The Place of ESOL in the New Zealand Curriculum Discussion Paper

This paper does not represent Ministry of Education policy. The Ministry is not bound by any recommendations within it. The paper was commissioned to identify key issues related to current provision enabling ESOL learners to access mainstream curricula and to explore possible solutions.

The Place of ESOL in the New Zealand Curriculum

Discussion Paper

Margaret Franken University of Waikato Hilary Smith Systemetrics Research Review commissioned by the New Zealand Ministry of Education as part of the New Zealand Curriculum/Marautanga Project February, 2006.


Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................1

1 INTRODUCTION: THE NEW ZEALAND CURRICULUM LANDSCAPE............................5 1.1 Changes in curriculum documents.............................................................................................7

1.1.1 The representation of ESOL at the meta level of curriculum (essential learning areas and essence statements) ...........................................................................................................7

1.1.2 The representation of ESOL at the specific level of curriculum (statements and achievement objectives)....................................................................................................9

1.1.3 The provision for ESOL at the level of support materials..................................................9

2 NEW ZEALAND CURRICULUM DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS.................................10 2.1 Framework-type documents .....................................................................................................10

2.1.1 English Language Learning Framework Draft (ELLF)....................................................10 2.1.2 English Language Intensive Programme Years 7 -13 Resource (ELIP)...........................11

2.2 Key supporting ESOL materials...............................................................................................12 2.2.1 ESOL Funding Assessment Guidelines............................................................................12 2.2.2 ESOL Progress Assessment Guidelines ...........................................................................13 2.2.3 The LEAP (Language Enhancing the Academic Achievement of Pasifika) project ........14

2.3 ESB referenced supporting materials and assessment tools ....................................................14 2.3.1 Effective Literacy Practice in Years 1 to 4.......................................................................14 2.3.2 Effective Literacy Practice in Years 5 to 8.......................................................................15 2.3.3 Effective Literacy Strategies in Years 9 to 13 ..................................................................15

2.4 ESB assessment resources .......................................................................................................16 2.5 Selected content area supporting materials .............................................................................17 2.6 Other relevant documents ........................................................................................................19

3 SUMMARY OF SECTIONS 1 AND 2: THE CONTEXT OF ESOL IN THE NEW ZEALAND CURRICULUM .................................................................................................20

4 CONSIDERATIONS OF AN ESOL FRAMEWORK................................................................21 4.1 Wider curriculum reform: from content to outcomes...............................................................21 4.2 An EAL specific framework of language and literacy standards .............................................21

4.2.1 What would a framework achieve in the New Zealand context? .....................................22 4.2.2 Standards for the language and literacy assessment of EAL students ..............................24

5 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL PROVISIONS AND FRAMEWORKS..........................27 5.1 Overview of ESOL in the curriculum in the United Kingdom..................................................27 5.2 Overview of ESOL in the curriculum in Canada .....................................................................27 5.3 Two sample Canadian frameworks..........................................................................................28

5.3.1 The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1 to 8: English as a Second language and English Literacy development – A resource guide ......................................................................28

5.3.2 Alberta..............................................................................................................................29 5.4 Overview of ESOL in the curriculum in Australia ...................................................................31 5.5 Two sample Australian frameworks.........................................................................................31

5.5.1 The ESL Companion to the English CSF 11....................................................................31 5.5.2 The NLLIA (National Language and Literacy Institute of Australia) ESL (English as a

second language) bandscales ..........................................................................................33


5.6 Strengths of the sample frameworks ........................................................................................34 5.6.1 What model(s) of language development informed by research and theory is/are

articulated in the framework? .........................................................................................34 5.6.2 What model(s) of language informed by research and theory is/are articulated in the

framework? .....................................................................................................................34 5.6.3 Is there a consideration of both language and literacy development? ..............................37 5.6.4 How is the framework for EAL learners referenced to mainstream content curricula? ...38 5.6.5 How is the framework for EAL learners referenced to the mainstream English

curriculum?.....................................................................................................................39 5.6.6 Is the role of L1 acknowledged as an important resource in the curriculum learning, and

language and literacy development of EAL learners? ....................................................40 5.6.7 How accessible/manageable is the framework to teachers? .............................................41 5.6.8 Other questions.................................................................................................................42

6 SUMMARY OF SECTIONS 4 AND 5: ANALYSIS OF ESOL FRAMEWORKS..................43

7 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................45

8 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................46

9 APPENDICES................................................................................................................................54

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This review of the place of ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) in the New Zealand curriculum focuses on how New Zealand curriculum documents enable EAL (English as an Additional Language) learners in New Zealand schools access to mainstream curricula in the compulsory school sector of Years 1 to 10. The review considers what an ESOL specific framework may achieve, through reference to the international contexts of the UK, Canada and Australia.

The place of EAL learners in the New Zealand curriculum is not clearly recognised:

• An understanding of the bilingual and biliterate learning context for EAL students remains under-developed.

• The 1993 New Zealand Curriculum documents provided no specific representation of ESOL at the meta-curriculum level. Although there have been significant changes to the New Zealand Curriculum in response to the 2002 curriculum stocktake, including a new Essential Learning Area ‘Language and Languages’, ESOL is not currently supported in the draft Essence Statement.

The two existing framework-type documents ELLF (English Language Learning Framework: Draft) and ELIP (English Language Intensive Programme: Years 7-13 Resource) do not describe levels of achievement, and therefore would better be categorised as support materials:

• ELLF consists of three discrete sets of descriptors (Oral language, Reading understanding and responding, and Writing) rather than an integrated framework.

