1. Long Term English Learners and Oral Language: Breaking the Logjam
David Irwin
WABE 2011
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator …
Background Information for the Facilitator
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants

2. Participant Goals
Ensure that instructional leaders are knowledgeable on the research on Long Term English Learners (LTELs) and oral language development in an effort to help ELLs become proficient users of English. BY
Engaging in professional dialogue and practice with colleagues about improving instruction with oral language activities.

3. What is a Long Term English Learner?
A student who has been in a structured sheltered or bilingual program for six years or longer (California Dept of Ed)
Washington has no official definition of LTEL
However we do have students who plateau, or receive the same score on the WLPT for years
LTELs begin to appear in middle school, continuing to high school
Patterns of non-academic English use begin pre- Kindergarten (Kinsella 2010)

4. The Stats in Washington
Time in Program
Total Served
Exited ELL Students*
% of Exited Students
Less than 1 Year
14,276
785
6.8%
1 to < 2 Years
22,976
3,098
26.8%
2 to < 3 Years
17,418
2,986
25.8%
3 to < 4 Years
12,381
1,787
15.5%
4 to < 5 Years
7.978
761
6.6%
5 to < 6 Years
6,502
654
5.6%
6+ Years
9,938
1,499
12.9%
Total
91,469
11,580
100.0%
Source: Educating English Language Learners in Washington State, 2009–10 : Report to Legislature

5. The Stats in Washington
654 of year student exited in 2010
1499 of year students exited in 2010
In Washington has 14,285 at 6+ years, about 15%

6. Cummins
Academic Language takes 5-7 years for a student with some schooling in L1
Up to 12 years for a students with little or no schooling in L1
A student who is 6 years into the program is not necessarily at deficit – unless they are not making progress
(See Margo Gottlieb for tips on assessment at this conference….)

7. “Proficiency in oral language provides children with a vital tool for thought. Without fluent and structured oral language, children will find it very difficult to think.”
--Jerome Bruner

8. Children’s speaking and listening skills lead the way for their reading and writing skills, and together these language skills are the primary tools of the mind for all future learning.
Roskos, Tabors, & Lenhart, 2005, p. v.

9. Link Between Oral Language and Comprehension
Oral Language has a direct correlation to reading comprehension
Decoding
Comprehension
Phonological
Awareness
Letter
Knowledge
C. Eisenhart

10. What Does Research Suggest Regarding Oral Language Development?

11. The Effects of Weaknesses in Oral Language on Reading Growth (Hirsch, 1996)
High Oral Language in Kindergarten 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5
5.2 years difference
Low Oral Language in Kindergarten
Reading Age Level
Purpose: Discuss language gap
Time: 2 minutes
Facilitator Notes:
Explain to participants that this graph depicts the gap in reading levels that persists due to a weakness in oral language development, and that weaknesses in vocabulary and oral language interfere with the development of reading comprehension skills
The graph shows that by the time students reach adolescence, those that showed low oral language in Kindergarten had a reading level that was approximately 5.2 years below their peers who demonstrated a high oral language level in Kindergarten.
This is evidence to support the idea that even though language continues to develop during the primary years, the gap between students with advanced language and children with restricted language will grow wider without appropriate instruction and work with oral language development (Biemiller, 1999)
Background Information for Facilitator:
The information for this graphic comes from a study done in California circa If questions arise regarding the source of information, the data was originally published by E.D. Hirsch in For source validation purposes please note that this slide was found in talks given by Joseph Torgesen (Florida Center for Reading Research), and also Dr. Corinne Eisenhart (Florida Center for Reading Research; Eastern Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center)
Chronological Age

12. Cumulative Language Experiences 30 Million Word Difference–
45 –
40 –
35 –
30 –
25 –
20 –
15 –
10 –
5 –
Number of words heard (millions)
For notes put in statistics from Hart and Risley reference Eisenhart ppt also
Children from:
Professional Families
Working Class Families
Welfare Families
Age of child (years)

13. What is Oral Language?
Oral Language Proficiency: knowledge and use of specific aspects of oral language, including phonology, vocabulary, morphology, grammar, and discourse domains. It encompasses skills in both comprehension and expression.
Facilitator’s Notes
--This slide is from the draft outline. What did you want to say about the research base for Oral Language in connection to literacy?
Directions to Facilitator
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
The National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (2006)

