Literacy Instruction for Language-Minority Students: The Transition …renatataylor.weebly.com/.../literacy_instruction.pdf · 2018. 10. 17. · LITERACY INSTRUCTION 229 they considered

Literacy Instruction for Language-Minority Students: The Transition YearsAuthor(s): Russell GerstenReviewed work(s):Source: The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 96, No. 3, Special Issue: The Language-MinorityStudent in Transition (Jan., 1996), pp. 227-244Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001755 .Accessed: 12/02/2013 21:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheElementary School Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:34:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1001755?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Literacy Instruction for Language-Minority Students: The Transition Years

Russell Gersten Eugene Research Institute

The Elementary School Journal Volume 96, Number 3 o 1996 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0013-5984/96/9603-0003$01.00

Abstract

Teachers of language-minority students face the daunting task of simultaneously building literacy, developing written expression ability, and enhancing English language growth. This task can be increasingly complicated during the years that language-minority students make the transition from instruction that has been provided primarily in their native language, to instruction that is provided primarily in English. In this article I discuss results from a research project in which my colleagues and I examined language arts and literacy instruction for language- minority students in 18 urban classrooms for 2 years. As a result of this research, I delineate a framework for identifying critical instructional practices that appeared to facilitate both learning and language development for language-minority students. Several examples of these practices, as observed in classrooms, are presented within the discussion of this framework.

The years when language-minority students make the transition from specialized bilingual programs to mainstream English language instruction are often extremely problematic for both students and their teachers. Sharp declines in academic performance are typical (de La Rosa & Maw, 1990; Gersten & Woodward, 1995; Na- triello, McDill, & Pallas, 1990), especially if the transition is made abruptly (Ramirez, 1992). These are also the years when these students are most often referred for help from the special education system or other

compensatory programs (Baca & Cervantes, 1989).

The transition is usually made in grades 3, 4, and 5, and typically the "transition" is extremely abrupt (Gersten, 1995; Ramirez, 1992). Berman et al. (1992, p. 15) studied bilingual education in California and con-


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

228 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

cluded that the transition period "is fraught with difficulties, that students participate less frequently in classroom instruction, that academic performance declines, and students' sense of cultural validation also declines."

In the course of one summer, students move from an instructional day when all but an hour or so is in Spanish to a "mirror

image" program where all but 1 hour is in

English. In addition, the intermediate

grades are the typical time for movement from instruction that focuses on basic skills to a focus on more advanced work in com-

prehension and conceptual applications. This problem is compounded for lan-

guage-minority students, who face two levels of complexity simultaneously: the academic content of the lesson, in addition to the acquisition of a second language (Cum- mins, 1982; Tikunoff, 1985). Unless the teacher grasps this situation and makes instruction comprehensible (e.g., further ex-

planations of the task in the primary language, clearer explanations of the concept in English using concrete examples), a student's sense of frustration and failure in- creases markedly.

Over a decade ago, the research of Moll, Estrada, Diaz, and Lopes (1980) poignantly delineated in detail the pain and frustration that language-minority students struggling to learn English sometimes feel when taught in all-English settings. Students may fail to understand what the teacher is talking about and may become frustrated when they have an idea but cannot adequately express their thoughts in the new language.

The research reported in this article is an attempt to begin to understand how schools and teachers currently attempt to meet the needs of students. Following the paths of Duffy (1983), Durkin (1978-1979), and Richardson (1990), our research team began with in-depth descriptions and analyses of current practice. To begin to truly understand the issues teachers and students face, and to begin to develop a framework for articulating promising practices, we ob-

served in 18 classrooms in two large urban areas over 2 years. A qualitative observational system was developed and refined. Observations focused on reading.

My goal in this article is to describe

emerging themes and issues. Rather than

limiting our examination to the identifica- tion of problems and deficiencies, we also attempted to delineate practices that seemed successful. Certain observed practices appeared to be far more productive than others.

The issues we confronted as researchers were extremely complex but no more com-

plex than those the teachers, students, and families confronted on a day-to-day basis. Our ultimate goal was to begin to delineate how teachers refine and modulate language arts/literacy instruction to enhance students' comprehension, involvement, and

English-language acquisition. The article is organized as follows. First,

problems documented by other researchers are examined, and a series of issues in the transition from native language instruction to mainstream English language instruction are discussed. This is followed by a description of the study's method and the framework utilized for observations and data analyses. A range of examples of seemingly productive and nonproductive instructional practices-provided by both novice and ex-

perienced teachers-are then presented. These examples demonstrate how we used the framework to analyze classroom interactions. The article concludes with a series of preliminary findings (framed as working hypotheses) based on the observations and interviews.

Literature-Based Instruction for Language-Minority Students As Reyes (1992, p. 427) recently noted: "Al- most without exception, teachers throughout the United States are identifying their teaching philosophies with the whole language and writing process movements." This was definitely true for the teachers in our sample. All were teaching from what

JANUARY 1996



LITERACY INSTRUCTION 229

they considered a literature-based (as op- posed to a basal reader) framework. Several years ago, it was mandated to be used as the framework for language arts/literacy instruction in all elementary schools in Cali- fornia (California State Department of Ed- ucation, 1988).

For years many bilingual educators have advocated the use of a literature-based approach to English language reading instruction for language-minority students (Bar- rera, 1984; Flores & Hernindez, 1988). Eloquent pleas for integration of natural language use and genuine dialogue into classroom instruction have been provided (Cummins, 1989; Fradd, 1987; Goldenberg, 1992/1993; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Lit- erature-based instruction is compatible with such an integration.

Barrera (1984), and more recently An- derson and Roit (1996, in this issue), have noted how written text can be an excellent venue for English language development. Spoken language is fleeting; students can read and reread written text. They see excellent venues for vocabulary development in discussions of stories read, students' explanations of character motives, and how characters reached, or failed to accomplish, their goals.

The emphasis on correct oral reading, proper pronunciation in English, systematic instruction involving vocabulary lists, and English language grammar and literal comprehension that often typifies conventional basal reader instruction is viewed as not only inhibiting the language development of students but also as hindering their overall cognitive development by taking most of the meaning and enjoyment out of learning. In addition, conventional instruction provides limited opportunities for language use.

Reyes (1992) argued, however, that merely encouraging teachers to implement a process or whole (natural) language approach is insufficient for language-minority students. She noted that, as with most educational innovations, the majority of

teachers receive only a rudimentary orien- tation to whole language or literature-based instruction. "Adaptations for linguistically different learners [are virtually never] cov- ered. This has led to narrow applications of these philosophies-often without reflec- tion and without appropriate modifications to meet the needs of diverse learners" (p. 429). Although not an original objective of the research, an important dimension of the project became an assessment and understanding of how teachers interpreted and implemented a literature-based or whole language approach to reading instruction for language-minority students.