• ELIP is a teaching progression, or syllabus organised primarily on the basis of genre.

Key supporting materials are numerous, and contain useful advice for teachers of EAL students:

• These include ESOL funding assessment and progress assessment guidelines, and the LEAP project (in progress).

• A number of materials which have been developed for ESB students are also relevant for EAL students to some degree.

• There is a lack of tools specifically designed for assessing literacy and curriculum proficiency and achievement of EAL learners.

• Some content area materials are designed to focus on language learning, but those analysed do not address the specific language needs of EAL learners.

Education reforms in a number of countries, including New Zealand, have focused on specifying standards, although this remains controversial. An ESOL specific

2

framework for New Zealand has been advocated by a number of professionals, but this has not yet been the subject of rigorous academic debate.

Several benefits of having a specific ESOL framework are identified. They would:

• complement the standards in place for mainstream subjects, • enhance the visibility and coherence in the school programme, • provide guidance for teachers, and enhance their language knowledge, • avoid the search for lower outcomes in ESB standards for EAL students, and • acknowledge the bilingual aspects of EAL student proficiency.

There are also alternatives to specific ESOL standards:

• Exemption from reporting or assessment EAL student achievement, and/or • accommodation to test or testing procedures.

The situation in three countries where English is the medium of instruction was investigated:

• The UK has no specific ESOL curriculum; EAL descriptors are generated by local authorities and schools.

• The curriculum in Canada is decided at provincial or territorial level. Examples of well-developed frameworks are found in Ontario and Alberta.

• Australia’s national literacy and numeracy plan is endorsed at government, state and territory level. Two well-developed frameworks are The English Companion to the English CSF 11 and the National Language and Literacy Institute of Australia NLLIA ESL Bandscales.

The strengths of the UK, Canada and Australian ESOL frameworks were analysed using seven criteria:

1. What models of language development informed by research and theory is articulated in the framework?

e.g. Pienemann and Johnson’s (1987) and Pienemann and Mackey’s (1994) models of developmental sequences are used in the Australian NLLIA ESL Bandscales.

2. What model(s) of language informed by research and theory is/are articulated in the framework?

e.g. the Alberta curriculum is based on Cummins’ (1982) model of cognitive demand and contextual embeddedness, and Mohan’s (1986) knowledge framework.

3. Is there a consideration of both language and literacy development?

e.g. the Ontario curriculum makes a distinction between ESL and ELD learners.

3

4. How is the framework for EAL learners referenced to mainstream content curricula?

e.g. The Alberta curriculum focuses on a language across the curriculum approach.

5. How is the framework for EAL learners referenced to the mainstream English curriculum?

e.g. The endpoint for the each level in the Victorian ESL Companion is its connection with the English Curriculum.

6. Is the role of L1 acknowledged as an important resource in the curriculum learning, and language and literacy development of EAL learners?

e.g. The Alberta curriculum emphasises ways in which second language learning builds on first language learning.

7. How accessible/manageable is the framework to teachers?

e.g. the NLLIA ESL Bandscales include exemplars, observation guides, and a reporting form.

This review leads to the following recommendations to support the place of ESOL in the New Zealand curriculum:

• Given that ESOL is not included in any of the current Essential Learning Areas or Essence Statements, the teaching and learning of EAL students needs to be given due consideration in the curriculum.

• Given that current curriculum statements will largely be subsumed within Essential Learning Areas and Essence Statements, and given that we do not as yet have a framework that adequately describes EAL learner needs and learning pathways, a valid and comprehensive framework needs to be developed.

• Given that we have models of and critera for effective frameworks, this need not be a process initiated ‘from scratch’.

• Given what we know about the inappropriateness of ESB assessment tools for EAL learners, it is necessary to develop more EAL referenced assessment material, and to select appropriate materials from existing resource banks which can be developed with EAL specific descriptors.

• Given that a number of international frameworks have addressed curriculum linkage and integration, we have good models as the basis for a revision of the current provisions.

4

Aim This review is to provide a stocktaking of the place of ESOL1 (English for Speakers of Other Languages) in the New Zealand Curriculum. It is limited to Years 1 to 10 of the New Zealand curriculum.

The focus for the review is how the New Zealand curriculum documents, including supporting materials enable EAL2 (English as an Additional Language) learners in New Zealand schools access to mainstream curricula.

The literature review will investigate:

• how curricula need to be written to cater for the learning needs of ESOL students in the compulsory school sector,

• English language learning guidelines in relation to content areas, • the position of English language learning in a range of contexts where English

is the medium of instruction. These contexts include New Zealand, Australia and Canada,

• guidelines, frameworks and support materials in these different contexts, and • guidelines and support for language learning in content areas.

Organisation The review begins with a discussion of recent changes in the New Zealand curriculum with particular attention paid to the consideration of what those changes may mean for ESOL programmes and the teaching of EAL learners. The review then surveys existing materials that have been written specifically for EAL learners and those designed for ESB3 learners but which nonetheless are considered useful for EAL learners. This section also includes commentary on content area supporting materials and other relevant documents. In light of the survey of existing materials, the following section considers what an ESOL specific framework may achieve. The particular nature of such a framework is supported by analysis of sample frameworks from Australia and Canada in the final section.

1 English to speakers of other languages (ESOL) is a term used frequently by the Ministry of Education to apply to programmes for EAL learners. 2 English as an additional language (EAL) is a term used to describe both learners and programmes, and one that acknowledges that for some students, English may be their third or more language.

Programmes in other countries have different labels as do the students. “The term English as a Second Language (ESL) – used in Canada, North America and Australia – carries the same meaning as English as an Additional Language (EAL), which is the term now used in official documentation in England and Wales. In Australia and North America, reference is also made to learners with Limited English Proficiency (LEP)” (Rea-Dickens, 2000, p.115). 3 English speaking background (ESB) is a term used to describe learners whose first language is English, and who come from homes where English is the language spoken.

5

1 INTRODUCTION: THE NEW ZEALAND CURRICULUM LANDSCAPE

One of the main purposes of this review is to evaluate how the New Zealand curriculum documents, including supporting materials enable EAL learners to access to mainstream curricula. In order to do this, we believe it is necessary firstly to map out curriculum initiatives, documents and supporting materials4 in a way that considers all the relevant language and literacy contexts, including ESOL, bilingualism and biliteracy, the languages curricula, the English curriculum, and other content curricula. While bilingual initiatives are not within the scope of this review, we feel it is essential to note bilingualism and biliteracy as a learning context5 when our focus is on EAL students who by definition are bilingual and/or biliterate.

The 1994 English curriculum document outlined a requirement for teachers to include some bilingualism into the programme of ESOL learners (Ministry of Education, 1994, p. 15):

The prior knowledge, first language, and culture of each student should be respected and incorporated in English programmes. Where students have some facility in a first language, they should initially be encouraged to explore tasks in that language, moving between their first language and English.

As Le Métais (2002, p. 34) pointed out in an international critique of the curriculum, this was a “formidable challenge” for teachers. The main interpretation of this requirement has been on facilitating the transition of ESOL learners to English. Other interpretations have been that an L16 can be viewed as a resource to be shared for the other students in the class, and can be used to affirm the ESOL students’ backgrounds (Ministry of Education, 1996c, p. 23).

An alternative approach is to support the students’ bilingualism per se, in order to maximise the cognitive and social benefits of bilingualism which have been emphasised in the international literature (Cummins 2000, p. 264). The discussion on bilingualism has been intensified with the introduction of bilingual programmes for Deaf children (Locker-McKee & Biederman, 2003) and Pasifika children (McCaffery, Tuafuti, Maihi, Elia, Ioapo, & Aukuso, 2003), and there have been calls for bilingual programmes for Asian children (Jin, 2004). In addition, recent New Zealand research has identified a need for approaches which incorporate ESOL students’ mother tongue knowledge in curriculum areas in the mainstream (Glynn, 2003; Neville-Barton & Barton, 2005; Smith, 2004). However, a review of the support for implementation of bilingual programmes is not within the scope of this review. In including bilingualism and biliteracy in Figure 1, we only wish to acknowledge this identified need.

4 The documents and supporting materials are those specified for inclusion in the terms of reference for this review. 5 The consideration of bilingualism and biliteracy in E. of Figure 1 does not refer to context in which a language other than English is taught as a subject, rather it refers to the use of that language to varying degrees, as a medium of instruction. 6 L1 means first language.

6

Figure 1 is a representation of the ‘curriculum landscape’ as it currently exists in New Zealand. It reflects recent changes, and changes in progress; it includes materials published, and materials in draft form, or in a consultation phase. It is organised around contexts: A to E. It includes both curriculum documents and supporting materials. The supporting materials section is restricted to what could be considered as key teacher reference materials and key assessment tools, most of which were specified for inclusion by the parameters of the review. A comprehensive inventory of other materials that could potentially be considered as support for teachers of EAL students is given in Appendices 1 and 2.

Curriculum documents Supporting materials Language

and literacy contexts

1. meta: essential learning areas and essence statements

2. specific: statements and achievement objectives

3. key teacher reference materials

3. key assessment tools

A. Content curriculum other than languages and English

Health and physical well-being Mathematics Science Social Studies Technology The Arts

curriculum statements, and achievement objectives

not listed here

AsTTle: mathematics; ARBs: science and numeracy; Exemplars: science and numeracy

B. Languages Learning Languages

curriculum statements, and achievement objectives

Learning Languages: A Guide for New Zealand Schools

C.a. English

C.b.English Literacy

English English in the New Zealand Curriculum, and achievement objectives

Effective Literacy Practice in Years 1 to 4 Effective Literacy Practice in Years 5 to 8 Effective Literacy Strategies in Years 9 to 13

AsTTle: reading and writing; ARBS: reading and writing; Exemplars: reading and writing

English Language Intensive Programme (ELIP) English Language Learning Framework Draft (ELLF)

D. ESOL

ESOL in the Mainstream

Exemplars; ESOL Funding Assessment Guidelines ESOL Progress Assessment Guidelines

E. Bilingualism and biliteracy in languages other than te reo Maori

Ta'iala mo le Gagana Samoa i Niu Sila/Samoan in the New Zealand Curriculum, and achievement objectives

Developing Programmes for Teaching Pacific Islands Languages

Figure 1: Existing New Zealand curriculum initiatives, documents and supporting materials relevant to EAL learning and teaching Note: Shaded areas indicate little or no recognition of this context at the particular level of documentation or provision.

7

1.1 Changes in curriculum documents

In response to the 2002 Curriculum Stocktake Report, there have been significant changes at the level of curriculum documents. These changes have affected subject specific curriculum statements, and have effected a meta (or more general overarching) level of curriculum comprised of eight essential learning areas (Health and physical well-being, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, Technology, The Arts, Learning Languages and English).

As explained by the Ministry of Education, it is proposed that one document will replace the current seven curriculum statements. The new curriculum will include:

• purposes • philosophy • context • principles • key competencies (skills and attitudes) • essence statements in each of the essential learning areas (including learning

languages) • revised achievement objectives for all learning areas (including learning

languages) • section on assessment and pedagogy • section on relationship between te whāriki and the school curriculum.

(Ministry of Education, no date, New Zealand Curriculum Marautanga Project, Frequently asked questions section, ¶ 1)

The most significant area of proposed change for the purpose of this review is that the specific curriculum statements will cease to have any status other than that of support materials. As stated in the Curriculum Stocktake Report:

Once The New Zealand Curriculum Framework and Te Anga Marautanga o Aotearoa are gazetted, the legal status of the current curriculum statements … should change to that of support materials.…. Each modified [curriculum] statement should include more specific information on effective pedagogy and assessment strategies…. (Ministry of Education, 2002, Executive summary section)

This fact is an important consideration in evaluating representation of ESOL programmes, and provision for EAL learners.

1.1.1 The representation of ESOL at the meta level of curriculum (essential learning areas and essence statements)

Figure 1 acknowledges the Essential Learning Areas and Essence Statements, as they are in the process of refinement. It also acknowledges the subject specific statements, as they continue to have currency until the new framework is gazetted, and revision of achievement objectives is carried out.

8

The NZ Curriculum Framework of 1993 established a new Essential Learning area, as Language and Languages. As can be seen from Figure 1, English and Learning Languages are now separated, to become two of the eight essential learning areas (Ministry of Education, 1993). Language and Languages formerly included: English, ESOL, International languages, Community languages, language maintenance by language minorities, Bilingual/Immersion education and Te Reo Maori, both as a medium of instruction and as a subject (through the Tihei Mauri Ora Primary Syllabus). The conception of Language and Languages in this way explicitly provided the opportunity for languages other than English to be both taught as subjects and /or to be used as mediums of instruction.

Two international critiques were commissioned as part of the New Zealand curriculum stocktake. The first was by a consultant to the Australian Council of Educational Research, who pointed out that the New Zealand learning areas were the same as those in Australia other than lacking a separate area for foreign languages. However, she noted there had been moves to reconsider the compulsory learning of foreign languages in Australia, partly because of the difficulty of choosing a foreign language in areas with large numbers of ESOL students (Ferguson, 2002). The second critique was from the National Foundation for Educational Research in the UK, and also pointed out the low priority given to foreign language learning. In addition, it was noted that the emphasis on biculturalism and the Treaty of Waitangi may be at the expense of other cultures within New Zealand schools and society, and that this may be an issue in terms of structures and resources for those groups (Le Métais 2002, p. 38). Presumably this would apply to structures and resources in the ESOL area.

The Curriculum Stocktake Report did recommend that Language and Languages be separated, into Learning Languages and English, and specified that the latter include “heritage, community and foreign languages and the learning of English and te reo Maori as second languages” (Ministry of Education, 2002, Recommendations section, ¶ 13). However the learning of EAL is not supported in the Essence Statement. The Learning Languages Curriculum Essence Statement Draft outlines the contexts for language learning in the following way:

Learners choose from a range of languages, each of which is distinctive and has its own intrinsic value. Unique to Aotearoa-New Zealand, te reo Maori is the source of our nation’s self-knowledge and identity. New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL), a complete visual language, is the language of Deaf New Zealanders. Pacific languages are used throughout Aotearoa-New Zealand as well as in their countries of origin. Classical languages provide access to origins of western thought and civilisation. Other world languages such as those of Asia, Europe and the Americas link us globally. For some languages, Aotearoa-New Zealand has a critical role to play in their survival. (Ministry of Education, 2005a)

Figure 1 (using shading to indicate that little or no provision exists) shows that at a meta level of curriculum, (Essential Learning Areas and Essence Statements) there is no specific representation of ESOL. While not within the scope of this review, this is also the case for bilingualism and biliteracy, the context in which languages other

9

than English or te reo Maori are used as mediums of instruction7. The context of bilingualism and biliteracy, in which the first languages of EAL students (e.g. Samoan, Chinese, Korean) has few curriculum documents and supporting materials. Samoan is fortunate in that a curriculum statement does exist which could be used in both second language and bilingual programmes. This could also be said of the document Developing Programmes for Teaching Pacific Islands Languages (Ministry of Education, 2000).

1.1.2 The representation of ESOL at the specific level of curriculum (statements and achievement objectives)

For ESOL there are two framework-type documents that exist: the English Language Intensive Programme. Years 7-13 Resource (ELIP) (2003a) and the English Language Learning Framework: Draft (ELLF) (2005b), the latter of which has the current status of being a consultation document only, and therefore is subject to trial and review.

However if we take the term framework to refer to “statements of programme outcome which describe expectations of learner performance standards at different levels of achievement” (Brindley, 1998, p. 46), and we expect those statements to be comprehensive and representative, ELIP and ELLF may more accurately represent support materials. While they are discussed in section 2.1. as ‘framework-type’ documents, in Figure 1, they are located in both the curriculum documents and supporting materials sections.

1.1.3 The provision for ESOL at the level of support materials At the level of support materials, there are a significant number. They are not all listed in Figure 1 but in Appendices 1 and 2. A fuller discussion of the selected key documents follows in section 2.2.

7 It should be noted that the term ‘bilingualism’ in New Zealand education has tended to focus on the context of Māori-English bilingual education (see for example Hill & Edwards, 1991; May, Hill & Tiakiwai, 2004).

10

2 NEW ZEALAND CURRICULUM DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS

2.1 Framework-type documents

2.1.1 English Language Learning Framework Draft (ELLF) The purpose of ELLF (Ministry of Education, 2005b) is to help both mainstream and ESOL specialist teachers. It sets out to inform teachers about language needs of EAL students, and how to plan appropriately. It also aims to help teachers to “monitor and report on the progress of English language learners” (p. 5).

ELLF is organised around three skill areas: oral language, reading and writing. Oral language encompasses input and response, and output. A separate section deals with vocabulary.

In oral language there are five stages: foundation, and stages 1 to 4. Reading has twelve stages A to L, and writing has the following six stages: Foundation A, B, 1, 2A, 2B. and 3.

Reading is not primarily organised on the basis of a progression of descriptors or outcomes – rather the major organisational dimension is a range of exemplars or sample texts (examples of genres as described by Derewianka, 1990; and Wray & Lewis, 1998). ELLF also takes account of the fact that many of the texts that students read could be considered to be ‘hybrid genres’ (as described by Nagabhand, Nation & Franken, 1993).

The writing exemplars however are not organised according to genre.

Analysis of both reading texts and writing sample texts is organised around: topic development, sentence structure/development, vocabulary. Additional analysis of text layout is given in reading; and script control and editing for writing. In a sense, these are descriptors. Oral language descriptors include, but are not restricted to, a specification of what the learner comprehends, how the learner responds and the how the verbal input or output is delivered by the speaker.

Frequent reference is made to ELIP, however as each of the three skill areas is aligned differently with ELIP, cross referencing may be difficult in practice. ELLF is represented as covering less ground in writing than ELP, but more in oral language and reading. The basis on which this assessment is made is not stated, however it would seem difficult to align the different skills in both documents unless the same or similar aspects of the descriptors, task or exemplars had been compared. Interestingly, ELLF has used some of the same texts in the reading section as ELIP.

ELLF is deemed to be appropriate for any level of schooling (somewhat unusual in frameworks) and does not make reference to content curriculum documents. However, ELLF does align its levels with those of the New Zealand Curriculum Framework (writing only), and the New Zealand Curriculum exemplars.

The framework makes no reference to a model of language ability, or language development in its conception of outcomes. However, there is a strong vocabulary analysis, based on Nation’s (1996) levels within the sample texts used for reading and the descriptors for oral language. It places a heavy emphasis on grammatical

11

performance. In addition to this, much attention is paid to the role of metacognition or ‘learning to learn’ (pages 19 to 21 in the document). However no reference is made to the model of learning strategies used to guide the description, nor the pages that follow on metacognitive prompts that can be taught to students (see section 2.3.3 for a discussion of metacognition in relation to Effective Literacy Strategies in Years 9 to 13).

The section on “the process of language learning” is not fully developed or referenced to research.

Learners are frequently referred to as English language learners in the document. Some acknowledgement is made of learners’ first language in that the document suggests, “Bilingual learners should be encouraged to continue reading in their first languages and to use their critical thinking skills and other reading skills” (p.46).

Some aspect of the support for teachers are useful. For example, writing has a “Where to next?” section, and a sample “Record of Progress” sheet is provided.

In summary, an analysis of ELLF may suggest that it is a set of three somewhat discrete sets of descriptors and/or exemplars rather than a coherent framework.

2.1.2 English Language Intensive Programme Years 7 -13 Resource (ELIP)

The English Language Intensive Programme Years 7-13 Resource (ELIP) (Ministry of Education, 2003a) is a set of text-based resources designed for older learners at three levels: Foundation and Stage 1; Stage 2; and Stage 3.

The stages “are based on a language acquisition progression from a beginner level to an advanced level of English oral and literacy study in an ESOL programme” (p. 2).

The language outcomes are similar at each level but each successive stage has “an increased academic demand” (p. 2). It appears that “academic demand” refers to complexity of texts.

The outcomes are largely framed around types of genres, and on some occasions, text forms. While a fairly wide range of genres are exemplified in the resource (similar to those analysed and described by Derewianka, 1990; and Wray & Lewis, 1998), for consistency, it would have been better not to conflate genres and text forms. For instance, poems are listed alongside genres, but a poem is a text form that could potentially be a narrative or a explanation for example. The resource however does take account of ‘hybrid genres’ that students may be exposed to at secondary level.

The stages are defined largely in terms of vocabulary quantity. Unfortunately this is not a helpful analysis of vocabulary demand for EAL learners, and neither is it consistent with the description and analysis of levels of vocabulary in ELLF, or Effective Literacy Strategies in Years 9 to 13 (discussed in section 2.3.3).

ELIP uses a inventory of activity and task types which it labels “a sample of classroom games” (p. 6). The sample could be described as “a range of workplans which have the overall purpose of facilitating language learning - from the simple and brief exercise type to more complex and lengthy activities’’ (Breen, cited in Johnson, 2003, p. 5). This is a useful inventory, particularly as some of the activities

12

or tasks can be easily used to promote understanding and use of curriculum language, but it is one that needs to be extended and based on contemporary research on task based learning (see for instance, Ellis, 2000, 2003; Skehan, 2003).

ELIP has three strands: Oral interaction; Reading, Understanding and Responding; and Writing. However all of the three strands use texts (written and visual) as a starting point. This is significant and productive in the case of oral language and writing, where the text provides useful input. It also suggests that the resource could be further exploited by links between strands. If effective linking between stands were done, teachers may develop an appreciation of the need to select, sequence, and organise language tasks in a way that allows for building and recycling of language items to occur (Franken, 2005; Nation, 2000).

ELIP makes reference to Effective Literacy Strategies in Years 9 to 13, as “a rich source of research and guidance in effective teaching and learning including ‘learning to learn strategies’” (p. 3). However as discussed above, these two documents are not necessarily aligned in important aspects. It cannot be claimed that Effective Literacy Strategies in Years 9 to 13 “complements” ELIP.

ELIP makes comments about the way in which grammar or language features can be dealt with by teachers. However, teachers need knowledge of specific ways of presenting and helping students to notice and use these language items. To reflect current research about the ways on which teachers can best deal with grammar, reference should be made to the literature on focus on form (see for instance Doughty &Williams, 1998).

In summary, an analysis of ELIP would suggest that it does not represent “a language acquisition progression” (p. 2), but rather a teaching progression, or a syllabus organised primarily on the basis of genre.

2.2 Key supporting ESOL materials

2.2.1 ESOL Funding Assessment Guidelines The ESOL Funding Assessment Guidelines (Ministry of Education, 2004b) have a particular purpose which is to ascertain whether or not EAL students are close to the national cohort in their English language proficiency. They are “intended to improve the quality of school-based assessments by providing suggestions for good models for teachers to refer to as they diagnose students’ needs and determine their eligibility for Ministry of Education ESOL resourcing” (p. 2). More accurately, they provide suggestions for good practice fit to the purpose of assessing English language proficiency in relation to cohort. As such, they do not take learners’ bilingualism or biliteracy competencies into account, and nor do they aim to provide guidance on possible or likely developmental paths for L28 learners of English.

The ESOL Funding Assessment Guidelines includes a wide range of assessment areas and tasks, with exemplars. A particular strength of these assessment tools and procedures is in the recommendations that many of the assessment tasks should be

8 L2 means second language.

13

based in mainstream classrooms, with curriculum texts and contexts, as “the assessment is integrated into the class curriculum plan” (p. 86). An example (p. 90) suggests how EAL learners can be assessed using a common assessment tasks completed by all students at a year level, or in the context of an English curriculum programme. It is also suggested that the assessment of different skill areas can be done in an integrated way, e.g. listening, reading and writing can be assessed at the same time.

Another strength is that the assessment of different skill areas is supported by means of clearly stated criteria for performance (or descriptors) which appear valid (but yet untested) for EAL students, and is also supported by exemplars. The procedures described include some that are commonly used in ESOL programmes e.g. dictation.

2.2.2 ESOL Progress Assessment Guidelines The ESOL Progress Assessment Guidelines (Ministry of Education, 2005c) describes different assessment tools and processes that can be used for English language learners. The focus of the assessment tools and processes is aspects of language knowledge or proficiency, and literacy skills.

Four tools are selected for in-depth analysis. These are: asTTle (reading), STAR, ARBs (reading), and PROBE. The recommendations associated with each of these tools is in relation to their use in ESOL programmes. The scope of these tools does not extend to cover literacy in content areas.

The document usefully cautions against the use of some of these tools for assessing literacy development of EAL students in that:

• they are standardised to speakers of a first language (asTTle and STAR) • the test items at lower levels of difficulty may not be appropriate or relevant to

older EAL students (asTTle and ARBs)

Other important cautions raised in the recommendations sections are that the vocabulary tested does not represent curriculum learning needs (STAR), and that comprehension of text may be constrained or afforded by prior knowledge and/or teaching.

While this document focuses on language and literacy, it should be mentioned that ARBs do include curriculum items for Mathematics and Science. These are also however designed for first language speakers of English and do not address the language and literacy aspects of Mathematics and Science learning (see the discussion in section 2.5).

Other tools in specific areas of language and literacy are more briefly described. The only one which is specifically designed for EAL learners is the vocabulary levels test, as developed by Nation (1990) based on the levels of vocabulary described in Nation (1996). Nation’s (1990; 1996) analysis and test provide the underpinning for the way in which vocabulary is viewed in ELIP and Effective Literacy Strategies in Years 9 to 13. The test addresses the demands of content area vocabulary learning in that it analyses vocabulary knowledge of two kinds, general and general academic, and also

14

analyses levels within these two. It is referred to in a vast number of other sources, and is used extensively by schools, particularly at a secondary level.

2.2.3 The LEAP (Language Enhancing the Academic Achievement of Pasifika) project

LEAP is a major curriculum guidelines development project, funded by the Ministry of Education, began in 2004 and will be completed in June 2006. The aim of the LEAP project is to develop web-based guidelines for teachers that support the learning of bilingual Pasifika students in mainstream (English-medium) classrooms in New Zealand schools.

2.3 ESB referenced supporting materials and assessment tools

This section covers materials that, while written for ESB students, are recommended by the Ministry of Education as relevant to supporting EAL students in their curriculum learning.

2.3.1 Effective Literacy Practice in Years 1 to 4 Effective Literacy Practice in Years 1 to 4 (Ministry of Education, 2003b). This document refers to EAL learners as NESB learners. The document mentions using the first language as a foundation to building knowledge in English. However, it does not give specific examples of how teachers may draw on a learner’s first language as a resource for literacy activities. It does mention the importance of having first language resources for children to read.

The document draws on the work of Phillips, McNaughton and MacDonald in the Picking up the Pace project (2001) in explaining how teachers’ expectations can affect learners’ achievement.

It mentions the important fact that EAL learners may not be able to use semantic and syntactic information to decode text and at the same time to make meaning, implying that proficiency in L2 constrains the use of such strategies.

A number of interventions are singled out as being particularly effective for EAL learners: shared reading, language experience activities and shared writing.

