Co-Teaching ELLs

Andrea Honigfeld and Maria G. Dove wrote Co-Teaching ELLs: Riding a Tandem Bike for the December/January 2016 edition of Educational Leadership. In it they describe their three step approach to co-planning, an often overlooked part of the co-teaching process.

Many reasons exist for a lack of co-planning, but most of them revolve around time and trust in the process. Among other things, classroom teachers need to be able to trust the professional coming into her classroom will a) respect her expertise, b) assist with the students who need help and c) be able to provide instruction in areas that the class needs to cover. Trust is a process built on contact over time. You cannot expect that throwing two professionals together will automatically gel and create a good partnership. Administrators need to facilitate co-teaching by providing time. When inclusion was first being implemented, one reason some districts embraced it was to save money. Inclusion, done well, costs more not less, than pull out programs because of the requirement for common planning. Many co-taught and inclusion programs do not include adequate time for planning so the programs do not meet the high expectations of participants.

So what are the steps of co-planning? The authors suggest three steps:

1. pre-planning- individually professionals examine curriculum, identify the goals of the upcoming lessons, set content and language goals for them, determine activities and materials to reach the goals, and the identify the required background knowledge
2. collaborative planning- together, either face to face or virtually over the phone or an internet platform, the teachers share their ideas. Objectives are negotiated, activities are selected, and configurations for instruction are  determined.
3. post-planning- teachers individually complete lesson planning activities- such as creating centers, power point presentations, or adapted readings/worksheets/assessments.

While I am sure this process produces excellent results, I am concerned about the time investment for the partners. In every co-teaching experience I have had, the general ed teacher plans the activities and objectives and the co-teacher, if lucky gets to provide some input. I found a useful lesson plan design that helps identify the required components of the lesson and roles of each professional. It is sampled below.

Subject _______________________________________                    

Target students ________________________________

Class _________________________________________               ______________________________________________

co-teaching structures: 1 lead, 1 support (L), station teaching (S), parallel teaching (P), team teaching (T), 1:1 (O)

day/date	big ideas/goals	lesson activities	assessment	co-teach structure	behavioral & academic adaptations (based on IEP)	materials needed	notes
Monday

Printed landscape style, there is room for writing in the details. Needs of individual students can be highlighted in the behavior and academic adaptation section. After a couple rounds of this sort of planning it should get easier for teachers to implement. Plans like this one can be shared and highlight how professionals will be utilized. It does require training in structures of co-teaching. Districts need to continually offer this as teachers move in and out of co-teaching structures.

Whenever an increase in planning has occurred, an increase in results has also occurred. It behooves professionals in these circumstances to strongly advocate with their administration for co-planning time. It also is essential for the professionals to build relationships in order to build trust. Whenever possible co-teachers should choose to work together rather than be thrown together in scheduling roulette.

ELLs and fluency

Last year I did extensive research on reading fluency. This year with my ELL who has an IEP reading goal related to fluency, I have been trying to implement some of those strategies. Kristin Lems, Leah D. Miller and Tenena M. Sora's book, Teaching Reading to English Language Learners: Insights from Linguistics contains a chapter on fluency. I was eager to hear what the authors had to say.

The first thing they discuss is the challenge of two words with two separate meanings. In ELL terms, fluency refers to oral language. It is unrelated to reading. For reading theorists, however, fluency is the ability to read a passage quickly, with accuracy, prosody and comprehension. There does exist a reciprocal relationship between and fluency- increasing skill in one is dependent upon and builds upon the other. The authors provide a brief overview of the reading research related to fluency and improved comprehension and using oral reading fluency to determine reading level. What they note on a number of occasions is that fluency for ELLs is likely to be markedly below what the target is for the individual's age/grade or reading level. Consequently they caution against using fluency to measure reading skill with this population. This does not mean fluency instruction should not occur. Instruction does improve skill, but measuring against standard benchmarks leads to depressed scores.

The authors do go into the reasons why fluency measures do not measure ELLs reading comprehension accurately.