14. Oral Language and English Learners
English language learners need plenty of oral practice with social and academic language
English Language Development (ELD) instruction should emphasize listening and speaking although it can incorporate reading and writing.
Allowing the use of the student’s first language (L1) accelerates his/her growth
Use of the L1 can be structured in a dual language program, and can be used strategically in a Sheltered English program
Facilitator’s Notes
Saunders and Goldenberg (2010) performed a review of available research on ELD instruction. The term ELD instruction means explicit language instruction in all 4 domains for English learners as differentiated from literacy instruction for native English speakers. They classified the studies in three categories: Relatively Strong Supporting Evidence, Hypotheses Emerging from Recent Research, and Guidelines Applicable to ELD but Grounded in Non-English Learner or Non-ELD Research.
As differentiated from content based instruction, or push-in and pull-out content support, ELD instruction is separate form content instruction and is explicit and specific to the language development needs of ELLs at their developmental level. There is strong evidence that this is beneficial.
ELD instructions should include structured interactive activities in which ELLs are given opportunity, supported and required to use oral language. This is possible at all levels of language acquisition.
The daily block of ELD should be based on standards and taught with research based materials. It should include all domains, including oral language. It is not intended to support other content. Note: our state has encouraged districts to minimize “pull-out” for the last 10 years since the Collier & Thomas reports of 1997 and 2001 showed the ineffectiveness of that model. The California report suggests that pull-out has a place with research-grounded instruction.
Listening and speaking have been minimized in place of focused literacy development with ELLs past the newcomer stage. ELLs should receive focused aural/oral development instruction at all levels.
The National Literacy Panel (2006): “The studies reviewed in Chapter 4 provide ample research evidence that certain aspects of second-language literacy development are related to performance on similar constructs in the first language; this suggests that common underlying abilities play a significant role in both first and second-language development.
Collier & Thomas (1997) and (2001) have documented the acceleration of L2 language acquisition when combined with academic development of L1.
Directions to Facilitator
Explain these points with emphasis from the notes.
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
This information comes from the SchoolsMovingUp.org webinar series on Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches (2010) from the California Department of Education. It contains current research on oral language and literacy for ELLs from August, Shanahan, Saunders, Goldenberg, Katz, Snow, Short, Dutro, Kinsella and Olsen. It is available at
Saunders and Goldenberg (2010), National Literacy Panel (2006) Collier & Thomas (1997) and (2001)

15. The National Reading Panel and ELLs
The National Reading Panel reviewed 1,700 scientifically sound studies that guide the implementation of many literacy programs today.
The NRP did not intentionally review research related to English language learners.
The National Literacy Panel for Language Minority Children and Youth reviewed 700 scientifically sound studies related to literacy for English language learners.
There are relatively few studies to build scientific consensus when it comes to implementation literacy programs for English learners.
The NRP findings do provide guidance for implementing ELL programs; however, these findings are not sufficient to meet all the needs of English language learners.
The studies reviewed by the National Literacy Panel suggests that English language learners need more background built, and more English oral language development (vocabulary) than English fluent readers do
Facilitator’s Notes
The National Literacy Panel for Language Minority Children and Youth specifically looked at studies about literacy instruction for English learners. The Panel’s review represents the most comprehensive review of the research to date on the development of literacy in second-language learners.
Directions to Facilitator
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator

16. Theoretical Foundation for the Use of Primary Language for ELD
Collier and Thomas’ Prism Model
Successful programs include all four components of the theoretical framework, using both L1 (primary language) and L2 (second language)
Social and cultural processes are at the heart of successful programs.
Facilitator’s Notes
Thomas & Collier first developed the Prism Model in 1994 to show the interrelationship between aspects of first and second language development and social and cultural influences. Their work suggests the education of an English learners cannot be searpated from the student’s home culture and home language. Later research by them and others show that the learning of English is actually accelerated by the use and suppor tof the home language and culture.
Directions to Facilitator
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
See National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education
Vol. 1, No. 4, Fall 1995
ACQUIRING A SECOND LANGUAGE FOR SCHOOL
by Virginia P. Collier, George Mason University