Fortunately, at least five teachers in our sample sought out extensive professional development activities related to use of whole language or process approaches for linguistically different students. The remaining 12 teachers received little more than the cursory introduction Reyes described. We sampled both sets of teachers to allow for contrasts. Patton (1990) advocated this type of purposeful or "theoretical" sampling in qualitative research.

Challenges to Teachers In many respects, the art of teaching is a balancing act: challenging students but not frustrating them; helping those who need help the most, but including all. Earlier research that my colleagues and I had conducted in urban schools serving minority students (Gersten, Darch, Davis, & George, 1991; Gersten, Morvant, & Breugel- man,1995) revealed that many teachers serving these students often are over- whelmed by the complexity of the challenges they face. For those who work with language-minority students during these transition years, teaching is complicated by the fact that English is still a strange second language to many of their students. They often encounter students who read well in neither their native language (be it Spanish, Lao, or Vietnamese) nor English. Some of these students have had very limited prior experience in school. Increasing numbers of




teachers thus face the daunting task of simultaneously building literacy, developing written expression ability, and enhancing English language growth. Teachers are often uncertain whether students' difficulties are due to a lack of comprehension or to limited facility with English.

The seemingly unpredictable rate of students' progress in English as they transfer skills and abilities from Spanish into En- glish is another source of concern. Many educators accept the notion that transfer of skills and abilities is inevitable rather than the more cautious prediction that it is possible, given adequate instruction and a supportive environment (Cummins, 1982; Moll et al., 1980). Finally, students are not only learning a new language, they are also learning about a new culture-one with very different conventions.

Generally, teachers are unsure of which level of conventional English language arts or reading curriculum to use, or even whether any type of systematic curriculum at all makes sense (Gersten & Woodward, 1994). A commonly advocated strategy is to shun a systematic curriculum and, instead, base instruction on children's literature and some variant of a process writing approach (Fradd, 1987; Reyes, 1992; Yates & Ortiz, 1991). Yet the lack of a curriculum or framework of instructional strategies or techniques can exacerbate teachers' anxiety, especially that of inexperienced teachers (Kolar, 1992).

Due to the rapid influx of immigrants into this country over the past 10 years, many teachers-particularly in cities and states with large numbers of recent immigrants-have become, often by default, teachers of second language students. The complexity of this challenge can cause even seasoned and accomplished teachers anxiety (Fillmore, 1982; Ramirez, 1992). Imple- mentation of a new mode of language arts and reading instruction heightened this anxiety, at least initially.

The Need to Describe Students' Instructional Environments Accurately Almost 20 years ago, Lortie (1975, p. iv) stated how so much writing about curriculum and teaching "is long on prescription, short on description." He asserted that, too often, "changes are proposed and initiated without sure knowledge of the setting they are presumed to improve. Without a clear picture of school reality, efforts at ration- alization can dissolve into faddism and pan- acean thinking" (pp. vii-viii).

Prior research on second language students has often focused heavily on the phil- osophical, policy, and program planning levels (Cziko, 1992). Our project focused squarely on the observed learning environment of the student, the quantity and quality of instruction offered to these students, and the coherence or fragmentation of the overall instructional program of individual students. We attempted to articulate the extent to which observed practices reflected the current knowledge base on teaching reading to language-minority students. Us- ing prior research as a guide, we also tried to identify the types of instructional interactions that seemed to be most productive. In a sense, the analysis procedure (described in the next section) was meant to be iterative-using the research base as a framework for observing, but also using the observations as a way to refine the concepts in the research base.

Method Setting Data were gathered in three schools in

a large district in Southern California. All of the participating schools had language- minority student populations of between 60% and 85%. Virtually all the students in these schools were from low-income families; the percentage eligible for free lunch ranged from 91.4% to 96%. In two of the schools, the preponderant native language was Spanish. In one, there was a wide range of Southeast Asian languages and cultures

JANUARY 1996




represented, including Lao, Cambodian, and Vietnamese.

Two schools were primarily Latino (75.9% and 76.9%). The third had a large range of immigrant groups. Forty-four per- cent were Latino, and approximately 30% came from several Southeast Asian cultures-Cambodian, Lao, Vietnamese, and Hmong. Smaller numbers of Ethiopian- and Somalian-born students were also present in the school. Between 12% and 22% of the students in each school were African Amer- ican and between 1% and 11% were Cau- casian.

In addition, observations were conducted in two classrooms in El Paso, Texas. In these classrooms, all students were La- tino. These classes were chosen because the teachers were deemed exemplary by the district's bilingual education department, and the teachers were considered particularly innovative. This district had been using literature-based instruction for Latino students for almost 10 years.

We observed over 200 hours of reading/ language arts instruction provided to language-minority students in grades 3-6. Dis- trict, school, and community variables were examined primarily to provide a context for understanding the learning environment of the student. A series of interviews with classroom teachers, administrators, and other relevant school personnel (special educators, bilingual specialists) were conducted to help provide a richer context. One purpose of these interviews was to begin to establish a knowledge base for future professional development. We wanted to begin to understand which issues were sources of concern for teachers, the sources of teacher frustration and confusion as well as teacher satisfaction.

Students

Twenty-four classrooms in the three schools were involved. (During the second year of the study, we broadened the sample to include two teachers deemed to be expert

in other schools in El Paso.) Virtually all the students were in the first or second year of making the transition from primarily Span- ish-language or "sheltered English" instruction to instruction in English for virtually the entire school day. Typically, instruction during most of the day was conducted in English. In all but two classrooms, students received native language instruction in either social studies or science for 30-45 minutes. In two schools, the monolingual teachers typically traded students with a neighboring bilingual teacher for the native language instruction. In the third school, with a predominantly Southeast Asian population, native language instruction was provided not only in Spanish, but in Vietnamese, Lao, and Cambodian.

Although most students were still not fluent English speakers, most had "gradu- ated" from their bilingual education or sheltered English programs into what the districts called "transition" programs. Students were thus no longer officially considered limited English proficient by district standards.

Curriculum

Only one teacher used a conventional basal series for reading instruction; all others used children's literature, such as James and the Giant Peach, or Where the Red Fern Grows, as the core of the reading/language arts curriculum. In some schools, teachers had guides to assist them in lesson design. The guides listed vocabulary words likely to be unfamiliar and suggested activities that might go along with chapters in the book (e.g., sequencing activities, story maps).

Teachers

Eight of the teachers were bilingual (Spanish and English); the remaining 19 spoke only English. (One was fluent in both English and Dutch.) Of these 19, about one- third had completed some coursework in




English as a second language or sheltered English techniques.