• First they sight issues related to foreign accent. Students mispronounce words they know because of letter/sound differences between their first language (L1) and English (L2). If L1 does not have a letter or sound, the pronunciation in English may be mistaken and thus recorded as an error. When I was in Denmark where they do not have both a /v/ and a /w/ sound, we took a tour of a /wiking/ museum. We all knew what was meant, but according to running reading record rules it would be a mistake.
• Students often struggle to correctly read unfamiliar words. This is true for native speakers also, but ELLs have significantly smaller vocabularies so their rate of unfamiliar words is higher. This is especially true of proper nouns.  Further, ELL students are more likely to spend excessive time trying to figure out unfamiliar words leading to slower reading rates.
• Native speakers without language disabilities also have a larger automatic language vocabulary. ELLs who need to process back and forth between L1 and L2 or have to put in extended mental searches for words and their pronunciations in English will have slower reading rates.
• Conversely, some ELLs are excellent word callers. They learn the phonetic code of English well and read quickly but without comprehension. Yes, I have run into this with Native speakers as well. Students are focusing on pronouncing the text, not understanding it.
• For students whose L1 language is orthographically closer to English, for example, Spanish or Polish, it is easier to grasp the phonetic code than for students whose L1 is farther away from English, for example, Ukrainian or Chinese.   In the early stages of language development, the closer the written languages are the quicker the students are to English, the easier it is to orally read the material.
• ELLs may never develop the prosody of native English speakers. Basing reading success on this aspect may deprive ELLs of advancing in reading. Further, we know that is difficult for native speakers to demonstrate prosody in reading before they have established an end of first grade reading level which involves mastery of phonics. Students still learning at this level should not be expected to demonstrate prosody regardless of their native language.
• Lastly is the impact of cognitive load. I hinted at this earlier. The more a student needs to process the L2 text, the slower he will read and the more fatigued he will be during the task.

These challenges mean that our benchmarks for measuring fluency performance are inaccurate for ELLs, but measuring progress against the individual himself and graphing success, will work. Further, such self-monitoring is a strategy for improving fluency across the board regardless of reading level or native language.

If there are this many reasons not to benchmark and advance based on fluency for ELLs, why should we bother instructing it? The authors answer this question as well.

• Fluency practice such as listening passage preview and rereading provide opportunities to see and hear how our language is chunked. Students learn to "read" punctuation and natural phrases. They become increasingly familiar with the speech patterns of English. This increases comprehension and works to help regulate cognitive load.
• Fluency practice that includes expressive/prosodic examples assists with comprehension. We can hear "anxious" voices and begin to develop a schema for what anxious means in English. We can hear "hesitantly" and many other things. Excellent reading reinforces comprehension and helps with understand ambiguous words. If students hear and practice language read well, they will comprehend better.
• Fluency practice allows emphasis on phonological decoding. Examples of the sound to symbol relationship are built which help to develop sight word and language recognition. It also helps ELLs develop a sense of the sound of English. It helps establish the cognitive pathways of understanding. The idea that the neurons that fire together are wired together explains how this repetition is essential to language and reading development.
• Fluency builds stamina. Connected text rather than isolated words helps ELLs learn language, even if they are in the silent period of language acquisition. Merely focusing at the word level will slow language acquisition.
• Fluency practice builds confidence and motivation. Demonstrating success builds success. The mentality of,  "If I can do this, I am more willing to try that harder step," is reinforced with fluency instruction.
• Repeated reading builds reading rate. I have frequently commented that one major reason to focus on fluency and reading rate is that slow readers are less likely to read as much as average or fast readers. Students who need to spend twice as much time reading a passage for a class are more likely to read only parts of it or skip it all together. We need students to increase their reading rate and this takes practice. Repeated reading has plenty of evidence to support its use to develop fluency and comprehension.

Intensive reading fluency instruction has demonstrated impressive gains in reading for ELLs. Some studies used an hour a day. The challenge is that this is not realistic for most programs. The school day is not long enough. Summer programs might be called to play an important role in ELL development of reading and language because there we can devote significant instructional time to fluency and language development. Unfortunately, most school districts do not consider ELLs a priority for summer services. Students, especially ELLs with disabilities, need targeted and intense intervention to improve skills. It is time we think about how to provide this service to these needy students.

Tips for Connecting with Non-English Speaking Parents

I currently work with an English Language Learner (ELL) whose parents are learning English as well. When I came across Anabel Gonzalez's article, Tips For Connecting with Non-English-Speaking Parents, I immediately picked it up. As a former ELL herself she has seen this part of school from both sides- student and teacher. She offers six tips for working with parents.

