Beyond ESOL: an Argument for Language Support in Content Areas

1

Beyond ESOL: An Argument for Language Support in Content Areas

Anthony S. Terrell

J.E.B. Stuart High School

Fairfax County (VA) Public Schools

June 2003

Abstract

This two-year action research study explores the effect of continued content-based language instruction on ESOL student achievement in mainstream Biology and World History I classes. Collaboration between ESOL and content-area teachers, independent reading development, and specific learning strategies are put forth as best practices for making content classes accessible for ESOL learners. The results from this study suggest the ideal stage of English language development at which ESOL learners should be introduced to mainstream core subjects for maximum success. Final course grades and Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) scores are used to support research conclusions.

Rationale

The advent of standardized testing and the No Child Left Behind legislation has made teaching and learning all the more difficult in the many of nation’s classrooms. This is especially true for English language learners. English language learners are being asked to acquire facility with English faster than ever before and are faced with limited educational choices and diminished possibilities for economic empowerment if they fail to do so. The gateway to K-12 educational success is guarded by state-mandated tests, which are designed to measure students’ mastery of a prescribed content area. For English language learners, the struggle begins with reaching the level language proficiency needed to access the content in English. It ends with producing proof of learning through a narrow linguistic prism, a standardized test. At Stuart High School, the ESOL faculty devised a method scheduling and teaching language classes designed to boost language minority student achievement in content area courses and success on associated end-of-course standardize tests. This two-year study looks at the effectiveness of that program.

The Program

English language learners in FCPS progress through five levels (A1, A2, A3, B1, B2) of ESOL instruction. A1 level students have little or no English language literacy. Students exiting B2 read on a sixth grade level and have near native speaker oral fluency. B2 students typically possess a limited, still very literal vocabulary, which has a direct impact on reading comprehension, the underpinning of content-area instruction and learning.

ESOL students are introduced to two content courses at the B1 level, biology and World History I. The content of each course is taught according to a strict program of studies (POS) and Standards of Learning (SOL) benchmarks, as each course also has an end of course state-mandated SOL exam tied to it. Students must pass both the course and the exam to receive credit toward high school graduation. Teachers rely heavily on textbooks for each of these courses that are both more than 1000 pages and written on a 10th grade reading level. B1 students at best read on a 5th to 6th grade independent reading level. In addition, most B1 ESOL students come to these courses without any experience with authentic texts written in English and the reading skills needed to make sense of them.

The ESOL faculty at Stuart High School partnered with the science and history departments to devise a program whereby B1 students would successfully meet the challenge presented by passing both biology and World History I and the SOL exams associated with them. In the program, a B1-level ESOL teacher collaborated with teachers from the content areas designated to teach classes with high concentrations of B1 students. At the beginning of the school year, these teachers co-planned the scope and sequence of the two courses. They agreed that the content area teachers would focus on content, lecturing and using the textbook in much the same way they do for classes of native or proficient English speakers. The ESOL teacher would focus on textbook reading skills, building students’ reading comprehension skills, and providing frequent opportunities for students to write on and discuss topics in biology and world history in an effort to deepen their knowledge of the subject matter being learned.

ESOL teachers involved in the program relied heavily on instructional models which stress teaching students learning strategies they can use to increase their own learning efficacy on the way to becoming confident, life-long learners. Strategies from Dr. Ana Uhl Chamot’s (1992) Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approaches (CALLA) Handbook were used extensively. In approaching the impossibly mammoth textbook associated with the content courses, students were taught the “reading process,” as outlined by O’Brien (2002). That is, whenever a new chapter was introduced, students were taught to scan SCAN the chapter first, taking in the titles and sub-headings, bold print, vocabulary lists, pictures/charts/graphs, and captions. After scanning the chapter and getting a good idea of what they would be studying in it, students READ the chapter. They read they were taught to take notes as they read, being sure to make mental images of what the words represented. In the third and final step of the process students were taught to REVIEW what they had read, completing in complete sentences, comprehension questions at he end of each section and at the end of the chapter. Additionally, students were taught how to use the table of content, index, and glossary of the text. In effect, the ESOL teacher became a reading coach, employing proven reading strategies in language learning.

To improve students’ reading comprehension skills and vocabulary development, the ESOL teacher used short readings from reading skill books. Readings were selected that were relevant to whatever particular topics being taught and learned in biology and world history. Series books by Edward Spargo (1998) and Walter Pauk (2000) were used as excellent resources for content-based readings with accompanying skill-building exercises: identifying supporting details and the main idea; recognizing devices; reaching conclusions; using vocabulary in context; sequencing; distinguishing fact from opinion; and making correct inferences.

To further spiral instruction the ESOL teacher allowed students time to write to a prompt related to biology or world history topics. Students wrote for fifteen to twenty minutes two or three times a week, keeping their responses in a journal. After the writing period, students engaged in peer editing responses, commenting on the grammar and thoroughness of the response. Responses predictably were grew longer, more complex, and demonstrated improved grammaticality as the school year progressed.

Additionally, the ESOL and content area teachers met throughout the school year to make curriculum adjustments. For example, teachers might decide to spend more time on a unit that was proving difficult for students to master. In one instance teachers decided that the ESOL teacher would handle teaching biographical and professional information on famous scientists, often seen on the biology SOL exam, because the biology teacher found she simple would not have time to get to that unit before the exam. Teachers also e-mailed each other almost daily to compare notes on the progress of individual units/lessons and the progress of individual students. Co-planning and constant communication were essential to attaining the desired outcome of the program, success for ESOL students in content area courses.

Results

The first year of the program included thirteen students who spent an entire school year under the instruction on the same ESOL teacher, World History I , and biology teachers. The collaboration between the two departments proved largely successful by all idices: course grades; SOL exam pass rates; student satisfaction; teacher satisfaction. The average DRP score increased 16 points in a single school year. Students posted a class average of 82.6% in biology and 87.8% in World History I. On the spring 2002 Virginia SOL exams, 100% of ESOL students participating in the program passed the biology exam and 92% passed the World History I exam.

The second year of the program was expanded to 45 students. The same ESOL and world history teachers participated. However, students were spread among four different biology teachers, which made collaboration much more difficult. Predictably, the second year was less than the first. The average DRP score only increased 5 points over the school year. Students posted a class average of 77.9% in biology and a 94.1 % average in World History I, better than year one of the project. Most significantly, on the spring 2003 Virginia SOL exams, only 63% of the ESOL students participating in the study earned a passing score on the biology exam, but 96% achieved a passing score on the World History I exam. It is clear that having students spread over a larger number of biology teachers in the second year of the project negatively impacted student achievement.

Students from both years attributed their individual success to the increased exposure to subject matter through language learning and the accessibility of the texts brought about through increased reading comprehension skills. Overall, students felt more confident in their ability to continue doing well across the curriculum employing the same learning strategies that helped them meet success in their first content courses and on the same daunting SOL exams native English speakers face.

Teachers involved in the program are gratified that they have found a formula that works for students. They have become devotees to teacher collaboration as just one aspect of the kind of dynamic teaching necessary to ensure that language learners far as far as fast as they need to in order to exceed expectations in this time of educational standards.

Data

YEAR 1

Name / DRP (Fall '01) / DRP (Spring '02) / Final Grade Biology / Final Grade WH / SOL BIO (Pass/Fail) / SOL WH (Pass/Fail)
Student 1 / 31 / 41 / 66.7 / 80 / P / F
Student 2 / 25 / 49 / 71 / 75 / P / P
Student 3. / 40 / 47 / 83.3 / 83 / P / P
Student 4 / 26 / 50 / 84.5 / 87 / P / P
Student 5 / 24 / 60 / 80.7 / 84 / P / P
Student 6 / 23 / 38 / 86.9 / 97 / P / P
Student 7 / 20 / 43 / 82.3 / 94 / P / P
Student 8 / 32 / 45 / 90 / 93 / P / P
Student 9 / 32 / 60 / 92.3 / 97 / P / P
Student 10 / 50 / 53 / 73.8 / 80 / P / P
Student 11 / 36 / 47 / 78.4 / 84 / P / P
Student 12 / 35 / 43 / 90.8 / 97 / P / P
Student 13 / 37 / 46 / 93.5 / 90 / P / P
Average/Pass Rate / 32 / 48 / 82.6 / 87.8 / 100% / 92%

YEAR 2

Name / DRP (Fall '02) / DRP (Spring '03) / Final Grade Biology / Final Grade WH / SOL BIO (Pass/Fail) / SOL WH (Pass/Fail)
Student 1 / 44 / 45 / 74 / 91 / F / P
Student 2 / 49 / 56 / 83 / 98 / F / P
Student 3 / 52 / 58 / 95 / 104 / P / P
Student 4 / 48 / 60 / 90 / 95 / P / P
Student 5 / 52 / 50 / 87 / 99 / F / P
Student 6 / 51 / 45 / 63 / 99 / F / P
Student 7 / 48 / 49 / 72 / 94 / F / P
Student 8 / 50 / 51 / 50 / 64 / F / P
Student 9 / 53 / 57 / 97 / 104 / P / P
Student 10 / 47 / 59 / 71 / 95 / P / P
Student 11 / 55 / 62 / 60 / 90 / F / P
Student 12 / 50 / 52 / 83 / 94 / P / P
Student 13 / 47 / 53 / 77 / 92 / P / P
Student 14 / 58 / 68 / 97 / 97 / P / P
Student 15 / 52 / 61 / N/A / 99 / DNA / P
Student 16 / 47 / 59 / 60 / 82 / P / P
Student 17 / 46 / 52 / N/A / 77 / DNA / P
Student 18 / 48 / 55 / 57 / 69 / F / P
Student 19 / 60 / 61 / 83 / 89 / P / P
Student 20 / 55 / 61 / 79 / 87 / F / P
Student 21 / 45 / 55 / 83 / 103 / P / P
Student 22 / 52 / 50 / 60 / 92 / F / P
Student 23 / 59 / 59 / 82 / 99 / P / P
Name / DRP (Fall '02) / DRP (Spring '03) / Final Grade Biology / Final Grade WH / SOL BIO (Pass/Fail) / SOL WH (Pass/Fail)
Student 24 / 38 / 46 / 67 / 89 / F / P
Student 25 / 45 / 55 / 88 / 95 / P / P
Student 26 / 45 / 56 / 95 / 105 / P / P
Student 27 / 40 / 44 / 91 / 98 / P / P
Student 28 / 49 / 49 / 62 / 90 / P / F
Student 29 / 53 / 58 / 87 / 96 / P / P
Student 30 / 52 / 56 / 92 / 100 / P / P
Student 31 / 52 / 55 / 78 / 98 / P / P
Student 32 / 52 / 54 / 85 / 89 / P / P
Student 33 / 47 / 40 / 56 / 73 / P / P
Student 34 / 47 / 51 / 76 / 102 / F / P
Student 35 / 44 / 50 / 72 / 97 / F / P
Student 36 / 56 / 60 / 68 / 88.5 / P / P
Student 37 / 47 / 51 / 83 / 96 / F / P
Student 38 / 58 / 63 / 80 / 89 / P / P
Student 39 / 36 / 50 / 67 / 87 / P / P
Student 40 / 53 / 60 / 98 / 97 / P / P
Student 41 / 55 / 61 / 101 / 106 / P / P
Student 42 / 52 / 62 / 97 / 105 / P / P
Student 43 / 50 / 52 / 60 / 65 / F / P
Student 44 / 46 / 49 / 65 / 77 / F / F
Student 45 / 58 / 55 / 77 / 91 / P / P
Average/Pass Rate / 49.8 / 54.6 / 77.9 / 92.1 / 63% / 96%

N/A = Not available

DNA = Did not attempt/previously passed exam

References

Chamot, A.U. & O’Malley, J.M. (1992), The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

O’Brien, L. (2002), “How to Read A Textbook,” How To Get Good Grades, Woodburn Press, Dayton, Ohio.

Pauk, W. (200), Six-Way Paragraphs, Jamestown Publishers, Lincolnwood, Illinois.

Spago, E. (1998), Timed Readings Plus, Jamestown Publishers, Lincolnwood, Illinois.