Data Collection A qualitative classroom observational

method was used as the primary means of describing and analyzing the realities of teaching language-minority students. All participating teachers were observed by at least three of the researchers over 2 years. The observers always targeted at least one student who the teacher thought was ex- periencing difficulties in reading. The ob- server noted this student's performance during the lesson while simultaneously looking at the class as a whole.

We also interviewed teachers to learn of their concerns and their beliefs about teaching language-minority students to read and write. The interviews helped us refine the conceptual framework. For purposes of research reporting, names and some details of both teachers and students have been changed to maintain confidentiality.

Four other researchers, two practition- ers, and I conducted the observations. The seven members of the research team represented a wide range of perspectives and expertise and had very different professional experiences. Two had, until recently, worked in the California schools-one as a special educator and one as a bilingual school psychologist. Of the five researchers, one was a recent immigrant, and two had parents who had immigrated to the country. Three were bilingual.

The expertise of one was ethnography, another bilingual education and cognitive approaches to literacy instruction, and one qualitative sociology. Another researcher had a strong background in both direct instruction and cognitive approaches to instruction. I (the project director) had per- haps the most eclectic background-7 years as a music critic, and an early background in psychoanalytic approaches and case study methods, followed by 12 years of research on direct instruction. My 12 years of naturalistic research in urban schools--

many of them serving language-minority students-cultivated what might be called an agnostic view toward the database on effective teaching and direct instruction. Along with most of the researchers, I shared a burgeoning interest in process or literature-based approaches to literacy.

The research team members' interactions were ongoing and recursive (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I observed jointly on several occasions with all six of the researchers, reviewed and discussed their field notes, and used ideas from the group to develop and refine a conceptual framework that helped guide analysis. At periodic meetings members of the research team discussed findings and put forward hunches, tentative trends, and possible themes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1990; Taylor & Bogdan, 1984).

Researchers wrote up reports or mini- case studies of individual classrooms. I reviewed these and subsequently responded with written memos (Miles & Huberman, 1994) discussing areas of agreement and disagreement, emerging themes and issues, and topics requiring further clarification. These memos led to numerous discussions, often involving three or more members of the research team. These discussions took place any time from 9 A.M. to midnight, and literally anywhere. Approximately three times a year, emerging themes from the research were delineated and discussed in somewhat more formal meetings. Often these involved one of the two ethnographic consultants for the project, Hugh Mehan and Harry Wolcott.

To be candid, there were several heated exchanges about what was productive and desirable. Only half jokingly, we sometimes said that we learned more from the disagreements and arguments than from the times when we easily agreed. These exchanges and arguments-both the calm and the heated, the verbal and the written-allowed for deeper and more thorough understanding of the data, including an understanding of the complexities and

JANUARY 1996




ambiguities of the instruction observed. Ul-

timately the diversity of viewpoints and

perspectives seemed to enrich our mutual

understanding of events.

Refinement of Conceptual Framework The approach to observation and the con-

ceptual framework for analysis were inten- tionally broad. The approach was based on three seemingly discrete bodies of research that are depicted in Figure 1.

The knowledge base included research on second language learning and bilingual education (Goldenberg, 1992/1993; Moll, 1988; Ortiz & Wilkinson, 1991; Ramirez, 1992; Tikunoff, 1988); contemporary con-

ceptions of literacy instruction (Brown, Col- lins, & Duguid, 1989; Palincsar & Klenk, 1992; Paris & Jacobs, 1984; Pearson & Field-

ing, 1991); general principles of effective instruction for low-income students (Arreaga- Mayer & Perdomo-Rivera, 1996, in this is-

sue; Brophy, 1988; Gersten, Woodward, & Darch, 1986; Stein, Leinhardt, & Bickel, 1989); and multicultural education (Au, 1993; Banks & Banks, 1993; Greene, 1993; McElroy-Johnson, 1993; Nieto, 1992; Slee- ter & Grant, 1993). We integrated these

emerging research bases in the context of our observations. We noted a surprising amount of overlap in recent contribution in these bodies of research. These areas of con-

vergence will emerge later in this article

through the discussion of the findings. Because so much research on language-

minority students has been critical of current practice, we tried to document not only techniques and strategies that were unpro- ductive-as Moll (1988) and Moll et al. (1980) had done-but also to document and

analyze which practices and instructional

strategies seemed to produce positive effects on students' comprehension and lan-

guage development. Because students were at varying degrees of English language proficiency and were taught with varying cur- ricula, no standardized test results (or any other standardized performance measure) were available in either English or Spanish. (Furthermore, the validity and utility of results on standardized achievement tests for students making the transition into English are dubious [Garcia, 1991].) The gauges we used were what the researchers concluded were features of productive learning environments, based on observations of teach-

ing, interviews with teachers and students, a document analysis, and the considerable research, teaching, and professional judg- ment of the research team.

The constructs listed in the appendix constitute an evolving conceptual framework, reflecting aspects of instruction that seemed particularly important to us in at-

tempting to understand the process of lit-

eracy instruction for language-minority students. The constructs are further discussed below, through field notes illustrating their use in classroom observation and through elaborate examples of each construct, drawn from the observations.

Resear?d on Effective Instruction for "At-Risk" Students

Biangua1 Education & Language . Acquisition

Cognitiv

sructs uifor 'ftveInstruction

FIG. 1.-Relevant knowledge bases for conceptualizing effective literacy instruction for language-minority students.




The use of this framework is unusual in

qualitative research. More conventional

qualitative research methods call for letting an analytic framework emerge from the data (Patton, 1990; Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). We viewed this study as a continuation and extension of previous research and thought it desirable to have a framework that would reflect what was known about effective instructional variables but yet not preclude us from incorporating new insights or new information.

The earliest version of the framework (Gersten & Woodward, 1990) was most

heavily rooted in the effective teaching research of the 1980s and the cognitive research of the 1980s and 1990s. The constructs underwent modification and refinement as we observed in the 18 classrooms and saw how teachers actually taught language-minority students making the transition into English. Where possible, we tried to avoid the more academic lan-

guage of the research literature and to use

terminology that transcended one particular ideology. Thus, terminology such as "mas- tery" was replaced with "success," "on- task" was replaced with "involvement."

Another significant influence on the refinement of the framework was our immersion in the growing literature on instruction for second language students. Two of the primary researchers prepared a literature synthesis (Gersten & Woodward, 1994). The process of coming to grips with a relatively new knowledge base while conducting field research on the topic (rather than before conducting the research) proved productive in this case. As the framework evolved, it seemed particularly important to use the observational data col- lected to synthesize the concepts from second language learning research with those from effective teaching research.

During the second year of the project, a researcher with a strong background in bilingual education joined the project. His influence is clearly reflected in the refinement of the constructs (Gersten & Jim~nez, 1994).