1.  Listen and learn- all people from the same ethnic group are not the same. We acknowledge regional differences among US citizens, both in dialect and culture. My Tennessee raised niece in law talked about dressing rather than stuffing at Thanksgiving. Having taught in Hawaii, I can tell you their pigeon dialect takes some getting used to. This is true of people from other countries as well. We need to learn the specifics of our student's families rather than generalize.
2. Use technology. I have heard mixed reviews about Google Translation but it is better than nothing. The author recommends its use. She also highlights how Remind and Classdojo now have some translation features that could be useful when sending out class newsletters, reminders and School notes. Often non-English speaking parents report not attending school functions because they don't know about them. We need to eliminate language as a barrier to being able to participate.
3. Use standard English. Getting rid of slang and idioms means translation tools work better and help our learners understand what we are talking about. This is true for our kids on the Autism spectrum and those with language issues as well. Further we are the only role model of standard English some of our students may have. It's just a good habit.
4. Smiles are understood by all. Friendly faces are welcoming. We can use this to get us off on the right foot.
5. Stay connected. We communicate with parents in many ways throughout the year. Notes home, phone calls, newsletters, report cards, personal visits achieve a great deal and create a positive environment for all. We cannot avoid reaching out to our Non-English parents because it is hard. We need to put in the effort. It pays off for everyone.
6. Push politics aside. Today this is especially poignant. Yesterday presidential candidate, Donald Trump, suggested preventing all Muslims from entering the country. This rhetoric is bad for everyone. No matter the politics we need to evenhandedly reach out to all our parents. Perhaps especially those who are likely to experience prejudice in other places. Compassion builds bridges that unite and spread peace whereas fear, anger, and distrust inhibit it. We need to be the ambassadors of our country and its legacy of diversity rather than Nativists who breed discontent.

These guidelines are, in many ways, common sense. Many are what we do with our students' parents in general. We just need to be even more aware of our communication and work to be communicating rather than talking to hear ourselves speak or, even worse, not talking at all.

higher standards or higher graduation rates

Long have I argued that our testing regime has a split personality; until it decides what it wants to be it will be unsuccessful at the various things it is asked to do. Goals for our tests range from determining who is ready for college to how good is your teacher to raising the bar so that students will perform better to increasing our graduation rates. Is the test a higher bar that we want our students to strive to achieve or a minimum standard they should all pass?

With this viewpoint I have been amused by the conundrum presented to the New York State Department of Education as reported in the New York Times and an Ed Week blog. They issued requirements for students to pass algebra with a higher grade than previously required (a 74 instead of a 65). Then they switched to the Common Core versions of our state tests, which, many argue, are harder. Many students needed to attempt the earlier algebra test 4 or 5 times in order to achieve a passing grade. When we raise the minimum grade, what will happen to them then. To compound the difficulty, in New York we further have a "safety net" for students with disabilities. These students can pass the exam with a 55. We have not figured out how evolving pass scores will impact the "safety net."

Further muddying the water is the question of whether requiring algebra for all students is a good goal. After all, how many of us spend time solving systems of equations, graphing linear equations, factoring quadratic equations, solving logic proofs or figuring out the number of possible ice cream cone combinations are possible at an ice cream shop that has 25 flavors, 4 sauces, 6 toppings, and several fruit options. I believe that a rigorous algebra course can help students learn to think logically, but only if it is rigorous rather than dumbed down. There are also other ways to teach logical thinking.

So what do we want our tests to measure? Let's design our tests to do that and make policy around that goal, not the plethora of goals we currently observe but accomplish poorly. We need to decide- Are we going to reduce the number of remedial classes students take in math by increasing the cut score or are we going to raise the graduation rate? Is the test a bar all must jump over to get to the other side (i.e. graduation) or a litmus test for remedial math in college? Lets get our assessments some therapy and make a choice.

Literacy Coaching: the Essentials

Catherine Casey's book, Literacy Coaching: The Essentials, is an excellent primer on coaching. It covers everything from what do coaches do to professional development workshops. As someone who has been contracted to teach teachers a specific skill, some of the information is more pertinent to me than others. I do not have to get teachers to agree to let me in, my contract is their agreement. It is specific to particular teachers. That said, I need to build relationships and prove I can do what I say I can or there will be no more requests.

Under the structures part of the book, Ms. Casey goes over different ways to study instruction. During demonstration lessons, a coach must have a clear purpose for what to highlight. Knowing what the teacher knows and what she needs help with are what define the purpose. For the teacher I worked with who was particularly concerned about a transition within a Wilson Reading lesson plan I very carefully planned that transition. I videotaped and shared several sample transitions as well. This allowed me to showcase the area of concern and during our debrief, became a beginning point of discussion. One point that the author made was that teachers need immediate access to materials. Toward this end I provided one teacher with two sets of letter/sound cards so that she could utilize the technique I demonstrated.

She discussed inter and intra visitations- between schools and within a school. She mentioned purposeful involvement- demonstrating with the assistance of the teacher, lesson study- Japanese inspired (study, plan, teach, reflect, replan, teach, apply), co-planning, conferences and professional inquiry groups and videotaping with analysis. I am experimenting with video, but have not yet found any level of comfort with it. More practice is needed.

