# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
K-3rd Grade Vertical Alignment Document (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Oral language Techniques: Use these powerful and proven methods to enhance your child's oral language development.

Effective language intervention requires us to provide instructions to students that are structured and that provoke thought.

Part of our role, as teachers of oral language is for students to be able to understand the form and function of the target intervention and use it in their everyday communication. The goal is for the children to learn the skills targeted by the oral language techniques and thus become better communicators.

This essay features proven and effective oral language techniques that can be used to scaffold targeted language behaviour in young children.

With these oral language techniques we talk about the child's actions rather than our own. It's called parallel talk because we comment and remark upon the actions of the child as they participate in an activity. For instance, Clinician: 'You put your yellow bike at the start. It's your turn. Wow, you rolled a six! You've counted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Fantastic! Now you're moving six spaces with your yellow bike,' etc.

In imitations we simply repeat what the child has said. By repeating the child's utterances we increase the amount of times the child produces lexical, syntax and morphological forms and there are more opportunities for feedback. If the student repeats out feedback we have the opportunity to provide other forms of oral language techniques .

When we expand a child's utterance we lend grammatical and syntactical details to it that supports the child's words so that they more resemble adult language forms. For example, if a child moves a motorbike several spaces and says, Child: 'bike go fast,' we can expand the utterance with, Clinician: 'Yes, the bike goes fast. The bike is going fast,' etc.

We can assist children to expand the length of their sentences by using extensions. Extensions both acknowledge the utterance of the child and add extra information to it. Extensions act as a little push to prompt the child to attempt more complex forms of language. In our previous example, Child: 'bike go fast,' we can extend this utterance, Clinician: 'The bike goes fast along the track. Your bike is very fast and its colour is red. It is a red bike that goes very fast. brrrmmm'... etc.

The focus of these oral language techniques is to provide a high number of the target in different but related form while interacting
in a game, reading a book or any other language activity. The child does not necessarily have to express the target form, but it's always an advantage if they do. By the clinician immersing the child in targeted language where the target form is repeatedly provided, it is anticipated that the child will be enticed to attempt the new form in his/her own communication.

For example, the clinician wishes to teach the concepts fast/slow while playing a board game which features motorbikes. Clinician: 'Let's start here. You go first.' (child rolls dice). 'That's five.' (child moves playing piece five spaces.) The clinician then rolls a four. Clinician: 'Wow, look how fast you are going? Your bike is fast. My bike is not as fast as your bike. My bike is slow. You rolled a five. I only rolled a four. So my bike is slower. Your bike is faster than my slow bike. Can you point to the slow bike?' No, that's your bike. Your bike is fast. It's faster than my bike. My bike is slow. Try again. Point to the slow bike.'

Cloze procedures are great oral language techniques that use the context of a situation to assist the child to identify a word they may find difficult to say, or have yet to attempt. The child is effectively prompted to fill in the blank or gap in a sentence or phrase. For instance, 'My bike is green. Your bike is y....' The clinician produces only the first phoneme. The child is prompted to say yellow. Cloze procedures work best in tandem with immersion techniques, where a child has repeatedly heard the target word in context before attempting to produce the target word themselves.

Paraphrasing is used to reword text or a student's statement. It can be used to define a difficult word or reword a complex sentence into
shorter simpler sentences.

Example: Text - 'The sun shone for a moment, but its warming rays were quickly engulfed by the angry and bruised sky.'

Clinician: 'It sounds like the sun shone through the clouds. So while it was able to shine it provided some warmth. It didn't last very long though. The angry and stormy sky enveloped the sun's rays again.'

Oral Language Techniques -Questioning

Avoid yes/no questions, as they only require a simple response. The best questions are what/, why, how, who questions. What/why questions
tend to be open-ended and require the student to provide more information with more detail. Good questioning encourages expressive language use. For example, Clinician, 'Did the girl save the bird?,' can be followed by "Why did the girl save the bird, how did she save the bird,' etc.

Choice and contrast questions are an excellent way of giving the student choices to think about. For example, Clinician, 'Why did the frog
follow the boy back home?' No response from child. 'Was the frog lonely or was he just curious?'