In particular, his persuasive arguments in defense of bilingual education even when students had reached some level of proficiency in English helped us better understand what we observed.

In some ways, some of the early mis-

understandings and communication problems that occurred among the researchers

paralleled the problems that occur in the field. Individuals with a strong belief in the benefits of native language instruction sometimes clashed with those who saw benefits to rapid immersion of students into

English language instruction. Similarly, those who were committed to constructivist or whole language approaches sometimes clashed with those who supported structured approaches. By returning to specific observed instances, we were better able to understand the nature of the disagreements, even when the disagreements were not re- solved. During the final stages of analysis, we attempted to integrate the insights gained from those involved in multicultural education and in understanding ways in which teachers with backgrounds different from their students' can transcend initial dif- ferences by use of literature (Au, 1992; Greene, 1993; McElroy-Johnson, 1993). The process of melding seemingly disparate views was an essential part of the research process represented in Figure 1. As will be seen, it sometimes clarified areas of ambi- guity in our findings.

Illustrations of the Constructs In this section, I present a range of observed instructional activities and interactions organized according to the constructs in the appendix. These examples are derived from field notes that serve as the basis for several more detailed case studies (Campbell, Ger- sten, Kolar, & Jim nez, 1993; Gersten, 1995; Gersten & Jimenez, 1994). Providing a series of brief vignettes that exemplify di- mensions of seemingly productive and less productive practice seemed a good way to begin to pinpoint some of the key issues that emerged from the observations.

JANUARY 1996




Merged with these examples are rumina- tions on the evolving definition of promising practice.

The reader will immediately note how the constructs interrelate and interconnect. This overlap was intentional. The goal was to provide a language for discussing and elucidating essential aspects of instructional environments. This section is, thus, broken into two subsections: challenge, success, and involvement; and scaffolding, mediation, and feedback. It concludes with comments on respect for cultural and personal diversity.

Challenge, Success, and Involvement Most teachers were aware of the typical

fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade curriculum being too difficult for their language-minority students. However, their attempts to modulate it varied widely. At one extreme was a beginning teacher who supplied very simple first-grade work in English (often involving coloring or copying) for her extremely limited-English-proficient student (Campbell et al., 1993). When interviewed, the student indicated how babyish he felt the work was and how ashamed such treat- ment caused him to feel.

Other cases were less extreme but still left students with no sense of intellectual challenge. Many teachers-either con- sciously or unconsciously-provided many opportunities for copying. For example, in one room each day students copied approximately six definitions from the dictionary and were asked to put the words into sentences. (The dictionary always included a sample sentence or two.) Clearly, though the success rate was high, the challenge was insufficient, and we observed consistently low motivation.

Other teachers erred in the other extreme-providing unmodulated fourth- or fifth-grade assignments to students with no additional support. For example, one teacher described in Kolar (1992) and Ger- sten and Jim~nez (1994) asked students to write a summary of a chapter. Few students

knew what a summary was. No definition or guidelines were provided. In that classroom, challenge was at a frustration level. Success was rare.

In contrast, one fourth-grade teacher, Ms. Tapia, maintained a reasonable balance of challenge and success. Students were challenged because her questions required them to think about the story, and questions were typically interesting. She also challenged students by occasionally asking them why they thought their inference was correct. For example, here is an excerpt from the field notes:

Ms. Tapia asks: "What do you think the story will be about? Do you think this lady will be in the story?" She delicately elicits a wide range of predictions, and unlike the other teachers we observed, each prediction is placed on the chart. (Later, unlike other teachers observed, she will return to each prediction and have the class evaluate whether the evidence in the story supported or failed to support it.) Student involvement is extremely high. Even the more reticent students volun- teer predictions. Ms. Tapia will provide prompts to students who seem to be foundering, such as, "With a title like this and this picture on the cover, Fernando, what do you think this story will be about?"

The teacher was careful to call on the extremely reticent students only when she was fairly certain they would be successful. For example, once the class had concluded that the leading character had transformed himself from a "bad man" (a thief) to a "good man" (one who helps people), Ms. Tapia asked for examples. In my estimation, the story contained about 30. This was the only time I saw her call on even the most reticent students to provide evidence as to how we know the thief has become a good man. Every student who participated provided a reasonable piece of evidence. The momentum of the group even propelled some otherwise reticent students to vol- unteer.




Another teacher we observed, Ms. Leon- ard (Gersten & Jimenez, 1994), also chal-

lenged students by asking higher-order questions but mixing them with systematic work on story grammar elements such as spending a good deal of time describing the characteristics of the key protagonist in the novel, Howliday Inn, Lyle the cat.

In Ms. Leonard's room, each day the focus was on only a few words crucial for

understanding the story. Students under- stood that they were to really learn these words and that they would be using them over the course of several days. The chal-

lenge here, again, was modulated. In contrast, some of the less experienced teachers tended to put a large list of words on the board and provide brief definitions. Only the teacher defined the word; rarely did students offer definitions. It seemed highly un-

likely that students would retain word

meanings. In addition, long stretches of time on vocabulary tended to lower involvement and interest.

Awareness of the importance of deter- mining this balance of challenge and success is a crucial first step in learning to modulate instruction for language-minority students skillfully. One of the expert teachers in the study, Ms. Leonard, noted that "I don't choose words that are real simple. I don't insult them with books that are too easy in English. [Many] are good Spanish readers.... I try to pull out key words, but I don't want to overwhelm them. They can skip many [inessential] words [and still understand the story]." (See Jimenez, Gersten, & Rivera, 1996, in this issue.)

Scaffolding, Mediation, and Feedback Research has consistently shown that

students benefit from the consistent use of "scaffolds" or guides in how to develop an argument, solve a problem, and so on. We noted, as did many other researchers (e.g., Arreaga-Mayer & Perdomo-Rivera, 1996, in this issue), that teachers rarely provided these structures to students. Often students were asked to "write a summary" or "de-

scribe things from Jamie's point of view" or "tell the story from Amy's perspective" without being provided with any models of the steps they needed to take in order to summarize, describe, or analyze. Four teachers were dramatic exceptions-they routinely provided students with ideas and

suggestions of how to analyze, how to develop an argument.

One teacher who consistently provided scaffolding in her instruction was Ms. Tapia. An example from my field notes (December 1990) follows:

Ms. Tapia tells students they can use three sources of data to explain why they think a character is "suspicious" or "anx- ious." The sources are listed on a chart: actions, speech (or dialogue), and how characters look. This strategy was used in story after story. There are reminders. Ms. Tapia once said, "None of you provided dialogue." And students search for dialogue that supports their inferences about the character. Her recurrent phrase is "You have to prove it to me."

