Patricia A. DiCerbo, Kristina A. Anstrom, Lottie L. Baker and Charlene Rivera. ” A Review of the Literature on Teaching Academic English to English Language Learners.” Review of Educational Research Vol. 84, No. 3 (September 2014), pp. 446-482. Web.
Summary:
The article argues for extensive research into instructor knowledge and teaching in academic English. While the article doesn’t necessarily focus heavily on the teacher’s professional development, the authors do go in depth to the student populations and how students struggle with academic English and the necessary processes of applying academic English to different fields or classes.
The article borrows, collects, and analyzes an unpublished report from the U.S Department of Education. For the sake of the audience and the change in time, the authors “condensed, reorganized, and updated literature from the original document” (447). These collections of various documents served the purpose of defining academic English, as well as study teaching practices and evaluating teacher effectiveness and preparation.
The main objective, and while frustrating at times, is to recommend further research into academic English and the absolute necessity of doing so. The article determines three distinct priorities for research:
First, to develop a new, systematic approach for exploring the demands of student/ teacher interactions, the textbooks used in the curriculum, and the assignments given out as a response to the reading or new information. I’m not really sure I agree with a “systematic approach” since the phrase alone conjures up depictions of rigid structures much like Common Core Learning. However, so explicit examples were illustrated, so I don’t necessarily know what the authors meant by that.
Secondly, developing a way to understand and identify the “specific demands of academic English” as well as the ways in which those expectations are implemented in a school setting. And finally, a more rigorous way of mapping out/ documenting teachers’ knowledge and skill in academic English as theories, rules, and expectations transform in the field. It’s also a good way of determining how students with disabilities and students with diverse socio-economic statuses are catered to.
Quotations:
- “Language is the ‘hidden curriculum’ of schooling; that is, the norms and patterns of language as it is used within and across academic disciplines is never made explicit to a large segment of the student population” (446).
- “Although common dimensions of academic English permeate all content areas, such as complex vocabulary and long noun phrases, specific language demands are unique depending on the task and discipline” (473).
- “Academic English includes not only vocabulary but also complex grammatical structures and discourse patterns that contribute to cohesion and coherence in communication and that vary accordingly to the purpose or function for which language is used” (474).
- “Recent literature on academic English calls for a better balance between teacher and student talk, and instruction in which modeling and scaffolding of academic discussions and questioning techniques occur” (474).
Analytical Reflection:
Although I did enjoy reading the article, much of the writing focused on historical practices of teaching, and the comparisons to other teachings, like mathematics and the sciences. I expected to see the perspectives from teachers and comparisons of different teaching techniques. However, the article was focused primarily on the student population (K-12) and students who struggle understanding academic English. It’s an important perspective to understand, but one that might be difficult to use in the context of teaching English 101 students. A good portion of the writing brought up the recent adoption Common Core State Standards and English Language Arts. Initially CCS and ELA sounded irrelevant in a university setting, but it made me realize where my students are coming from. Sometimes it’s easy to forget these individuals just left (escaped) high school, where state school officers determine what students should know at each grade level (447). However, each high school these students attended had different standards in place.
Overall, the article pointed to the necessity of further research into the practice of teaching academic English. As DiCerbo states in the conclusion, “a major implication of the professional development literature is that more rigorous and ongoing research on professional development in the area of academic English teaching and learning is needed to provide guidance to effective practice” (474). Essentially, the issue surrounds properly educating teachers and re-thinking ways in which instructors approach language and content instruction within a classroom. However, and unfortunately, the article didn’t provide an answer or an example for how teachers should change their teaching habits.
Personally, I felt like too much weight and emphasis was placed on teachers’ “incompetence” when it comes to effectively teaching students academic English that will be useful for other disciplines. I think more focus should be placed on lawmakers and institutions determining a common standard for what every student needs to know.
This one sounds like an interesting piece of research and contextualization of a particular resource, but perhaps not super useful for our everyday teaching lives. Like you, I often think about the schools my students just busted out from–some of them dynamic and well resourced, some of them yolked to institutional benchmarks that have nothing to do with my own teaching goals. Students themselves are somewhat aware of these dynamics, I think. In fact, the most positive thing I tend to get out of considering the state of K12 standards is to motivate a conversation with students about how and why they want to learn now, in this place, where they have some say in the matter.
Thanks for this excellent annotation.