas for attention (Moore et al., 1999; Quenemoen, Thurlow, Moen, Thompson, & Morse, 2004; Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003). Examples of informal assessments that provide teachers with feedback about students' reading comprehension and concept development include quick writes, written and verbal summaries, completion of concept maps, and analytical graphic organizers. These are vehicles that can be used as assessment strategies and modeled as learning strategies for students to adopt (NCTE, 2004). Involving students in rubric development is another way to respond to students' need for voice and input as well as to learn what they value and respect in high quality written work or presentations.

This kind of formative assessment is different from that generated by large-scale, often high-stakes standardized tests. Whatever the merit of such tests, they do not provide the immediate, individualized, nuanced feedback (Sarroub & Pearson, 1998) that we wish to highlight here. Literacy assessment must be conducted in ways that reflect teachers' understandings of the languages spoken in students' homes and communities lest it incorrectly diagnose spoken and written abilities (see, e.g., Ball, 1998; Ball & Farr, 2003; Lincoln, 2003; Walquí, 2004). This is critical whether students speak social or regional dialects (e.g., African American English, Appalachian English) or national languages (e.g., Spanish, Hmong) (Lee, 2004, p.16) that differ from mainstream academic English. Teachers cannot provide appropriate feedback and scaffolding of learning without an understanding of what reading and writing assessments are telling them.

[top]

Research on Using This Practice With English Language Learners

Research on Using Teacher Modeling with ELLs

Hamayan (1990) asserts that mainstream teachers should see themselves as models of academic use of English for ELLs (or, as she puts it, potentially English-proficient students). In noting this prospective role, she acknowledges both that ELLs are often isolated from native speakers of English and that, even when they are exposed to L1 (first language) English peers, the peers' English might not be a good model of academic English. Valdés (2001) has also been critical of ELLs' frequent lack of access to good models of academic English, noting that the junior high ESL teachers she has observed were both substantially outnumbered (as the only native English speakers in classrooms of 30 or more students) and often modeled an overly simplified version of English.

Hadaway, Vardell, and Young (2001) describe the effectiveness of using poetry to scaffold oral language development and serve as an entry to content learning for ELLs. In discussing how to best use poetry as a language, literacy, and learning scaffold, they emphasize the importance of teacher modeling, whether the instructional goal is oral interpretation, analysis or writing of poetry or use of poetry as a bridge between prior knowledge and experience and new content learning.

Curry (2004, p. 7) discusses the necessity of modeling for ELLs within the community college setting with regard to providing examples of the types of texts they are expected to produce, but she stresses that faculty should clarify that students are not simply to imitate exemplars. Curry also discusses the value of modeling questioning strategies as well as types of questions to ask. As with other strategies, it is essential that students practice questioning techniques after they are modeled. She notes that some cultures consider it rude to question the teacher. Referring to Chen, Boyd, and Goh's work (2003) about how to help under-prepared Chinese students negotiate college successfully, Curry notes that many ELLs do not realize that questioning is an expected form of participation in U.S. classrooms.

Hamayan (1990) describes a related role for mainstream teachers of ELLs: that of cultural mediator. She is careful to characterize this role as multi-directional. In other words, modeling academic English should not be viewed as a task of assimilating the students, but rather a task of supporting a student's access to the language, genres, and habits that mark academic success, without sacrificing the student's cultural and linguistic identities. This observation is related to student motivation and engagement (and thus is addressed more in Meltzer and Hamann, [2004]), but it is raised here because of its relevance to effective modeling of academic English.

[top]

Research on Using Explicit Strategy Instruction With ELLs

Montes (2002) describes the successful implementation of the Content Area Program Enhancement (CAPE) model based on the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) in one Texas district. Schools that fully implemented the model were more effective with ELLs, including those at risk of dropping out of school, in terms of student achievement outcomes. The model included intensive professional development for teacher teams and required teachers to change their classroom strategies to encourage more collaborative learning. The model also required teachers to explicitly teach at least one CALLA strategy as applicable at each class session, either cognitive (resourcing, grouping, note taking, elaboration of prior knowledge, summarizing, deduction, induction, imaginary or making inferences) or metacognitive (organization, planning selective attention, self-management, self-assessment) (p. 699).