One impressive strategy for scaffolding that some teachers used involved focusing for a short time on a single aspect of written language such as verbs, adjectives (also known as words that describe), or questions and question marks and essentially ignoring other aspects of language for that time. The advantage of this strategy is that students know what is expected of them and can focus their energy and attention on only one aspect of the new language. For example, one teacher asked students to rewrite their story using several "words that describe." A list of possible "words that describe" was on the board, but students could not suc- ceed merely by copying the words since they had to know which ones fit the context of their story. For this activity, observed success and involvement were relatively high.

Providing feedback and mediation were probably the areas where the greatest var- iations occurred. I present several examples both to describe the range of experiences

JANUARY 1996




students encountered and to help build a foundation for professional development activities.

When students in their first few years of

English language instruction write in En-

glish, most teachers-even those with extensive experience-do not know what type of feedback to provide. On the one hand, a teacher can correct every error in syntax, spelling, capitalization, word order, tense

agreement, and so on. The drawback is that students are likely to be devastated or hu- miliated, and it is unclear that any learning will occur. We observed teachers who provided such feedback in public. Student shame and confusion emerged from this

"slash" and "trash" approach to editing and the improvement of grammatical skills in

English. On the other hand, as Reyes (1992) noted, at some point, teachers need to provide some systematic feedback on the ac- curacy of written products and teach students appropriate rules for grammar, punctuation, and so on.

The type of mediation and feedback used by a teacher reveal much about him or her. Below is an example of Ms. Tapia's feedback and mediation:

Her consistent message-throughout the 2 years I've observed her-is that you always must provide evidence for your predictions or hypotheses or inferences, and that no attempt to develop and support an inference or hypothesis will be ridiculed ... but that each will be eval- uated by the teacher and peers. This sense of intellectual accountability is rare.

She never pronounces a response incorrect or illogical. However, when a student predicts that the people in the story "will have a ranch," a statement that seems to make no sense, she asks him why. When he is unable to answer, she neither praises nor criticizes him, she merely moves on.

If the group cannot come up with a fully complete description or analysis, she finally provides one. For example, no one can explain precisely why a character.

was disobedient. Partial responses such as "She was dying for gum" are provided. Finally, Ms. Tapia provides the full response: "She is disobedient because she eats gum despite what her mother tells her." However, this tech- nique is a last resort.

Ms. Tapia's persistent motif--"Prove it to me"-shows the value she placed on building a case for every argument based on tex- tual evidence. The persistence and consist- ency with which she pursued this strategy made it work.

In contrast, quite a few teachers provided no feedback when students read in- accurately or provided responses that did not seem to make sense. The teachers seemed overly concerned about embarrass- ing students. Yet the acceptance of re-

sponses that are improper is likely to con- vey to students that teachers do not hold high standards and expectations for them. Asking students why or how they reached an answer or asking them to reread a sentence conveys another type of message.

Similarly, the feedback provided to Spanish responses during the English language arts part of the day revealed much about the students' experiences in school. Our observations showed that expert teachers always accepted the Spanish response but encouraged students to try it in English. They did this with the same gentleness, the same curiosity that they displayed when asking students to explain how they reached that conclusion.

Interrelationship of Constructs There is yet another dimension to me-

diation and feedback that far transcends the research base on effective teaching from the late 1970s and early 1980s-incorporating the construct of respect for personal and cultural diversity. An example should help explore the issue.

The setting is a fourth-grade "transition room," that is, a class of students in their first year of virtually all English language




instruction. The teacher, Truman, is mono-

lingual with no formal background in second language acquisition but with a commitment to teaching minority students. Truman utilizes a relatively faithful process approach involving writers' workshop, students' selections of books that they will read (in English), and a heavy emphasis on proj- ects and journal writing.

He has just finished a conference with Ruben, a quiet, bookworm type of student. Ruben wants to read a book about Michael Jordan next. A boy in the room says, "Ruben has no business doing that-he doesn't know anything about sports." Tru- man overhears this remark and intervenes. He says, "That's not true. Ruben and his brother watch soccer and basketball games all the time. He knows a lot about basketball."

A minute later, Magda asks if it is all

right to read a book about the sea battle between the Monitor and Merrimack again. She read it in the fall but feels her English is much better now and she knows a lot more about history. Truman says "sure" and then describes to the class what Magda is doing and tells them that it is okay to do this and it may make sense for a lot of the rest of them, because they have become much better readers, to go back and reread something they have already read.

These types of authentic (Au, 1993; Greene, 1993) interactions are interesting in that the students are treated like real people-with likes, dislikes, idiosyncrasies. The teacher actually remembers what they say and usually finds it interesting. Note how in the second example Truman also uses this instance to provide some important direct instruction to students on the possible benefits of rereading.

We observed several benefits to this approach. The first and obvious one in the classrooms of the two teachers who utilized it is that the students tended to work like a roomful of adults-some individually, some with a partner, some talking through a problem, others occasionally (or more than

occasionally) daydreaming. But there was a

high level of sophistication, a seriousness that I have rarely seen in a fourth- or fifth- grade classroom. The constructs of involvement, challenge, success, collaborative learning, and understanding of diversity beautifully intersect in this case. The other advantage is that these teachers tended to

encourage and assist in oral English language development because they took students' remarks and comments seriously, and they provided students with opportunities to engage in extended discourse in En-

glish, using complex concepts and attempt- ing to explain concepts in their own words.

It is less clear to us how this approach toward dealing with students can be taught to other teachers. Many who use the process approach do not treat students in this fashion. And one teacher who tended to be

highly structured much of the day treated students in this way. Mere knowledge of

Spanish is clearly not enough. Nor is it always necessary, as evidenced by the case of Truman. Although teachers who usually treated their students as individuals tended to do more "thinking aloud" and modeling of cognitive processes, there was far from a perfect correlation. The interplay of this human aspect of instruction and the more cognitive or behavioral aspects of effective

teaching requires further investigation.

Instructional Practices The vignettes described illustrate that

the use of certain instructional practices that assist low-performing native-English- speaking students looms even larger in importance for language-minority students. These practices satisfy many of the de- mands imposed as the students learn a new language and consolidate their grasp of En- glish. These practices include checking students' comprehension of new vocabulary introduced in a story, providing opportunities for meaningful use of new vocabulary, presenting ideas both verbally and in written form, using reasonably consistent language for a series of lessons and minimizing use of synonyms and idioms, paraphrasing

JANUARY 1996




students' remarks and gently encouraging them to expand on their responses, and in-

cluding questions and activities that require elaborated responses in English so that students can practice expressing their ideas.

Ensuring that students understand the

concepts that the teacher attempts to con- vey involves intentional use of redundancy, more frequent use of simple or declarative sentences, frequent checks for student comprehension, and the use of physical gestures and visual cues. Spiro, Vispoel, Schmitz, Samarapungavan, and Boerger (1987) observed that only when students are allowed to "crisscross the (instructional) landscape" via a wide range of oral and written activities do they understand the concepts presented.