17. Oral Language and ELLs
Explicit oral language development is critical for ELL students in the mastery of academic language.
ELLs who do not have a strong foundation in academic oral language in the primary years are at risk of becoming long-term English learners (LTELs).
Accurate Oral Fluency: Ease of producing accurate target language forms (vocabulary, syntax, grammar) and ability to comprehend while listening to more sophisticated language
Facilitator’s Notes
Outline the importance of oral language development for ELLs from a young age, continued through the whole school career.
Directions to Facilitator
Explicit oral language development for ELLs has been largely focused on newcomers, with more advanced students expected to acquire it on their own. Kinsella and Dutro’s work suggests that all levels of ELLs need explicit oral academic language development concurrent with literacy skills.
In support of the Biemiller graph 2 slide previous, Kinsella suggests in her narrative in her webinar English Language Development: Issues and Implementation at Grades 6-12 on Schools Moving Up that older ELLs stagnate at L3 in part because of the lack of systematic oral language development at younger grades, starting at Kindergarten.
They differentiate between Oral Fluency, or casual conversational language which students do learn from their peers, and Accurate Oral Fluency, which includes more formal social and academic registers and vocabulary.
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Think about the type of oral language instruction your students receive now. How is it structured? Who receives it?
Background Information for the Facilitator
This information comes from the SchoolsMovingUp.org webinar series on Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches (2010) from the California Department of Education. It contains current research on oral language and literacy for ELLs from August, Shanahan, Saunders, Goldenberg, Katz, Snow, Short, Dutro, Kinsella and Olsen. It is available at
Kinsella & Dutro, Cal. Report, 2010

18. Instructional Focus
If there is no dedicated ELD time block, ELD must be integrated into the day, with language objectives included with content objectives.
Intuitively, scaffolded, leveled activities are effective in the content class, although there is not yet research on this.
Washington’s ELD Listening & Speaking Standards offer guidelines for oral language instruction at all language and grade levels.
Facilitator’s Notes
 Many schools and districts in our state do not currently have specific time blocks for ELD, including oral language. Goldenberg and Saunders state that if that time block is not dedicated, ELD instruction must be integrated into content instruction. The content instruction should include language objectives that not only support content objectives, but are tied to standards.
Good teachers guide their students from a condition of existing knowledge to a level of greater knowledge or understanding. Creating the steps form one level of understanding to another is called scaffolding. Interestingly, there is not enough research in the ELL field to qualify it for the Saunders/Goldenberg list, although there is much from the realm of general education. See Dennen (2004) and Donato (in Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research 1994).
Washington has ELD Standards, published in 2004, that specify listening and speaking objectives at every level of language acquisition and grade level, based on the Communication GLEs. These do not have instructional activities included, but can suggest directions for instruction.
Directions to Facilitator
Information for Participants
 More information on scaffolding is available at
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
This information comes from the SchoolsMovingUp.org webinar series on Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches (2010) from the California Department of Education. It contains current research on oral language and literacy for ELLs from August, Shanahan, Saunders, Goldenberg, Katz, Snow, Short, Dutro, Kinsella and Olsen. It is available at
Goldenberg and Saunders, Cal. Report, 2010

19. What is Academic Language?
Academic language is:
the language used in the classroom and workplace
the language of text
the language assessments
the language of academic success
the language of power
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator
Discuss the difference between primary language (if the student is bilingual), casual language, the language spoken by the student at home, in the neighborhood and among friends, and academic language, the language used in texts and in most business and educational settings. The student needs to be “bilingual”, to be able to use the register appropriate for the setting. Most young students are unaware of the academic register and its uses.
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
Dr. Robin Scarcella, University of California at Irvine

20. What is Academic Language?
The language of reading
Infer
Compare
Connect
Conclude, etc
The language of writing
Revise
Edit
Draft, etc
The language of mathematics
Targeted content vocabulary
Standard grammatical structures
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator
Explain the slide. This list is not exhaustive. Have participants add to it. You can make a longer list on chart paper.
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
Academic language in school has specific components. Certain words have certain meanings in the language of learning. Students need to be able to put names to the skills and strategies they are learning. It is helpful if all teachers in a school or district can use the same terms. Long Term English Learners (LTELs), or students who have been in an ELL program for six years or more, can be assessed for specific grammatical structures they have not yet acquired.

21. Academic Language
Success with academic content is dependent on students’ mastery of academic language vs conversational language
Students will learn much conversational language on their own
Academic language must be continuously developed and explicitly taught across all subject areas
Academic language is present in all language domains: reading, writing, listening, speaking
Facilitator’s Notes
Jim Cummins first published his work on BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) and CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) in It showed that ELLs have two distinct learning paths as the learn English, one that involves their social world and language that is largely learned from peers, and one related to the academic world, one that must be taught to them. Of course, native English speakers have the same need to be taught academic English. However, there may have been a misconception that CALP was more for reading and writing and BICS was more for oral language. This is not true. There is a listening and speaking component to academic language just as there is a reading a writing aspect to BICS. Cummins (1986) also points out issues of power and class related to language, ELL children, who are also often children of poverty, have a lower entry vocabulary and language mastery in either their first language or English, that do children of more affluence. The vocabulary gap crosses all language domains.
Sometimes to our chagrin, students will learn casual, conversational oral language from their peers given 1-2 years. The reading and writing components of casual language might be texting, note writing, social media.
We need to teach academic forms of language and the consultative register so that students can be fluent in standard English in all domains. Academic language has specific patterns of speech as well as writing. These oral patterns can be taught as frames explicitly and as part of a content lesson.
Directions to Facilitator
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
See Cummins (1981) and (1986)
Cummins 1981