From observations she moves to models of intensive support. Spending 3-5 days/classes with a teacher to work on a skill. Depending on the model- gradual release or unit of study- this could take place on successive days or on days throughout a unit. Her description of these models with their focused planning and debriefing makes me greedy for the contact time to allow such work.

I think I have done some modified plans- present the Wilson program, assign reading the manual, return to answer questions after they have tried the program a few times, observe a lesson, demonstrate a lesson. They have not been as formally outlined as above. Perhaps a more ideal program would be tighter with more schedule flexibility than I currently enjoy.

She goes on to describe how she prepares for workshops. From determining the purpose of the workshop to ideas about how to incorporate gradual release of control, she outlines her process of developing the workshop. She highlights how important immediate use is to adult training. A teacher brought this home when she said she left my introduction so eager to start work but was delayed with school mandated assessments. The author also discussed the importance of the zone of proximal development is for teachers. They are not all in the same place, but training needs to meet them where they are and take them places. The reading teacher I work with does not need support in learning the basic phonics, but the middle school teacher learning Wilson did. If I am not aware of these differences, I will not be effective in providing support.

This book told me some of the things I am doing right and some things I need to work on- an excellent resource for the place I am in- just right for my zone of proximal development.

Teaching the ESL Learner

I have achieved access to Educational Impact's online course, Teaching the ESL Learner. I feel like this program is going to present really useful strategies that can be used today in the classroom to teach English Language Learners (ELLs).

At this point they have presented six strategies of supported language:

1. extra-linguistic cues- things like gestures and visuals
2. linguistic modifications- repetition, slowing down speech and gestures
3. interactive lecture with frequent comprehension checks-
4. active learning strategies- opportunities to try out language with peers. This could be labs, group work, or cooperative learning.
5. focus on big concepts rather than the details- what will students need to know as adults rather than for the test.
6. strategies to develop thinking- advance organizers, graphic organizers and connecting what you know with what is being learned.

Many of these have been mentioned in other resources, but I have not seen them addressed as a core groups of strategies. The presenters point out that these do represent good teaching, but where a native English speaker needs only one or two strategies to learn content, ELLs might need 5 or 6.

My biggest concern is with number 5- focus on concepts not details. While I agree that big concepts are the critical information, teachers who are asked to prepare students for tests may be pulled in the opposite direction. Teachers who have differentiated, compacted or accelerated instruction will be familiar with this idea. Identify the big picture, important things that everyone needs to learn. The must knows, good to knows and nice to know information. Provide scaffolds for the struggling learners to access the must knows and deeper or additional work for gifted learners so they can access the nice to knows. Some details will need to be left by the wayside for some students. Teachers often instinctively know this.

So far the course has been well built. Lecture components are intermixed with classroom videos and panel discussion. I look forward to the modules which address each component of supported language.

Writing instruction with TEAL

TEAL, Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy, has published a variety of guides and fact sheets for teachers of adults, usually in GED-type programs. In their Just Write! Guide, they look at interventions and practices that support adult learners. An important caveat is that much of the research is with school aged students because there is a limited base with adult learners.

 

On page 19 they highlight Malcolm Knowles's assumptions about adult learners:

• Move to increasing self- directedness as he matures
• Draws on life experiences to assist learning
• Ready to learn when he assumes a new role
• Is problem-centered- apply immediately
• Motivated by internal factors

 

Therefore he suggests that teachers of adult learners

• Use a cooperative climate
• Assess for specific needs and interests
• Develop objectives on those needs and interests
• Sequentially work to achieve objectives
• Collaboratively select methods, materials and resources
• Evaluate progress and adjust

One strategy they recommend is to use sentence frames as part of the gradual release of control. Sentence frames have been recommended for English Language Learners and students with language disabilities. We use frames regularly in the classroom. Examples of frames include:

• I wonder what [the character] will do when ___________.
• Although you believe that _______________________, I think ________________________ because ________________________.
• In your essay you did ________________________ well.

 
The Guide is full of references to other fact sheets both as part of the guide and part of other guides both ahead and behind the point of reading. This is somewhat disruptive to reading. There are quotes from practitioners throughout the guide. It lends support and voice to the research-based, somewhat dry text. While providing good research and practical guidance on what to do, there are very few examples of the practices in action.

The beginning's information about adult learning information is important when considering instruction of adults whether in a high school equivalency, college or job program. In my coaching I need to keep in mind that providing choice is important- what do the people I work with feel is important to develop, when should they receive support, and how do I help them evaluate their progress and provide coherent feedback. If I can ensure that these are met, I will have happier teachers who will find my assistance more valuable.