Implications Based on the 2 years of observational research and analysis, two overarching implications have evolved. First, we observed that monolingual English-speaking teachers can work productively with language- minority students, and teachers need not radically alter their approaches to teaching in order to be successful. Rather, they need to attend to certain features of instruction-- the selection of key vocabulary that will enhance understanding, provision of a range of activities involving key vocabulary concepts, the careful focus on providing feedback on meaning rather than syntax or grammar, and the active encouragement of students to practice expressing ideas and concepts in English.

The 2 years of study have shown cases of dramatic academic growth when well- trained and committed English-language- speaking special educators and classroom teachers have worked to enhance the learning of at-risk language-minority students (Campbell et al., 1993; Gersten & Jimenez, 1994). We believe that many more teachers can be effective when given appropriate mentoring or training. A major area of needed professional development is helping these educators understand their poten-

tial for assisting language-minority students and showing them how their knowledge needs to be modified to meet the needs of these students.

However, our findings also suggest that many language-minority students are taught by relatively inexperienced teachers during the transition years (Gersten, 1995). These teachers need to realize that students can understand a story without understanding every single word in the story and that grueling work on comprehensive word lists will lower motivation and comprehension. Similarly, clearly pointing out the potential negative effects of correcting all grammatical errors, of providing feedback that is based more on the content than the form of a student response, is essential.

Furthermore, mere knowledge of Span- ish is not a substitute for knowledge of how to teach these students, especially during the years of the transition to mainstream English language instruction. The tendency of some school districts to provide a para- professional who speaks Spanish (but often is not a trained-or well-supervised-educator) is not acceptable. This is not to say that knowledge of Spanish is not an asset for those teaching Latino students. But, un- fortunately, there are-and will be-occasions where placement of students with a bilingual teacher is not possible due either to shortages (Gold, 1992) or unavailability of bilingual teachers in a given language- Hmong, Lao, Cambodian, Creole dialects, and so on.

One of the most striking findings that emerged from the observations is that many instructional practices recommended for use with at-risk students can be effective for teaching language-minority students to read, with sensitive modulation. With some refinement, experienced teachers can enter classrooms of diverse students with a core of relevant personal knowledge. Many teachers with expertise in more structured approaches, such as direct instruction, active teaching, or any of the other approaches so popular in the last decade, have




a battery of techniques and strategies and

ways of conceptualizing instruction that have the potential to be effective with these students.

However, we also concur with Yates and Ortiz (1991) in noting that some teachers treat language-minority students as low-

achieving native-English-speaking students, teaching them with a watered down curriculum. Such a posture denies these students equal access to high-quality education and is not at all what we found to be productive. The necessity of maintaining high expectations found support in our study (Carter & Chatfield, 1986; Lucas, Henze, & Donato, 1990).

In many respects and in many cases, the effectiveness of the teachers' use of process approaches to improving the comprehension and English language competence of

language-minority students was related to the extent to which they used the range of instructional strategies identified in the 1980s by researchers such as Brophy and Good (1986), Stallings (1975), and Stein et al. (1989). This observation must be tem-

pered with the realization that (a) not all of the variables that were thought to be effective in the 1980s are in fact relevant (a clas- sic exception is the provision of clear, im- mediate feedback whenever an incorrect or

incomplete response occurs); and (b) un-

derstanding of these variables has been

tempered by the growth in the fields of process instruction, cognitive strategy instruction, and the deeper analyses of expert teaching (Leinhardt, 1988).

For example, it seems that, whereas earlier models of effective teaching called for clear teacher models of relevant strategies and teachers' "thinking aloud" how they used information in the story to reach a conclusion (Pearson & Dole, 1987), it is as likely that a group-generated discussion of how to draw an inference or a group-derived so- lution of a problem will be as successful, more meaningful, and better remembered (see, e.g., the research of Englert & Tarrant, in press).

However, when the group falters or flounders in its attempt to work out a so- lution or its members are unable collectively to articulate how they figured out the character motive or drew an inference, our observations (Jimenez & Gersten, 1993) con-

sistently suggest that it is essential for the teacher to step in and provide a model or words that help students understand how

they arrived at their response. Kennedy (1991) noted that researchers

are only beginning to understand the re- lation between teachers' espoused philos- ophy of teaching and their observed instructional interactions. We, too, found this to be the case. Several teachers who con-

stantly spoke of their commitment to process approaches and whole language dem- onstrated structured teaching styles that resembled many aspects of the Brophy and Good (1986) model of effective instruction. What made these classrooms particularly exciting to us (and by all indications, to the students observed) was that teachers often used this system to pursue fairly complex cognitive goals-such as how to use evidence to support an inference, to identify themes in character motivation, to describe the mood or tone of a story, and to describe (and defend) a description or tone of a student's piece of writing.

Similarly, correct grammar and usage in

English need to be approached in a very different fashion for language-minority students than for native English speakers. As one teacher noted, and our observations reinforced, though it is a time-consuming process, if each week the class has a clear focus-for example, adjectives (words that describe), paragraphs-and the focus is on improving communication skills and proper usage-students show marked progress.

One commonality among virtually all the teachers who actively engaged students in productive activities is that they had a clear goal that cut across the lesson or, often, a series of lessons. In her definition of expert teaching, Leinhardt (1988) noted, "The expert teacher does carry a mental

JANUARY 1996




plan that we have been able to access by simply asking for it .... It contains a list of action segments appropriate for the stated topic of the lesson. The action segment statements refer to what the teacher will do, and what the students will be learning. In addition the agenda includes [checks for understanding] that let the teacher know what she or he needs to look for in order to determine whether or not to continue" (pp. 52-53, emphasis added).

This delicate balance of high structure, clear focus, and rich objectives was rare in the classrooms we observed. In order to accomplish these goals with students with limited English language ability, the teachers needed to utilize many of the effective teaching techniques-clear and consistent language to describe difficult concepts (Ger- sten et al., 1986), clear statement of objectives, a range of activities to review and clarify applications of new concepts and material, and clear rules not only for social behavior in class but for instructional conversations (Leinhardt, 1988). It is also important to note that our observations indicated that, in order to be productive, these practices must occur as part of a consistent and comprehensive approach to instruction involving frequent student interaction and teacher modeling of comprehension.

