# data[].attributes.headline
Tool 2: Checklist for Increasing Academic Language Awareness

# data[].attributes.subject
Tool 2: Checklist for Increasing Academic Language Awareness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Checklist for Increasing Academic Language Awareness

# data[].attributes.headline
Tool 4: Academic Language Planning Template 

# data[].attributes.subject
Tool 4: Academic Language Planning Template 

# data[].attributes.headline
Patterns of Power - Mentor Sentence Instructional Videos

# data[].attributes.subject
Patterns of Power - Mentor Sentence Instructional Videos

# data[].attributes.body
Anderson & La Rocca

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teacher Resource Books for Multi-Grade Lessons
Multi-grade lesson planning resources ideal for differentiating instruction

Grade-level Specific Grammar Resources
Classroom-ready resources for 10-minute, grade-level specific lessons for grades 1-5

Free Resources
Additional resources that offer a deeper dive into the Patterns of Power approach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Patterns of Power Family of Resources A flexible collection of resources that supports an authentic, inquiry-based approach to grammar instruction by inviting students to uncover and appreciate writing's beauty and meaning. Teacher Resource Books for Multi-Grade LessonsMulti-grade lesson planning resources ideal for di

# data[].attributes.headline
Using context clues to understand specific vocab at the sentence level

# data[].attributes.subject
Using context clues to understand specific vocab at the sentence level

# data[].attributes.body
I found this a while ago, and I have been using consistently in my classes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Academic Discussions: Analyzing Complex Texts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Middle School ELD teacher Tamica Groves supports her English Language Learners to have academic discussions about nonfiction texts. Class begins with a review of how students can participate in academic discussions. As small groups discuss a text, they use talk moves and a "talking rocks" strategy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Empowering English Language Learners Through Language Dives

# data[].attributes.subject
Empowering English Language Learners Through Language Dives

# data[].attributes.body
Jepson & Vilen, 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to content

Writing and grammar curriculum designed for today's classrooms

NoRedInk simplifies the process of building strong writers and critical thinkers in Grades 3-12. Our writing platform facilitates effective instruction by helping teachers engage students through modeling, scaffolding, practice, and feedback.

New! NoRedInk now has ELA resources for Grades 3-5

Designed specifically for young learners, our new adaptive skills exercises, engaging writing activities, and standards-aligned diagnostics enable elementary teachers to:

Create more moments of genuine learning

Help students develop strong writing habits

Gather data-driven insights into student growth

Learn more

What do educators think about NoRedInk?

NoRedInk has completely transformed the way I teach grammar and writing in my class. Students start each concept at their own level and learn at their own pace, and because of this type of delivery, my students not only learn grammar, they master it.

Jo Rohde, Teacher, North Dallas High School

View Jo Rohde's testimonial View Kecia Waddell's testimonial View Travis Willard's testimonial View Keri Bell's testimonial

An end-to-end learning platform

Skill-building exercises let students restructure sentences, edit and mark up text, manipulate multi-paragraph passages, and more.

Take student writing to the next level with NoRedInk Premium

Premium gives schools full access to NoRedInk's writing curriculum and guided composition tools.

A wider variety of content

Exercises for 1,000+ skills, 100s of texts, prompts, and lessons, and guided practice for 10+ writing genres.

Deeper reporting insights

Standards- and assessment-based progress reports at the teacher, school, and district level.

Comprehensive support

Flexible professional development and seamless integrations with tools like Canvas, Clever, and Schoology.

NoRedInk in the news

Check out the latest insights from the NoRedInk blog

Copyright 2023 © NoRedInk Corp.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unlock Every Writer's Potential | NoRedInk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NoRedInk offers authentic assessments, adaptive practice, personalized content, and actionable data to improve your students' writing and grammar skills!

# data[].attributes.body
Teaching Channel, 2018

# data[].attributes.body
A. Mendoza

# data[].attributes.body
Colorín Colorado

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this classroom clip, Albuquerque teacher Clara Gonzales-Espinoza walks her students through an in-depth discussion of the rich language used in a picture-book version of Cinderella.

Teacher: Clara Gonzales-Espinoza

School Name: Emerson Elementary School, Albuquerque, NM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Focusing on language with the Common Core

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this classroom clip, Albuquerque teacher Clara Gonzales-Espinoza walks her students through an in-depth discussion of the rich language used in a picture-book version of Cinderella.

# data[].attributes.body
rewprdify.com

# data[].attributes.body
Jeff Zwiers

# data[].attributes.body
Staehr Fenner, 2014

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Available Formats

ISBN: 9781452257693

Paperback

Suggested Retail Price: $34.95

Bookstore Price: $27.96

ISBN: 9781452278407

Electronic Version

Suggested Retail Price: $30.95

Bookstore Price: $24.76

Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email sageheoa@sagepub.com. Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html.

1. Need for Advocacy for English Learners

2. Creating a Shared Sense of Responsibility for Teaching English Learners

3. How ESL Teachers Can Collaborate to Expand Advocacy Efforts for ELs

4. Advocacy Overview for School and District Administrators

5. Increasing EL Families' Involvement Through Building Their Advocacy Capacity

6. Advocacy Through Effective Instruction of ELs

7. Advocating for ELs in Assessment

8. Advocacy for ELs' Success Beyond Grade 12

(1) A comprehensive resource which raises educators' awareness of the areas in which ELs need advocacy and offers practical suggestions for EL advocacy
(2) Provides an overview of research that informs EL advocacy in each chapter and tools to apply the research on the ground (3) Focuses on hands-on professional development activities to build a sense of responsibility for ELs' achievement in school and beyond
(4) Includes checklists for schools and districts to use to provide a framework to guide their discussion of ELs' advocacy needs in a number of areas
(5) Contains an abundance of practical examples of EL advocacy in action, taken from a variety of schools and geographical regions
(6) Weaves in voices of EL advocates at the school, district, state, and national levels (including Tim Boals, Catherine Collier, and Margarita Pinkos)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Available Formats ISBN: 9781452257693 Paperback Suggested Retail Price: $34.95 Bookstore Price: $27.96 ISBN: 9781452278407 Electronic Version Suggested Retail Price: $30.95 Bookstore Price: $24.76 Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email sageheoa@sagepub.com.

# data[].attributes.headline
engageNY Scaffolding Instruction for ELLs: Resource Guides

# data[].attributes.subject
engageNY Scaffolding Instruction for ELLs: Resource Guides

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The New York State Education Department is no longer supporting the EngageNY.org website and it will no longer be available for use after April 15, 2022. NYSED encourages educators to download any EngageNY content they wish to use in the future.

All ELA and mathematics curriculum files will be available at the links below, and will remain free and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA) license.

Archived EngageNY Curriculum Files:

Grades 3-8 ELA and Mathematics Test Materials:
Questions regarding this change may be directed to the EngageNY Help Desk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The New York State Education Department is no longer supporting the EngageNY.org website and it will no longer be available for use after April 15, 2022. NYSED encourages educators to download any EngageNY content they wish to use in the future.

# data[].attributes.headline
Online Resources for Unlocking ELs' Potential

# data[].attributes.subject
Online Resources for Unlocking ELs' Potential

# data[].attributes.body
Corwin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unlocking English Learners' Potential: Strategies for Making Content Accessible

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to the companion website!Chapter 1Figure 1.3: EL and Family Welcoming Checklist Figure 1.6: EL Advocacy Equity Audit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SupportEd has developed some free tools to help educators and administrators better serve English learners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
“Dove and Honigsfeld’s new book arrives at the perfect time as an increasing number of schools move to a collaborative instructional model and are searching for guidance. The authors not only tell us how to effectively collaborate and co-teach to benefit English l…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
6 Steps to Consider When Supporting ELs in Accessing Complex Texts
Making text accessible to our ELs can be quite the challenge, and finding a starting point can be even more difficult. Are you leveraging strategies and resources to maximize support and provide your ELs an equitable education experience? This sketch note share six steps to consider when supporting ELs in accessing complex, grade level text. Click here to read our corresponding blog post that details each step and explores specific examples to help support your ELs in accessing the texts you choose.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
6 Steps to Consider When Supporting ELs in Accessing Complex Texts Making text accessible to our ELs can be quite the challenge, and finding a starting point can be even more difficult. Are you leveraging strategies and resources to maximize support and provide your ELs an equitable education experience?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A tool to help you meet students where they are in their language development

The Can Do Descriptors highlight what language learners can do at various stages of language development as they engage in the following contexts:

Bilingual and English-immersion early care and education programs

Bilingual, Spanish-immersion and English-immersion K-12 language programs

Bilingual, Spanish-immersion and English-immersion K-12 content-area classrooms

Similar to the WIDA English Language Development Standards Statements, the Can Do Descriptors describe what learners can do with language across different content areas. Although the Can Do Descriptors relate to the ELD Standards Statements, they don't replace them but are used to supplement the standards statements during instruction.

