Ohio TESOL Board...Mike Dombroski [email protected] Membership Coordinator David Smith [email protected] Awards and Grants Coordinator Marcie Williams [email protected] Listserv

Autumn 2008 http://ohiotesol.org Vol. 1, No. 3

Work Hard to Gain the Respect of Others - page 4

Teaching in America - a Japanese perspective - page 8

TOEFL reading passages: a case study in useful strategies - page 10

Socio-cultural influences on reading comprehension - page 13

Technology in the ESOL Classroom - page 16

Plus conference information, a book review, and more...

http://ohiotesol.org

http://ohiotesol.org

Ohio TESOL BoardExecutive Committee - Voting MembersPresidentGreg [email protected]

First Vice PresidentBrenda [email protected]

Second Vice PresidentGloria [email protected]

K-12 Interest Section (IS) RepsJane [email protected] [email protected]

Adult and Refugee Concerns IS RepChristina [email protected]

Post Secondary/Higher Ed. IS RepLaura [email protected]

Research /Teacher Ed. /Applied Linguistics IS RepRoland Sintos [email protected]

Advisory Board - Non-Voting MembersTreasurerElana [email protected]

Recording SecretaryJill [email protected]

AdvocacyDon [email protected]

2008 Conference ChairsLillian [email protected] [email protected]

Professional Development CoordinatorsSonia Aguila [email protected] Jay [email protected]

Content ManagersChris [email protected] [email protected]

Membership CoordinatorDavid [email protected]

Awards and Grants CoordinatorMarcie [email protected]

Listserv ManagerBob [email protected]

Board LiasonsOFLA LiasonsLillian [email protected] [email protected]

Lau Center LiasonsDan Fleck, [email protected] Mohamud, [email protected]

Publisher LiasonOpen

The Ohio TESOL Board hard at work.

The Ohio TESOL Journal is published three times a year by Ohio TESOL. The deadlines for the next three issues are December 15 (Winter issue), April 15 (Spring issue), and August 15 (Fall issue). Ohio TESOL is not responsible for any opinions expressed by contributors to the Journal. Submissions accepted for publication may be edited and republished on our website and in other media.Photo credits: Paweł Zawistowski (cover), Yucel Tellici (page 3), Daniel West (page 14), Sundeip Arora (back cover). No, those weren’t my legs last month.All of the links in the electronic version of Ohio TESOL Journal are live, even if they are neither blue nor underlined. Give them a try! If you’re reading a paper copy, type them into your browser.

Ohio TESOL Journal -- Volume 1, Number 32

mailto:[email protected]
























http://ohiotesol.org 3

By Chris Hill

I hope this critical approach has been evident in the Ohio TESOL Journal in the year since we switched from a newsletter format. Our technological innovations include discussion forums on our website linked to each article. We have also posted digital versions online which include active links that you can use to access the web directly from the Journal. By integrating the website and the Journal, we hope that we have made both of them more useful.

I encourage you to submit an article. I also en-courage you to encourage your students to sub-mit an article. Being published can be a great experience for someone just starting in the field. And students who are knee-deep in the literature of the field – a place we full-time teachers don’t always find ourselves much anymore – can offer profound insights on new developments in lan-guage teaching.

Enjoy the issue and see you at the conference!

Chris Hill [email protected]

It’s autumn again. For most people that means pulling out a favorite sweater and raking leaves into colorful piles. For teachers of English to speakers of other languages, it also means new classes, new students, and the annual Ohio TESOL Conference.

This year’s theme is a good one: Access to Education, Access to Technology. As a devout technophile myself, I’m looking forward to spending a couple of days with teachers from across the state and learning about how they are using technology in their classrooms.

It’s important to look at technology with a critical eye. Sure, there are lots of things we can do with technology, but should we? Often this question is related to another: Can we afford it? Presentations at Ohio TESOL highlight what is being used successfully and what is available and accessible to teachers. It’s great to be able to cut through the pile of cutting edge ideas to the ones that work.

From the Editor


Work hard to Gain Respect and Share Ideas with Others

Recently after class, a group of undergraduate in-ternational students at The University of Findlay were discussing the fact that the United States does not have an official Teachers’ Day. Several of the students openly commented about how much respect they have for their American teachers. Others questioned why teachers, who are so vital to society, could be left without a special day of recognition in the United States. After much dis-cussion, several of the students agreed that teach-ers in the United States deserve a special day. Several students concluded that even without a special day, teachers in the United States should not feel discouraged. By the end of the discus-

A commentary by Donald Beck, Ohio TESOL Advisory Board: Advocacy

sion, all of the students involved felt that teachers should continue to work hard to gain respect.

After listening silently to this discussion and after reading the “Position Statement on the Status of, and Professional Equality for, the Field of Teach-ing English to Speakers of Other Languages” from TESOL Inc., which is included on the next page, two points became clear. First, in general, all teachers must continue to work hard to gain and hold respect. Since our profession is vital to soci-ety, we must give our best to gain respect. Second, in particular, ESL teachers must work even hard-er to gain personal respect and to gain respect for our field. Our students may already respect us, but others involved must see our efforts to bring improvement to society.