22. Academic Language
ELL students typically require at least 5 years to attain grade level expectations in language and literacy skills
In order to catch up to grade norms within 6 years, ELLs must make 15 months gain in every school year
Learning academic uses of language is a life-long endeavor for both native English speakers and ELLs
Facilitator’s Notes
Collier & Thomas (1997): We limited our analyses to only those newly arriving immigrant students who were assessed when they arrived in this country as being at or above grade level in their home country schooling in native language, since we expected this “advantaged” on-grade-level group to achieve academically in their second language in the shortest time possible. It was quite a surprise to find a similar 5-7 year pattern to that which Cummins found, for certain groups of students. We found that students who arrived between ages 8 and 11, who had received at least 2-5 years of schooling taught through their primary language (L1) in their home country, were the lucky ones who took only 5-7 years. Those who arrived before age 8 required 7-10 years or more!
These children arriving during the early childhood years (before age 8) had the same background characteristics as the 8-11-year-old arrivals. The only difference between the two groups was that the younger children had received little or no formal schooling in their first language (L1), and this factor appeared to be a significant predictor in these first studies. (Collier & Thomas 1997, p.33)
In all of our data analyses, as well as other researchers’ work, we have continued to find the same general pattern when English language learners (ELLs) are schooled all in English and tested in English. When schooled all in English in the U.S., the shortest period of time for typical ELLs to match the achievement of typical native-English speakers is five years, among the most advantaged immigrant students who have had at least 2-3 years of on-grade-level schooling in their primary language in their home country before they arrive in the U.S. However, many ELLs schooled all in English rarely reach grade-level achievement, as measured by typical native-English speaker performance. Furthermore, we have found that students being schooled all in English initially make dramatic gains in the early grades, whatever type of program students receive,
and this misleads teachers and administrators into assuming that the students are going to continue to do extremely well. Students are then exited from special services and it is rare for school districts to continue to monitor the ELLs’ progress once they are in the mainstream, as the school work gets more cognitively complex with each succeeding grade level. Since schools usually do not monitor the progress of these students in the mainstream, the schools do not detect the fact that these students typically fall behind the typical achievement levels of native-English-speakers (defined as the 50th percentile or normal curve equivalent [NCE]) by 1-4 NCEs each year, resulting in a very significant, cumulative achievement gap of NCEs by the end of their school years. (Collier & Thomas, 1997 p.34)
What we have found, after initial dramatic gains among most ELLs in Grades K-3, regardless of program type, is that as these students being schooled all in English (L2) move into cognitively demanding work of increasing complexity, especially in the middle and high school years, their rate of progress becomes less than that of native-English speakers, and thus their performance, measured relative to native-English speaker performance in NCEs, goes down. As a group, the typical performance of ELLs schooled exclusively in English reaches its maximum at a level substantially below the 50th percentile or NCE, the typical performance of the native-English speaker. It is important to understand that typical students in all program groups achieve significant gains each year. But when comparing groups, English language learners who have received all their schooling exclusively through L2 might achieve 6-8 months’ gain each school year as they reach the middle and high school years, relative to the 10-month gain of typical native-English speakers. (Collier & Thomas, 1997 p.34)
Directions to Facilitator …
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
Length of time: Collier & Thomas, 1997
15 mos gain: Jim Cummins, WABE 2010
Lifelong endeavor: Dutro, 2002
Thomas & Collier (1997); Cummins (2010); Dutro (2002)

23. Language Objectives
Use academic vocabulary and academic function words connected to content
Develop higher level thinking
Are used at every proficiency level, including for native English speakers
Enable focus on specific language structures
Provide feedback for improving performance
Provide an opportunity to practice comprehensible output
Facilitator’s Notes
Language objectives enable a content teacher to focus specific language structures into a lesson. Using a language objective will inform me of how well an ELL is doing linguistically and academically in my content lesson. They provide opportunities and strategies for improving their performance as they move form one level of performance quality to another. Teachers will increase their capacity to instructionally coach students to higher levels of performance.
NOTE: the following three slides are not intended to foster mastery in language objectives. They are just an introduction. Mastering language objectives requires many more examples and much practice with various forms of them.
Directions to Facilitator
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
Echevarria, Vogt & Short (2008) Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model. Kinsella (2010) in Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches. Calif. Dept. of Education.
Kinsella (2010)