In her review of effective instructional practices for ELLs within the content areas, Anstrom (1997) notes the importance of having mainstream teachers make explicit their expectations for student work. Anstrom also notes the special importance for ELLs of learning from purposely varied instructional strategies. That is, ELLs, like many students, learn best when they have a mix of individual, small group, and whole class work. Within those formats, teachers can use direct instruction, guided discovery, cooperative learning, and computer-assisted instruction.

Curry (2004) stresses that effectively communicating requirements and expectations is critical for ELLs' success at the community college level as well. This communication should include the explicit teaching about the meaning of key words in essay questions, modeling and explaining how to approach essay writing, providing written directions and guiding questions for assignments, and explicitly teaching what she terms contrastive awareness. Referring to Steinman's (2003) work, Curry discusses several strategies for explicit instruction in how disciplinary texts differ from one another, how broader genres (letters to the editor, laboratory reports, reflective essays) differ, and how students can be helped to understand how their first languages are similar and different from the discourses of each of the academic disciplines they are being asked to study.

In their review of effective practices for teaching reading to ESL students, Nurss and Hough (1992) conclude, as one of seven findings, that the research supports the need for teachers to provide instruction in how to comprehend content materials and to acquire study and test taking skills (p. 307). August and Pease-Alvarez (1996) propose that teachers can meet the needs of a wider variety of students through the use of multiple approaches. Walqui (2000b) also argues that, to serve ELLs well, teachers need a flexible curriculum, both in content (relevant to age, abilities, interests, students' cultural backgrounds) and in delivery (project-based, authentic, coherent).

[top]

Research on Using Multiple Forms of Assessment with ELLs

Assessment, like instruction, should be valid, responsive, and safe. That is not always easy with ELLs (Lucas, 1993; Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003). Content-area teachers need to remember that for ELLs, all tests are tests of language proficiency and that interpreting test results from ELLs requires separating language comprehension concerns from content-area comprehension issues (Abedi, 2004, 2005; Abedi, Hofstetter, & Lord, 2004; Jeannot, 2004; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994). For example, Greene (1998) found that bilingual programs resulted in significant achievement gains in math when measured in Spanish but that when students were tested in English, gains were insignificant. Solano-Flores and Trumbull found that ELLs' test performances vary by subject, in terms of the language in which they test better, reflecting perhaps differences in the language they were using for acquisition. It is misleading to presume that a Spanish-speaking ELL who tests better in math if the exam is in Spanish will necessarily do better on a social studies exam that is in Spanish instead of English. Also, the validity of a test in one language of knowledge acquired through instruction in another is questionable (Abedi, 2005). In a study of high school students, Allen, Bernhardt, Berry, & Demel (1988) illustrated that the nature of the language used for a task may affect the difficulty of it because of the genres used for that task. Thus, students learning Spanish as a second language found recalling items from a magazine article the easiest in a comparison of four reading genres, but students learning French as a second language found recall from a magazine article to be the hardest.

Abedi (2005) raises a number of important validity and reliability questions about assessment and ELLs, all of which caution against the current trend of subjecting ELLs to high stakes content-area assessments presented in English. He notes that unnecessary linguistic complexity in content-area assessment can create construct-irrelevant variance among ELLs and between ELLs and other students. He adds that this problem is increasingly likely in advanced grades (i.e., secondary school) because the content being tested becomes more complex. Although he recommends that assessment of ELLs should include accommodation, he highlights a number of irrelevant accommodations (e.g., bigger type) that are offered to ELLs and notes that accommodations can raise their own hazards. How appropriate is it to assess ELLs in their native language on content they have been taught in English? How fair is it to compare ELLs' assessment outcomes on a test conducted in their native language (when instruction was in English) to L1 English-speaking classmates' test outcomes?