Educators and early childhood practitioners can use the Can Do Descriptors to

Better understand what students at different levels of language proficiency can do with language

Expand their understanding of what the process of language development can look like

Collaborate around scaffolding that students need to engage in content-area learning and develop language at the same time

Differentiate instruction and classroom assessment for language

Interpret ACCESS for ELLs test scores

The Can Do Descriptors have not yet been updated to reflect the 2020 Edition; however, they remain available as a valuable tool for communicating with stakeholders about what students can do at each language proficiency level. WIDA is monitoring educator use to help inform the timing for updating the materials.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A tool to help you meet students where they are in their language developmentThe Can Do Descriptors highlight what language learners can do at various stages of language development as they engage in the following contexts:

# data[].attributes.body
Staehr Fenner, 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Browse Educational Resources | Education.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Browse Educational Resources. Award winning educational materials designed to help kids succeed. Start for free now!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Colorín Colorado is a national multimedia project that offers a wealth of bilingual, research-based information, activities, and advice for educators and families of English language learners (ELLs). Colorín Colorado is an educational service of WETA, the flagship public broadcasting station in the nation’s capital, and receives major funding from the American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association. © Copyright 2023 WETA Public Broadcasting.

# data[].attributes.headline
Educating English Language Learners: A Review of the Latest Research

# data[].attributes.subject
Educating English Language Learners: A Review of the Latest Research

# data[].attributes.body
D. August

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's October in the Rio Grande Valley; the summer heat has receded and the school year is in full swing. Rolando Diaz teaches sixth-grade science at Del Valle Middle School. His class is a mix of English language learners (ELLs) with varying levels of English proficiency. He also has a few newcomer students, mostly from Mexico and Central America. Although all the students are Latino, they have varying degrees of Spanish proficiency.

Today, Mr. Diaz is teaching a lesson on ecology. To prepare for it, he has added several scaffolds to the district-mandated science curriculum. He presents slides to guide the lesson, providing students with visual support for what they hear him say.

Students also have a workbook that corresponds to the slides. For each slide, students engage in an activity that helps them process information. In this case, it is "partner talk" requiring them to describe a variety of habitats in terms of food, shelter, and temperature. They also use a bilingual glossary with pictures and English and Spanish definitions for the lesson's target vocabulary words. The glossary asks students to answer a question about each word and draw a picture or provide an example. For instance, for "ecosystem," they describe one near their house.

Mr. Diaz begins the lesson by introducing the content and language objectives for the day. Next, he explains several general and domain-specific words using the slides.

He quickly gives each definition in English, asks a student to read the definition in Spanish, presents an example for each definition, and asks students to discuss each word's meaning. A few weeks ago, he taught a mini-lesson on recognizing English-Spanish cognates, so they discuss whether "habitat" and "ecosystem" are also cognates.

Students then form groups to explore the schoolyard habitat. In each group, students are assigned various roles-mapmaker, bug collector, vegetation inspector, soil sampler, or data collector-and they complete a corresponding chart. For example, the vegetation inspector measures and records the height of the tallest vegetation and works with the mapmaker to record the location.

At the end of the lesson, students listen and follow along as Mr. Diaz reads the section of the grade-level text that discusses features of the ecosystem in Yellowstone National Park. After each section of text, students answer questions orally about the text, illustrations, and other visual displays. Mr. Diaz provides sentence starters and sentence frames to scaffold responses for his students with lower levels of English proficiency.* He intentionally pairs newcomers with bilingual peers so they can converse in Spanish before writing in English.

A longtime teacher, Mr. Diaz has effectively planned and carried out instruction on a specific science topic. He has ensured that students with varying degrees of English proficiency can access the academic content, strengthen their literacy skills, and engage with and learn from their peers.

I've worked with Mr. Diaz and many others like him to incorporate these best practices into their teaching. His teaching reflects the latest research on educating ELLs. In this article, I discuss this research, which includes seven principles from a recent consensus report released by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. ¹ The report, Promoting the Educational Success of Children and Youth Learning English: Promising Futures, examines what the research tells us about learning English from early childhood through high school, identifies effective practices for educators, and recommends steps policymakers can take to support high-quality educational outcomes for children and youth who are learning English.

These principles and practices build on findings from previous reviews on the same topic, ² as well as U.S. Department of Education best-evidence syntheses. ³ While dual language programming for ELLs is effective for developing English proficiency and content-area knowledge in English-with the extra benefit of maintaining and developing students' first language, validating their culture, and providing opportunities to enhance cross-cultural understanding4-this article focuses on instruction delivered in English, an important component of dual language programs. (For more on dual language programs and early childhood education, see " Encouraging the Development and Achievement of Dual Language Learners in Early Childhood.")

1. Provide Access to Grade-Level Course Content

For ELLs, exposure to grade-level course content provides crucial access to the language required for academic achievement and for becoming fully proficient in English. ⁵ This exposure helps students develop the concepts and skills needed to master grade-level coursework as they move up through the grades. Grade-level coursework, in turn, helps ensure students perceive the materials as worth working on, engaging, and meaningful. ⁶

In the reviewed studies that focus on the elementary grade levels, a variety of authentic materials were used to support learning. For example, in an English language arts intervention, newspaper articles, diaries, and historical and fictional accounts were used to teach students about immigration across different time periods. ⁷ In an intervention for young children, the read-aloud books and videos focused on habitats. ⁸ A middle-grades science intervention used the same texts and experiments used with gifted and talented students. ⁹

It is important to keep in mind that many skills and types of knowledge transfer from students' first language to their second, and that ELLs may have already acquired core content in their first language. ¹⁰ For example, students who have learned math concepts and skills in their first language do not need to relearn the concepts and skills, but do need to learn the English academic language associated with them. ELLs whose first language shares cognates with English do not need to learn meanings for cognates whose meanings they know in their first language-only English labels for these cognates.

Because grade-level materials in English are challenging for ELLs, instruction using these materials must be coupled with methods that support ELLs. The following principles elaborate on this theme.

2. Build on Effective Practices Used with English-Proficient Students

Many of the practices that have proved effective for ELLs are adapted from practices that have proved effective for English-proficient students. For example, in the area of literacy interventions, it is helpful to teach ELLs the same skills as their English-proficient peers-the skills of hearing the individual English sounds or phonemes within words (i.e., phonemic awareness); using the letters and spelling patterns within words to decode the pronunciation (i.e., phonics); reading text aloud with appropriate speed, accuracy, and expression (i.e., oral reading fluency); using strategies to learn new words; thinking about what they are reading (i.e., reading comprehension); and writing with the organization, development, substance, and style appropriate to the task and audience. ¹¹

Effective practices for middle-grades students similarly build on practices that have been effective with English-proficient students. For example, in science, the 5-E approach-Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate-has been used to guide successful interventions for ELLs. ¹² Approaches deemed effective for building vocabulary in English-proficient students have also been used in successful interventions for ELLs. ¹³ Examples include teaching vocabulary in the context of rich and varied language experiences, teaching individual words, teaching word-learning strategies, promoting word consciousness, and using words in writing. ¹⁴ In social studies, approaches include reading and writing about informational passages that provide multiple perspectives on historical events. ¹⁵

That said, not all practices deemed effective for English-proficient learners are effective for ELLs. For example, one study16 found that the use of literacy practices that included only higher-level questioning and discussion about the meaning of text had a strong relationship to improved reading comprehension for English-proficient students, but had little discernible benefit for ELLs. The study also found differences with respect to teacher-student interactions. "Telling"-defined as the teacher providing students with information, rather than engaging them in the creation of information through coaching, recitation, or other forms of interaction-had a statistically significant positive effect on ELLs' reading comprehension, but a negative effect on the comprehension of English-proficient students. The researcher posits that in the first case, the literacy practices (e.g., higher-level questioning and discussion) may have been at too high a level for ELLs to benefit without the appropriate supports. In the case of "telling," the researcher suggests that ELLs benefited because they were provided with more support for engaging with core content in English-a level of support that was not necessary for English-proficient students.

3. Provide Supports to Help ELLs Master Core Content and Skills

ELLs also benefit from visual and verbal supports. ¹⁷ For students in the elementary grades, visual supports include the strategic use of pictures, short videos, and graphic organizers to represent complex vocabulary and concepts. ¹⁸ Verbal supports include student glossaries; words glossed in context by the teacher; and whole-class, small-group, and partner discussions that focus in part on clarifying key ideas. ¹⁹ In the middle grades, visual supports include graphic organizers such as diagrams, tables, and concept maps for science, and illustrations and multimedia for language arts. Verbal supports include bilingual glossaries, as well as sentence and paragraph frames. In several studies, students were taught strategies to support learning; ²⁰ in one such study, students learned strategies to help them write. ²¹

For ELLs who are newcomers, especially those in the upper grades, core content provided in their home language will support them in developing their knowledge and skills while they are acquiring proficiency in English.