There appears to be an untapped body of relevant knowledge and talent available for working with language-minority students. Teachers with training in process approaches to literacy can-with some significant modifications-achieve dramatic results with students (see Goldenberg, 1992/1993; Reyes, 1992; Reyes & Molner, 1991, for further discussion of modifications). Similarly, teachers with expertise in the effective teaching principles articulated in research of the 1980s possess a rich rep- ertoire of techniques that can be adapted, using sheltered English methodologies, to fit the needs of language-minority students. (This point is discussed in Gersten and Ji- menez, 1994, and in Gersten, Taylor, and Graves, in press.) Rueda and Garcia (1996,

in this issue) discuss some of the conceptual evolution necessary for successful transfor- mation.

The purpose of this project was to explore parameters of literacy instruction for language-minority students making the transition into mainstream English language instruction. The next area for research is assessment of the relative effectiveness of some of the instructional strategies and instructional variables discussed in this article-using a wide range of measures, in both English and Spanish, including measures of affect/attitude as well as achievement.

Appendix Constructs for Promoting Learning and Language Acquisition 1. Structures, frameworks, scaffolds, and strat-

egies A. Provide support to students by "thinking

aloud," building on and clarifying input of students

B. Use visual organizers, story maps, or other aids to help students organize and relate information

2. Relevant background knowledge and key vocabulary concepts A. Provide adequate background knowl-

edge to students and informally assess whether students have background knowledge

B. Focus on key vocabulary words C. Use consistent language D. Incorporate students' primary language

meaningfully 3. Mediation/feedback

A. Feedback that focuses on meaning, not grammar, syntax, or pronunciation

B. Frequency C. Comprehensibility D. Extent to which teacher provides stu-

dents with prompts or strategies E. Questions that press students to clarify

or expand on initial statements F. Providing activities and tasks that stu-

dents can complete G. Indicating to students when they are suc-

cessful H. Assigning activities that are reasonable,

avoiding undue frustration I. Allowing use of native language re-

sponses (when context is appropriate)




J. Sensitivity to common problems in second language acquisition

4. Involvement A. Amount of active involvement B. Involvement of all students, including

low-performing students C. Extent to which extended discourse is

fostered 5. Challenge

A. Implicit (cognitive challenge, use of higher-order questions)

B. Explicit (high but reasonable expectations)

6. Respect for-and responsiveness to-cultural and personal diversity A. The extent to which teachers show re-

spect for students as individuals, respond to things students say, show respect for culture and family, and possess knowledge of cultural diversity

B. Incorporation of students' experiences into writing and language arts activities

C. Attempts to link content to students' lives and experiences to enhance understanding

D. View of diversity as an asset, rejection of cultural deficit notions

Note

This research was supported in part by grant H023H00014 from the U.S. Department of Ed- ucation, Office of Special Education Programs. An earlier draft of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in April 1993 in Atlanta. I wish to thank Thomas Keating for his assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. I also wish to thank Douglas Carnine, Susan Brengelman, Anne Graves, Joseph Dimino, Robert Jimenez, Chris Kolar, Carol Sue Englert, and Ji-Mei Chang for their stimulating reactions to earlier versions of this article. Finally, I would like to acknowl- edge the contributions of the entire research team-Robert Jimenez, John Woodward, Chris Kolar, Jean Campbell, Magda Rodriguez, and Eve Charforons.

References

Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1996). Linking reading comprehension instruction to language development for language-minority students. Elementary School Journal, 96, 295-309.

Arreaga-Mayer, C., & Perdomo-Rivera, C. (1996). Ecobehavioral analysis of instruction for at-risk language-minority students. Ele- mentary School Journal, 96, 245-258.

Au, K. (1992, April). Student purposes in peer- and teacher-guided literature discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Au, K. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanov- ich.

Baca, L. M., & Cervantes, H. T. (1989). The bilingual special education interface (2d ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (1993). Multi- cultural education (2d ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Barrera, R. (1984). Bilingual reading in the primary grades: Some questions about ques- tionable views and practices. In T. H. Esco- bar (Ed.), Early childhood bilingual education (pp. 164-183). New York: Teachers College Press.

Berman, P., Chambers, J., Gandara, P., Mc- Laughlin, B., Minicucci, C., Nelson, B., Ol- son, L., & Parrish, T. (1992). Meeting the challenge of language diversity: Vol. 1. Exec- utive summary. Berkeley, CA: BW Associates.

Brophy, J. (1988). Research on teacher effects: Uses and abuses. Elementary School Journal, 89, 3-21.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. Witt- rock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.

California State Department of Education. (1988). California language arts framework. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Campbell, J., Gersten, R., Kolar, C., & Jimenez, R. (1993). Quality of instruction provided to language minority students with learning disabilities: Five findings from micro-ethnogra- phies (Technical Rep. 93-5). Eugene, OR: Eu- gene Research Institute.

Carter, T. P., & Chatfield, M. L. (1986). Effective bilingual schools: Implications for policy and practice. American Journal of Education, 95, 200-232.

Cummins, J. (1982). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success in language minority students. In California State Department of Education, Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Los Ange-

JANUARY 1996




les: Bilingual Education Evaluation, Dissem- ination, and Assessment Center.

Cummins, J. (1989). A theoretical framework for bilingual special education. Exceptional Chil- dren, 56, 111-119.

Cziko, G. A. (1992). The evaluation of bilingual education. Educational Researcher, 21, 10-15.

de La Rosa, D., & Maw, C. (1990). Latino education: A statistical portrait. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza.

Duffy, G. G. (1983). From turn-taking to sense making: Broadening the concept of reading teacher effectiveness. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 134-139.

Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.

Englert, C. S., & Tarrant, K. L. (in press). Cre- ating collaborative cultures for educational change. Remedial and Special Education.

Fillmore, L. W. (1982). Language minority students and school participation: What kind of English is needed. Journal of Education, 164, 143-156.

Flores, B., & Hernmndez, E. (1988). A bilingual kindergartner's sociopsychogenesis of literacy and biliteracy. Dialogue, 5, 2-3.

Fradd, S. H. (1987). Accommodating the needs of limited English proficient students in regular classrooms. In S. Fradd & W. Tikunoff (Eds.), Bilingual education and special education: A guide for administrators (pp. 133-182). Boston: Little, Brown.

Garcia, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the En- glish reading test performance of Spanish- speaking Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 371-392.

Gersten, R. (1995). Lost opportunities. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Gersten, R., Darch, C., Davis, G., & George, N. (1991). Apprenticeship and intensive training of consulting teachers: A naturalistic study. Exceptional Children, 57, 226-237.

Gersten, R., & Jimenez, R. (1994). A delicate balance: Enhancing literacy instruction for students of English as a second language. Read- ing Teacher, 47, 438-449.

Gersten, R., Morvant, M., & Breugelman, S. (1995). Close to the bone: Coaching as a means to translate research into classroom practice. Exceptional Children, 62(1), 52-66.

Gersten, R., Taylor, R., & Graves, A. (in press). Teaching students with learning disabilities and other learning problems. In R. Stevens (Ed.), Teaching in American schools: Essays in honor of Barak Rosenshine. Columbus, OH: Merrill Education/Prentice Hall.

Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1990). Rethinking the regular education initiative: Focus on the classroom teacher. Remedial and Special Ed- ucation, 11, 7-16.

Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language minority student and special education: Issues, themes and paradoxes. Excep- tional Children, 60, 310-322.

Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1995). A longitu- dinal study of transitional and immersion bilingual education programs in one district. Elementary School Journal, 95, 223-240.

Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Darch, C. (1986). Direct instruction: A research-based approach for curriculum design and teaching. Exceptional Children, 53, 17-36.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The dis- covery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Gold, N. (1992, April). Solving the shortage of bilingual teachers: Policy implications of Cal- ifornia's staffing initiative for limited English proficiency students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Goldenberg, C. (1992/1993). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through discussion. Reading Teacher, 46, 316-326.

Greene, M. (1993). The passions of pluralism: Multiculturalism and the expanding community. Educational Researcher, 22, 13-18.

Jimenez, R., & Gersten, R. (1993, April). Exem- plary practices in bilingual education and implications for professional development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.

Jimenez, R. T., Gersten, R., & Rivera, A. (1996). Conversations with a Chicana teacher: Sup- porting students' transition from native- to English-language instruction. Elementary School Journal, 96, 333-341.

Kennedy, M. M. (1991). Implications for teaching. In E. A. Ramp & C. S. Pederson (Eds.), Follow Through: Program and policy issues (pp. 57-71). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement.

Kolar, C. (1992). It's time for change: Re-thinking whole language instruction for diverse learners. In J. Marr & G. Tindal (Eds.), Oregon conference monograph (pp. 53-60). Eugene: University of Oregon.

Leinhardt, G. (1988). Expertise in instructional lessons: An example from fractions. In D. A. Grouws & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching (pp. 48-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.




Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lucas, T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Pro- moting the success of Latino language-minority students: An exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 63, 85-104.

McElroy-Johnson, B. (1993). Giving voice to the voiceless. Harvard Educational Review, 63, 85-104.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qual- itative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2d ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Moll, L. C. (1988). Social and instructional issues in educating "disadvantaged" students. Com- missioned paper prepared for SRI's Com- mittee on Curriculum and Instruction of the Study of Academic Instruction for Disadvan- taged Students. Washington, DC: Science Research Institute.

Moll, L. C., Estrada, E., Diaz, E., & Lopes, L. M. (1980). The organization of bilingual lessons: Implications for schooling. Quarterly News- letter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 2, 53-58.

Natriello, G., McDill, E. L., & Pallas, A. M. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged children: Rac- ing against catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity. New York: Longman.

Ortiz, A. A., & Wilkinson, C. Y. (1991). Assess- ment and intervention model for the bilingual exceptional student (AIM for the BESt). Teacher Education and Special Education, 14, 37-42.

Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 211-225, 229.

Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children's reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083-2093.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2d ed.). London: Sage.

Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. Elementary School Journal, 88, 151-165.

Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Compre- hension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Hand- book of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 815-860). New York: Longman.

Ramirez, J. D. (1992). Executive summary: Lon- gitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transi-

tional bilingual education programs for language-minority children. Bilingual Re- search Journal, 16, 1-62.

Reyes, M. de la luz (1992). Challenging vener- able assumptions: Literacy instruction for linguistically different students. Harvard Edu- cational Review, 62, 427-446.

Reyes, M. de la Luz, & Molner, L. A. (1991). In- structional strategies for second-language learners in the content areas. Journal of Read- ing, 35, 96-103.

Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worth- while change in teaching practice. Educa- tional Researcher, 19(7), 10-18.

Rueda, R., & Garcia, E. (1996). Teachers' perspectives on literacy assessment and instruction with language-minority students: A comparative study. Elementary School Jour- nal, 96, 311-332.

Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1993). Making choices for multicultural education (2d ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. L., Schmitz, J. G., Sa- marapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. E. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cog- nitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. K. Britton & S. Glymer (Eds.), Executive control processes (pp. 177- 199). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stallings, J. (1975). Follow Through program classroom observation evaluation. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.

Stein, M. K., Leinhardt, G., & Bickel, W. (1989). Instructional issues for teaching students at risk. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & N. A. Madden (Eds.), Effective programs for students at risk (pp. 145-194). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. New York: Wiley.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Tikunoff, W. J. (1985). Applying significant bilingual instructional features in the classroom. Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bi- lingual Education.

Tikunoff, W. J. (1988). Mediation of instruction to obtain equality of effectiveness. In S. Fradd & W. Tikunoff (Eds.), Bilingual education and special education: A guide for administrators (pp. 99-132). Boston: Little, Brown.

Yates, J. R., & Ortiz, A. A. (1991). Professional development needs of teachers who serve exceptional language minorities in today's schools. Teacher Education and Special Edu- cation, 14, 11-18.

JANUARY 1996



Article Contentsp. [227]p. 228p. 229p. 230p. 231p. 232p. 233p. 234p. 235p. 236p. 237p. 238p. 239p. 240p. 241p. 242p. 243p. 244

Issue Table of ContentsThe Elementary School Journal, Vol. 96, No. 3, Special Issue: The Language-Minority Student in Transition (Jan., 1996), pp. 217-362Front MatterIntroduction: The Language-Minority Student in Transition: Contemporary Instructional Research [pp. 217-219]Commentary: Language-Minority Students: Instructional Issues in School Cultures and Classroom Social Systems [pp. 221-226]Literacy Instruction for Language-Minority Students: The Transition Years [pp. 227-244]Ecobehavioral Analysis of Instruction for At-Risk Language-Minority Students [pp. 245-258]The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A Model for Linguistically Diverse Classrooms [pp. 259-273]Reciprocal Teaching of Reading Comprehension Strategies for Students with Learning Disabilities Who Use English as a Second Language [pp. 275-293]Linking Reading Comprehension Instruction to Language Development for Language-Minority Students [pp. 295-309]Teachers' Perspectives on Literacy Assessment and Instruction with Language-Minority Students: A Comparative Study [pp. 311-332]Conversations with a Chicana Teacher: Supporting Students' Transition from Native to English Language Instruction [pp. 333-341]Conversations with a Latina Teacher about Education for Language-Minority Students with Special Needs [pp. 343-351]Commentary: The Education of Language-Minority Students: Where Are We, and Where Do We Need to Go? [pp. 353-361]Back Matter [pp. 362-362]

Documents

Literacy Instruction for Language-Minority Students: The Transition …renatataylor.weebly.com/.../literacy_instruction.pdf · 2018. 10. 17. · LITERACY INSTRUCTION 229 they considered