Teachers should note that assessments affect how students regard a classroom, a subject, and themselves as learners. It follows that assessment feedback needs to be provided thoughtfully: What is the learner hearing about his/her skill level and needed next steps and will the feedback encourage him/her to pursue the most appropriate next steps? Teachers need to recognize that adolescent ELLs often come to U.S. classrooms with preconceived understandings of schooling and assessment (Olsen & Jaramillo, 2000; Valdés, 2001). Jeannot (2004) notes that these understandings can include assumptions about appropriate ways to demonstrate knowledge on a formal assessment-for example, cultures and schooling systems differ in their embrace of the injunction show your work. ELLs may need explicit instruction regarding both the teacher's expectations and how to meet those expectations.

However, the literature supports the notion that assessment, at least informal assessment, of ELLs should be frequent in order to provide appropriate and adequate support of ELLs' academic progress (Echevarria & Goldenberg, 1999). In content-area classes taught in English, ELLs are progressing along two dimensions-content knowledge and language acquisition. Thus, the maximally responsive teacher wants to know where a given ELL is on both of these dimensions. Moreover, although they are related, it does not follow that a given ELL's language acquisition and content knowledge acquisition will proceed at the same pace. Thus, over the course of a semester a teacher may need to respond to an ELL's varying struggles with language or content.

At the community college level, Curry (2004) notes that faculty need to be aware of the limitations of the diagnostic gatekeeping and placement decisions based upon the testing of ELLs' reading, writing, and grammar skills in English. She notes how ELLs' responses to multiple choice grammar tests may not provide accurate or useful information about students' abilities to write, yet are often used for ease of scoring. She suggests that unfamiliarity with topics, anxiety about time limits, and inauthentic testing conditions that do not reproduce real world social, academic, or professional contexts may also produce invalid information about ELLs' writing ability. Referencing Hall (1991), Curry comments that ELLs in these conditions often have time to produce only one draft, may focus on surface features instead of substance, and often do not have dictionaries and other resources to use. She advocates that portfolio assessments as well as tests should be used when testing ELLs' writing proficiency if the goal is to accurately understand students' skill levels.

In a paper on recommendations for what mainstream teachers can do with ELLs, Hamayan (1990) raises the notion of assessment as a collaborative teacher responsibility. She notes that ELLs (like secondary students generally) often have multiple teachers who independently assess how much a student knows and how that student is progressing. Hamayan suggests that these teachers confer with each other, sharing their assessments, and thus identifying and perhaps troubleshooting assessment discrepancies that may better reflect the limitations of the assessment instead of the limitations of the learner.

[top]

References

Alverman, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (1998). Content Reading and Literacy: Succeeding in Today's Diverse Classrooms. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Alvermann, D., & Moore D. (1991). Secondary School Reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. Vol. II, 951-983). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Billmeyer, R., & Barton, M. L. (1998). Teaching Reading in the Content Areas: If not Me, Then Who? Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory.

Christen, W. L., & Murphy, T. J. (1991, March). Increasing Comprehension by Activating Prior Knowledge. ERIC Digest on Reading Comprehension, ED328885. Available: http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9219/prior.htm.

Collins, N. D. (1996, June). Motivating Low Performing Adolescent Readers. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication, 112. Available:http://www.ericdigests.org/1997-1/low.html

Collins, N. (1994, June). Metacognition and Reading to Learn. ERIC Digest #96, EDO-CS-94-09. Available:http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d96.html.

Collins, V.L., Dickson, S.V., Simmons, D.C., & Kameenue, E.J. Metacognition and Its Relation to Reading Comprehension: A Synthesis of the Research. Available: http://idea.uoregon.edu/%7Encite/documents/techrep/tech23.html.

Cotton, K. (1988, February). Teaching Composition: Research on Effective Practices. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/2/topsyn2.html.

Davidson, J., & Koppenhaver, D. (1993). Adolescent Literacy: What Works and Why. Second Edition. Garland Reference Library of Social Science (Volume 828). Garland Publishing Company: New York & London.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, D. P. (In press). Effective Practices for Developing Reading Comprehension. Available:http://www.scholastic.com/dodea/Module_1/resources/dodea_m1_pa_duke.pdf.

Flaspeter, R. (1995). Sustained Silent Reading: Implementation in the LEP Classroom Based on Research Results. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Sunshine State Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Jacksonsville, FL.