4. Develop ELLs' Academic Language

Academic language is defined as language used in school, in written communications, in public presentations, and in formal settings. ²² Academic proficiency is "knowing and being able to use general and academic vocabulary, specialized or complex grammatical structures, and multifarious language functions and discourse structures-all for the purpose of acquiring new knowledge and skills, interacting about a topic, and imparting information to others." ²³

It is important to note that academic language differs across content areas. In science, for example, the challenges of mastering academic language apply to vocabulary (e.g., learning everyday words with science meanings, general academic vocabulary, and discipline-specific vocabulary); syntax (e.g., passive voice, compound and complex sentences, and the nominalization of verbs, adverbs, and adjectives); and discourse (e.g., learning to attend to precise meanings in science text and talk). Students must also learn to master the nonlinguistic forms of language prevalent in content areas like science and math (e.g., diagrams, graphs, charts, maps, and equations). ²⁴

One series of experimental studies developed academic language in the context of teaching mainly science content. ²⁵ The studies used the types of visual and verbal supports previously described to help students make sense of content, develop general academic and domain-specific vocabulary, engage in opportunities to talk in pairs and small groups, and practice writing to extend their learning. These studies are well reviewed in two U.S. Department of Education practice guides for educators. ²⁶

With regard to vocabulary instruction, recent research indicates embedded instruction is a promising technique for developing ELLs' vocabulary when that vocabulary is not conceptually complex. ²⁷ In embedded instruction, students are given access to word meanings through on-the-spot child-friendly definitions of the target words (and, in some cases, examples and gestures). The research also indicates that instructional condition interacts with word type, with conceptually complex words much harder for students to acquire and thus needing more instructional support. ²⁸ (For more on helping students with their oral language development, see " Meaningful Classroom Talk.")

5. Encourage Peer-to-Peer Learning Opportunities

One of the key principles of instruction in a second language is enabling students to interact via speaking, listening, reading, and writing with peers in their second language. ²⁹ Speaking is important to generate feedback, encourage syntactic processing, and challenge students to engage at higher proficiency levels. As a result, it is no surprise that in many of the studies cited thus far, peer-to-peer learning was an important component of the intervention. In fact, in some studies, it was the focus.

For example, in one study implemented in the elementary grades, peer-to-peer learning was used to develop first-graders' literacy skills in a dual language program. ³⁰ Using the Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) program, the peer-to-peer learning classrooms provided a structured routine in which the teacher modeled the language activities of the day; students practiced the activities in pairs for 15 minutes while the teacher supervised; and students then turned to story sharing, a partner reading activity that lasted for another 15 minutes. Teachers paired high-performing readers with low-performing readers and then taught the students to use the PALS procedures. During each segment of the session, the high-performing students performed the role of coach first, and the low-performing students followed. On average, PALS students demonstrated significantly greater growth than control students in phoneme segmentation, nonsense word fluency, and oral reading fluency.

In the middle grades, many of the interventions that had positive outcomes for ELLs also provided opportunities for collaborative peer learning. ³¹ An important feature of these studies is that peer talk, in pairs or small groups, focused on course content.

In planning for peer-to-peer interactions for adolescents, teachers need to consider students' growing awareness of their social status in peer groups in school and their community. ³² For ELLs, this includes how they are perceived by peers proficient in English. ³³

6. Capitalize on Students' Home Language, Knowledge, and Cultural Assets

Studies on cross-language transfer ³⁴ indicate significant relationships between performance in ELLs' first and second languages in word reading, spelling, vocabulary, comprehension, and reading strategies. Findings from evaluation studies comparing bilingual programs with mostly English-only programs indicate that, over time, ELLs instructed bilingually either perform on par with or outperform ELLs instructed only in English, ³⁵ providing indirect evidence of positive transfer.

Experimental studies ³⁶ conducted with elementary school children suggest that instructional routines that draw on students' home language, knowledge, and cultural assets support literacy development in English. Examples of the instructional routines include previewing and reviewing material in children's first language, storybook reading in students' first language, ³⁷ providing opportunities for students to engage in conversational exchanges during instruction that permits some interpretation to take place in their first language, ³⁸ providing first-language definitions for the targeted vocabulary, ³⁹ providing instruction in word-learning strategies that help ELLs uncover the meanings of cognates when encountered in English texts, ⁴⁰ and introducing key concepts by connecting them with children's prior knowledge or experiences at home and in their community. ⁴¹

As was the case for studies conducted with children in grades K-5, middle-grades studies that showed positive effects capitalized on ELLs' assets. While none of the studies were implemented in bilingual settings, the interventions included bilingual glossaries, background materials in students' home languages, teacher explanations in students' home languages, partner work in students' home languages, and instruction to help ELLs take advantage of their home-language knowledge and skills. ⁴²

7. Screen for Language and Literacy Challenges, Monitor Progress, and Support ELLs Who Are Struggling

Historically, ELLs have been both overidentified and underidentified as having a disability. ⁴³ Both cases-identifying students as having a disability when they do not in fact have one (i.e., overidentification) and failing to identify students for special education services that they need (i.e., underidentification)-are problematic. Measures used to assess ELLs for reading and language challenges must distinguish language development from disability.

Most intervention research has focused on ELLs with reading difficulties. Findings from numerous studies cited in previous reviews of promising and effective instructional practices for ELLs ⁴⁴ suggest that districts should establish procedures and provide training for schools to screen ELLs for reading challenges, consider collecting progress monitoring data more than three times a year for ELLs at risk, and use data from screening and progress monitoring assessments to make decisions about necessary instructional supports.

The studies also suggest the types of reading skills that should be assessed at different grade spans to determine whether ELLs are in need of additional instructional support. For kindergarten and first grade, skills include phonological awareness, familiarity with the alphabet and alphabetic principle, the ability to read single words, and knowledge of basic phonics rules. For children at the end of first grade and in the next few grades, skills include the ability to read connected texts accurately and fluently. For students in grades 2-5, oral reading fluency should also be assessed. However, these grade spans are predicated on ELLs beginning their schooling in kindergarten and must be adjusted for students entering U.S. schools in later grades and who may have already acquired these skills in their first language.

The studies provide two other recommendations: first, districts with performance benchmarks should use the same standards for ELLs and English-proficient students in the early grades, but should make adjustments in instruction when ELL progress is not sufficient; and second, teachers should be trained to use formative data to guide instruction. ⁴⁵ With regard to formative data, one study suggests that students' writing samples should be used on an ongoing basis to determine areas for improvement. ⁴⁶ Students' writing samples are excellent sources for formative assessment because they shed light on language challenges common to all children, as well as challenges and opportunities related to primary language influence on English. ⁴⁷

Almost all studies related to screening, monitoring, and intervening are studies of ELLs in elementary grades. ⁴⁸ Recommendations based on these studies include implementing intensive small-group interventions for at least 30 minutes in small homogeneous groups, and providing training and ongoing support for teachers, interventionists, and other school personnel on how to deliver small-group instruction effectively, as well as how to implement effective teaching techniques that can be used outside small-group instruction (e.g., instructional pacing, error corrections, and modeling). ⁴⁹ Another important recommendation is that additional supports should be provided to ELLs struggling in English literacy that address the other skills crucial for success in school, such as vocabulary, listening, reading comprehension, and writing. ⁵⁰

Where Additional Research Would Help

While there are some studies on effective practices for ELLs in science, studies focused on math and social studies are still very limited, compared with studies of English-proficient students. More research is also needed on promising and effective teaching methods for developing ELLs' home language, knowledge, and skills, and equalizing the social status of students from different ethnic/language backgrounds with the social status of white and native English-speaking students in schools.

For bilingual programs in particular, research is needed on the features that influence the successful acquisition of language and content. These features should include student ratios of English speakers to partner-language speakers in two-way programs, the number of instructional hours allotted to each language, the proportion of school staff and leadership who are bilingual, and the use of target languages within and across content areas. ⁵¹ And since most of the intervention research focuses on ELLs in grades K-2, and on pre-reading and reading skills, additional research is needed to understand how to intervene with older ELLs struggling in reading and with ELLs at all grade levels struggling in math, science, and social studies.