24. Examples
SWBAT use a variety of passes in a basketball game. SWBAT label and explain why they would choose a certain pass.
In pairs, SWBAT show understanding of forming equivalent fractions using halves, fourths, eighths, and sixteenths. SW use the terms compared to, greater than, less than, equivalent, we agree, we decided.
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
Language objectives enable a content teacher to focus specific language structures into a lesson. Using a language objective will inform me of how well an ELL is doing linguistically and academically in my content lesson. They provide opportunities and strategies for improving their performance as they move form one level of performance quality to another. Teachers will increase their capacity to instructionally coach students to higher levels of performance.
Echevarria & Short, 2005

25. Activity
Write the language/activity part of the objective for two of the following content components:
SW understand that static energy can transform into dynamic energy.
SW determine the beginning, middle and end of the story Goldilocks and the Three Bears.
Facilitator’s Notes
Encourage the use of academic vocabulary and function words. What communication would two or more students be using with each other?
Tell participants that language objectives also support reading, writing, and listening.
Directions to Facilitator
This is a “we do” activity. Guide the group or small groups to write a language objective for each of the content objectives.
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
In pairs or small groups, write a language objective for each of these content objectives that will encourage the use of oral language.
Background Information for the Facilitator
Echevarria & Short, 2005

26. ELD Standards
Washington has English Language Development Standards in three areas:
Listening/Speaking
Reading
Writing
The Standards are matched to the GLEs at grade bands K-2, 3-5, 6-8, & 9-12
They are also specified for five language acquisition levels, Beginning to Transitional
Facilitator’s Notes
The ELD Standards were first developed in They were modeled on the California ELD Standards and backmapped from the Communication, Reading and Writing GLEs. The companion document, the Proficiency Levels, enables teachers to determine a student’s ELD level from the quality of their oral language, their reading skills and the quality of writing they produce. The Standards enable a teacher to scaffold the complexity of a lesson to the student’s language acquisition level I each of the four domains. For example in Listening and Speaking, (Communication GLE 1.1.2) a Beginning student in Grade K-2 would be expected to “use physical actions and words to respond top questions”. And Advanced student in grade K-2 for the same GLE would be expected to “respond to who, what, when where, why and yes/no questions using descriptive sentences”.
Directions to Facilitator
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
The ELD Standards are available here:

27. Using ELD Proficiency Levels to Guide Instruction
In sheltered instruction, language is differentiated and matched to ELD Proficiencies
There are five levels of language acquisition
Facilitator’s Notes
The ELD Standards are leveled by language acquisition and grade. They define proficiency levels and standards for listening, speaking, reading writing for ELLs. The do not offer instructional suggestions or activities.
Directions to Facilitator
Guide participants through the Listening/Speaking ELDs for their grade level. Have them note the suggested activities, and tell them that this is an open list. They can add activities that will support the standards.
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
--- still working on this, but the idea is that participants will divide into groups, and develop ideas for a GLE, take to their class and try it.
There are specific structures that can facilitate this that can be taught in the module such as Expert Groups, chants, etc. More on that to come……
Background Information for the Facilitator

28. Oral Language and Comprehension Skills
Use linguistic patterning (frames) to have students practice academic language
Frames match comprehension skills
Students practice language while learning content
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator
See “Linguistic Patterns for Academic Language” handout
Have participants apply one or more frames to a lesson they might be teaching. Provide sentence strips or other medium.
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator

29. Activities for Turning up the Volume
These structures encourage and support all students to speak using academic oral language.
Project GLAD Guided Oral Practice
Narrative Input
Chants
Sentence Patterning Charts
Picture File Card sorts (Promote use of L1 for processing)
Numbered Heads Together (Promote use of L1 for processing)
Corners
Fishbowl
Inside-Outside Circle (Conga Line)
Jigsaw
Round table
Think Pair Share/Turn & Talk/10-2 (Promote use of L1 for processing)
Quiz Quiz Trade
Three Step Interview
Sentence Stems/Frames
Facilitator’s Notes
These are Cooperative Learning structures from Kagan (1986), and Johnson & Johnson (1986). There are also some strategies used in Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD), each of which has a research base. The use of chants and poetry to develop oral language is supported by Susan Kovalik’s work on brain patterning and John Shefelbine (1998). Picture files cards are supported by Marzano’s work on non-linguistic representations.
Directions to Facilitator
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator

30. Practice in Bilingual Settings
Cooperative learning is equally effective in the L1. It promotes development of academic language in the student’s first language.
Activities that use L1 and L2 provide oral practice in both languages when students must interact with those who do and don’t speak their language.
Informal assessment of L1 may include oral reading of text and writing in L1.
Facilitator’s Notes
As discussed earlier, bilingual students can gain benefit in content knowledge and English development if they develop academic language structures in their first language. Use of the first language, just as with academic language in English, needs to be structured by the interaction strategy and the content topic. In a mixed setting where numerous languages are spoken, students of one language can practice the structure with each other first, then switch to English to practice with other students who don’t speak their language.
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
For more information on the value of academic development in the L1, see Lindholm-Leary and Genesee in Improving Education for English Learners: Research Based Approaches, Chapter 6. They include many more references on the value of formal bilingual instruction and give samples of program models. Also see August and Shanahan in the same volume, Chapter 4, for their “Guideline 8: Effective literacy instruction for English learners is respectful of the home language”.

31. Oral Language Activities
Narrative Input
Tell a story one picture at a time, text mounted on the back of the pictures
Students retell the story
Write their version on chart paper, different color for each student
Rewrite on sentence strips
Mix the strips, have the small group reassemble the story
Cut into words, reassemble again
Chant – write a chant (with pattern) from content of the story or text
May be done with non-fiction as long as there is a narrative version of the information
Yoon goes here, narrative input and Yoon’s a Girl chant

32. Sentence Patterning Chart
Article
Adjective
Noun
Verb
Adverb
Prep. Phrase
The
curious
chicken
wanted
badly
to get to the other side.
Question Patterning Chart
Interrogative
Verb
Art./Noun
Why
did
the chicken
cross
the road?

33. Picture File Card Sorts
Download pictures of content related to topic
Use for sorting
Tell students categories (more beginning ) or
Students develop their own categories
Use to support concepts throughout the unit
Students tell their rationale for sorts or describe events in the pictures
Builds background for discussion and writing
Yoon pictures

34. Activities for Turning Up the Volume – Corners
Description
Teaching Tips for ELL
Corners of the classroom are designated for focused discussion of four aspects of a topic.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Label corners with an accompanying illustration, give a student-friendly definition.
Students individually think and write about the topic for a short time.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Provide word wall with key words and sentence frames.
Level 1: May draw a response.
Students group into the corner of their choice and discuss the topic.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Students hear many valid points of view; focused discussion develops deeper thinking about topic.
At least one student from each corner shares about the corner discussion.
Level 1: May choose to have another student help share about the discussion.
Facilitator’s Notes
Practice each of the structures on the following slides by giving a topic to the participants and having them walk through each structure.
After each structure, use think-pair-share to have them process how the structure might be useful in their classroom, and why they would use it, what modifications it might need for their students.
Directions to Facilitator
Prepare topics for each corner. Post chart paper or writing materials. Give participants a number. Example for teachers: How do you: use pictures, group students, identify students for responses, build (or identify) background knowledge.
Information for Participants
Alternative: students rotate to each corner and continue writing or adding to an anchor chart posted there.
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
All of the following structures come from either Kagan (1980, 1986) and Johnson & Johnson (1986)
Kagan (1986)

35. Activities for Turning Up the Volume – Fishbowl
Description
Teaching Tips for ELL
Part of the group sits in a close circle, facing inward; the other part of the group sits in a larger circle around them.
Level 1: Seat in outside circle. Prepare students by reviewing what is known about the topic with visual cues. Pre-teach key words, e.g. new.
Levels 2 and 3: Seat in either circle.
Students on the inside discuss a topic while those outside listen for new information and/or evaluate the discussion according to pre-established criteria.
Level 1: Provide listening template for what is known, with space to record/draw what may be new. (May be provided all students.)
Level 2: Practice and post sentence frames useful for participation in discussions, e.g. “I learned/noticed/observed “
Groups reverse positions.
Levels 1 and 2: Practice and post sentence frames useful for participation in discussions, e.g. “I learned/noticed/observed “
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator
Prepare templates with frames such as “I learned/noticed/observed “. Template can be on screen or paper. Topics for inner circle with teachers: 1) what was my best teaching experience (or year) and why; 2) what are my favorite materials right now, or favorite parts of the adopted program; what did you do to move a challenging student through a roadblock.
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
All of the following structures come from either Kagan (1980, 1986) and Johnson & Johnson (1986)