Garner, R. (1992). Metacognition and Self-Monitoring Strategies. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 236-252). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberh, H. J. (1988). Can Comprehension be Taught: A Quantitative Synthesis of "Metacognitive" Studies. Educational Researcher, 17(9), 5-8.

Krogness, M. M. (1995). Just Teach Me, Mrs. K.: Talking, Reading, and Writing With Resistant Adolescent Learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Langer, J. (2001). Guidelines for Teaching Middle and High School Students to Read and Write Well. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement. Available: http://cela.albany.edu/publication/abstract/odds2.htm.

Langer, J. (1999). Beating the Odds: Teaching Middle and High School Students to Read and Write Well. Available:http://cela.albany.edu/guidetext.pdf.

McCombs, B., & Barton, M. (1998). Motivating Secondary School Students to Read Their Textbooks. NASSP Bulletin, 82 (600), 24-33.

Palinscar, A. S. (1986). The Role of Dialogue in Providing Scaffolded Instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 78-98.

Paris, S., Lipson, M., & Wixson, K. (1994). Becoming a Strategic Reader. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 788-810). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Rosenshine, B. (1997, March 24 - 28). The Case for Explicit, Teacher-led, Cognitive Strategy Instruction. Presented at the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL. Available: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/barak/barak1.html.

Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman S. (1996, Summer). Teaching Students to Generate Questions: A Review of the Intervention Studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181-221.

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994, Winter). Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of the Research. Review of Educational Review, 64(4), 479-530.

Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (1994). Reading as a Meaning-Construction Process: The Reader. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 996-1056). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz, L. (1999). Reading for Understanding: A Guide to Improving Reading in Middle and High School Classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tharp, R. (1999, January). Proofs and Evidence: Effectiveness of the Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy. In Effective Teaching Series #2 [Online]. Available:http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/standards/effectiveness.shtml.

Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1992). A Revisionist Perspective on Learning to Learn from Text: A Framework for Improving Classroom Practice. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 514-519). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Tierney, R. J., & Person, P. D. (1981). Learning to Learn from Text: A Framework for Improving Classroom Practice. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 496-513). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The Teaching of Learning Strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 315-327). New York: MacMillan.

Abedi, J. (2004, January/February). The No Child Left Behind act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14.

Alvermann, D. E. (2001, October), Effective literacy instruction for adolescents (Executive summary and paper). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Retrieved August 5, 2004, from http://www.nrconline.org/publications/alverwhite2.pdf

Biancarosa, G. & Snow, C. (2004) Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York and Alliance for Excellent Education.

Chang, J. I. (1997, November). Contexts of adolescent worries: Impacts of ethnicity, gender, family structure and socioeconomic status. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCFR Fatherhood and Motherhood in a Diverse and Changing World, Arlington, VA.

Connell, R.W. (1993). Schools and social justice. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Curtis, M. E. (2002, May). Adolescent reading: A synthesis of research. Paper presented at the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development conference on adolescent literacy, Baltimore, MD. Retrieved December 3, 2002, from http://216.26.160.105/conf/nichd/synthesis.asp

Darder, A. (1993). How does the culture of the teacher shape the classroom experience of Latino students? The unexamined question in critical pedagogy. In S.W. Rothstein (Ed.), Handbook of teaching in urban America (pp. 195-221). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Dillon, L. D. (1989). Showing them I want them to learn and that I care about who they are: A microethnography of social organization of a secondary low-track English reading classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 227-259.

Dozier, E. (1970). The Pueblo Indians of North America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Dwyer, M. (1998). Creating and sustaining change for immigrant learners in secondary schools. TESOL Journal 7(5), 6-10.

Early, M. (1985). Input and interaction in content classrooms: Foreigner talk and teacher talk in classroom discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.

Epstein, E. H. (1970). Politics and education in Puerto Rico: A documentary survey of the language issue. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

Fernandez, R. M., & Nielsen, F. (1986). Bilingualism and Hispanic scholastic achievement: Some baseline results. Social Science Research, 15(1), 43-70.

Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.

Foley, D. (1990). Learning capitalist culture: Deep in the heart of Tejas. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Garcia, O. (1999). Educating Latino high school students with little formal schooling. In C. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, and ESL in the Secondary School (pp. 61-82). New York: Teachers College Press.

Greene, J. P. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Tomas Rivera Policy Institute. Retrieved August 10, 2004, from http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/pdf/biling.pdf

Guthrie, J. T., & Knowles, K. T. (2001). Promoting reading motivation. In L. Verhoeven & C. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 159-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hamann, E. T. (2001). Theorizing the sojourner student: (With a sketch of appropriate school responsiveness). In M. C. Hopkins & N. Wellmeier (Eds.), Negotiating transnationalism: Selected papers on refugees and immigrants (Vol. IX, pp. 32-71). Arlington, VA: American Anthropology Association.

Hamann, E. T., Migliacci, N., & Smith, P. (2004). Including/excluding English language learners in the effort to restructure high schools for personalization. Paper presented at the National Association of Secondary School Principals Convention, Orlando, FL.

Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 329-350.

Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). Just plain reading: A survey of what makes students want to read in the middle school classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 350-377.

Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Krogness, M. M. (1995). Just teach me, Mrs. K.: Talking, reading and writing with resistant adolescent learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Lachat, M. (1999). What policymakers and school administrators need to know about assessment reform for English language learners. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University. Retrieved December 10, 2004, from http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/Policy_asmt.pdf
(2004). Standards-based instruction and assessment for English language learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Langer, J. A. (1999). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well (Research Rep. No. 12014). Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement (CELA), State University of New York at Albany.

McCombs, B. L., & Barton, M. L. (1998). Motivating secondary school students to read their textbooks. NASSP Bulletin, 82(600), 24-33.

McKenna, M. C. (2001). Development of reading attitudes. In L. Verhoeven & C. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 135-158). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Meltzer, J. (2001). The adolescent literacy support framework. Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University. Retrieved August 11, 2004, from http://knowledgeloom.org/media/bpinter/1174/pyramid.html

Minicucci, C. (2000). Effective use of time in the education of English language learners. In P. Géndara (Ed.), The dimensions of time and the challenge of school reform (pp. 49-67.) Albany: State University of New York Press.

Miramontes, O. B., Nadeau A., & Commins, N. L. (1997). Restructuring schools for linguistic diversity: Linking decision making to effective programs. New York: Teachers College Press.

Moje, E. B., & Hinchman, K. (2004). Culturally responsive practices for youth literacy learning. In Jetton, T. L. & Dole, J. A. (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 321-350). New York: Guilford Press.

Moll, L. (1988). Some key issues in teaching Latino students. Language Arts, 65(5), 465-472.

Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W, Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position paper. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 97-112.

Moore, D. W., Alvermann, D. E. & Hinchman, K. A. (2000). Struggling adolescent readers: A collection of teaching strategies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Nagy, W. E., et al. (1993). Spanish-English bilingual students' use of cognates in English reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(3), 241-59.

Nagy, W. E., McClure, E. F., & Mir, M. (1997). Linguistic transfer and the use of context by Spanish-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(4), 431-52.

Ochoa, A., & Cadiero-Kaplan, K. (2004). Towards promoting biliteracy and academic achievement: Educational programs for high school Latino English language learners. High School Journal, 27-43. Retrieved December 10, 2004, from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/high_school_journal/toc/hsj87.3.html

Olsen, L., & Jaramillo, A. (2000). When time is on our side: Redesigning schools to meet the needs of immigrant students. In P. Géndara (Ed.), The dimensions of time and the challenge of school reform (pp. 225-250). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Orellana, M. F. (2001). The work kids do: Mexican and Central American immigrant children's contributions to households and schools in California. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 366-89.