Finally, the social and emotional factors that influence student dispositions toward learning and academic performance (e.g., student motivation and engagement) must also be studied. More effective instruction, positive teacher attitudes toward teaching ELLs and high expectations that they can succeed, and engaging school climates can foster ELLs' motivation to learn and commitment to their educational success in the elementary school years and beyond. ⁵²

Experienced teachers knowledgeable about supporting ELLs, such as Mr. Diaz, already incorporate many of these principles in their instruction. But more needs to be done to make sure this research gets into the hands of all classroom teachers, and to ensure additional research is conducted that can strengthen teaching and learning.

Diane August is a managing researcher and the director of the Center for English Language Learners at the American Institutes for Research. Previously, she was a senior research scientist at the Center for Applied Linguistics and a senior program officer at the National Academy of Sciences. This article is drawn from chapters 7 and 8 of the report Promoting the Educational Success of Children and Youth Learning English: Promising Futures, published in February 2017 by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which is available online.

*For more on scaffolding, see " One Sentence at a Time" in the Summer 2017 issue of American Educator. ( back to the article)

†A useful resource for finding reading and math programs deemed effective for all students is this website created by the Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University. ( back to the article)

‡Nominalization refers to using a word that is not a noun (e.g., a verb, adjective, or adverb) as a noun or as the head of a noun phrase (e.g., using the adjective "rich" as a noun, as in "the rich"). ( back to the article)

§For more on ways English language learners bring cultural assets to schools, see " The Potential and Promise of Latino Students" in the Spring 2017 issue of American Educator. ( back to the article)

Endnotes

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Promoting the Educational Success of Children and Youth Learning English: Promising Futures (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2017).

2. Diane August and Timothy Shanahan, eds., Developing Reading and Writing in Second-Language Learners: Lessons from the Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (New York: Routledge, 2008); Fred Genesee et al., eds., Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 245; and Claude Goldenberg, "Unlocking the Research on English Learners: What We Know-and Don't Yet Know-about Effective Instruction," American Educator 37, no. 2 (Summer 2013): 4-11, 38.

3. What Works Clearinghouse, which has particularly high standards for evidence of effectiveness, has two publications related to English language learners: Scott Baker et al., Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School, NCEE 2014-4012 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2014); and Russell Gersten et al., Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction for English Learners in the Elementary Grades: A Practice Guide, NCEE 2007-4011 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2007).

4. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Promoting the Educational Success of Children and Youth.

5. Lily Wong-Fillmore and Charles J. Fillmore, "What Does Text Complexity Mean for English Learners and Language Minority Students?" (Stanford, CA: Understanding Language, Stanford University, 2014), http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academic-papers/06-LWF%....

6. Ellen A. Skinner and Jennifer R. Pitzer, "Developmental Dynamics of Student Engagement, Coping, and Everyday Resilience," in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, ed. Sandra L. Christenson, Amy L. Reschly, and Cathy Wylie (New York: Springer, 2012), 21-44.

7. Maria S. Carlo, Diane August, and Catherine E. Snow, "Sustained Vocabulary-Learning Strategy Instruction for English-Language Learners," in Teaching and Learning Vocabulary: Bringing Research to Practice, ed. Elfrieda H. Hiebert and Michael L. Kamil (Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 2005).

8. Rebecca Silverman and Sara Hines, "The Effects of Multimedia-Enhanced Instruction on the Vocabulary of English-Language Learners and Non-English-Language Learners in Pre-Kindergarten through Second Grade," Journal of Educational Psychology 101 (2009): 305-314.

9. Diane August et al., "The Impact of an Instructional Intervention on the Science and Language Learning of Middle Grade English Language Learners," Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 2 (2009): 345-376; and Diane August et al., "Helping ELLs Meet the Common Core State Standards for Literacy in Science: The Impact of an Instructional Intervention Focused on Academic Language," Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 7 (2014): 54-82.

10. Cheryl Dressler and Michael L. Kamil, "First- and Second-Language Literacy," in Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth, ed. Diane August and Timothy Shanahan (Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 2006), 197-238.

11. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Promoting the Educational Success of Children and Youth.

12. August et al., "Impact of an Instructional Intervention"; and August et al., "Helping ELLs."

13. Michael F. Graves, The Vocabulary Book: Learning and Instruction, 2nd ed. (New York: Teachers College Press, 2016).

14. Nonie K. Lesaux et al., "Effects of Academic Vocabulary Instruction for Linguistically Diverse Adolescents: Evidence from a Randomized Field Trial," American Educational Research Journal 51 (2014): 1159-1194.

15. Sharon Vaughn et al., "Enhancing Social Studies Vocabulary and Comprehension for Seventh-Grade English Language Learners: Findings from Two Experimental Studies," Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 2 (2009): 297-324.

16. Jennifer O'Day, "Good Instruction Is Good for Everyone-or Is It? English Language Learners in a Balanced Literacy Approach," Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 14 (2009): 97-119.

17. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Promoting the Educational Success of Children and Youth.

18. Bryan A. Brown, Kihyun Ryoo, and Jamie Rodriguez, "Pathway towards Fluency: Using 'Disaggregate Instruction' to Promote Science Literacy," International Journal of Science Education 32 (2010): 1465-1493; Silverman and Hines, "Effects of Multimedia-Enhanced Instruction"; and Lorena Llosa et al., "Impact of a Large-Scale Science Intervention Focused on English Language Learners," American Educational Research Journal 53 (2016): 395-424.

19. See, for example, Maria S. Carlo et al., "Closing the Gap: Addressing the Vocabulary Needs of English Language Learners in Bilingual and Mainstream Classrooms," Reading Research Quarterly 39 (2004): 188-215; and Fuhui Tong et al., "Integrating Literacy and Science for English Language Learners: From Learning-to-Read to Reading-to-Learn," Journal of Educational Research 107 (2014): 410-426.

20. August et al., "Impact of an Instructional Intervention"; August et al., "Helping ELLs"; Vaughn et al., "Enhancing Social Studies Vocabulary and Comprehension"; and Lesaux et al., "Effects of Academic Vocabulary Instruction."

21. Jung-In Kim and Kara M. Viesca, "Three Reading-Intervention Teachers' Identity Positioning and Practices to Motivate and Engage Emergent Bilinguals in an Urban Middle School," Teaching and Teacher Education 55 (2016): 122-132.

22. Catherine E. Snow and Paola Uccelli, "The Challenge of Academic Language," in The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy, ed. David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 112-133.

23. Alison L. Bailey, The Language Demands of School: Putting Academic English to the Test (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007), 10-11.

24. Helen Quinn, Okhee Lee, and Guadalupe Valdés, "Language Demands and Opportunities in Relation to Next Generation Science Standards for English Language Learners: What Teachers Need to Know" (Stanford, CA: Understanding Language, Stanford University, 2014), http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/academic-papers/03-Quin....

25. See, for example, Brown, Ryoo, and Rodriguez, "Pathway towards Fluency"; Carlo et al., "Closing the Gap"; Llosa et al., "Impact of a Large-Scale Science Intervention"; Kihyun Ryoo, "Learning Science, Talking Science: The Impact of a Technology-Enhanced Curriculum on Students' Science Learning in Linguistically Diverse Mainstream Classrooms" (PhD dissertation, Stanford University, 2009); Silverman and Hines, "Effects of Multimedia-Enhanced Instruction"; Tong et al., "Integrating Literacy and Science"; and Vaughn et al., "Enhancing Social Studies Vocabulary and Comprehension."

26. Baker et al., Teaching Academic Content and Literacy; and Gersten et al., Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction.

27. Michael D. Coyne, D. Betsy McCoach, and Sharon Kapp, "Vocabulary Intervention for Kindergarten Students: Comparing Extended Instruction to Embedded Instruction and Incidental Exposure," Learning Disabilities Quarterly 30 (2007): 74-88.

28. Diane August et al., "The Moderating Influence of Instructional Intensity and Word Type on the Acquisition of Academic Vocabulary in Young English Language Learners," Reading and Writing 31 (2018): 965-989.

29. See Rod Ellis, Instructed Second Language Acquisition: A Literature Review (Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education, 2005). The purpose of this literature review is to examine theory and research that has addressed what constitutes effective pedagogy for the acquisition of a second language in a classroom context. In other words, the review seeks to answer the question: How can instruction best ensure successful language learning?

30. Mary Beth Calhoun et al., "Effects of a Peer-Mediated Program on Reading Skill Acquisition for Two-Way Bilingual First-Grade Classrooms," Learning Disability Quarterly 30 (2007): 169-184.

31. August et al., "Impact of an Instructional Intervention"; August et al., "Helping ELLs"; Nonie K. Lesaux et al., "The Effectiveness and Ease of Implementation of an Academic Vocabulary Intervention for Linguistically Diverse Students in Urban Middle Schools," Reading Research Quarterly 45 (2010): 196-228; Lesaux et al., "Effects of Academic Vocabulary Instruction"; and Vaughn et al., "Enhancing Social Studies Vocabulary and Comprehension."