36. Activities for Turning Up the Volume – Inside-Outside Circle
Description
Teaching Tips for ELL
Students stand in concentric circles facing each other.
Level 1: Practice and post interrogative sentence frames, e.g. “Why did ?”
Levels 1, 2, and 3: Stand in either circle.
Students in the outside circle ask questions; those inside answer.
Levels 1 and 2: Use sentence frames to articulate a question. Answer with phrases or complete sentences.
Level 3: Answer with complete sentences.
On a signal, students in the outside circle rotate to create new partnerships.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Talking one-on-one with a variety of partners gives risk-free practice in speaking skills. Students listen and speak.
On another signal, students trade inside/outside roles.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Interactions can be structured to focus on specific speaking skills.
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
In forming the inside circle, have students face inward first, then turn around. Outside circle rotates, inside circle is stationary.
Background Information for the Facilitator
All of the following structures come from either Kagan (1980, 1986) and Johnson & Johnson (1986)

37. Activities for Turning Up the Volume – Jigsaw
Description
Teaching Tips for ELL
Group students evenly into “expert” groups.
Level 1: Distribute into different expert groups.
Expert groups read one passage of text or study one topic or aspect of a topic in depth.
Levels 1 & 2: Provide visual supports for material. Pre-teach key vocabulary.
Regroup students so that each new group has at least one member from each expert group.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Becoming an expert provides in-depth understanding in one aspect of study.
Experts report on their study. Other students learn from the experts.
Level 1: May request a buddy to assist with reporting.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Learning from peers provides breadth of understanding of over-arching concepts.
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator
Prepare text passages or study assignments ahead of time. Examples: SIG Efforts Face Hurdles (article)
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
All of the following structures come from either Kagan (1980, 1986) and Johnson & Johnson (1986)

38. Activities for Turning Up the Volume – Numbered Heads Together
Description
Teaching Tips for ELL
Students number off within each group.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Groups are heterogeneous.
Teacher prompts or gives a directive.
Level 1: Prompt is paraphrased using simple language, accompanied with gestures and./or illustration.
Students think individually about the topic.
Levels 1, 2: May think about the topic in L1.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Group discussion provides each student with language and concept understanding.
Groups discuss the topic so that any member of the group can report for the group.
Level 1, 2: Key vocabulary for discussion has been pre-taught and is displayed.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Sentence frames for academic discussion are reviewed and posted, e.g. “I want to add to your idea.”
Teacher calls a number and the student from each group with that number reports for the group, providing an opportunity for evaluation of individual and group progress.
Level 1: May require assistance from another group member.
Levels 2 & 3: Benefit from written notes.
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator
May be combined with Jigsaw back at ‘home’ group for reporting of the groups conclusions.
Information for Participants
Students can be prenumbered at their table groups. This also facilitates Jigsaw and prevents students form switching numbers for social reasons.
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
All of the following structures come from either Kagan (1980, 1986) and Johnson & Johnson (1986)

39. Activities for Turning Up the Volume – Roundtable
Description
Teaching Tips for ELL
Seat students around a table in groups of four
Levels 1, 2, 3: Seat students in heterogeneous groups.
Teacher asks a question with many possible answers.
Level 1: May consider response in L1.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Encourage appreciation for diversity of opinion and thought.
Each student around the table writes answers to the question a different way. Pass the page to the next student quickly. Set a time, one or two minutes.
Eliciting multiple answers enhances language fluency.
Level 1: May respond with simple words or phrases, a more developed response in L1, or may repeat in English what another student has said.
Levels 2, 3: Encourage multiple responses by practicing and posting discussion sentence frames, e.g. “I have a different idea. . .” or “ In my opinion, “
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator
Post response frames on wall or screen. Encourage their use with points, etc. Choose topics ahead of time, write on cards. Examples: Tell what you know about Common Core, or what questions you have; what social studies or science unit will you do next? (for elementary); what community resources do you or your school use?;
Alternative: Roundrobin, no paper.
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
All of the following structures come from either Kagan (1980, 1986) and Johnson & Johnson (1986)