Pappamihiel, N. E. (2001). Moving from the ESL classroom into the mainstream: An investigation of English language anxiety in Mexican girls. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(1, 2). Retrieved December 10, 2004, from http://brj.asu.edu/v2512/articles/art3.html

Peterson, C. L., Caverly, D. C., Nicholson, S. A., O?Neal, S., & Cusenbary, S. (2000). Building reading proficiency at the secondary school level: A guide to resources. San Marcos, TX: Southwestern Texas State University and the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Reed, J. H., Schallert, D. L., Beth, A. D., & Woodruff, A. L. (2004). Motivated reader, engaged writer: The role of motivation in the literate acts of adolescents. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 251-282). New York: Guilford Press.

Reyhmer, J., & Davidson, D. (1992). Improving mathematics and science instruction for LEP middle and high school students through language activities. Paper presented at the Third National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on Middle School and High School Issues. Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/symposia/third/reyhner.htm

Roe, M. (2001). Combining enablement and engagement to assist students who do not read and write well. In J. A. Rycik & J. L. Irvin (Eds.), What adolescents deserve: A commitment to students' literacy learning (pp. 10-19). Wilmington, DE: International Reading Association.

Royer, J. M., & Carlo, M. S. (1991). Transfer of comprehension skills from native to second language. Journal of Reading, 34(6), 450-55.

Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (1996). The role of responsive teaching in focusing reader intention and developing reader motivation. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 102-125). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Sarroub, L., & Pearson, P. D. (1998). Two steps forward, three steps back: The stormy history of reading comprehension assessment. Clearing House, 72, 97-105.

Schinka-Llano, L. (1983). Foreigner talk in content classrooms. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 146-168). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz, L. (1999). Reading for understanding: A guide to improving reading in middle and high school classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Developing self-efficacious readers and writers: The role of social and self-regulatory processes. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield, Eds. Reading for engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp 34-50). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Smith, M., & Wilhelm, J. (2002). Reading don't fix no Chevys: Literacy in the lives of young men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Solano-Flores, G., & Trumbull, E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new research and practice paradigms in the testing of English-language learners. Educational Researcher, 32, 3-13.

Spicer, E. (1976). Cycles of conquest: The impact of Spain, Mexico, and the United States on the Indians of the Southwest 1533-1960. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Sturtevant, E. G. (1998). What middle and high school educators need to know about language minority students. NASSP Bulletin, 82(600), 73-77.

Suérez-Orozco, C., & Suérez-Orozco, M. (2001). Children of immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Suina, J. H. (2004). Native language teachers in a struggle for language and cultural survival. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 35(3), 281-302.

Swan, E. A. (2004). Motivating adolescent readers through concept-oriented reading instruction. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 283-303). New York: Guilford Press.

Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.

Tse, L. (2001). Resisting and reversing language shift: Heritage-language resilience among U.S. native biliterates. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 677-709.

Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Van den Broek, P., & Kremer, K. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In B. M. Taylor, M. Graves, & P. Van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 1-31). New York: Teachers College Press.

Verplaetse, L. S. (1998). How content teachers interact with English language learners. TESOL Journal 7(5), 24-28.

Walquí, A. (2000b). Strategies for success: Engaging immigrant students in secondary schools [ERIC Digest]. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. Retrieved August 10, 2004, from http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-1/success.html

Walsh, C. (1999). Enabling academic success for secondary students with limited formal schooling: A study of the Haitian literacy program at Hyde Park school in Boston. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University. Retrieved December 10, 2004, from http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/HaitianLit.pdf

Waxman, H. C., & Tellez, K. (2002). Effective teaching practices for English language learners. The Laboratory for Student Success, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved December 10, 2004, from http://www.temple.edu/LSS/pdf/spotlights/700/spot705.pdf

Wolfe, P., & Faltis, C. (1999). Gender and ideology in secondary ESL and bilingual classrooms. In C. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, and ESL in the secondary school (pp. 83-102). New York: Teachers College Press.

Wortham, S. (2001). Gender and school success in the Latino diaspora. In S. Wortham, E. G. Murillo, & E. T. Hamann (Eds.), Education in the new Latino diaspora: Policy and the politics of identity (pp. 117-141). Westport, CT: Ablex Press.

[top]

This resource is developed and maintained by The Education Alliance at Brown University. Seed funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Education. Send comments to: loom@alliance.brown.edu