32. Brooke K. Cisco and Yolanda Padrón, "Investigating Vocabulary and Reading Strategies with Middle Grades English Language Learners: A Research Synthesis," RMLE Online 36, no. 4 (2012): 1-23; and Kim and Viesca, "Three Reading-Intervention Teachers' Identity Positioning."

33. Guadalupe Valdés, Learning and Not Learning English: Latino Students in American Schools (New York: Teachers College Press, 2001).

34. Dressler and Kamil, "First- and Second-Language Literacy."

35. Ilana M. Umansky and Sean F. Reardon, "Reclassification Patterns among Latino English Learner Students in Bilingual, Dual Immersion, and English Immersion Classrooms," American Educational Research Journal 51 (2014): 879-912; and Rachel A. Valentino and Sean F. Reardon, "Effectiveness of Four Instructional Programs Designed to Serve English Learners: Variation by Ethnicity and Initial English Proficiency," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 37 (2015): 612-637.

36. Carlo et al., "Closing the Gap"; Lauren Aimonette Liang, Cheryl A. Peterson, and Michael F. Graves, "Investigating Two Approaches to Fostering Children's Comprehension of Literature," Reading Psychology 26 (2005): 387-400; Llosa et al., "Impact of a Large-Scale Science Intervention"; and William M. Saunders and Claude Goldenberg, "Effects of Instructional Conversations and Literature Logs on Limited- and Fluent-English-Proficient Students' Story Comprehension and Thematic Understanding," Elementary School Journal 99 (1999): 277-301.

37. Liang, Peterson, and Graves, "Investigating Two Approaches."

38. Saunders and Goldenberg, "Effects of Instructional Conversations."

39. Llosa et al., "Impact of a Large-Scale Science Intervention"; Diane August, Lauren Artzi, and Christopher Barr, "Helping ELLs Meet Standards in English Language Arts and Science: An Intervention Focused on Academic Vocabulary," Reading and Writing Quarterly 32 (2016): 373-396; and Silverman and Hines, "Effects of Multimedia-Enhanced Instruction."

40. Carlo et al., "Closing the Gap"; and Darci A. Burns, "Examining the Effect of an Overt Transition Intervention on the Reading Development of At-Risk English-Language Learners in First Grade" (PhD dissertation, University of Oregon, 2011).

41. Llosa et al., "Impact of a Large-Scale Intervention."

42. August et al., "Impact of an Instructional Intervention"; and August et al., "Helping ELLs."

43. Ester Geva and Katherine Herbert, "Assessment and Interventions for English Language Learners with Learning Disabilities," in Learning about Learning Disabilities, ed. Bernice Wong and Deborah Butler, 4th ed. (Amsterdam: Academic Press, 2012), 271-298.

44. Baker et al., Teaching Academic Content and Literacy; and Gersten et al., Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction.

45. Gersten et al., Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction, 6-7.

46. Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam, "Assessment and Classroom Learning," Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 5 (1998): 7-74.

47. Kim and Viesca, "Three Reading-Intervention Teachers' Identity Positioning."

48. Burns, "Examining the Effect of an Overt Transition Intervention"; Carolyn A. Denton et al., "Intervention Provided to Linguistically Diverse Middle School Students with Severe Reading Difficulties," Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 23 (2008): 79-89; Barbara Gunn et al., "Supplemental Instruction in Decoding Skills for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Students in Early Elementary School: A Follow-Up," Journal of Special Education 39 (2002): 69-79; J. Ron Nelson, Patricia F. Vadasy, and Elizabeth A. Sanders, "Efficacy of a Tier 2 Supplemental Root Word Vocabulary and Decoding Intervention with Kindergarten Spanish-Speaking English Learners," Journal of Literacy Research 43 (2011): 184-211; Carolyn R. Ransford-Kaldon et al., Implementation of Effective Intervention: An Empirical Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of Fountas & Pinnell's Leveled Literacy Intervention System (LLI); 2009-2010 (Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, 2010); Emily J. Solari and Michael M. Gerber, "Early Comprehension Instruction for Spanish-Speaking English Language Learners: Teaching Text-Level Reading Skills while Maintaining Effects on Word-Level Skills," Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 23 (2008): 155-168; Sharon Vaughn et al., "Effectiveness of an English Intervention for First-Grade English Language Learners at Risk for Reading Problems," Elementary School Journal 107 (2006): 153-180; and Sharon Vaughn et al., "Effectiveness of a Spanish Intervention and an English Intervention for English-Language Learners at Risk for Reading Problems," American Educational Research Journal 43 (2006): 449-487.

49. Gersten et al., Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction, 10-11.

50. Baker et al., Teaching Academic Content and Literacy.

51. Andrea Boyle et al., Dual Language Education Programs: Current State Policies and Practices (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

52. For a general review, see Allan Wigfield, Jessica R. Gladstone, and Lara Turci, "Beyond Cognition: Reading Motivation and Reading Comprehension," Child Development Perspectives 10 (2016): 190-195; and Tahir Jahan Khan, Azlina Murad Sani, and Sarimah Shaik-Abdullah, "Motivation to Read in a Second Language: A Review of Literature," International Journal of Research in English Education 2, no. 4 (2017): 41-50.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's October in the Rio Grande Valley; the summer heat has receded and the school year is in full swing. Rolando Diaz teaches sixth-grade science at Del Valle Middle School. His class is a mix of English language learners (ELLs) with varying levels of English proficiency.

# data[].attributes.headline
Checklist for Increasing Academic Language Awareness

# data[].attributes.subject
Checklist for Increasing Academic Language Awareness

# data[].attributes.body
Staehr Fenner & Snyder, 2017

# data[].attributes.body
Reading Rockets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Osa (all names are pseudonyms) teaches third grade in a high-poverty urban setting with a diverse population that includes a majority of children of color and a high percentage of English-language learners (ELLs). During the most recent school year, she instructed vocabulary in a deliberate way during the literacy block and content area instruction. In light of the increased time and attention to vocabulary instruction, she felt confident that her students had increased word knowledge and word consciousness.

However, Osa was disappointed and discouraged by the outcomes of the yearly standardized assessment used by her district, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). Her students' scores on the vocabulary sub-test did not indicate any significant gains from their previous year's scores.

She knew that her students had increased knowledge about words, but she wanted quantitative evidence of that increased knowledge. If the standardized test scores did not demonstrate growth, was this instruction worth the time invested? What might be other evidence-based ways to document her students' growth?

"But the words I taught weren't on the test"

Vocabulary instruction plays an essential role during both literacy and disciplinary area instruction. Vocabulary knowledge is inextricably linked to reading comprehension and conceptual knowledge (Anderson & Freebody, 1985). The content disciplines are particularly rich areas for vocabulary development. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) referred to disciplinary vocabulary for which the concept is unknown as tier 3 words. Teaching tier 3 vocabulary requires situating the word within a system of ideas to be developed (Stahl & Nagy, 2006).

One of the challenges of teaching disciplinary vocabulary effectively is the paucity of available, classroom-friendly vocabulary assessments that can be used to inform instruction and to measure vocabulary growth, especially with the fastest growing sector of the school-age population - ELLs (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2007).

Often vocabulary is assessed at the end of a unit using a multiple-choice task, a fill-in-the-blank task or matching task. These modes of vocabulary assessment are shallow metrics of possible word knowledge. Further, more general measures such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III) or large-scale standardized tests that are used to compare students' vocabulary scores with a psychometrically derived norm are not helpful in informing instruction or sensitive to students' knowledge of lexical nuances.

What are some ways that we can gauge vocabulary development in the content areas? In this article, we articulate how the intricacies of word knowledge make assessment difficult, particularly with disciplinary vocabulary. Next we address some considerations in improving teacher-made vocabulary tests and evaluating commercially produced tests.

We introduce a collection of techniques that teachers can adapt to provide evidence of vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary growth in the content areas that are appropriate for English-Only (EO) students and ELLs. We close with final thoughts for Osa and other teachers to encourage the development of contemporary content area vocabulary assessments that more precisely track students' vocabulary growth across the curriculum.

The intricacies of word knowledge

Theoretical Underpinnings

The report of the National Reading Panel (NRP; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000) and the implementation of No Child Left Behind resulted in an emphasis on the five pillars of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. This emphasis has included a push to measure students' growth in each of these areas.

Commercially produced assessments of phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency have proliferated. However, it is more challenging to find vocabulary and comprehension assessments that adhere to a conceptually rich construct that can serve as an instructional compass. This might be explained by Paris's (2005) interpretation of the five pillars within a developmental frame. Phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency are considered constrained because they are fairly linear and students develop mastery levels (test ceilings) within a few years.