40. Activities for Turning Up the Volume – Think-Pair-Share
Description
Teaching Tips for ELL
Students think about a topic suggested by the teacher.
Levels 1, 2, 3: The opportunity for self-talk during the individual think time allows the student to formulate thoughts before speaking.
Level 1: May consider topic in L1.
Pairs discuss the topic.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Create pairs by selecting partners at adjacent proficiency levels, e.g. Level 1 with Level 2, Level 2 with Level 3, or Level 3 with Proficient.
Levels 1, 2: Support by pre-teaching key vocabulary, providing bilingual or other dictionaries.
One student from the pair individually shares information with the class.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Discussion with a partner reduces performance anxiety and enhances understanding.
Level 1: May benefit more from listening to others in lieu of speaking before the whole class.
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator
Information for Participants
 The “think” part of this activity typically gets cut short. Make sure there is at least seconds of quiet think time.
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
All of the following structures come from either Kagan (1980, 1986) and Johnson & Johnson (1986)

41. Activities for Turning Up the Volume – Quiz Quiz Trade
Description
Teaching Tips for ELL
Students write questions related to the content on cards.
Level 1 students may write questions in L1.
Students mill around the room to music.
When the music stops, they form a pair and ask each other their question.
Level 1 students partner with students who speak their own language. Level 2 may partner in L1 for their first pairing.
If the answerer knows the answer, they say it. If not, the questioner explains the answer.
Student trade cards.
Music begins, students mill and find new partners.
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator
Use an articles previously read, such as SIG Efforts Face Hurdles. Have participants write questions from the article.
Information for Participants
 Tips for reluctant “millers” (students who want to clump together with their friends): have then touch at least one wall opposite from their friends during the music; alternate gender for each pairing;
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
All of the following structures come from either Kagan (1980, 1986) and Johnson & Johnson (1986)

42. Activities for Turning Up the Volume – Three Step Interview
Description
Teaching Tips for ELL
Students form pairs.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Create pairs by selecting partners at adjacent proficiency levels, e.g. Level 1 with Level 2, Level 2 with Level 3, or Level 3 with Proficient.
Student A interviews student B about a topic. Interviewing supports language acquisition by providing scripts for expression.
Levels 1, 2: Provide frames for interview questions, e.g. “What do you think about ?” or “Would you rather or ?”
Levels 1, 2: Also practice and provide response frames, e.g. “I would prefer to “ or “I think/believe/notice . . .”
Partners reverse roles.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Responding provides opportunities for structured self-expression.
Student A shares with the class information from student B; then B shares information from student A.
Level 1: Structured exchange provides a rehearsal, reducing performance anxiety. Reporting on what partner said is easier than reporting own response.
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator
Choose topic(s) ahead of time. Examples: Use something from local newspaper or web that morning or a current hot topic that most people will be able to discuss; give topics with a choice: would you rather skateboard or ride a bike, snowboard or ski, ride a bicycle or motorcycle, etc;
Post frames on wall or screen.
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
All of the following structures come from either Kagan (1980, 1986) and Johnson & Johnson (1986)

43. Activities for Turning Up the Volume – Mix & Match
Description
Teaching Tips for ELL
Prepare cards that can be matched as pairs, such as a word and its definition.
Level 1: May need word or definition explained/paraphrased before activity.
Hand one card to each student.
Level 1: Select cards with simple language.
Students mingle and talk about their cards.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Discussions provide language and concept understanding.
Teacher calls “Match,” and each student finds the partner whose card matches with his or her own. Students exchange cards and mingle again.
Levels 1, 2, 3: Mingling encourages students to have multiple conversations with an academic focus.
Facilitator’s Notes
Directions to Facilitator
Prepare cards in advance. May use picture cards/words, words/definitions, sort categories, etc. This can be another version of Picture Card Sort (GLAD strategy)
Information for Participants
Directions to Participants
Background Information for the Facilitator
All of the following structures come from either Kagan (1980, 1986) and Johnson & Johnson (1986)

44. Thank you for your time and for your work!
What will you try?
Pick at least two of the activities and try them in a lesson.
Bring feedback to your next staff or team meeting. Try someone else’s idea.
Thank you for your time and for your work!

45. References
Bailey, Allison & Heritage, Margaret (2008) English Learner Literacy Development through Formative Assessment of Oral Language. Schools Moving Up webinar California Dept. of Education (2010) Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches Kinsella, Kate & Dutro, Susana (2011) English Language Development: Issues & Implementation at Grades Six Through Twelve. Schools Moving Up webinar Kagan, Spencer (1994) Kagan Cooperative Learning National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (2006) Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners. Center for Applied Linguistics Thomas, Wayne & Collier, Virginia (1997) School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition