WAESOL World Quarterly

By:

Isabel Haller, M.Ed, MA
ESL Instructor
Intensive American Language Center
Washington State University

 

Teaching writing can be an arduous task, but grading a student’s writing can be even more laborious and even futile.   However, as writing teachers, we believe that our time spent meticulously marking a paper is time well spent. Unfortunately this is often not the case.  As a teacher of ESL writing, I myself, on many occasions have had second drafts of papers submitted where my comments, and editing have been completely ignored.   Is this deliberate resistance to my feedback?  More than likely it is not. Zamel (1985) notes “teachers’ marks and comments usually take the form of abstract and vague prescriptions and directives that students find difficult to interpret.” (p.79) After reflecting on my style of grading, I realize that some of my responses to student writing, especially when dealing with content and ideas, are indeed cryptic and potentially confusing. I realize that although I use some standard editing marks, my students may be unsure of how to “correct” what I simply underline, circle or note as being “unclear” or “awkward”.

Feedback that concentrates on the quality of content and ideas may be confusing to an ESL student, but feedback on grammatical accuracy may be overwhelming.  Compared to teachers who provide feedback on native speakers’ writing, ESL teachers usually deal with many more mistakes due to their students’ struggle with grammar and usage in their new language. ESL composition teachers may feel compelled to comment on these errors to prevent their students from assuming that their writing is mistake free.

Richard Haswell (1983) advocated a system of minimal marking and his approach could have two main benefits.  Minimal marking can help teachers avoid wasting time on vague comments and marks that are ultimately ignored, and it can help students interpret feedback and fix their own work. I see the logic and value behind Haswell’s system, however before this method can be applied to ESL writing, students need to understand the pedagogy behind it.

To some students, receiving a paper covered in ink may be discouraging, but many ESL students welcome and expect their teachers’ responses even if they do not always understand the comments their teachers make.  ESL students may assume that whatever is not marked is correct. They may believe that the only way to improve their writing is to fix every mistake and therefore they may demand that their teacher mark every error.  Because of these preconceived notions held by our students, as ESL instructors, in order to effectively implement a system of minimal marking, we must thoroughly explain why we mark some aspects of a paper and not others when choosing to follow a minimal marking method.  Before I return any graded papers to students, there are three things that I explain to students in order to transition them to what may be a new system of feedback. My students need to be aware that I take into account carelessness, degree of importance, and a student’s innate tendency to avoid correction when choosing to implement minimal marking.

Carelessness  It must be pointed out to ESL students, that students in general, regardless of what language they write in, are guilty of carelessness. Students may not proofread carefully; often times, if they had, they may have caught their mistake.  Although I may not mark every error, I do advise students to go back through their papers carefully. I emphasize that this often means that they have some careless errors. I tell students to re-read their papers aloud.  Often when we read something in our head, our mind compensates for errors and we unconsciously correct these errors, and read them, as they should be.  Reading something aloud forces you to read more carefully, and as a result, more errors may be caught.  If in a testing situation where reading aloud is not an option, tell students to point to each word that they have written, this will slow down their reading, so to help them identify errors

Degree of importance Students need to understand that each assignment that a teacher gives evaluates different criteria.  Sometimes an assignment is being used to evaluate ideas.  Other times an assignment may focus on how well ideas can be organized. Some writing tasks may simply assess grammar and correct usage, while other writing pieces may attempt to evaluate content, ideas in addition to grammar and usage.  It needs to be explained that even when a teacher assesses several skills at once, there is usually one skill that is weighted more heavily than others. This is easy for students to see if a rubric is used. When using a rubric, tell students to read the rubric before writing, so they know what is the most important skill of focus. Teachers often prioritize target skills.  I tell my students that if I mark everything on their paper, especially if it wasn’t the target skill, they will not focus on what I feel are the most important aspects that they should be working on.

Tendency to avoid correction Students may quickly learn that taking risks is not rewarded, but rather punished. If every error is marked for correction, students may revert to more simplistic “safe” language and structures. Students need to realize that to advance to the next level, they need to expand their language and try new words and more complex structures. Discuss with your students your policy for using new and more advanced language.  Perhaps allow “freebies” for errors on skills not yet taught.  Not marking a student’s attempt to extend their language may help students feel comfortable taking risks and ultimately will help them grow as writers.

Nancy Sommers (1982) points out that the amount of time that teachers spend on a paper ranges from 20 to 40 minutes.  If the product of these efforts are ignored or misunderstood, than this time is wasted. Minimal marking can be effective, but ESL students due to an extreme desire to improve their language skills, may be resistant to this method and opposed to it.  Explaining why you choose to limit your markings may help them to accept this practice and may lead them to be more careful, and creative as they write.

References:

 

Haswell, Richard H. (1983). Minimal marking. College English 45(6):600-604.

Sommers, Nancy(1982). Responding to Student Writing. College Composition and Communication, (33) (2), 148-156.

Zamel Vivian (1985). Responding to Student Writing. TESOL Quarterly. 19 (1), 79-101.

By:

Karrie Zylstra, ESL Instructor

 

At the end of every quarter, I give my adult intermediate students two CASAS tests and two tasks. My students take the reading and listening in CASAS and I choose tasks for them to demonstrate their abilities in writing and speaking. Most of them are focused on moving into career programs and entering upper level academic classes, so the results of these tests and my decision about their progress matter to them. Some won’t be able to wait if they cannot enter a program this quarter – they will go back to work to feed their families.

In the fall of 2011 I gave my students these tests without too much preparation outside of the coursework we’d done in class. I watched them panic on the days of the tests. While many did make progress, I wanted to see if I could use the next round of testing as an opportunity to improve their skills for both test-taking and, more broadly, dealing with stressful life situations.

From the Start

I started winter quarter with goal setting and having them look at the ways that goal setting can improve their ability to succeed. I used exercises with optical illusions to show them how we can miss things right in front of us if we don’t have a clear focus or if we are busy telling ourselves that something is impossible.

Clear Expectations

I began to prepare them more directly two weeks in advance of our tests. We discussed what tests they would take on which day. I had given them a handout at the beginning of the quarter which we reviewed, they asked questions and I clarified. After this, I told them the most important material to review at home so that they could best prepare.

Test Importance

A few days later we discussed why it was important to do well on tests and tasks. As I said, my adult students are very motivated but I took the time to explain what the results meant and laid out what scores to achieve for which levels of classes. I said that, as an instructor, I could advance them even if their tests were not ideal but that the other instructors would still look at those test scores. I explained that scores do not always reflect their abilities but that they were still mandated and still mattered. We also took the time to remember the goals they had set for themselves at the beginning of the quarter.

Short Practices

We then began to do short practices related to the reading tests. I gave them a test practice from the textbooks we use and a time limit of 15 minutes. We would then check the answers together as a class, clarifying what they might not understand. We did this at the beginning of class in the same room they would test in until the day of the test.

It’s All in Your Head

Two weeks in advance, I asked them to practice inside their minds feeling relaxed and confident on the day of the test. Much as I did for myself when I gave a presentation, I had them think of a similar situation where they felt comfortable. Maybe they were writing a letter or reading something in their first language. They could then hold on to the feeling as they moved in their minds to the new situation of testing. When they felt fear, they could move back in their minds to the familiar and comfortable setting. I instructed them to practice this over the two weeks frequently – at least 3 times a day.

And Next Quarter

Although I wouldn’t say they improved more dramatically on their test scores, I would say that they were noticeably more relaxed. This spring quarter I have a few more ideas to try. Below are my steps for improvement:

• Share my own goals for the class at the beginning of the quarter
• Share with students the statistical doubts about the validity of standardized tests to help them let go of the connection between their personal worth and the scores. I told them I had doubts myself but think that hearing it from experts might benefit them.
• Incorporate a listening test practice
• Design a worksheet to guide their test visualization practice
• Practice visualizing a relaxed test atmosphere as a class at least once

Truthfully, I often get lost in the day to day of the third person singular, forgetting to keep the end in mind. It worked very well for me to remind myself and my students throughout the quarter that the tests and tasks will come. Finding the courage to test made a difference that I could feel and one that I hope will last long after they have left my class to become successful elsewhere.

 

By:

Lesli Cleveland, EWU Assistant Professor of Communication Disorders & Supervisor in EWU’s Hearing and Speech Clinic

and

LaVona Reeves, EWU MATESL Director & Professor of English

 

Parents and ESL teachers may be the first to recognize that a child has problems making certain sounds when speaking the home language and English, respectively,  but they are not certain how to proceed because they cannot determine the cause and often hope the child will outgrow this way of speaking.  TESOL Quarterly recently published an article, reviewing Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective (Yazan, 2012) and reminding us that ESL teachers are expected to keep up with “social, cultural, and historical macro structures….[particularly] application of activity theory in order to explore the relationship between L2 teaching and such macro factors as educational reform policies, curricular mandates, high-stakes tests, and norms of schooling” (p. 221).  To this end, we provide information about Washington’s mandates and assessments for students with special needs, focusing on ELLs.

Public schools in Washington normally provide resources to help determine the nature of the problem and provide professional help for those “who have impairments and disabilities of speech, language and hearing”  (EWU website accessed 27 February 2012).  Washington was identified as one of the Western states to have implemented pilot programs in 55 schools as of 2009 (Harr-Robins et al, p. 13).  The Regional Educational Laboratory published a report, The status of state-level response to intervention [RTI] policies and procedures in the West Region states and five other states, and the authors state a basic mission of the program:

RTI programs are intended to provide evidence-based interventions that are            aligned with individual student needs by identifying students requiring support early, monitoring their progress frequently, and providing more intensive interventions for students showing the least progress (National Association of State Directors of Special Education cited in Harr-Robins, 2009, p.13).

In Washington schools, speech therapists are clearly needed and often do the following:

* Provide classroom-based services

* Co-teach with classroom teachers and reading specialists

* Work with students who are at risk for reading and learning difficulties and with children who are experiencing academic failure

* Provide training to parents, teachers, and administrators to help support students’ academic and social success. (p. 13)

The Special Education Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction  (OSPI) produced a report funded by a federal grant under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA).  The report, Using Response to Intervention (RTI) for Washington’s Students (2006, updated 2011), is available online, and OSPI allows the copying and distribution of their results.  Of greatest interest to ESL professionals is the following information about screening:

Screening:  34 CFR § 300.302 provides that screening by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation is not an evaluation for special education eligibility requiring parental consent.

• SLD Areas:  34 CFR § 300.309(a)(1) provides that to identify an SLD an evaluation must show that a student does not achieve adequately for his or her age or to meet State- approved grade-level standards when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the student’s age or State-approved grade-level standards, in one or more of the following areas:

a. Oral expression;

b. Listening comprehension;

c. Written expression;

d. Basic reading skills;

e. Reading fluency skills;

f. Reading comprehension;

g. Mathematics calculation; or

h. Mathematics problem solving.

• Rule Out Other Factors:  34 CFR § 300.309(a)(3) provides that in order to determine a student has SLD his or her lack of sufficient progress in the above areas may not primarily result from:

a. A visual, hearing, or motor disability;

b. Mental retardation;

c. Emotional disturbance;

d. Cultural factors;

e. Environmental factors or economic disaf. Limited English proficiency.

(2011, p. xxvii)

Shortly after TESOL was founded in 1966, an important article appeared in TESOL Quarterly,  “Some Effects of Bilingualism on Certain Clinical Speech Procedures” (Hannah & Brooks, 1968).  Here the authors explain that “interdisciplinary programs still find a need to refer certain international students who, in addition to a second-language difficulty, have a speech disorder which interrelates with this” (p. 293).  Here they make “an attempt to indicate how the ramifications of such a student’s bilingualism require the introduction of certain modifications in the clinic procedures ordinarily followed” (p. 293).  They describe the problems faced by a bilingual stutterer:

…his frequently tenuous command of the rhythm pattern of the English language is considerably weakened by a series of seemingly uncontrollable repetitions, prolongations, filled and unfilled pauses, all of which make communication almost impossible.  Efforts to communicate in the second language are accompanied by added feelings of inadequacy, since listener reactions frequently resemble those experienced in the first language during periods of nonfluency, but seem to be present almost continuously in the second language. (p. 293)

At the same time, Wallace Lambert was conducting longitudinal studies of bilinguals in Canada and finding that their overall academic achievement was greater than that of monolinguals.  For this reason, most ESL professionals agree that bilingualism is highly desired, and the benefits far outweigh the challenges. At the same time, as ESL professionals, we might ask the following questions:

1.      How can we determine if the ELL has a speech or language problem in the home language or if it is simply a problem the ELL has in English?  What signs should we be looking for?

ELLs are often referred for speech-language evaluations because they are struggling in class and appear to be performing at a decreased level in comparison to monolingual English-speaking peers.  ELLs may demonstrate certain language behaviors or have difficulties in communication skills that are similar to monolingual English-speaking children with language disorders (Shipley & McAfee, 2009).  Among the variables to consider are: normal processes of second-language acquisition, the amount and type of exposure to English, English proficiency levels including social and academic language, and skills and behaviors in both the home language and English that would suggest a speech or language disorder.

Normal processes of second-language acquisition, which may include a silent period, language interference/transfer, code switching, and language loss, factor into determining a language difference between the home language (L1) and English (L2)or a language disorder (Roseberry-McKibbin & Brice, n.d.; Shipley & McAfee, 2009).  Many ELLs who are exposed to English for the first time will use L1 only until they realize that is not the language spoken at school.  This phase does not last long; however, many ELLs who are learning English may then enter into a silent period. During this time, ELLs are more focused on listening and comprehending English rather than verbally communicating in class.  It has also been suggested that the younger the child is the longer the silent period may last.  Preschool ELLs may potentially demonstrate this silent behavior for one or two years, whereas, the older child may stay in this silent period for as little as a few weeks or a few months (Tabors, 1997, 1998; Roseberry-McKibbin & Brice, n.d.).  After the silent period, many ELLs may produce shortened phrases in L2 because they now have learned words for basic needs and social interactions and memorized chunks of language (Tabors, 1998).

It is common for ELLs to produce errors in English which are influenced by their home language.  This process is known as language interference or language transfer.  For instance, double negatives are required in Spanish, so the ELL may produce the utterance I don’t have no more (Shipley & McAfee, 2009).  In Spanish superiority is signified by using mas, so the ELL may produce the utterance This cake is more big (Shipley & McAfee, 2009).   These utterances reflect the transfer of language characteristics from L1 to L2.

Another common behavior is code switching or shifting between languages within an utterance.  For instance, a Spanish speaker might say Me gustaria manejar – I’ll take the car meaning I’d like to drive – I’ll take the car. This behavior is demonstrated not only in children acquiring a second language but also in proficient bilinguals (Roseberry-McKibbin & Brice, n.d.).

Some ELLs may lose their skills in L1 while they are focused on acquiring L2.  This process of language loss relates to subtractive bilingualism, which may affect the child’s school and family life.  The goal for ELLs is to go through additive bilingualism achieving success in both languages and cultures (Roseberry-McKibbin & Brice, n.d.).  The aforementioned processes are all considered normal experiences during second-language acquisition.  They are indicative of a language difference not a language disorder.

An additional piece to working with ELLs is the recognition and understanding of the differences between social and academic language, specifically Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP).  BICS refers to everyday conversational context-embedded language (e.g., participating in physical education class or asking permission to go the bathroom; Roseberry-McKibbin, 2007). It has been suggested that the average ELL requires approximately two years to acquire BICS (Roseberry-McKibbin & Brice, n.d.).  CALP involves language typical of the classroom that is context-reduced (e.g., teacher lectures, comprehending information textbooks, following written instructions, classroom and standardized tests; Roseberry-McKibbin, 2007).   The average ELL requires five to seven years to acquire and successfully demonstrate CALP similar to a monolingual English-speaking peer (Roseberry-McKibbin & Brice, n.d.).  This difference between social and academic language is known as the BICS-CALP gap.  An ELL may demonstrate use of adequate conversational English, but struggles in content-reduced academic areas such as reading, writing, science, or any school course that is context reduced.  Educators may suspect a language-learning disability in this situation; however, in reality, the language gap is the real reason for the ELL’s academic difficulties.  Other variables that may affect the language of ELLs are any avoidance behaviors, their individual personalities, anxiety level, and their motivation to use English (Roseberry-McKibbin, 2007).

The language proficiency level of the student must be considered when determining difference from disorder because a lack of proficiency in English is not indicative of language impairment.  According to the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), language proficiency is provided by the results of the Washington English Language Proficiency Assessment (WELPA), which includes the Washington Language Proficiency Test II Placement Test and the Annual Test to establish eligibility for and continuation of ESL services.  This tool evaluates reading, writing, listening, and speaking knowledge and skills (OSPI, n.d.).  An ELL is assigned a proficiency level/number based on his/her test performance: Beginning/Advanced Beginning=1, Intermediate=2, Advanced=3, Transitional=4.  Many language proficiency tests assess BICS and not CALP.  It may be necessary for the ELL teacher or the SLP to review this particular tool so they understand what skills are actually being assessed. Proficiency testing should involve both L1 and L2 and the test should evaluate BICS and CALP.  Knowledge of the types of test questions will provide more information regarding proficiency levels.

The following are some factors that the SLP would be evaluating during an assessment with an ELL: phonology, grammar, and pragmatics in both languages; ability to effectively use language in different contexts; level of participation; ability to follow directions and make requests; discourse organization; ability to describe objects and events; ability to make predictions; ability to use contextual cues to comprehend; and degree of difficulty to learn a new skill (Shipley & McAfee, 2009).

The following are examples of behaviors that may be present in an ELL with a language-learning disability: inappropriate nonverbal aspects of language; inappropriate questions and responses; inability to express basic wants and needs; decreased ability to initiations, respond, and maintain conversations with peers; inappropriate turn-taking skills; uses more gestures and nonverbal communication when verbalizations are expected; unorganized discourse; word-finding issues not related to English proficiency; and requires a great deal of repetition of information (Shipley & McAfee, 2009).  Although, the SLP will be specifically examining many speech and language behaviors and skills, it would be beneficial if the ESL and regular education teacher offered information regarding the ELLs communication in the classroom.  Collaboration among the professionals is critical to provide the best services for ELLs.

2.      How would we begin the conversation with parents to determine if the ELL has the same difficulty in the home language?

The first consideration would be what language to use during this conversation, the home language or English.  Often, parents of ELLs have limited English skills; therefore using an interpreter is crucial.  If the ELL’s ESL teacher was fluent in the family’s home language, then he/she is the obvious person to facilitate this conversation.  If not, then an interpreter should be involved.  If the school does not have direct access to an interpreter, another school employee, parent-liaison, or community member who was fluent in the ELLs home language could also serve in this capacity.  The SLP and ESL teacher should work together to create a list of questions regarding the child’s use of L1, specifically, achievement of developmental milestones and current speech and language behaviors in various contexts. (See question 5 for a more discussion language development information).

Non-English-speaking parents of ELLs may not understand how the school system in the U.S. works.  Information regarding the school curriculum, standards, classroom and assessment materials, teacher and school expectations, and their rights as parents also needs to be communicated during this initial conversation (İColorín Colorado!, 2007).  Depending on the culture of the ELL’s family, it may be helpful to provide general information and questions to parents in translated written form and then follow up with a discussion with an interpreter.  However, the potential reading level of the parents needs to be considered.

3.      What resources are available in the schools in Washington?  How do we go about accessing them?  

Detailed information regarding English language development standards for teachers to use in the assessment of bilingual children is available through the OSPI.  When working with families who do not speak English, Washington state educators and service providers have access to phone interpretation services for communication and meeting purposes.  The school district is required to first establish an account with Washington State Department of General Administration.  Once an account is established the school or district has access to interpreters in more than 170 languages.  Online training is also provided for those who are working with translators and interpreters.  Many schools or districts may have interpreters on staff or direct access to them.

Educators also have access to the office of Migrant and Bilingual Education which manages the Migrant Education Program and the Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program and Title III (OSPI, n.d.).  The Migrant Education Program provides services to migrant children and their families.  The Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program and Title III ensure quality educational opportunities for ELLs.  Of course, school districts have access to ESL programs, SLPs, and other necessary service providers.

4.      When is the best time to seek professional help?    

Once the determination is made that the child is exhibiting speech or language-learning problems in L1 and L2 not related to English proficiency, typical second-language acquisition processes, or lack of response to RTI (if that was available), then that child should be referred for a full speech-language or special education evaluation as soon as possible.

If there is concern about an ELL’s speech or language skills in L1, the ESL teacher, regular education teacher, and SLP should all be involved.  If the ELL requires an evaluation, then that student should be assessed by the SLP with the involvement of an interpreter.

5.      What should be done if the parents feel that the child will outgrow the problem or there is no problem?   

There are many cultural parameters that may impact speech and language services with various cultures (see Brislin, 1994 for an explanation of cultural parameters).  Different cultures have diverse attitudes toward disabilities and beliefs regarding their causes may affect the parents’ attitudes toward recognition, assessment, and treatment of a disability.  Understanding the cultural beliefs and values of a family and determining the family’s level of acculturation are important when we work with them to understand the benefits of intervention services for their child. 

Knowledge of typical development in the ELL’s home language is essential for service providers in this situation to provide examples of speech and language problems to the parents.  There are many resources documenting child development in different languages or cultures that may be helpful to service providers and educators.  A few of these sources are: ASHA (http://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural), the Early Childhood Research Institute on Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS; http://clas.uiuc.edu/index.html), and Child Find (http://www.childfindidea.org).

As previously mentioned, parents’ understanding of what is expected of their child at school and the child’s current level of functioning is also necessary for this discussion.  Ultimately, parental consent is necessary for services.

6.      What can ESL teachers do to be sure that the ELL is getting the services needed? 

The ESL teacher should make a referral to special education services or speech-language services in order for the ELL to receive the necessary evaluation.  ESL teachers should refer to their school’s or district’s referral and assessment procedures for specific information.

7.      What does the law allow in terms of providing an interpreter during speech-language assessment and therapy? How are interpreters used?

We don’t have anything called a bilingual assistant in our field.  We have slp-a—that’s an SLP aid, but the aid may or may not be bilingual.  Interpreters are hired for the assessment and parent meeting  only.  According to ASHA’s IDEA Issue Brief regarding culturally and linguistically diverse students (n.d.), IDEA 2004 and the reauthorization in 2006 supports appropriate service delivery to this population. Specifically, it stresses the use of non-biased assessment materials; assessments should be provided in L1 unless it is not possible; limited English proficiency is not considered a factor in determining disability; parents are entitled to an interpreter at the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting; and if a child does present with limited English proficiency, the language needs of the child must be considered within the IEP (ASHA IDEA Issue Brief, n.d.)  A significant addition to IDEA 2006 is the provision for alternative assessment materials and procedures for ELLs in order to obtain the most accurate information regarding academic, developmental, and functional knowledge and skills (ASHA IDEA Issue Brief, n.d.).

If the child is dominant in L1, then the child should be assessed in L1 and L2 to gain as much information as possible regarding his/her language skills in both.  Prior to any assessment or meeting with an interpreter and the ELL and his/her family, the SLP and interpreter should discuss their roles and expectations for the assessment or meeting.  The SLP conducts the assessment, while the interpreter communicates betweem the child and the SLP, as well as the SLP and the family. During the post-assessment debriefing between the SLP and the interpreter, it would be appropriate for the SLP to ask the interpreter his/her opinion of the child’s skills in L1.

Research suggests that intervention should also be conducted in L1 and L2 (Guitiérrez-Clellen, 2001; Thordardottir; 2010; Wyatt, 2012). Bilingual intervention may be the best option to maintain and increase L1 skills and aid in the acquisition of L2 (Roseberry-McKibbin, 2002; Wyatt, 2012).  The goal for ELLs is to be proficient bilinguals.  If an SLP has access to an interpreter who speaks the child’s home language, then intervention in both languages may be possible. If an SLP is not fluent in the child’s home language then he/she should only treat in English.  However, SLPs should support the ELL’s home language and culture in any way they can.

8.     How do SLPs determine if the ELL needs an interpreter?

If L1 is the dominant language for the ELL and he/she lacks English proficiency, an interpreter should be involved in the assessment.  Whether or not an interpreter is involved in intervention with an ELL varies among schools and SLPs.

9.     Are most SLPs trained to work with ELLs?

While SLPs should be aware that they need to consider both languages during an assessment (Bedore & Peña, 2008; Kohnert, 2010; Peña & Bedore, 2011), many have not received training regarding ELLs.  Graduate programs in communication sciences and disorders differ in their offering of specific classes that focus on bilingualism and ELLs; however, cultural knowledge and skills necessary to work with diverse populations are incorporated into many classes in programs throughout the US and guidelines are provided by ASHA (2004).  Only 8% of school clinicians reported that they received training in bilingual assessment (ASHA School Survey, 2008).  According to a demographic profile of ASHA members (2009), 5% of SLPs are considered bilingual service providers.  To be a bilingual service provider, an SLP needs to have native or near-native proficiency in a second language (ASHA, 1989).

That being said, SLPs have a responsibility to be culturally competent clinicians (ASHA, 2011a; ASHA, 2011b). Cultural competence includes, but is not limited to, awareness and acceptance of diversity; awareness of one’s own culture; and cultural knowledge of the populations you are service (ASHA, 2011a; 2011b).  Cultural competence is a continuum and evolves over time (ASHA, 2011b).  SLPs should be knowledgeable of federal and state laws regarding service delivery with ELLs.  SLPs must also understand the cultural and linguistic characteristics of the students they serve and that these characteristics vary among cultural groups and individuals within a specific cultural group.   Cultural competence is required to conduct fair, appropriate, and accurate assessments and intervention (ASHA, 2004; ASHA, 2011a; ASHA, 2011b). ASHA recently reemphasized the commitment to this aspect of our profession by updating the professional issues and position statements regarding cultural competence for practicing clinicians (2011a; 2011b).   SLPs are required to complete continuing education requirements to maintain certification.  If they lack the necessary skills to work with ELLs, then it is up to the individual to seek out learning opportunities to advance their knowledge in this area.

10.     What are the greatest concerns SLPs tend to have regarding ELLs?

A great concern for many SLPs is that they use the most culturally and linguistically fair and appropriate assessment and treatment methods with ELLs who have speech and language disorders.  Kohnert, Kennedy, Glaze, Kan, and Carney (2003) conducted a survey with SLPs to examine challenges to clinical competency in Minnesota.   Of interest were the responses to the survey question, With what frequency did they (the SLPs) encounter challenges in clinical situations and service delivery with CLD clients/patients.  Among the challenges that were identified as often were: clinician/client language mismatch; lack of appropriate assessment and treatment materials in other languages; lack of knowledge of developmental normative information for other languages and cultures; lack of professionals who speak the home language of the client; limited family resources.  Assessment for culturally and linguistically diverse children was the most frequently selected topic for continuing education opportunities.

11.     How is the diagnostic process similar to and different from that of native speakers compared to ELLs?

A speech and language evaluation for a monolingual English-speaking child usually involves a case history, documentation of developmental milestones, communication strengths and weaknesses, classroom observation, and use of norm-referenced or criterion referenced assessment tools to evaluate speech and language skills.

A speech and language evaluation for an ELL also involves a detailed case history regarding developmental milestones and communication strengths and weaknesses. This case history may need to be part of an interview with the parents of an ELL.  It is also necessary to determine what is typical speech and language development in the child’s home language.  Additional variables such as, the languages spoken at home, the parents’ education level, country of birth for both parents and the ELL, length of residence in the US, socioeconomic status (SES), generational membership, and the degree of acculturation into American life should also be investigated.  A classroom observation to examine current level of functioning and communication skills is also necessary (Roseberry-McKibbin, 2007).

Since many standard assessment tools that SLPs use have been developed with normative data from monolingual English-speaking children, these tools are not appropriate to use with ELLs.  Using these tools with children, who differ from the normative sample, increase bias and reduce the validity of the assessment which may lead to under-and over-diagnosis of speech and language disorders with ELLs (Laing and Kahmi, 2003).  Using a translated test is not preferred practice since many items from standardized tests do not translate into another language.  IDEA 2006 advocates for use of alternative assessments with ELLs.  If a norm-referenced test is used with an ELL, the SLP could provide a descriptive assessment based on the ELL’s performance on the test without reporting a score.  Other options include test administration and scoring modifications (Wyatt, 2012).  Some have suggested dynamic assessment as a viable alternative to standardized assessment of ELLs (Guitiérrez-Clellen & Peña, 2001).  Dynamic assessment evaluates a child’s learning ability using a test-teach-retest model. Another option is the use of processing-dependent measures which are not based on life experiences or world knowledge, therefore, removing bias from the assessment (Campbell, Dollaghan, Needleman, Janosky 1997).  Other alternatives that could be utilized with ELLs include language sample analysis, portfolio assessment, and curriculum-based assessment.

There are some standardized assessment tools that have been created to use with ELLs (e.g., Spanish speakers).  As with any standardized test, the SLP should always examine the reliability and validity of the tool and the make-up of the normative sample to determine if it is appropriate to use with their students.

Assessing an ELL in only one language also lacks validity because the child is not given credit for his or her language knowledge in both languages (Kayser, 1989).  Evaluations must include various measures, both formal and informal, in both languages to obtain an accurate picture of the ELL (Wyatt, 2012).

12.     What is the field of Communications Disorders contributing to our understanding of impairments and disabilities of speech, language and hearing in ELLs? 
 

Research in the area of culturally and linguistically diverse populations has contributed a tremendous amount of information over the past several years regarding typical speech and language development in various languages and dialects (e.g., Arabic, Cantonese, Dutch, French, Hmong, Korean, Mandarin, etc.), language difference versus language disorder, speech or language disorder with the context of language difference, and effective assessment and treatment approaches (ASHA, 2011b).  However, there is still much more to investigate in all these areas.  SLPs work within an evidenced-based practice framework and research continues to focus on clinically applicable knowledge regarding culturally and linguistically diverse populations to determine the most efficacious services we can provide.

What we are asking ESL teachers to do here is to work closely with the SLP in the school and/or district; become familiar with referral procedures; and learn as much as possible about the students’ cultures, beliefs, languages, and challenges in order to discover if the ELL needs services not yet being provided.  By understanding the issues and by working closely with other teachers, parents, and the SLP, we will discover ways to best serve ELLs in our state.

 

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2008). 2008 schools survey summary report. Rockville, MD: Author.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1989). Bilingual speech-language  pathologists and audiologists: Definition [Relevant Paper]. Available from www.asha.org/policy.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2011a). Cultural competence in   professional service delivery [Professional Issues Statement]. Available from    www.asha.org/policy.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2011b). Cultural competence in   professional service delivery [Position statement]. Available from            www.asha.org/policy.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Demographic profile of ASHA members providing bilingual and Spanish-language services. Retrieved from  www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/Demographic-Profile-Bilingual-Spanish-Service      Members.pdf.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). IDEA issues brief: Culturally and linguistically diverse students. Available from www.asha.org.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Knowledge and skills needed by   speech-language pathologists and audiologists to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services. Available from www.asha.org.

Bedore, L., &  Peña, E. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification of  language impairment: Current findings and implications for practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11, 1-29.

Brislin, R.W. (1994). Understanding cultural diversity: A model (Videotape). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona National Center for Neurogenic Communciation     Disorders.

Colorín Colorado! (2007). How to reach out to parents of ELLs. Available from        www.colorincolorado.org/educators/reachingout/outreach/.  (Campbell, T.,Dollaghan,C., Needleman, H., & Janosky, J. (1997). Reducing bias in language assessment: processing dependent measures. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 519-525.

Guitiérrez-Clellen, V. (2001). Language choice in intervention with bilingual children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 291-302.

Guitiérrez-Clellen, V.F., & Peña, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment of diverse children: A tutorial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 32, 212-224.

Kayser, H. (1989). Speech and language assessment of Spanish-English speaking children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 18, 357-363.

Kohnert, K. (2010). Bilingual children with primary language impairments: Issues, evidence and implications for clinical actions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43, 465-473.

Kohnert, K., Kennedy, M.R.T., Glaze, L., Kan, P.F., & Carney, E. (2003). Breadth and depth of diversity in Minnesota: Challenges to clinical competency. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 259-272.

Laing, S.P., & Kahmi, A. (2003). Alternative assessment of language and literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Language, Speech, and Hearing

Services in the Schools, 34, 44-55.

Peña, E.D., & Bedore, L.M. (2011, November 01). It takes two: Improving Assessment Accuracy in Bilingual Children. The ASHA Leader.

Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2002). Multicultural students with special language needs, second edition. Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates.

Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2007). Language disorders in children: A multicultural and case perspective Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Roseberry-McKibbin, C., & Brice, A. (n.d.). Acquiring English as a second language: What’s “normal’, what’s not. Available from www.asha.org/public/speech/development/.

Shipley, K.G., & McAfee, J.G. (2009). Assessment in speech-language pathology. Clifton Park, NY: Delamar Cenage Learning.

Tabors, P.O. (1997). One child, two languages: A guide for preschool educators of children learning English as a second language. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Tabors, P. O. (1998). What early childhood educators need to know: Developing effective programs for linguistically and culturally diverse children and families. Young Children, 53(6), 20-26.

Thordardottir, E. (2010). Towards evidence-based practice in language intervention for bilingual children.  Journal of Communication Disorders, 43, 523-537.

Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (n.d.).  Migrant and Bilingual Education information. Available from www.k12.wa.us/MigrantBilingual/.

Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (n.d.).Washington English Language Proficiency Assessment. Available from   www.k12.wa.us/assessment/EL/.

Wyatt, T. (2012). Assessment of multicultural and international clients with communication disorders. In Battle, D.E. (Ed.), Communication disorders in multicultural and international populations, fourth edition. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

Yazan, B. (2012), Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46: 218–221.

 

Lesli Cleveland, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, is EWU Assistant Professor of Communication Disorders. She joined the department in January 2008.  Lesli earned a BA degree in English in 1992 from Emory University, in Atlanta, Ga. She completed the M.A. and Ph. D. at Louisiana State University (LSU) in Baton Rouge.  Lesli teaches courses in the areas of typical child language development, child language impairment, and child language development and communication disorders in multicultural populations. Her research focuses on the morphosyntactic abilities of typically developing children and children with language impairment, child language development in the context of linguistic diversity, and literacy.  She was a Speech Language Pathologist in the Jefferson Parish Public School System; Harvey, Louisiana from 2000 to 2002.  She managed a caseload of 40-50 middle school and junior high school students, evaluating and treating students with articulation, language, fluency, and voice disorders.  Dr. Cleveland is proficient in computerized Individual Education Plan (IEP) program and has developed IEPs, participating in an interdisciplinary approach to servicing students with special needs.   She also worked as a Speech Language Student Clinician at the Louisiana State University Speech, Language, and Hearing Clinic, where she accrued 350+ hours of supervised practicum experience with birth to three, school age, and adults in four different sites: LSU Language Preschool, LSU Speech and Hearing Clinic, East Baton Rouge Pupil Appraisal Services, and Baton Rouge General Medical Center.  EWU phone: 509.828.1328   Email: lcleveland@ewu.edu

 

LaVona L. Reeves, Ph. D., is Professor of English and Director of the MATESL Program.  In addition to teaching at Harvard, the University of Wyoming, and Osaka University, she has taught ESL in the NYC and Boise public schools, often seeking additional services for ELLs with special needs beyond learning English.  Dr. Reeves has also published articles on disabilities.  She and Dr. Cleveland have written this article after several years of discussing areas of common interest.  It is her hope that TESOL will soon adopt a disabilities statement similar to the one adopted by NCTE in which the professional organization publicly recognizes the contributions of students and teachers with disabilities and encourages research in the area.  lreeves@ewu.edu

By:

Denise Wood, MA TESOL student, Biola University

 

When I walked into my low- and false-beginning ESL class in Kennewick, I was prepared to deal with multi-level proficiencies among my students.  There were both literate and preliterate learners in my room.  However, I was not prepared for the discrepancy I experienced between those who were literate due to formal schooling and those who were literate but unschooled.

My class at Agape Literacy Center, a community-based ESL program, had refugees from Myanmar and Somalia as well as immigrants from Mexico.  The Karen students had learned to read and write in their own language during their years in the refugee camps on the Thai border but had not had formal schooling.  The Somali students were preliterate in their L1. My students from Mexico had completed their high school education there.  The variety of these three backgrounds created an interesting dynamic in the teaching and execution of daily classroom activities.  I’d like to share one particular experience that surprised me and made me aware of the need to teach more than language and culture in my classroom.

As this was my first semester to teach students who had no knowledge of the numbers or alphabet, I knew I would be on a steep learning curve myself, as I worked to meet their needs as a group and as individuals. I had been adjusting my lessons for the students who were preliterate, as I had learned how to manipulate the activities in order to keep students doing more oral work in class and most written work at home.  (The amount of time spent on doing any written work slowed the pace of the class as well as the coverage of content considerably.)

After a week of teaching a unit on food and shopping, I felt confident going into my classroom, as I was well-prepared with that day’s lesson plan.  I started with a quick and simple review of how to form the plural, followed by a listening activity.  Students seemed to understand and complete the activities well.  I then handed out a worksheet that asked students to look through a brief monologue of a girl talking about three friends and the foods they can and can’t eat.  It wasn’t more than six sentences.  Their instructions were to write the foods that were singular under one column and the words that were plural under another.  I knew I would need to help the preliterate students and was prepared to simply have them tell me which words were in each category rather than spend the time writing out the words.  However, I did not anticipate the difficulty of the process of completing the activity for most of the other students.  What began as a ten-minute review activity became a 25-minute major component of the lesson.

After I gave the directions and had students do an example, all but one simply sat there and looked at the page.  I explained the directions again, believing it was a communication issue.  The student from Mexico quickly completed the activity and then decided to use the rest of the activity time color-coding what was plural and singular on her worksheet and creating corresponding charts in her notebook.  With the rest of the class, I broke the activity down into its simplest steps:  find the words that are foods; circle them; decide if it is singular or plural; and then write the words in the correct columns below.  I had to go through the monologue and basically just point to the words that were foods.  The actual grammar activity of identifying if a word was plural or singular was something they had no problem deciding correctly when I asked them.  Therefore, the grammar was not the issue.  It was the complication of the task.

There were too many steps involved in the process of completing this activity.  These steps are familiar and simple for those who are schooled and quite literate in their own language.  Students needed to know how to skim for information, identify the words they were looking for, determine if they were singular or plural, and then write them in the correct column. However, for my unschooled (yet literate) students as well as those who were preliterate, this was a HUGE assumption that they could sequentially and progressively work through these steps.

I began to reflect more about the skills this task required and why my unschooled students had difficulty with skimming or completing charts. I believe it is because the steps needed were unfamiliar or difficult to them.  I must remember that “literate” does not necessarily mean experienced with school-type tasks.  So, how do I help my students to complete activities that require more complex reading or processing strategies that they have not yet learned?  One solution is to find tasks that are not so complicated (such as circling plural words and underlining singular ones).  Another solution is to show the whole class a projected sample and work through it, making each step explicit.

I learned that day that “literate” and “schooled” are not the same.  In the future, I cannot expect my unschooled students to be able to complete activities unguided that require skills typically learned through formal education.  In my preparations and teaching in literacy level classes, I need to instruct students not only how to read and write, but also how to segment, sequence, synthesize, and analyze information.  These skills are needed not only in the classroom but also in the workplace and for their new lives here in Washington.

** I wish to thank Dr. Kitty Purgason of Biola University for her feedback during the revision of this article.

By:

Martha Savage

 

Research suggests that in engaged classrooms, learning is like a dance. (Palmer, 1998). In dancing, often there are two partners: one that leads and one that follows. In classrooms, the lead position would most traditionally be the teacher. The teacher creates a learning environment where tasks glide students across the floor of learning. With subtle pressures of guidance, the teacher attempts to incorporate students into the dance. Later, the teacher might pair up students to dance together and make more sophisticated movements. The result is an environment of learning, nurtured and influenced by both teacher and students.  So what is the role of the student in this dance?

In dancing, the one who follows has the challenge of understanding the promptings of the leader. Interpreting the pressure on a shoulder or against a hand suggests different responses. Looking at dancers, they move as one changing directions without obvious hesitation and executing complicated swings, foot movements, and poses. It seems they are communicating with one another telegraphically.  The dance could not happen without partners being fully engaged in the dance and with each other.

As tasks are assigned during a class session, students are asked to follow the teacher. They connect to the teacher with questions, comments, and thinking. They respond to the gentle (and sometimes not so gentle) guidance. Other times, however, they are paired up or put into groups where discussion and collaboration continues. The active role of teaching is put into the hands of the learners.  The followers become leaders. The official teacher stands backs and observes the connections and confusions. The teacher learns from student insights and experiences.  These guide the teacher’s instruction in subsequent dances.  The paired students listen to one another, and, at times, construct better and more intricate steps than with the classroom teacher. They are dancing with each other.

Good dancers are willing to lead and to follow…but more than these, good dancers are willing to step onto the dance floor. So, should  we dance in our classes? Everyday and in every classroom .

So look around. Are you willing to lead? Are you willing to follow? The music is playing. Will you dance?

 

References:

Palmer, P. (1998). Courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.