So, with this in mind, please take the time to listen to your students and to read the posi-

tion statement from TESOL Inc. Do your part to share the information in this po-

sition statement with others. Use it as a talking point to demonstrate that TESOL is equal, unique and profes-sional. It is always in the best inter-est of our profession to share ideas with others. By communicating directly and openly about issues in-volving our profession, we will gain the respect of those around us.

Ohio TESOL members who wish to make comments about the TESOL Inc.

position statement or about any issue involving Ohio TESOL advocacy may

contact Donald Beck by e-mail at [email protected].


700 South Washington Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 USA Tel +1-703-836-0774 888-547-3369 USA Fax +1-703-836-7864 E-mail [email protected] Web http://www.tesol.org

A Global Education Association Founded in 1966

Position Statement on the Status of, and Professional Equity for, the Field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

The field of teaching English to speakers of other languages is a unique distinct academic and professional discipline with unique linguistic, cultural, and pedagogical dimensions that requires specialized education and training. Those in the field often have the rigorous education, credentials, and experience equivalent to that of their peers in English language arts and literature, foreign language instruction, and other related academic disciplines. However, in many academic settings and institutions, instructors and faculty of English for speakers of other languages in both English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a second language (ESL) programs are not respected as being part of a unique discipline, and often do not receive the same professional treatment or benefits as their peers in other academic areas. It is TESOL’s position that all educational authorities, government agencies, and academic institutions recognize the field of TESOL as a unique academic and professional discipline that is distinct from, but on par with, other academic subjects. Accordingly, TESOL recommends special and unique designation of the field. In addition, TESOL is opposed to policies that treat ESL/EFL instructors and faculty differently from their counterparts with comparable credentials in other disciplines. TESOL is in favor of commensurate salaries, benefits, working conditions, and workloads across disciplines in order to foster academic and intellectual equity and integrity in academic institutions and in society at large. Approved by the Board of Directors October 2003 Amended June 2008


Ohio TESOL 2008 Conferencein conjunction with the Lau Resource Center

Access to Education, Access to Technology

October 31 and November 1, 2008The Hilton at Easton Town Center

Columbus, Ohio

Plenary Speaker: Dr. Paige D. WareSouthern Methodist University

For the past two years, Paige Ware has served as part of a six person team drafting TESOL’s technology standards. Unlike other standards projects, the technology standards comprehen-sively address the full range of ESL and EFL contexts for both teachers and students. An overview of the standards and how they may inform teaching will be discussed.

Dr. Ware has recently been awarded a National Academy of Education Spencer Post-doctoral Fellowship. Her project will use multimedia texts in a telecollaborative endeavor with ado-lescents.

Visit the Ohio TESOL website for details:http://www.ohiotesol.org

Ohio TESOL 2008 Conference Information


http://ohiotesol.org/

http://ohiotesol.org/

Ohio TESOL 2008 Conference Information

Awards Luncheon

Chancellor Eric Fingerhut of the Ohio Board of Regents (OBR) and the Universi-ty System of Ohio (USO) has been invited to speak at the Friday Awards Luncheon. He will address the Ohio Skills Bank (OSB) and the many changes taking place in education throughout the state. Don’t miss lunch with the Chancellor!

Transitions to the University System of Ohio

State Adult Basic and Literacy Education (ABLE) Director, Denise Pottmeyer will give a session on transitions to the Uni-versity System of Ohio. She will include updates on ABLE’s transition from the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) to the OBR. Following her session will be an informative discussion led by Gloria Gillette of the Northeast ABLE Resource Center on the Stackable Certificates – what they are and what they mean for ESOL and transitioning to post-secondary and college.

Pre-Conference Training

We are also pleased to have Dr. Michael Jones of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) at the Pre-Conference on Thursday, October 30. He will deliver a USCIS Regional Train-ing Conference for Civics and Citizenship Teachers of Adults. This training is de-signed to help adult civics and citizenship teachers and volunteers improve their skills in teaching U.S. history, civics and the naturalization process to immigrant students. The regional training confer-ences will include sessions on how to effectively teach the history and ideals of our founding documents; to learn the pro-cess on how lawful permanent residents become citizens; and to impart informa-tion on the redesigned naturalization test. This regional training conference is open to the public. Interested parties can look for registration information on the “Training Calendar” at www.neable.org.

In addition, Dr. Jones has been invited to join us at the Ohio TESOL conference for a concurrent session on the redesigned Naturalization Test. The new test became available for use nationwide on October 1, 2008. Attend his session for updates on the components of the test and instruc-tional materials for helping students pre-pare to take the test.


Swap ShopHow can you leave the conference with dozens of useful lesson ideas? It’s easy!

Bring 50 copies of a lesson plan or lesson activity that you have developed. Put your name and the level of the lesson (K-5, 6-8, 9-12, adult, higher ed.) and whether it is for beginning, intermediate or advanced students at the top of the page.

Hand in the copies at the registration desk and receive a ticket to attend the Swap Shop.

Come to the Swap Shop and pick up your copies of the other lessons.


Teaching in America – a Japanese perspective

This summer, I participated in an internship pro-gram called SLIP (Shizuoka Language Internship Program) and I noticed some differences between classes, between EFL and ESL, and learning Eng-lish in the U.S. and Japan. I would like to discuss these differences.

SLIP is an internship program in English edu-cation which the Institute for Japanese Studies of The Ohio State University and the Graduate School of In-ternat ional Relations at the Universi-ty of Shizuo-ka have con-ducted since 2004. When I was an undergraduate student, one of the stu-dents who had participated in this program did a presentation in front of us. She was a graduate student, as I am now, and I was impressed with what she had experienced and learned in Ohio. Then, because Dr. Yoshimura, my professor, sug-gested that I apply to SLIP this year, I finally came to go to the Ohio State University. The SLIP pro-gram has five goals: teaching English as a second language in the U.S.; preparing to teach classes; learning that teaching English is teaching the cul-ture; experiencing everyday conversation in the U.S.; and using English to communicate with na-tive English speakers.

During the first week, I observed all of the classes in the American Language Program (ALP), the in-tensive ESL program at Ohio State. There were eight classes in ALP which ranged from level 1A to level 5B. I noticed that where the students in some classes came from varied widely. In higher levels, there were more Asian people, and in lower lev-

By Yukiko Nakano

els there tended to be people from Libya or Saudi Arabia. Many of the Asian people, especially the Japanese, tended to be less talkative. In contrast, Libyan people were so talkative that I was always surprised in class. Many people from Libya were optimistic and confident. These things had a great influence on the atmosphere in the classroom.

But in the 5A class, there were Korean, Japanese, Chinese and Libyan students. Thus, they had to

speak in Eng-lish in order to communicate. In the 1B class, the students were all from Libya (after a student from

Puerto Rico went back to his hometown), so even if they did not speak in English, they could com-municate in their native language. This was a bad situation, because they often spoke in Arabic out-side a class room or even in a class room.

However, they changed gradually. At first, they always talked in Arabic during the breaks be-tween classes. But eventually, most of the time they talked in English even outside of the class-room and they were proud of that. I was glad to see how their motivation for talking in English was growing.

Next, I would like to discuss some differences be-tween classes in Japan and the U.S. In fact, most of the things were different from classes in Japan. The biggest difference is students’ attitude toward class. In Japan, many students do not ask a ques-tion in class, even if they have one. (In this case, most students ignore their own questions or ask the teacher or their friends these questions indi-

Eventually, they talked in English even outside of the classroom and they were proud of that. I was glad to see how their motivation for talking in English was growing.


vidually after class). It is considered rather rude to ask a question while a teacher is talking. Stu-dents in Japan have to be silent before a teacher will finish talking. In contrast, in the U.S., stu-dents can ask many questions even while a teach-er is talking. In fact, not asking a question and not saying anything at all in class is sometimes considered not a good thing, because this attitude indicates the student does not participate in class sufficiently.

There is also a difference between teachers in Ja-pan and the U.S. During the observations, the words I was most surprised to hear in classes were “It’s up to you” and “(You can do this) if you want”. Teachers always gave students the right to do something or to decide what they wanted to do. I also heard these words in everyday conver-sations and interactions. My American friends always asked me what I wanted to do every day. My host family did too. In the U.S., the right to decide what you do is very important. In Japan, however, students do not demand their rights to say what they want to do in class. It is common for Japanese students to wait for their teacher’s instructions. I would say many Japanese people are not good at deciding what they want to do. There is a story related to this, by the way. When one of my Japanese friends met her American conversation partner for the first time, she felt really nervous because the conversation partner always asked her what she wanted to do. That night, she sobbed with grief and had no idea what she could do. She got this kind of culture shock and I felt the differences between what Japanese and American people consider to be polite. The conversation partner thought she should not de-cide what to do but the Japanese girl wanted her to decide.

How to motivate students is the next difference. In the U.S., motivation is very important. Thus, teachers in the American Language Program use E$L Bucks (money used only in ALP) to reward students for speaking English. In addition, in the 1B class, the teachers did not practice for the Mich-igan (MELAB) test and TOEFL a lot even if the students had to take these tests soon. The reason why was that the teachers knew these tests’ levels were too high for the students. They did not want

to discourage the students. If students would take some tests in Japan, teachers definitely will get them to practice for the tests even if these will be too difficult. At least my teachers in high school did so. In Japan letting students know their situ-ations is important. This is also one of the cultural differences.

I would say these differences between Japanese and American classes are the differences between EFL and ESL. In an ESL situation, such as in the U.S., students can learn not only the language it-self but also the culture. They study in order to communicate and work with people in English-speaking countries. In contrast, in an EFL situ-ation, many students study English to pass tests. Even if some students want to study in order to use the language in English-speaking countries, many teachers teach to the tests. This is the situ-ation in Japan now.

Through the SLIP program, I came to be inter-ested in some differences between EFL and ESL. I major in teaching English and I want to be an English teacher in a high school in Japan. My SLIP internship was in an ESL situation and what I want to do in the future is in an EFL situation. Although what I learned in this program does not apply directly to what I will do in high school, the SLIP program helped me to find a way to the fu-ture. I will not forget this program forever.

Discuss this article online now: http://ohiotesol.org/mod/forum/view.php?id=94

Yukiko Nakano is a graduate student at the Uni-versity of Shizuoka, Japan.

http://ohiotesol.org/mod/forum/view.php?id=75

Not all proficient learners of English can read, comprehend and answer TOEFL passages suc-cessfully; some certainly may need more time than others. Exposure to TOEFL passages and short discussions about the issues that are problematic for learners may help them tune their strategies to get a successful score in the reading section of the TOEFL test. Thus, exposure to TOEFL read-ings along with feedback will likely help learners score higher.

The subject for this study is a fairly fast reader. She reads an average of 235 wpm. She usually reads novels in English at night, attends English classes 6 to 8 hours a week, and watches TV in English, though she speaks Spanish at home. She watches 2 to 4 videos a week in English. I would describe her as a re-sponsible and motivated student.

I. Data collection

Four model tests from How the Prepare for the TOEFL iBT: Internet-Based Test (Sharpe 2006) were used for data collection. These model tests were: model test 1, model test 3, model test 4, and model test 6. These model tests were formatted as follows: 60 minutes for the TOEFL reading section in model tests 1 and 3, both of which had three reading passages and a total of 39 compre-hension questions. Model tests 4 and 6 had five reading passages with a total of 65 questions and 100 minutes to answer the questions.

Model test 1 was administered first. This model

test was given in one session and had 39 ques-tions to be completed in 60 minutes. Then, model test 3 and model test 4 were split into shorter sec-tions. For example, model test 3 was divided into the three reading passages and given 20 minutes each, whereas model test 4 has been divided into the five reading passages and given 20 minutes each. Thus, a total of eight short reading passag-es were compiled form the two model test. These short reading passages were administered in the same order as presented in the TOEFL model tests.

The learner was given one short section of model tests 3 and 4 everyday for 8 days for 20 min-utes each. After every session, the learner was given a short questionnaire about the issues that caused her difficulties; after

that, the instructor and the learner discussed the problematic issues. Finally, the instructor gave the learner potentially useful strategies and feed-back, and discussed how the learner might imple-ment them.

Once the learner finished with all of the short pas-sages, the complete reading section of model test 6 was given. This model test, similar to the first model test, was administered without any modi-fications. This reading section had 65 questions and 100 minutes to read and answer every ques-tion.

The scores of the 8 short passages and the com-plete reading sections of model tests 1 and 6 were analyzed, as well as the feedback given to the learner.

TOEFL reading passages: a case study in useful strategies

By Jesus Toapanta

Exposure to TOEFL passages and short discussions about the issues that are problematic for learners may help them tune their strategies.


Ten days were needed to collect the data and give feedback to the learner. One session of an hour at the beginning, 8 sessions of 30 minutes each and one last session of 2 hours were needed to finish collecting data for this project.

II. Results

a. Learner’s scores and comments

Test Score CommentsModel Test 1 - complete test

68.2% She found it difficult to concentrate and focus on the assignment; she prefers a quiet place where there are not many people around (test taken at the library).

Model Test 3 - Passage 1

62.5% She found new vocabulary, the passage was long, and the questions were ambiguous.


81% She found new vocabulary, time pressure, and ambiguous questions; she rates the unfamiliar vocabulary 3 on a scale of 10.


73.5% The passage was complex. There were unfamiliar vocabulary and techni-cal terms that interfere with comprehension.


87.8% No comments


73.5% The last questing was difficult, many options confused her. Not frequent words make her hesitate, she found ambiguous sentences.


100% She found it very easy, the reading was related to the learner’s major; although there were some unknown technical words, it was familiar to the learner’s background knowledge.


78.5% No problems with vocabulary, no major difficulties, she finds it difficult to focus all her attention on the task.


87.8% She said that it was confusing and there were some technical words. She also said that a documentary she watched on NOVA helped her signifi-cantly to cope with this passage.

Model Test 6 - complete test

81.8% She said there was a reading which she did not understand well enough because of lack of background knowledge; She said she should not have wasted too much time trying to understand it.

b. Strategies used by the learner

1. When reading and answering the questions, the learner read one paragraph and immediately went to the question and answer section. However, she found it better to read the passage, then to answer the questions, and lastly to review the answer.

2. When she did not understand something, she translated it into her native language to see if it made sense; if it still did not work, she discarded

the answer choices one by one and picked an an-swer to the best to her knowledge.

3. The learner found it useful to connect the text with her background knowledge because it made her understand the reading more easily and recall what she had read.

4. When inferring meaning from context, she read the whole paragraph two or three times, and then she looked for cue words that might lead her to


the meaning of the word; sometimes, when she could not do that, she just trusted her intuition. 5. In this particular case, she was more concerned about comprehending the text than learning from it.

c. Difficulties reported by the learner

1. The learner sometimes read the passage too fast and, when she went to answer the questions, she did not remember what she had read. This made her reread the passage, which wasted time.

2. She felt that it would be great if the questions were simpler.

3. She found it difficult to focus on what the ques-tion was about. She felt she needed to focus more on what she was doing to pick the correct an-swer.

III. Discussion

Taking the learner into this reading journey was not exactly an issue of teaching new strategies which may help the learner cope with TOEFL readings; instead, this journey was intended to help the learner synchronize her own reading strategies with this type of reading. So, although the learner may not have learned any new strat-egy, she likely learned how to use her own abili-ties more appropriately. In this regard, Anderson (1991) clearly points out that knowing about strat-egies is not sufficient; the learner should be able to apply such abilities strategically.

In this action research, the idea was to take the reader into a journey of self-reflection and discov-ering. It was the learner who determined the most useful strategies that work best for her; and while immersed in the process of reading, she tuned her strategies to get the best results. For instance, one of her strategies at the beginning was to read one paragraph, go immediately to the questions and answers, and then go back and continue; yet this same strategy at the end was modified: read the passage, then answer the questions, and lastly review the answer.

Grabe (2002) mentions that reading instruction does not imply teaching individual reading strate-gies, but developing strategic readers (pp. 81-82). And although this demands from learners a lot of reading practice, the instructor contributes a lot by exposing learners to different text types and commenting in class on issues related to: the pur-pose for reading, steps to take when reading and answering the questions, the role of background knowledge, inferring meanings from context, rhe-torical organization, the issue of reading to learn or simply to comprehend, and so forth. This is the way I toured the learner through this reading ex-perience; and as the results show, there was in-deed an increase in the scores.

Jesus Toapanta is an assistant proffesor in the Language Department at the Salesian Polytech-nic University, Quito-Ecuador. His interests in-clude TEFL and Linguistic field work (the Qui-chua sounds).


ReferencesGrabe, W. & Stroller, F. (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading. Great Britain: Pearson Education.

Sharpe, P. (2006). How to prepare for the TOEFL iBT: Internet-Based Test (12th ed.). New York: Barron’s Educational Series.



Theory in the Classroom

“Rocky slowly got up from the mat, planning his escape” (Anderson, Reynolds, Schallert, & Goetz, 1977). Most reading teachers are familiar with this text, which demonstrates the importance of background knowledge in meaning making. Their study indicates that the reader’s background, wrestler or general reader, influences their under-standing and interpretation of the story. During the 1980’s and early 1990’s, second language re-searchers focused a number of research projects on how non-native speak-ers’ background knowledge influ-enced their un-derstanding of the texts they were reading. Although the research in this area seems to be waning, teachers still need to be aware of, and plan for, how students’ socio-cultural backgrounds can influence their reading comprehension.

An important way that students’ socio-cultural backgrounds can influence their reading compre-hension is in their use of background knowledge to understand the text. The importance of back-ground knowledge in reading comprehension is well-supported by research (Nassaji, 2007, Alder-son & Urquhart, 1988; Carrell, 1987, 1992; Car-rell & Eisterhold, 1983; Steffenson, Joag-Dev, & Anderson 1979). In one such study, Steffenson, Joag-Dev, & Anderson (1979) had two groups of students (19 Indian and 20 American) read two passages about weddings, one set in India and one set in America. Students were better able to recall and understand the passage written about their own culture (i.e. American students understood the passage about American weddings better than

they did the passage about Indian weddings and vice versa). These findings indicate that when stu-dents were familiar with the cultural background of the text they were able to make elaborations or “culturally appropriate extensions of the text” (p. 15), but when they were unfamiliar with the back-ground of the text, they made more distortions or “culturally inappropriate modifications of the text” (p.15). In their conclusion the researchers attri-

bute some of the reading difficul-ties “minority stu-dents” encounter as possibly arising from their unfa-miliarity with the “majority culture

whose view predominates the material children are given to read” (p. 28). Teaching materials to-day are more inclusive of multicultural perspec-tives, but many non-native English speakers may not be familiar with the American content of the texts they are reading.

In a similar study conducted in Israel, Abu-Ra-bia (1998) investigated the role of cultural back-ground and attitudes in the learning of Hebrew by Arab Israeli eighth grade students. His study also shows that students’ comprehension im-proved when the text was about cultural material with which students were familiar. He was able to improve reading comprehension in the target lan-guage of Hebrew by using texts and instructions that were sensitive to the Arab students’ cultural backgrounds. He recommends, “teaching/learn-ing L2 through culturally familiar texts, especially when the social learning context does not foster sympathy and social interaction between eth-nic groups” (p. 211). One way teachers can offer

Socio-cultural influences on reading comprehensionBy Brenda Refaei

When students are unfamiliar with the cultural background of a text, they make more distortions or “culturally inappro-priate modifications of the text.”


hence affecting integration processes consid-erably” (Nassaji, 2007, p. 99). Non-native

English speaking students may need more time to read the text so they can employ

comprehension strategies such as re-reading the passage before they are

required to answer comprehension questions.

There are several strategies teachers can use to encourage students to activate their back-

ground knowledge before reading a text. Three of the strategies I use

in my Preparatory Reading classes are mind-mapping, free-writing, and discussion/

role playing. Before students read a passage in my reading class, we write the topic on the board, and then write ideas that the topic generates. We connect these ideas to the topic with lines to in-dicate the relationship between the ideas. With free-writing, students write what they already know about the topic and speculate on what they think they will learn about the topic while reading the passage. Most of the readings in the course come with some introduction of the writer and his/her purpose for writing. We discuss how who the writer is and her/his purpose for writing will influence what the text says about the topic. These are just three strategies students can use to acti-vate their background knowledge before reading. Perhaps you would be willing to share what works in your classroom.

Brenda Refaei is an assistant professor in the Department of English at Raymond Walters College/University of Cincinnati. Her interests include TESL, and developmental reading and writing.


To contribute an article about how theory in-forms the way you teach, contact Brenda Refaei at [email protected] or Brenda Refaei, Raymond Walters College, 9555 Plainfield Rd, Cincinnati, OH 45236.

culturally familiar texts is to use bilingual books (Ernst-Slavit & Mulhern 2003). Bilingual books and signs indicate that the teacher and school val-ue the students’ native languages, which has been found to increase student participation in learn-ing (Thomas & Collier, 1997).

Even when students have the necessary back-ground knowledge to readily understand a text, it is important to remember that second language readers, even advanced learners, may use more of their memory in “lower level linguistic process-ing skills” (Nassaji 2007, p. 98). Second language readers need to first attend to the text before at-tending to “higher level interpretation processes involved in comprehending connected L2 text,



Advertisement ReferencesAbu-Rabia, S. (1998). Social and cognitive factors influencing the reading compre-hension of Arab students learning Hebrew as a second language in Israel. Journal of Research in Reading 21, 3. pp. 201-211.

Alderson J. D. & Urquhart A. H. (1988). This test is unfair: I’m not an economist. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D.E. Eskey, Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 168-182). New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Edu-cational Research Journal, 14, 367-381.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. 4th edition. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Carrell, P.L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 461-481.

Carrell, P. L. (1992). Awareness of text struc-ture: Effects on recall. Language Learning, 42, 1-20.

Carrell, P. L. & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983).Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 553-573.

Ernst-Slavit, G., & Mulhern, M. (2003, September). Bilingual Books: Promoting Literacy and Biliteracy in the Second-Lan-guage and Mainstream Classroom. Read-ing Online, Retrieved August 18, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database.

Nassaji, H. (2007). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second lan-guage reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learn-ing 57, 79-113.

Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C. & Anderson, R. C. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Re-search Quarterly, 15, 10-29.

Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V. (1997). Language minority student achievement and pro-gram effectiveness. NABE News, 19, 33-35.

EARN THE TESOL ENDORSEMENTONLINE

The University of Cincinnati’s TESOL Endorsement Online is designed for licensed teachers who want to become specialized in teaching English as a Second Language.

This is a stand-alone endorsement that can be earned without being accepted into a Master’s Degree program.

The program consists of 8 courses, 24 quarter graduate credit hours, designed to be completed in four consecutive quarters if begun Summer Quarter.

All courses are taught online, providing a flexible alternative for teachers with convenient scheduling and online delivery methods – all endorsement requirements can be completed without a visit to Cincinnati.

The program offers a high quality, from research to practice, model of teacher preparation from an NCATE and Ohio Department of Education approved program.

Students can take all the courses for the endorsement as professional development students and pay 50% of regular in-state tuition.

For questions about the program, to obtain a schedule of courses or to register for courses, contact, Dr. Sandra Berg, Coordinator, Professional Development and Outreach:Email: [email protected] Phone: (513)-379-5589

Doctoral, Masters, and Certificate Programs:

In addition to the TESOL Endorsement Online, the University of Cincinnati also offers on-campus doctoral and masters programs in TESL and certificate programs in Postsecondary Literacy and TESL/TEFL International. For information about these programs contact, Carol Frazier: Email: [email protected] Phone: (513) 556-3590


Technology in the ESOL Classroom

There are at least two marked developments in education in the United States at the onset of the twenty-first century: the increased role of tech-nology in all aspects life, and the rising number of immigrant students in American classrooms. On one side of the trend, access to technology—whether via personal computers, cell phones, or any number of personal digital accessories—is omnipresent for today’s students. Educators are utilizing technology more and more in the classroom with the advent of education-friendly software and hardware. The other major trend is the growing number of immigrant stu-dents in US schools, which has more than doubled in the past 15 years. As a result, English language learners (ELLs) make up a greater proportion of the K-12 population than ever (Waters, 2007). Educators are confronted with these issues simultaneously, and the realms of technology and teaching Eng-lish to speakers of other languages (TESOL) come together as teachers examine ways to best meet student needs in an ever-transforming society. Technology ultimately can bring increased access and enjoyment to English language learners.

The term that describes how technology can be used with TESOL is Computer Assisted Lan-guage Learning (CALL). Elizabeth Hanson-Smith is a leading researcher and writer in the field. She states that constructivist theory applies to language learning because it involves the use of problem solving during tasks and projects rather than, or in addition to, direct instruction by the

By Danielle Polemeni

teacher. CALL incorporates cognitive approaches as students become aware of their own learning processes and organize and structure their learn-ing themselves (Hanson-Smith, 2001).