Question to the student's response. After you have asked a question and received a response, use the student's response to probe for more
information. This does require a bit of practice but can produce good results. For example, Child, 'The man is climbing a ladder to the roof.'
Clinician, 'Yes he is. I wonder what he will find on the roof. Is there anything that can go wrong when he gets to the top of the roof?'

G ood questions require us to ask for increasingly more abstract responses from a student so that they may think of a statement or written passage in more complex ways that requires more involved and varied responses. The three main types of questions we use when prompting student thinking are literal, interpretive and inference questions. Inference questions in particular require the student to go beyond surface details in a story or passage to find the meaning.

Example passage from text: 'The storm tossed the tiny boat on the seas as if it were a matchstick. The sun shone for a moment, but its warming rays were quickly engulfed by the angry and bruised sky.'

Literal Question: A question that has a specific answer. 'What happened to the warming rays of the sun?'

Interpretation Question: A question which asks about something that is implied. 'What would a bruised and angry sky look like?

Inference Question: A question that does not rely on textual information. 'Will the boat and its crew survive the fierce storm?'

DeKemel, K.P. (2003) Intervention in Language Arts: A Practical Guide for Speech-Language Pathologists. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Paul, R. (2007) Language Disorders from Infancy through Adolescence. Assessment and Intervention. Mosby

Wallach, G.P. (2008) Language Intervention for School-Age Students: Setting Goals for Academic Success. Mosby Elsevier﻿
Return from Oral Language Techniques to Home Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oral Language Techniques: strategies to enhance children's oral language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oral language Techniques: Use these powerful and proven methods to enhance your child's oral language development. Effective language intervention requires us to provide instructions to students that are structured and that provoke thought. Part of our role, as teachers of oral language is for students to be able to understand the form and function of the target intervention and use it in their everyday communication.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Storytelling Tips for Children with Dr. Jean

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Shared Writing

What Is It?

As in writing aloud, using the shared writing strategy enables teachers to make the writing process concrete and visible to students. In shared writing, the teacher and students compose text together, with both contributing their thoughts and ideas to the process, while the teacher acts as scribe, writing the text as it is composed.

Similar to writing aloud, shared writing can cover a wide variety of forms, purposes, and genres. The text can serve a specific purpose governed by what is going on currently in the classroom, or the teacher and students can brainstorm and negotiate these decisions together. Some possible topics and forms include a narrative describing a recent event in the class, a retelling of a favorite story, process writing describing how a project unfolded and what was learned, a summary of or reflection on a book read as a class, a list of types of entries that could go into a writer's notebook, and so forth. Compositions can be short and completed in one session, or they can be longer and extend over several sessions.

The purpose of shared writing is to model the thought process involved in writing and allow students to engage in and focus on the process. The teacher, acting as scribe, frees students from that aspect of the writing process so that they can focus exclusively on the thinking involved in writing. Shared writing is also a powerful method for direct teaching of key skills and concepts needed in the writing process.

Why Is It Important?

Regie Routman (1994) lists several benefits of utilizing the shared writing strategy with students. Some of these include the recognition that shared writing:

Reinforces and supports reading as well as writing

Makes it possible for all students to participate

Encourages close examination of texts, words, and options of authors

Demonstrates the conventions of writing-spelling, punctuation, and grammar

Focuses on composing and leaves transcribing to the teacher

Shared writing, along with writing aloud, is a step in the process of moving students toward independent writing. It is another level in the scaffold that gives students support as they learn the mechanics, conventions, and processes of writing. The strategy allows students to gain competence and confidence in their writing skills while it allows the teacher to demonstrate the usually internal thinking process that takes place as writers write.

When Should It Be Used?