Alternatively, vocabulary and comprehension are multidimensional, incremental, context dependent, and develop across a lifetime. As a result, they simply do not lend themselves to simplistic, singular measures (NICHD, 2000; Paris, 2005). Our discussion addresses the unconstrained nature of vocabulary knowledge and describes some assessments that are suited to a complex theoretical construct.

What Does It Mean to Know a Word?

Knowing a word involves more than knowing a word's definition (Johnson & Pearson, 1984; Nagy & Scott, 2000). Word knowledge is multifaceted and can be characterized in various ways. Some facets of this complexity include (a) incrementality, (b) multidimensionality, and (c) receptive/productive duality.

Knowing a word is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Word learning happens incrementally; with each additional encounter with a word, depth of understanding accrues. Dale (1965) posited the existence of (at least) four incremental stages of word knowledge:

Stage 1: Never having seen the term before

Stage 2: Knowing there is such a word, but not knowing what it means

Stage 3: Having context-bound and vague knowledge of the word's meaning

Stage 4: Knowing the word well and remembering it

The final stage of Dale's conceptualization of word knowledge can be further broken down into additional stages, including the ability to name other words related to the word under study and knowing precise versus general word knowledge.

Instead of stages, Beck, McKeown, and Omanson, (1987) referred to a person's word knowledge as falling along a continuum. These include (a) no knowledge of the term, (b) general understanding, (c) narrow but context-bound understanding, such as knowing that discriminate means to pay special attention to subtle differences and exercise judgment about people but unable to recognize that the term could also be used to refer to singling out sounds in phonemic awareness activities, (d) having knowledge of a word but not being able to recall it readily enough to use it appropriately, and (e) decontextualized knowledge of a word's meaning, its relationship to other words, and extensions to metaphorical uses.

Bravo and Cervetti (2008) posited a similar continuum for content area vocabulary. These points on a continuum can range from having no control of a word (where students have never seen or heard the word) to passive control (where students can decode the term and provide a synonym or basic definition) and finally active control (where students can decode the word, provide a definition, situate it in connection to other words in the discipline, and use it in their oral and written communications).

For example, some students may have never heard the term observe while others may have a general gist or passive control of the term and be able to mention its synonym see. Yet others may have active control and be able to recognize that to observe in science means to use any of the five senses to gather information and these students would be able to use the term correctly in both oral and written form. Such active control exemplifies the kind of contextual and relational understanding that characterizes conceptual understanding. Word knowledge is a matter of degree and can grow over time. Incremental knowledge of a word occurs with multiple exposures in meaningful contexts.

"For each exposure, the child learns a little about the word, until the child develops a full and flexible knowledge about the word's meaning. This will include definitional aspects, such as the category to which it belongs and how it differs from other members of the category... It will also contain information about the various context in which the word was found, and how the meaning differed in the different contexts." (Stahl & Stahl, 2004, p. 63)

Along the stages and continuum put forth by Beck et al. (1987), Bravo and Cervetti (2008), and Dale (1965), respectively, there are also qualitative dimensions of word knowledge. Multidimensionality aspects of word knowledge can include precise usage of the term, fluent access, and appreciation of metaphorical use of the term (Calfee & Drum, 1986).

Understanding that a term has more than one meaning and understanding those meanings is yet another dimension of word knowledge. Multiple meaning words abound in the English language. Johnson, Moe, and Baumann (1983) found that among the identified 9,000 critical vocabulary words for elementary-grade students, 70% were polysemous, or had more than one meaning.

Within content areas, polysemous words such as property, operation, and current often carry an everyday meaning and a more specialized meaning within the discipline. Understanding the shades of meanings of multimeaning words involves a certain depth of knowledge of that word.

Additional dimensions of word knowledge include lexical organization, which is the consideration of the relationship a word might have with other words (Johnson & Pearson, 1984; Nagy & Scott, 2000, Qian, 2002). Students' grasp of one word is linked to their knowledge of other words. In fact, learning the vocabulary of a discipline should be thought of as learning about the interconnectedness of ideas and concepts indexed by words. Cronbach (1942) encapsulated many of these dimensions, including the following:

Generalization: The ability to define a word

Application: Selecting an appropriate use of the word

Breadth: Knowledge of multiple meanings of the word

Precision: The ability to apply a term correctly to all situations

Availability: The ability to use the word productively

Cronbach's (1942) final dimension leads us into the last facet of word knowledge, the receptive/productive duality. Receptive vocabulary refers to words students understand when they read or hear them. Productive vocabulary, on the other hand, refers to the words students can use correctly when talking or writing. Lexical competence for many develops from receptive to productive stages of vocabulary knowledge.

Vocabulary knowledge is multifaceted. Word knowledge is acquired incrementally. At each stage or point on a continuum of word knowledge, students might be familiar with the term, know words related to the term, or have flexibility with using it in both written and oral form. It is clear that to know a word is more than to know its definition. Teaching and testing definitions of words looks much different than contemporary approaches to instruction and assessment that consider incrementality, multidimensionality, and the students' level of use.

Vocabulary assessment considerations

Approaches to Vocabulary Assessment

Assessments may emphasize the measurement of vocabulary breadth or vocabulary depth. As defined by Anderson and Freebody (1981), vocabulary breadth refers to the quantity of words for which students may have some level of knowledge. Multiple-choice tests at the end of units or standardized tests tend to measure breadth only. The breadth of the test itself may be extremely selective if it is testing only the knowledge of words from a particular story, a science unit, or some passive understanding of the word like a basic definition or synonym.

Furthermore, the breadth of the test is wider if testing students' knowledge of words learned across the year in all science units, for example, as might be found in a mandated state standardized test. However, even this is less comprehensive than a test like the PPVT-III or the ITBS, tests that choose a sample of words from a wide corpus. Vocabulary depth refers to how much students know about a word and the dimensions of word learning addressed previously.

Assessment Dimensions

As with any test, it is important to determine whether the vocabulary test's purpose is in alignment with each stakeholder's purpose. It is likely that this is the reason that Osa felt frustrated. The primary purpose of the ITBS is to look at group trends. Although it provides insights about students' receptive vocabulary compared with a group norm, it cannot be used to assess students' depth of knowledge about a specific disciplinary word corpus or to measure a students' ability to use vocabulary in productive ways.

In other words, current standardized measures are not suited to teachers' purpose of planning instruction or monitoring students' disciplinary vocabulary growth in both receptive and productive ways, or in a manner to capture the various multifaceted aspects of knowing a word (e.g., polysemy, interrelatedness, categorization; NICHD, 2000).

Read (2000) developed three continua for designing and evaluating vocabulary assessments. His work is based on an evaluation of vocabulary assessments for ELLs, but the three assessment dimensions are relevant to all vocabulary assessments. These assessment dimensions can be helpful to teachers in evaluating the purposes and usefulness of commercial assessments or in designing their own measures.

Discrete-Embedded

At the discrete end of the continuum, we have vocabulary treated as a separate subtest or isolated set of words distinct from each word's role within a larger construct of comprehension, composition, or conceptual application. Alternatively, a purely embedded measure would look at how students operationalize vocabulary in a holistic context and a vocabulary scale might be one measure of the larger construct.

For example, Blachowicz and Fisher's (2006) description of anecdotal record keeping is an example of an embedded measure. Throughout a content unit, a teacher keeps notes on vocabulary use by the students. Those notes are then transferred to a checklist that documents whether students applied the word in discussion, writing, or on a test. See Table 1 for a sample teacher checklist of geometry terms.

Even if words are presented in context, measures can be considered discrete measures if they are not using the vocabulary as part of a larger disciplinary knowledge construct. The 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) framework assumes an embedded approach (National Assessment Governing Board [NAGB], 2009). Vocabulary items are interspersed among the comprehension items and viewed as part of the comprehension construct, but a vocabulary subtest score is also reported.

Selective-Comprehensive

The smaller the set of words from which the test sample is drawn, the more selective the test. If testing the vocabulary words from one story, assessment is at the selective end of the continuum. However, tests such as the ITBS select from a larger corpus of general vocabulary and are considered to be at the comprehensive end of this continuum.

In between and closer to the selective end would be a basal unit test or a disciplinary unit test. Further along the continuum toward comprehensive would be the vocabulary component of a state criterion referenced test in a single discipline.

Context-Independent-Context-Dependent

In its extreme form, context-independent tests simply present a word as an isolated element. However, this dimension has more to do with the need to engage with context to derive a meaning than simply how the word is presented. In multiple-choice measures that are context-dependent, all choices represent a possible definition of the word. Students need to identify the correct definition reflecting the word's use in a particular text passage.

Typically, embedded measures require the student to apply the word appropriately for the embedded context. Test designers for the 2009 NAEP were deliberate in selecting polysemous items and constructing distractors that reflect alternative meanings for each assessed word (NAGB, 2009).

Three classroom assessments

We intend that our selected assessments be used as a pretest and posttest providing a means of informing instruction as well as documenting vocabulary development during a relatively limited instructional time frame. There is empirical support for all three tasks (Bravo, Cervetti, Hiebert & Pearson, 2008; Stahl, 2008; Wesche & Paribakht, 1996). These studies applied the assessment to content area vocabulary, but each may be adapted to conceptual vocabulary within a literature theme. They are all appropriate for use with EO students and ELLs. Table 2 categorizes each assessment using Qian's (2002) Vocabulary Knowledge Dimensions and Read's (2000) Assessment Dimensions.

Vocabulary Knowledge Scale

The Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) is a self-report assessment that is consistent with Dale's (1965) incremental stages of word learning. Wesche and Paribakht (1996) applied the VKS with ELL students in a university course. They found that the instrument was useful in reflecting shifts on a self-report scale and sensitive enough to quantify incremental word knowledge gains.

The VKS is not designed to tap sophisticated knowledge or lexical nuances of a word in multiple contexts. It combines students' self-reported knowledge of a word in combination with a constructed response demonstrating knowledge of each target word. Students identify their level of knowledge about each teacher-selected word. The VKS format and scoring guide fall into the following five categories:

1. I don't remember having seen this word before. (1 point)

2. I have seen this word before, but I don't think I know what it means. (2 points)

3. I have seen this word before, and I think it means __________. (Synonym or translation; 3 points)

4. I know this word. It means _______. (Synonym or translation; 4 points)

5. I can use this word in a sentence: ___________. (If you do this section, please also do category 4; 5 points).

Any incorrect response in category 3 yields a score of 2 points for the total item even if the student attempted category 4 and category 5 unsuccessfully. If the sentence in category 5 demonstrates the correct meaning but the word is not used appropriately in the sentence context, a score of 3 is given. A score of 4 is given if the wrong grammatical form of the target word is used in the correct context. A score of 5 reflects semantically and grammatically correct use of the target word. The VKS is administered as a pretest before the text or unit is taught and then after instruction to assess growth.

One important finding of Wesche and Paribakht's (1996) study of the VKS was the high correlation between the students' self-report of word knowledge and the actual score for demonstrated knowledge of the word. Correlations of perceived knowledge and attained scores for four content area themes were all above .95. This should help alleviate concerns about incorporating measures of self-reported vocabulary knowledge.

In addition, Wesche and Paribakht (1996) tested reliability for the VKS in their study of ELLs with wide-ranging levels of proficiency using a test-retest format. Although we cannot generalize to other vocabulary knowledge rating scales, Wesche and Paribakht obtained a high test-retest correlation above .8. Such a tool can potentially account for the confounding factors of many vocabulary measures, including literacy dependency and cultural bias.

Assessments

Qian's (2002) vocabulary knowledge dimensions

Read's (2000) assessment dimensions

Read's (2000) assessment dimensions

Read's (2000) assessment dimensions

Vocabulary Knowledge Scale

Depth

Discrete

Selective

Context-independent

Vocabulary Recognition Task

Size, depth, lexical organization

Discrete

Selective

Context-dependent

Vocabulary Assessment Magazine

Size, depth, productive knowledge

Embedded

Comprehensive

Context-dependent

It is possible to modify the VKS to assess the key vocabulary in content area units in elementary classrooms for even the youngest students. Blachowicz and Fisher (2006) applied the principles of the VKS in a table format - making it possible to assess a larger number of words. Kay (first author) used the Native American Home VKS (see Figure 1) as a pretest with her second-grade class. As a posttest, she used the VKS in conjunction with Figure 2, which required students to specify the tribe and resource materials used to build the home and to compose an illustration of the home.

Vocabulary words

I have Never heard of this Native American dwelling.

I have heard of this kind of home, but I can't tell you much about it.

I can tell you what this home looks like and the materials used to make it.

Vocabulary words

Name of the tribe who once lived in this home

Resources used to make this home

Draw a quick picture of this home

Vocabulary Recognition Task

The Vocabulary Recognition Task (VRT) is a teacher-constructed yes-no task used to estimate vocabulary recognition in a content area (Stahl, 2008). Like the VKS, it combines self-report with demonstrated knowledge. Stahl applied the VRT with second graders reading at a mid-first-grade level. The purpose was to identify content-related words that the students could both read and associate with a unit of study.

In the study, each VRT consisted of a list of 25 words; 18 of the words were related to the content in each of four themed science units and 7 words were unrelated foils. See Figure 3 for a sample VRT comprised of vocabulary associated with the insect unit. Students circled the words that they were able to read and that were related to the topic. As a posttest, students completed the VRT and categorized the selected words under provided headings on a concept web (see Figure 4).

Figure 3: VRT

Figure 4: VRT Concept Web

Anderson and Freebody's (1983) correction formula was applied to obtain a score that adjusts for possible guessing. A student scored a "hit" (H) when the word was circled correctly or a "false alarm" (FA) if an unrelated word was incorrectly circled. The proportion of words truly known, P(K), was determined with the following formula:

P(K) = P(H) - P(FA) / 1 - P(FA)

Webs received two scores, (1) total number of words correctly sorted by category and (2) percentage of words correctly selected on VRT that were correctly sorted by category.

The VRT requires teachers to select a bank of words that students are held accountable for in a content unit, thus measuring breadth of vocabulary knowledge on a topic. Using correlations with other vocabulary tests, Anderson and Freebody (1983) determined that the yes-no task is a reliable and valid measure of vocabulary assessment. They found that it provides a better measure of student knowledge than a multiple-choice task, particularly for younger students.

Teachers of novice readers know how important it is for them to be able to independently read words encountered in content units, something taken for granted with older students. This assessment is more adaptable to a larger corpus of target words than the VKS. The web that is included as part of the posttest provides a lens for depth of knowledge and lexical organization (Qian, 2002). Its simplicity also makes it a user-friendly format for ELLs.

Kay also used the VRT regularly in her second-grade classroom. Because the social studies and science units were more in depth than the mini-units in the research project (Stahl, 2008), the classroom VRT typically contained a total of 33 words: 25 hits and 8 foils. When using the VRT in the classroom, a simple scoring system was used, H - FA or the percentage of correct responses. For classroom use, the web score was simply the total number of words placed correctly in each category.

Using the VRT as a pretest allows teachers to determine which words are known and unknown. As a result, less instructional time can be devoted to known words while providing more intense instruction to less familiar vocabulary.

In addition to learning about the students' vocabulary growth, the VRT posttest can assess our teaching. An interesting first-year consequence was discovering that there were weak pockets of instruction. For example, at the conclusion of the state-mandated unit on Australia the students did very well webbing animals and geographic regions of Australia. However, most students had less success webbing people and foods associated with Australia. This was a clear indication that the instruction and materials on these subtopics needed bolstering.

Vocabulary Assessment Magazine

The Vocabulary Assessment Magazine (VAM) was originally created to measure students' science knowledge, comprehension strategy use, and reading comprehension of science texts. Incidentally, as the analysis of the findings from this measure began, we noted that second-and third-grade students were using the science words in their responses to open-ended questions and were doing so with higher frequency at posttest than pretest (see Bravo et al., 2008).

Students were not prompted to use the science vocabulary in their responses during the time they completed the VAM. The words noted in students' responses included two types of words: (1) science inquiry, words that describe aspects of scientific investigations such as observe, evidence, investigate, and predict, like those found in Beck et al.'s (2002) tier 2 words and (2) science concept (e.g., organism, erosion, shoreline, and adaptation), words that Beck et al. would categorize as tier 3 words. Tier 3 words require conceptual development within a disciplinary construct.

There are two main parts to the VAM. The first includes brief reading passages with open-ended literacy questions pertaining to the passage. The open-ended questions associated with the passage prompted students to use comprehension strategies (e.g., making predictions, posing questions, making inferences, summarizing) and text feature (use of illustrations) knowledge.

The second part of the assessment is made up largely of science knowledge items. In Figure 5, students are asked to draw and label two different types of roots and write a sentence about their drawings. Drawing and labeling are literacy practices germane to the scientific enterprise, and the reason for their presence in the VAM is to measure students' science knowledge.

Figure 5: Vocabulary Assessment Magazine Items

Another item, from a physical science unit, prompts students to "draw and describe the steps you would take to design a new kind of ice cream using flavorings, milk, and sugar as the main ingredients." These item types lend themselves to students' usage of both science inquiry and science concepts terminology, as they describe both a process and a larger scientific concept.

The analysis of the 703 VAMs completed by second-and third-grade students involved a frequency of word use. Statistically significant results were found for EO students and ELLs in the sample. On average, students were using 2.76 more science vocabulary at posttest than pretest. Gauging students' depth of word knowledge was possible through this alternative vocabulary assessment that involved students with authentic literacy practices used by the scientific community.

Although our research analysis addressed students' vocabulary use in the short-answer and open-ended questions in response to short, unfamiliar texts only, classroom teachers might consider additional practical applications of this format to assess vocabulary knowledge. Vocabulary frequency counts might be performed on students' responses to open-ended or essay questions on more traditional pre- and post-unit tests.

In addition, teachers can consider honoring students' approximations of terminology, perhaps assigning partial credit for imprecise use. The reason for assigning partial credit even for approximate uses is that if we consider Cronbach's (1942) receptive/productive duality using a term, albeit incorrectly, is more than having receptive knowledge of the term and it is through use that we sharpen our understanding of vocabulary. Second, because one aspect of the multidimensionality of vocabulary knowledge is interrelatedness, it would be useful to note which additional vocabulary students used in concert.

Important considerations when implementing a format like the VAM to measure vocabulary knowledge include (a) insuring student access to any texts that students are asked to read and respond to, (b) documenting both inquiry and core conceptual vocabulary, (c) assuring that students have ample opportunities to use these terms in their responses, and (d) focusing on a core set of vocabulary words that can be taught extensively and to the point where students feel confident using them in oral and written form. A final consideration, although not a part of the design of the original VAM, is prompting students to use the vocabulary of the content.

Implementing a Content Vocabulary Assessment System

We recommend that grade-level teams of teachers work together to identify a list of targeted conceptual vocabulary and inquiry-process words for each disciplinary unit. This list should include words that are essential for understanding the conceptual ideas and engaging in disciplinary activities within the unit. They are likely to be words that students will be held accountable for on assessments driven by the state standards. The words are pretested before the unit, posted on a content area word wall, deliberately taught, used (by both student and teacher) multiple times throughout the unit, and posttested at the conclusion of the unit (Stahl & Nagy, 2006).

In keeping with NRP recommendations (NICHD, 2000), teachers should use multiple measures to capture the multidimensionality of students' vocabulary knowledge. One possible system might be to use a general measure such as the VRT consistently for several units and to supplement it with more in-depth measures specific to disciplinary vocabulary (e.g., VAM, VKS, checklists of students' word use in oral or written form) that could be strategically developed over time in a phased approach.

Where do we go from here?

We hope that we have provided useful suggestions for guiding Osa and other classroom teachers to document their students' content area vocabulary development. The measures that we provided as examples are to be viewed as a starting point for creating one's own assessment system, with attention to theoretical considerations. These types of measures are in keeping with the NRP's determination that current standardized measures lack sensitivity, provide only a baseline measure of global vocabulary knowledge, and that in practice, teacher-generated instruments are recommended (NICHD, 2000).

Although researchers are working to improve standardized measures, teachers can feel confident in taking an assertive stance in developing vocabulary assessments based on their own curriculum needs. In the words of the NRP, "the more closely assessment matches the instructional context, the more appropriate the conclusions about the instruction will be" (NICHD, 2000, 4.26).

About the authors

Stahl teaches at New York University, USA; e-mail kay.stahl@nyu.edu. Bravo teaches at Santa Clara University, California, USA; e-mail mbravo@scu.edu.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Classroom Vocabulary Assessment for Content Areas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Osa (all names are pseudonyms) teaches third grade in a high-poverty urban setting with a diverse population that includes a majority of children of color and a high percentage of English-language learners (ELLs). During the most recent school year, she instructed vocabulary in a deliberate way during the literacy block and content area instruction.

# data[].attributes.headline
Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School

# data[].attributes.subject
Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School

# data[].attributes.body
Baker, et. al, 2014

# data[].attributes.body
quizizz.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New name. Same commitment to helping every student find a way.

Get any resource and adapt it to your needs

Create aha moments for each student

Accommodate students without singling them out

AI Where It Counts

Amplify shared human experiences, not digital isolation

Respect teacher agency, while also saving time

Prioritize privacy and impact

No more password juggling or missing assignments

Wayground connects seamlessly to your school's existing ecosystems.

Get verified student data protection

We're committed to responsible technology that puts educator and student privacy first. With enterprise-grade security, comprehensive data protection, and signed agreements that ensure your information remains yours.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Quizizz is now Wayground | Teacher AI and Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find standards-aligned resources that engage every student. Wayground (formerly Quizizz) helps teachers differentiate instruction with AI and track student progress.

# data[].attributes.body
Free online dictionary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wordsmyth Illustrated Learner's Dictionary (WILD), K-2 & Pre-K

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Interactive, illustrated dictionary for kids pre-K to grade 2 with easy-to-read definitions and examples, audio pronunciation, Spanish and Chinese language support

# data[].attributes.headline
Using Cognates to Develop Comprehension in English

# data[].attributes.subject
Using Cognates to Develop Comprehension in English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cognates are words in two languages that share a similar meaning, spelling, and pronunciation. While English may share very few cognates with a language like Chinese, 30-40% of all words in English have a related word in Spanish. For Spanish-speaking ELLs, cognates are an obvious bridge to the English language.

Not surprisingly, researchers who study first and second language acquisition have found that students benefit from cognate awareness. Cognate awareness is the ability to use cognates in a primary language as a tool for understanding a second language. Children can be taught to use cognates as early as preschool. As students move up the grade levels, they can be introduced to more sophisticated cognates, and to cognates that have multiple meanings in both languages, although some of those meanings may not overlap. One example of a cognate with multiple meanings is asistir, which means to assist (same meaning) but also to attend (different meaning).

Classroom strategies for teaching cognates

Read aloud

When you read aloud to your students, ask the Spanish speakers to raise their hand when they think they hear a cognate. Stop reading and discuss that cognate. Point out the subtle differences you hear between the Spanish and English words. If you have a French, Italian, or Portuguese speaker in your class, invite them to contribute cognates in that language.

Student reading

As ELLs read their texts, ask them to find three or four cognates and write them on sticky pads. Collect those notes and put them on an OUR COGNATES laminated chart. Before the class ends, read or have students read them to the class. Discuss spellings or sounds that are the same and different between the cognates.

Follow-up activities:

Word Sort

Pair students and give each pair a set of cognate cards: one card has the English cognate and the other has the Spanish cognate. For example:

Have students sort the words. Then ask them what the word pairs have in common and write responses on the board.

Circle Differences

Ask students to indicate which letters are different between the cognates by circling the letters. Alternate between having them call out differences with the teacher circling and occasionally having students come up and circle the differences themselves.

False Cognates

Write examples of false cognates on the board. For example: embarrassed/ embarazada and pie/ pie. Warn students that they might run into some words that are false cognates. These are words that look alike but do not have the same meaning in English and Spanish. Ask the students:

Does anyone know what pie means in Spanish ( foot)? What does the word pie mean in English ( dessert)?

Another example of a false cognate is the word embarrassed in English and embarazada in Spanish. What does embarrassed mean in English (to feel ashamed about something)? Does anyone know what embarazada means in Spanish ( pregnant)?

Give students some cognates and false cognates and ask them to identify each. Examples of false cognates:

Ask students to work with a partner to find as many cognates and false cognates as they can from a given list of words. After they finish, ask partners to share one example of each with the class.

Exaggerate intonation and stress

Cognate words can cause problems for Spanish speakers learning English and vice versa because of different stress patterns in the two languages. Point out how the emphasis changes in the following words:

condition / condición

animal / animal

ability / habilidad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using Cognates to Develop Comprehension in English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cognates are words in two languages that share a similar meaning, spelling, and pronunciation. While English may share very few cognates with a language like Chinese, 30-40% of all words in English have a related word in Spanish. For Spanish-speaking ELLs, cognates are an obvious bridge to the English language.

# data[].attributes.body
NYS Department of Education & The University of the State of NY, 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These glossaries are to provide permitted testing accommodations of ELL/MLL students. They should also be used for instruction during the school year.

# data[].attributes.body
Virginia DOE, 2012

# data[].attributes.body
Achieve the core

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Achievethecore.org :: Academic Word Finder

# data[].attributes.headline
Dr. Kate Kinsella Models Academic Language

# data[].attributes.subject
Dr. Kate Kinsella Models Academic Language

# data[].attributes.body
YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Find Definitions & Meanings of Words | Britannica Dictionary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Clear and simple definitions in American English from Britannica's language experts. More usage examples than any other dictionary.