There are a myriad of ways in which CALL can support students’ acquisition of English. Stu-dents can use the writing process more fluidly with word processing programs than with pen

and paper. Students can also work collab-oratively, designing multimedia presenta-tions and e-mailing “keypals” around the world (Diaz-Rico and Weed, 2006). There are general ways teachers can use tech-nology to help literacy education: word pro-

cessing, technology texts, publishing students’ work, communication through the Internet, and searching for online information (Wang, 2005). There also are specific software programs that can be used with CALL, ranging from traditional drill and skill practice programs to real-life lan-guage and culture simulations. The Internet can provide students with instant communication with other speakers around the world through e-mail, listservs, and chat groups. Additionally, authentic materials including sound recordings and streaming audio and video all can be accessed via the Internet. These applications still require the help of a teacher to organize learning experi-ences, rehearse useful language, and understand the physical operations of the programs and the social “netiquette” required for such communica-tions (Diaz-Rico and Weed, 2006).

Researchers and educators agree that technology does not replace instruction, and the focus should stay on the teachers and learners and not on the technology itself to create a sound pedagogical environment.


Despite some of the arguments against using technology (e.g., lack of financial resources, com-puter accessibility, and Internet safety), there are overwhelming benefits. Technology can provide authentic and meaningful contexts for language learning. A combination of the quickly growing English language learner population in the United States and the stringent academic performance re-quirements for ELLs prescribed by No Child Left Behind legislation has led to a boom in the market for TESOL tools and technologies. The products range from simple, self-directed pronunciation programs delivered on CD to complete multime-dia software suites. The common theme of these programs is making text-heavy information more accessible through graphics, animation, and vid-eo. Almost all are interactive, and an increasing number are web-based or network-connected; they also allow students to work independently at their own pace. The technology also is moving be-yond the personal computer and into cell phones, PDAs, digital cameras, and MP3 players, follow-ing the market trends; mobile devices are often more affordable, which helps bridge the digital divide for ELLs (Waters, 2007). A concise list of current software solutions and their web links ap-pears in John Waters’ article “The Universal Lan-guage” (2007).

Computer use in the TESOL classroom is rooted in education theory, language acquisition and developmental pedagogy, and the sociopolitical contexts of the twenty-first century. The construc-tivist theory supports content-based instruction that places students in lifelike situations (Waters, 2007). Computer use in the language classroom is a reflection of the shifting conditions in postin-dustrial society: it is inevitable that today’s stu-dents should learn to write e-mail and conduct research in foreign languages if they are to bridge the digital divide (Wang, 2005). Researchers and educators agree that technology does not replace instruction, and the focus should stay on the teachers and learners and not on the technology itself to create a sound pedagogical environment that fosters student collaboration, creativity, and proficiency (Hanson-Smith, 2000). Including technology in the TESOL classroom embraces the pervasiveness of technology in society while sup-porting the needs of the growing English language

learner population with positive cognitive and af-fective results.

Danielle Polemeni, who teaches English and ESOL at St. Francis DeSales High School in Columbus, is an endorsement candidate in the MATESOL program at Ohio Dominican University.


ReferencesDiaz-Rico, L. T., & Weed, K.Z. (2006). The crosscultural language and academic development handbook: A complete K-12 reference guide. (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hanson-Smith, E. (Ed.). (2000). Technology-enhanced learning environments. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Hanson-Smith, E. (2001). Computer-assisted lan-guage learning. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 107-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wang, L. (2005). The advantages of using technol-ogy in second language education: Technology integration in foreign language teaching demon-strates the shift from a behavioral to a construc-tivist learning approach. T.H.E. Journal, 32(10), 38-42.

Waters, J. K. (2007). The universal language. T.H.E. Journal, 34(1), 34-40.



Strategies for Teaching English Learners (2nd Edition)

Strategies for Teaching English Learners is much more than that. While the title may suggest that another English Language Learning (ELL) text has appeared on the scene, Díaz-Rico’s offering provides a rich context for the strategies she of-fers that goes far beyond the standard fare. The strategies are rooted in what we know about sec-ond-language acquisition, cognitive psychology, and supportive classroom environments.

Strategies is a bit broader in scope than its name suggests. As stated in the preface, Strategies “of-fers an overview of basic principles, practices, and methods that pro-vide a broad foun-dation for educating English learners, in-cluding such topics as the influence of culture on school-ing, the cultural practices of school-ing, and the sociopolitical context of education” (p. xix). Instead of a resource book that collects dust on a teacher’s desk and provides examples of de-contextualized activities (which may not be effective outside of specific contexts), this book works much better as a text in a teacher education program. Díaz-Rico is a professor at California State University at San Bernardino specializing in pedagogies for multi-lingual classrooms. Strate-gies is appropriate as an introduction to educating the ELL student for either a specialty course for ELL instruction, or for those who plan on becom-ing “regular” classroom teachers who anticipate having ELL students in their classroom (which, of course, is nearly everyone!). The content of the book rests on principles basic enough to include the entire range of most learners’ ages and ability levels.

Book Review by Mike Yough

Strategies is broken down into 15 chapters. Each chapter begins with a “MEGAstrategy” followed by two to eight “sub” strategies. For example, Chapter 4 is on “Performance-Based Learning.” The chapter begins with a MEGAstrategy in a text box embedded within the text. This MEGAstrate-gy is: “Maximize learning by basing performance on measurable outcomes.” The surrounding text provides an explanation of performance-based learning, as well as the rationale for its use in the ELL classroom. This format is repeated through-out the chapter. Strategy 4.1 – “Align instruction with local, state, and national standards” – is ac-

companied with a section on various standards (the TES-OL standards for pre-K-12 students are included in a box). The chapter also includes sec-tions on the meth-

ods of assessment (including a glossary of terms), teacher- and student-created rubrics, the unique challenges of identifying and placement of ELLs, as well as the limitations of assessment, and teacher expectations.

Each chapter ends with a “Show What You Know” section. This section appears in various formats from prompts to complete tables to asking read-ers to define or describe a concept from the chap-ter. The last feature of each chapter includes a box explaining a “MyLabSchool” Video Workshop to which students have online access (registration required).

Other topics covered in Strategies include the “practical.” For example, oral instruction that builds on the first language, literacy instruction

The strategies are rooted in what we know about second-language acquisition, cognitive psychology, and supportive classroom environments.


for English-language development, and learning processes and the imaginary. However, Díaz-Ri-co takes a critical and constructivist view of teach-ing and learning and this is reflected in the text as well. The text begins with a chapter on the profes-sion of teaching ELLs as well as the characteris-tics of these learners. This leads into a chapter on critical pedagogy and the role that teachers play as agents of social justice. The chapter also in-troduces the idea of language as power and social capital. Chapter 3 explores different theories of learning and the implications for each.

Chapter 9 explores English grammar that includes a brief history of the English language and its de-velopment. Chapter 10 is on culturally based lan-guage teaching including cultural difference in learning styles, the meaning of culturally compat-ible instruction, identity, and culture as content. Other chapters include such topics as classroom discourse, dual-language proficiency, teach-ing English in context, building a community of learners, and project-based, and service learning. The scope of the text is broad which works as an introductory text. The only obvious topic miss-ing is second-language acquisition (SLA) theory. What the text does not do, nor purport to do, is to provide a comprehensive exploration of any one topic.

While the text does provide a solid foundation in a host of topics pertinent to better equipping the teacher to teach ELLs, there are several ways the text could be improved. First, though an introduc-tion to SLA theory would appear to be an appro-priate topic in a text such as this, it is essentially missing. In the preface Díaz-Rico directs readers to Gass and Selinker’s Second Language Acqui-sition: An Introductory Course (2001) for more information on this topic. Of course, readers do have to go elsewhere if they want to explore any of the topics covered by Strategies in more detail, but one wonders why information on SLA is miss-ing. This omission may be easier to overlook had the text included a section on cognitive develop-ment and the implications for language learning. We do get the briefest of introductions to stages of language development, but without any implica-tions for educators.

And this brings me to the second critique: while the content covered is generally rather ambitious, it sometimes leads the reader from the author’s intended goal to “increase confidence in one’s own teaching ability and to become a more competent teacher” (p. xix). For example, Díaz-Rico spends far more time on brain-compatible learning where the implications for teachers are relatively few and could lead them away from more productive strategies than she does on cognitive development where the implications are many. Additionally, in her coverage of the different conceptions of learn-ing styles, she recommends the teacher settle on “one or two systems that both explain individual differences and offer a relative easy way to accom-modate instruction to learner differences” (pp. 114-115). However, this advice puts the reader in a place where s/he must a) assess the learn-ing styles of his/her students, and then b) cater to these individual needs. This does the student a disservice when she has been taught to her “learn-ing style” but then finds herself in a situation in which a different strategy is called for. Instead, Díaz-Rico would better serve readers by discuss-ing the benefits of multi-modal instruction or uni-versal design – methods that benefit all learners.

The style of writing and layout of the text are ap-propriate for pre- and in-service teachers. The language is not technical, and when it is special-ized or could be misinterpreted, terms are de-fined. For example, Chapter 10 contains a table of commonly used terms and their definitions. The layout assists the reader – sections and subsec-tions have very clearly labeled headers, and the progression of the content is logical – both on a macro- and micro-levels – from foundational to specific.

In summary, Díaz-Rico’s Strategies for Teaching English Learners is a good introductory text to teaching ELLs for pre-and in-service teachers, but would be better served by keeping her larger goals in mind for readers.

Mike Yough is a Graduate Teaching Fellow in the School of Educational Policy & Leadership at The Ohio State University.


NON-PROFIT ORG.

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

COLUMBUS, OH

PERMIT NO. 711

Ohio TESOL Journal The Ohio State University 60B Arps Hall 1945 N. High St. Columbus, OH 43210-1172

Documents

Ohio TESOL Board...Mike Dombroski [email protected] Membership Coordinator David Smith [email protected] Awards and Grants Coordinator Marcie Williams [email protected] Listserv