Shared writing is a useful tool at any grade level and can be used throughout the school year with the whole class or with smaller groups who may need a little more support. It will be used more often at early grade levels and early in the year when developing writers are in more need of support and modeling. Don Graves (1994) discusses these and other demonstrations related to the writing process and states that students need this kind of instruction not once but at least once a week in short, focused lessons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As in writing aloud, using the shared writing strategy enables teachers to make the writing process concrete and visible to students. In shared writing, the teacher and students compose text together, with both contributing their thoughts and ideas to the process, while the teacher acts as scribe, writing the text as it is composed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Supporting young children's language and literacy development has long been considered a practice that yields strong readers and writers later in life. The results of the National Early Literacy Panel's (NELP) six years of scientific research synthesis supports the practice and its role in language development among children ages zero to five.

The NELP was brought together in 2002 to compile research that would contribute to educational policy and practice decisions that impact early literacy development. It was also charged with determining how teachers and families could support young children's language and literacy development. Outcomes found in the panel's report (2008) would be used in the creation of literacy-specific materials for parents, teachers, and staff development for early childhood educators and family-literacy practitioners.

Through its work, the NELP uncovered a set of abilities such as alphabet knowledge, oral language, or phonological awareness present in the preschool years that provides the basis for later reading success. It also found that measures of complex and discourse-level skills are particularly strong predictors of reading success - a finding that is consistent with the fact that language is a complex, multidimensional system that supports decoding and comprehension as children learn to read.

In our book Early Childhood Literacy: The National Early Literacy Panel and Beyond,, we explore the NELP report, as well as newer research findings and the effectiveness of specific approaches to teaching early oral language development to establish a solid foundation for later reading comprehension. Below we expand on concepts to help educators understand how oral language relates to reading comprehension, word reading, and language development; where Common Core State Standards factor into the equation; and what teachers can do to foster literacy development.

Laying Down the Building Blocks
Through its research, the NELP discovered that the more complex aspects of oral language, including syntax or grammar, complex measures of vocabulary (such as those in which children actually define or explain word meanings), and listening comprehension were clearly related to later reading comprehension, but that simpler measures of oral language (e.g., the widely used Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test) had very limited associations with reading comprehension.
Put simply, readers must translate print to language and then, much as in listening, they must interpret the meaning of that language. Numerous studies support this approach by showing that word reading and language comprehension are relatively independent skills, but that each contributes significantly to reading comprehension.

Simple measures of vocabulary in which children simply point to the picture of a word or name a picture are not strongly connected with later reading comprehension. Nevertheless, many studies have shown that vocabulary plays an important role in fostering reading development in the years before and during formal reading instruction. The role of vocabulary is likely two-fold. The words, and the concepts that they represent, are obviously of functional importance in comprehension, and vocabulary might also support decoding or the translation of text into language. The NELP established phonological awareness as a key contributor to children's ability to learn to read. Of course, phonological representations are part of the linguistic system and the ability to gain access to these representations may in part be a by-product of early vocabulary development (Metsala & Walley, 1998).

Reading comprehension depends on language abilities that have been developing since birth. Basic vocabulary and grammar are clearly essential to comprehension because each enables understanding of words and their interrelationships in and across individual sentences in a text (Kintsch & Kintsch, 2005).

However, children who comprehend well go beyond word and sentence comprehension to construct a representation of the situation or state of affairs described by the text. In some theories, this is referred to as a "mental model" (Kintsch & Kintsch, 2005) and it involves organizing a text's multiple ideas into an integrated whole, using both information from the text and the reader's own world knowledge. To do this, successful comprehenders draw upon a set of higher-level cognitive and linguistic skills, including inferencing, monitoring comprehension, and using text structure knowledge.
Take the following story for example: "Johnny carried a jug of water. He tripped on a step. Mom grabbed the mop." The literal representation of the individual words and sentences does not enable the reader to integrate their meanings and construct a mental model. Successful comprehenders understand narrative structure and couple it with their knowledge to infer that Johnny spilled the water. They then understand why Mom grabbed a mop. They also monitor their comprehension of stories-either written or spoken-and realize the need to make an inference (that Johnny spilled the water) to make sense of Mom's response.

High-level language skills used to create mental models of text are not exclusive to reading. In fact, children begin developing these language skills well before formal reading instruction in a range of language comprehension situations. For example, young children rely on knowledge of narrative structure to do things like follow a set of instructions, share their daily activities around the dinner table, or understand spoken stories, cartoons, and movies.

Assessing Early-Stage Development
The skills needed for reading comprehension come into play as students progress. In the early grades, for example, reading comprehension depends heavily on emerging word-reading skills. As children accomplish the ability to automatically and fluently read printed words, language comprehension begins to contribute more to individual differences in reading comprehension. Most children who score poorly on reading comprehension tests have difficulty decoding words and understanding language.

Those with poor word-reading abilities (i.e., poor decoders) lag behind their typically developing peers on reading comprehension measures in the early grades, even if they have good language development. However, those with poor language comprehension, in spite of relatively proficient word-reading ability, usually do not lag behind their typically developing peers on reading comprehension tests until they have had one or two years of reading instruction (Catts et al., 2005).

It's important to point out that what appears to be a decline in reading comprehension for poor comprehenders is not the result of declining language skills. In fact, these students' language skills were already poor compared with their typically developing peers at the onset of schooling. A recent report found that poor comprehenders in fifth grade (i.e., those with poor reading comprehension despite good word-reading abilities) evidenced weak language skills as early as 15 months of age (Justice, Mashburn, & Petscher, in press) compared with their age-matched peers who went on to become good comprehenders and poor decoders, and NELP found that early language skills were predictive of later reading comprehension development, but much less so with early decoding skills.

Subsequently, many students who are labeled as "clinically language impaired" prior to, or just beginning, formal education in preschool or kindergarten, do not necessarily have problems learning to read initially (Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang) Their later "decline" in reading comprehension is thought to be related to the changing nature of reading comprehension assessments: the texts used to assess reading comprehension in the early grades require less complex mental models and very limited language processing, allowing those with weak language skills to answer basic comprehension questions as accurately as their typically developing peers.

In the later grades, however, reading comprehension assessments contain more difficult passages that require more complex mental models. Poor comprehenders lack the language skills needed to construct these complex mental models and begin to score more poorly on reading comprehension assessments when compared to their typically developing peers.
Poor decoders with good language comprehension abilities may be able to compensate to some degree for their weak word-reading abilities in the later grades. That's because even though they might struggle to decode all of the words, their language skills allow them to bootstrap their way to the text's meaning, using their good language skills and rich knowledge of the world to help construct sufficient mental models to correctly answer comprehension questions (Stanovich, 1980).

Helping Children "Crack the Code"
According to our book, a key challenge facing the beginning reader is the ability to "crack the code" or, learning how written language maps onto spoken language. This is because better decoders devote greater cognitive resources to the processes involved in comprehending text. Children's oral language skills serve as the foundation for both aspects of reading ability-word reading and language comprehension.

Because few preschool children can yet read words, we must look at precursor skills that develop into word recognition or decoding ability. Knowledge of the alphabet and phonological awareness are both strong predictors of later decoding and comprehension, and it is evident that teaching these in combination has a consistently positive impact on improving students' later decoding and reading comprehension abilities. Rapid naming, knowledge about print conventions and concepts, the ability to write letters or names, and oral language skills were also good predictors, but teaching these has not consistently led to gains in reading success.

How the Common Core Factors into Literacy Development
With 46 states now working to implement the Common Core State Standards which include grade-specific K-12 standards in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language, educators may be required to adjust their lessons to align with the standards and assessments used to determine student progress.

But what if the road to success with those standards begins when the student was an infant, toddler, or preschooler? This question was clearly answered through the NELP's extensive research, which emphasized the importance of print knowledge, phonological processing abilities and oral language skills as important predictors of later literacy skills, and with evidence that teaching these early on can have long-term benefits.

Additionally, assessment of these early literacy skills is important for identifying children who are likely to need more intensive instruction to achieve success with literacy. By identifying and working with students across all literacy levels at a very early age, today's educators can take a proactive role in ensuring that students meet or exceed standards across the board.

Making a Difference: The Teacher's Role in Literacy Development
Interventions focused on fostering language aren't easy to develop or implement. The interconnected and complex nature of language comes with a long developmental history and draws on a broad range of linguistic and cognitive capacities.
Furthermore, interventions occur within a social context where motivational, behavioral, and social factors can impact the learning climate. Children's attention to language input and their willingness to respond to it are affected by a host of factors, including their interest in the topic of the conversation, their relationship to the speaker, the number and identities of other conversational participants, and the setting.

Even more vexing is the fact that teachers - the most important source of language input in preschool classrooms - have a history of using language in ways that may not be consistent with the interactions found by research to be conducive to language learning. Teacher's interactions that best encourage language learning include having conversations that stay on a single topic, providing children opportunities to talk, encouraging analytical thinking, and giving information about the meanings of words.

For teachers, key considerations for instruction include the fidelity of the implementation (an extremely important aspect); teaching children letter names and sounds by performing phonological awareness tasks; and understanding that there is no link between curricula with a systematic and explicit focus (i.e. teacher-directed) and negative social-emotional outcomes for children.

Response to intervention in preschool holds promise for successful early language development but several key issues must be considered. For one, preschools often serve disproportionate numbers of children who need Tier 2 or Tier 3 services, which causes staffing concerns. Also, more research is needed on the effect of interventions for children from low-income families, children with disabilities, English language learners, and children from underrepresented ethnic groups.
The NELP report, along with other studies of children's early language development, suggests that early oral language has a growing contribution to later reading comprehension - a contribution that is separate from the important role played by the alphabetic code. As such, improving young children's oral language development should be a central goal during the preschool and kindergarten years.

In the end, making strides in this area of a child's educational development can begin with a very simple exercise-shared book reading. Although various approaches have been found to improve young children's language, the approach of shared book reading has gained the greatest research support thus far, particularly when such reading is carried out dialogically, that is, with much language interaction between the reader and the child. Combining shared book reading along with other language activities with explicit decoding instruction in the context of a supportive and responsive classroom, can make the difference between a child whose literacy development is at or above standards or one who struggles with reading, writing, and literacy throughout his or her K-12 education.

References
Catts, H.W., Fey, M.E., Tomblin, B.J., & Zhang, X. (2002). "A longitudinal investigation
of reading outcomes in children with language impairments." Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1142-1157.
Catts, H.W., Hogan, T.P., & Adlof, S.M. (2005). "Developmental changes in reading
and reading disabilities." In H.W. Catts & A.G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections
between language and reading disabilities(pp. 25-40). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Justice, L.M., Mashburn, A., & Petscher, Y. (in press). "Very early language skills
of fifth-grade poor comprehenders." Journal of Research in Reading.
Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). "Comprehension." In S.G. Paris & S.A. Stahl
(Eds.), Current issues in reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71-92). New York, Routledge.
Metsala, J. L., & Walley, A. C. (1998). "Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability." In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89-120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stanovich, K.E. (1980). "Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency." Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.

Timothy Shanahan, Ph.D., and Christopher J. Lonigan, Ph.D., are the editors of Early Childhood Literacy: The National Early Literacy Panel and Beyond, available from Brookes Publishing Co. They are two of the nation's top childhood literacy experts and served on the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Role of Early Oral Language in Literacy Development - Language Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Timothy Shanahan and Christopher Lonigan explore the connection between early oral language development and later reading comprehension success Supporting young children's language and literacy development has long been considered a practice that yields strong readers and writers later in life. The results of the National Early Literacy Panel's (NELP) six years of scientific research synthesis [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This section provides specific ideas and strategies to support ELLs' language and literacy development, such as tips for planning lessons and the use of language objectives, as well as broader approaches such as using informal assessment and differentiation for varying language levels.

What You'll Find in This Section

Learn how educators can support the success of their English language learners (ELLs). They will be useful for a wide range of audiences, including new and veteran teachers of ELLs, paraprofessionals, tutors, and administrators at the school and district level.
Photo by Allison Shelley for EDUimages

Each student comes to school not only with unique academic needs but also with unique background experiences, culture, language, personality, interests, and attitudes toward learning. Effective teachers recognize that all of these factors affect how students learn in the classroom, and they adjust, or differentiate, their instruction to meet students' needs.

Here are some strategies for differentiating instruction for your English language learners, as well as ideas for taking students' level of English language proficiency into account when planning instruction.

Need some help finding ways to help your English language learners? Read these inspirational stories about English language learners, teachers and paraprofessionals who have overcome obstacles standing to achieve success.

What's even better than a bright idea? A bright idea that works! Educators from across the country have discovered excellent ways to tackle some common classroom stumbling blocks. Below are their step-by-step suggestions on how to handle issues like the fourth-grade slump or the development of critical thinking skills.

Project-based learning (PBL) offers many benefits to English language learners (ELLs), including hands-on activities, peer interaction, rich language use, and a chance to explore personal interests.

ELLs may need some additional support or guidance in order to make the most of PBL, and the following resources share ideas on how to make it a successful experience for all students.

Designing instruction based on student strengths (what the student can do) provides an important foundation for success and offers opportunities to build upon those strengths in order to address areas where the student is struggling. Learn more about this approach from the following resources and videos.

Learn how educators can support the success of their English language learners (ELLs). They will be useful for a wide range of audiences, including new and veteran teachers of ELLs, paraprofessionals, tutors, and administrators at the school and district level.
Photo by Allison Shelley for EDUimages

Each student comes to school not only with unique academic needs but also with unique background experiences, culture, language, personality, interests, and attitudes toward learning. Effective teachers recognize that all of these factors affect how students learn in the classroom, and they adjust, or differentiate, their instruction to meet students' needs.

Here are some strategies for differentiating instruction for your English language learners, as well as ideas for taking students' level of English language proficiency into account when planning instruction.

Need some help finding ways to help your English language learners? Read these inspirational stories about English language learners, teachers and paraprofessionals who have overcome obstacles standing to achieve success.

What's even better than a bright idea? A bright idea that works! Educators from across the country have discovered excellent ways to tackle some common classroom stumbling blocks. Below are their step-by-step suggestions on how to handle issues like the fourth-grade slump or the development of critical thinking skills.

Project-based learning (PBL) offers many benefits to English language learners (ELLs), including hands-on activities, peer interaction, rich language use, and a chance to explore personal interests.

ELLs may need some additional support or guidance in order to make the most of PBL, and the following resources share ideas on how to make it a successful experience for all students.

Designing instruction based on student strengths (what the student can do) provides an important foundation for success and offers opportunities to build upon those strengths in order to address areas where the student is struggling. Learn more about this approach from the following resources and videos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This section provides specific ideas and strategies to support ELLs' language and literacy development, such as tips for planning lessons and the use of language objectives, as well as broader approaches such as using informal assessment and differentiation for varying language levels. Learn how educators can support the success of their English language learners (ELLs).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video 9: Academic Vocabulary in Text (REL Southeast)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video 7: Narrative Language, Cause & Effect

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video 4: Narrative Language, Prediction (REL Southeast)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video 3: Narrative Language, Connectives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video 2: Inferential Language, Read Aloud & Discussion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video 1: Inferential Language, Read Aloud & Discussion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print: The MIT Press.

Anthony, J. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (2004). The nature of phonological awareness: Converging evidence from four studies of preschool and early grade school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (1), 43-55.

August, D. (2002). Literacy for English-language learners: Four key issues. Paper presented at the U.S. Department of Education's Summit on English Language Acquisition, Washington, DC.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority students: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2000). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.

Bialystok, E. (2002). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research. Language Learning, 52 (1), 159-199.

Brice, A., & Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2001). Choice of languages in instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 (4), 10-16.

Carlisle, J. F., Beeman, M. M., Davis, L. H., & Spharim, G. (1999). Relationship of metalinguistic capabilities and reading achievement for children who are becomming bilingual. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 459-478.

Cisero, C. A., & Royer, J. M. (1995). The development and cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 275-303.

Cohn, A. (2003). Phonology. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics (pp. 180-212). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38 (1), 78-103.

Durgunoglu, A. Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 189-204.

Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (3), 453-465.

Francis, N. (1998). Mezquital, Malintzi y Misión de Chichimecas: La consciencia del lenguaje en el desarrollo de la alfabetización bilingüe [Mezquital, Malintzi and Chichimecas Mission: Language Awareness in the Development of Bilingual Literacy]. Lectura y vida: Revista latinoamericana de lectura, 19 (2), 21-30.

García, G. E. (2000). Bilingual children's reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 813-834). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

García, G. G., & Beltrán, D. (2003). Revisioning the blueprint: Building for the academic success of English learners. In G. G. García (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy (pp. 197-226). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Gersten, R., & Geva, E. (2003). Teaching reading to early language learners. Educational Leadership, 60 (7), 44-49.

Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological and lexical processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 251-267). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goswami, U. (2002). Phonology, reading development, and dyslexia: A cross-linguistic perspective. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 141-163.

Gottardo, A. (2002). The relationship between language and reading skills in bilingual Spanish-English speakers. Topics in Language Disorders, 22 (5), 46-70.

Gottardo, A., Yan, B., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2001). Factors related to English reading performance in children with Chinese as a first language: More evidence of cross-language transfer of phonological processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (3), 530-542.

Helman, L. A. (2004). Building on the sound system of Spanish: Insights from the alphabetic spellings of English-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 57 (5), 452-460.

Henderson, E., & Templeton, S. (1986). A developmental perspective of formal spelling instruction through alphabet, pattern, and meaning. The Elementary School Journal, 86 (3), 304-316.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

Kirby, J. R., Parrila, R. K., & Pfeiffer, S. L. (2003). Naming speed and phonological awareness as predictors of reading development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (3), 453-464.

Lie, A. (1991). Effects of a training program for stimulating skills in word analysis in first-grade children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26 (3), 234-250.

Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36 (5), 596-613.

Lundberg, I. (2002). Second language learning and reading with the additional load of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 165-187.

Mann, V. A., & Brady, S. (1988). Reading disability: The role of language deficiencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56 (6), 811-816.

Marshall, C. M., Snowling, M. J., & Bailey, P. J. (2001). Rapid auditory processing and phonological abilitiy in normal readers and readers with dyslexia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 925-940.

McLaughlin, B., Gesi Blanchard, A., & Osanai, Y. (1995). Assessing language development in bilingual preschool children. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Meier, T. (2003). "Why can't she remember that?" The importance of storybook reading in multilingual, multicultural classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 57 (3), 242-252.

Muter, V., & Diethelm, K. (2001). The contribution of phonological skills and letter knowledge to early reading development in a multilingual population. Language Learning, 51 (2), 187-219.

Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

O'Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1999). Prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3 (2), 159-197.

Peña, E., Bedore, L. M., & Rappazzo, C. (2003). Comparison of Spanish, English, and bilingual children's performance across semantic tasks. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34 (1), 5-16.

Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. E. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2), 246-256.

Quiroga, T., Lemos-Britton, Z., Mostafapour, E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2001). Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL first graders: Research into practice. Journal of School Psychology, 40 (1), 85-109.

Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C. D., & Foorman, B. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (2), 264-282.

Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2003). Effective programs for English language learners: A best-evidence synthesis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, CRESPAR.

Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2004). How do English language learners learn to read? Educational Leadership, 61 (6), 52-57.

Swan, D., & Goswami, U. (1997). Phonological awareness deficits in developmental dyslexia and the phonological representations hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66, 18-41.

Tabors, P. O., & Snow, C. E. (2002). Young bilingual children and early literacy development. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 159-178). New York: The Guilford press.

Torgesen, J. K., Morgan, S. T., & Davis, C. (1992). Effects of two types of phonological awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 364-370.

Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33(3), 321-363.

Vernon-Feagans, L., Hammer, C. S., Miccio, A., & Manlove, E. (2002). Early language and literacy skills in low-income African American and Hispanic children. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research, (pp. 192-210). New York: The Guilford Press.

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., et al. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 468-479.

Zahar, R., Cobb, T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects of frequency and contextual richness. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 541-572.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fostering Literacy Development in English Language Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print: The MIT Press. Anthony, J. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (2004). The nature of phonological awareness: Converging evidence from four studies of preschool and early grade school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (1), 43-55. August, D. (2002).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A breathtaking story. Starring baby monkeys lost in frightening trees, a witch, crocodiles, a tiger, a "popotamus" and a lion, and even a "tremendously very bad mammoth". There are also magic powers and an orange ring, but sometimes, "something goes amiss". 
Bring your popcorn and enjoy the show.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Language Demands and Instructional Supports (2)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vocabulary Instruction - K

Grade Level: Kindergarten

School: McKinley Elementary School

Location: Tacoma, Washington

Materials: Honk!: The Story of a Prima Swanerina by Pamela Duncan Edwards

Videographer: Dima Yaremenko
Elapsed Time: 6:16

Introduction:Even as students enter kindergarten, there are huge differences in their individual vocabularies. If we are to narrow the achievement gap that students from different economic levels exhibit in the upper grades, we must provide systematic, robust explicit vocabulary instruction in the primary grades.

One of the best sources of vocabulary words is the books that we read aloud to students. In this video, the students have listened to the book Honk!: The Story of a Prima Swanerina. They are being introduced to the meanings of three words from the story.

This vocabulary instruction is presented at the end of a 90-minute reading period including the reading of Honk! The troops are restless. This video is a great reminder of the difficulties in delivering instruction and maintaining the attention of the students. There is no doubt about it ... teaching is hard work.
Focus: As you watch this video, ask yourself:
1) Did the Teacher use an instructional routine for teaching each vocabulary term including these steps:
a) Introduce the word?
b) Present a student-friendly explanation?
c) Illustrate the word with examples?
d) Check students' understanding?
e) Review the words?

What other good practices did you observe?

What suggestions would you give the teacher?
Feedback: 1) Did the Teacher use an instructional routine for teaching each vocabulary term including these steps:
a) Introduce the word?
b) Present a student-friendly explanation?
c) Illustrate the word with examples?
d) Check students' understanding?
e) Review the words?
The teacher followed all of these steps when introducing each word. At the end of the lesson, the teacher reviewed the words. This video shows that the practice of using instructional routines supports teachers even when the group is a little more challenging (though very sweet).
2) What other good practices did you observe?
During the lesson, the teacher actively involved the students by having them:

Say answers as a whole group.

Share ideas with their partners.

Share ideas with their partners and then with the class.

Respond with movement and facial gestures.

The instructor augmented the vocabulary instruction by:

Adding the use of gestures and movement.

Checking understanding using examples and non-examples.

Conveying the usefulness in learning the three words.

Adding humor.

What suggestions would you give the teacher?
If I taught this lesson again, I would do these things:

Perhaps, teach the vocabulary at a later time in the day after reviewing the read-aloud. OR

Create a better environment that would promote student attention by:

Putting the last two rows of children in chairs so they would be more visible.

Reorganizing the seating arrangement so that the inattentive students were closer to the teacher.

More carefully selecting the partners.

Reorganizing the schedule of activities so that the students would have an activity at their desk before this lesson.

Be careful in the choice of words. I would teach the word 'practice' rather than 'practiced'. It was confusing to switch between the two words.

But most importantly, I would be careful that I acted as if I expected participation. At the end of video, when the students did not all respond, I simply did a "do over". "I need everyone." As soon as I started to expect participation and instigated gentle "do overs", the students began to respond more consistently. It reminded me, "It is not what we tell students we want, but how we act in concert with our requests that students attend to."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explicit Instructions | Effective and Efficient Teaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Grade Level: Kindergarten School: McKinley Elementary School Location: Tacoma, Washington Materials: Honk!: The Story of a Prima Swanerina by Pamela Duncan Edwards Videographer: Dima Yaremenko Elapsed Time: 6:16 Introduction:Even as students enter kindergarten, there are huge differences in their individual vocabularies.