To be more effective in supporting EAL learners with literacy activities, teachers may need more specific advice on how to effectively set up conditions in which learners can improve their English language proficiency (for example, see Franken, 2005).

While scaffolding is mentioned briefly in the document, particular ways of scaffolding language in literacy activities are not covered in sufficient detail to be a comprehensive resource for teachers of EAL students, as is the case for example with Scaffolding Language - Scaffolding Learning by Gibbons (2002).

15

2.3.2 Effective Literacy Practice in Years 5 to 8 Effective Literacy Practice in Years 5 to 8 (Ministry of Education, in press) deals specifically with EAL learners in chapter 5 (drafted by one of the present authors). It is more detailed in its explanations of issues associated with the language and literacy development of EAL learners. It covers the role of L1 in supporting literacy development in English, it discusses the process of transfer of literacy skills from L1 to English, and it talks about the particular variables that operate that make reading in an L2 challenging for learners.

Unlike the other documents in the Effective Literacy series, it specifies the conditions that make for effective language acquisition and literacy development, including input, noticing, building and recycling of language items, feedback on language, and a meaningful context in which literacy tasks are experienced. The section cautions against focusing on discrete aspects of language and isolated skills in reading.

Specific types of interventions (including alternative versions of texts, and information transfer tasks) are discussed in the context of scaffolding. The document also refers readers to the Ministry of Education’s Selections series, intended for teachers of new learners of English in Years 7 to 13 as they include further examples of useful activities for EAL learners.

2.3.3 Effective Literacy Strategies in Years 9 to 13 Effective Literacy Strategies in Years 9 to 13 has as the title suggests, a focus on strategies. The term ‘strategies’ in this document has a meaning that is not specific. It states, “Note that the term strategies is used, in this book and in this programme, for many kinds of literacy-learning activities that teachers or learners can select and use deliberately for particular purposes” (p. 8). Strategies are conceived of as “what secondary school teachers and students can do when engaging with text in order to understand and create meaning in any subject area” (p. 7).

The conflation of teacher selected activities, and learner strategies (both cognitive and metacognitive), means that teachers may not give sufficient attention to the importance of students developing metacognition (Anderson, 2000). This is explained by Hardin (2001, p. 420):

a crucial cognitive component of effective reading is metacomprehension, or awareness of one’s own comprehension or lack of it.… Effective reading also involves metacognition, which is a wider scope of knowledge about one’s own learning processes, including monitoring, self-evaluation, repairing, and self-regulation.

The document however is useful for working with EAL students particularly for its strong vocabulary focus. It acknowledges the fact that EAL learners have less knowledge of vocabulary items than first language speakers of English. It draws on the work of a number of researchers (Corson, 1997; Coxhead, 1998; Nation, 1990; Nicholson, 1988) in describing different levels of vocabulary knowledge namely high frequency vocabulary, academic vocabulary (both more general or technical). In this sense, it has a fuller analysis than ELLF, and a more helpful analysis than ELIP.

16

This is the only part of the document that deals with a specific analysis of aspects of language necessary for effective and focused teaching and learning for EAL students. This document therefore does not support teachers of EAL learners who need to know how other aspects of language work, for example morphology, and syntax or grammar.

The document, to be more useful for supporting EAL learners, would also need to include more detailed coverage of other conditions we know are essential for successful second language learning. These include, but are not restricted to, the need for extensive input, the particular role that output has to play in the developing language system of EAL learners, the necessity for and ways of focussing on language form and giving feedback to learners, and the necessity for and ways of structuring interaction tasks (Ellis, 2004, 2005; Franken, 2005).

Also of importance are the ways in which teachers can observe the principles of good language planning - building, recycling (Nation, 2000), and scaffolding language for learners (Franken, 2005; Gibbons, 2002).

The following summary of findings in the area of reading and strategy use (Carrell, 1998; Fitzgerald, 1995; Hardin, 2001; Upton, 1997) should also be taken into consideration:

• L2 proficiency is the most powerful predictor of L2 reading ability, • the level of oral language proficiency may constrain the use of comprehension

strategies, • strategy use can sometimes compensate for a lack of familiarity with linguistic

structures in L2, • less proficient L2 readers tend to focus more on bottom-up strategies while

more proficient readers tend to use a greater mix of bottom-up and top-down strategies, and

• translation is a commonly used strategy, particularly amongst students of lower proficiency.

2.4 ESB assessment resources

Other than Nation’s vocabulary levels test, there are no other standardized ESOL assessment tools readily available and used widely. As is evident from the discussion of ESOL Progress Assessment Guidelines, ESB referenced tools and procedures are used frequently. The ESOL Funding Assessment Guidelines suggests a number of tools (for example SEA, PAT tests) that a teacher can use to find out about a learner’s proficiency in relation to cohort. A list of ESB assessment resources and tools commonly used with EAL learners is given in Appendix 3. These include significant and effective initiatives in the area of literacy assessment such as AsTTle. However most of these are not designed and nor are they modified for EAL students. AsTTle for instance provides a useful framework for literacy in English, but it is not accompanied by descriptors that could account for and appropriately represent EAL student’s performance.

17

If EAL learners participate in ESB assessments, they are unlikely to meet the criteria, (which are often numerous and wide ranging) specified for the ESB performance standard for a number of reasons. McKay (2000, p. 188) lists some of these:

• typical second language errors which cannot be ‘taught out’ until the learners have progressed to certain levels (Pienemann & Mackey, 1994); these errors may not prevent ESL students from completing tasks, but attract lower marks because of inaccuracies at the sentence level, weakness in cohesion and inelegance of expression;

• lower levels of vocabulary knowledge; • imprecision in expression and understanding of cultural references.

McKay adds that “the influence of these language and cultural features of ESL students’ work is likely to be underestimated in the marking of ESL students’ work against ESB-based criteria” (2000, p. 188).

It is beyond the scope of this review to suggest how ESB tools and procedures may possibly be modified or extended to be valid for EAL learners. However it is clearly an area needing attention.

2.5 Selected content area supporting materials

To appreciate the linguistic challenges and barriers EAL students face in accessing curriculum content, McKeon compares the way in which ESB and EAL students can approach classroom and assessment tasks. She says,

In mainstream settings, native speakers, for whom English is nearly automatic, can focus primarily on the cognitive tasks of an academic assignment – learning new information procedures, etc. – however, the students with limited ability in English must focus on both cognitive and linguistic tasks – learning new vocabulary, structures and academic discourse. (McKeon, 1994, p. 47)

Examples in New Zealand of materials designed to focus on language learning in specific curriculum areas are Hill and Edwards’ (1991) Language and Learning in Secondary Schools: Mathematics, and Edwards, Hill and Hume’s (1992) Language and Learning in Secondary Schools: Science. Based on research into reading and learning in the junior secondary school, the Language and Learning in Secondary Schools books outline strategies for teachers in order to emphasise:

• the development of a more interactive approach to teaching • the use of various language modes • the promotion of active learning • the demonstration and modelling of behaviours that promote independent

learning

(Hill & Edwards, 1991, pp. 1-2; Edwards, Hill & Hume, 1992, pp. 1-2).

18

These materials are not focused on the language needs of ESOL learners, although in the mathematics material brief mention is made of potential difficulties for students from different language and cultural backgrounds (Hill & Edwards, 1991, p. 30-31), and the science material includes an appendix of suggestions for materials writing which have been developed by ESOL teachers (Edwards, Hill & Hume, 1992, pp. 74-77). The materials cover practical examples which might be useful for language development in any curriculum area. For example, in developing the vocabulary of mathematics it is suggested to group words together, match definitions, use spelling tests, make crosswords and word squares, and play word games (Hill and Edwards, 1991, p. 17). These examples are a more in-depth coverage of similar strategies outlined by Anstrom’s (1999) and Anstrom and Lynch’s (1998) reports on the education of secondary English language learners within mainstream classes for science and mathematics in Washington DC.

Although some strategies for language support are relevant in any curriculum area, there are also subject-specific language needs. Penton (1996) analysed the language content of the New Zealand mathematics and science curriculum statements. She found that there tended to be an emphasis on the productive rather than receptive modes, although she points out that listening is a crucial skill in the classroom and reading is essentially connected with writing. Likewise, United States researchers, Fradd, et al. (2001, p. 430) stress the centrality of literacy in science learning, which they point out is not recognised in most science instruction and therefore often results in the exclusion of English language learners. The ‘innovations’ they suggest for materials are the inclusion of language functions, vocabulary development, multiple representational formats, and expository and narrative texts. The ‘myth’ that mathematics is a subject free of language was identified in recent New Zealand research by Neville-Barton and Barton which investigated the relationship between English language and mathematics learning for non-native speakers at high school and undergraduate level (Neville-Barton & Barton, 2005). They found that although the EAL students themselves do not realise the extent of their difficulties, they suffer levels of disadvantage due to language difficulties of between 10 and 20 percent (Neville-Barton & Barton, 2005, p. 14). They advocate the allocation of resources for EAL students in mathematics; to better understand the students’ language and mathematics proficiency, to develop courses in English mathematical discourse, and to develop in-service programmes for teachers (Neville-Barton & Barton, 2005, p. 15).

Fradd et al. (2001) emphasise that it is necessary for teachers to be familiar with the linguistic structures of discourse patterns common in the particular content areas. However, a consistent finding by researchers internationally in the area of language use in curriculum areas is the lack of ability of many teachers to meet the language needs of their students. There is a resulting call for in-service and pre-service teacher education to address this problem (Penton, 1996, pp. 9-10; Anstrom & Lynch, 1998, p. 8; Anstrom, 1999, p.11; Cummins, 2000, p. 251; Fradd, Lee, Sutman, & Saxton, 2001, p. 434; Neville-Barton & Barton, 2005, p. 15).

There are a number of international examples of materials which have been developed to support the needs of teachers in content areas. For example, British policy materials for EAL state the importance of learning language specific to different subjects, the grammatical structure of sentences and texts, and ‘impersonal’, technical language of subjects such as science and geography (School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 1996, p. 10). An accompanying checklist from the School Curriculum and

19

Assessment Authority to help teachers consider the linguistic demands of classroom work is given in Appendix 4. More specifically, the Samoan Curriculum Materials Project which managed the writing of text books to support the revised curriculum in Samoa (completed in 2004) adopted an approach of analysing and listing language features in curriculum materials for both teachers and students to refer to (see Franken, 2002a; 2002b; 2002c).

In the New Zealand context, Neville-Barton and Barton (2005) note that there is a ‘considerable literature’ on the linguistic features of mathematical discourse, and there are also materials for the discourse of science texts (see Vine, 1997). The Language and Learning in Secondary Schools materials do not appear to have drawn on this material.

2.6 Other relevant documents

The best evidence synthesis (BES) programme comprises a series of reports in a number of key areas (such as diverse learners, family and community influences on children’s learning, professional development in early childhood) that the Ministry of Education has identified as being significant in improving education outcomes.

The reports are all evidence–based in that they draw on extensive research findings supporting the effectiveness of particular practices. The purpose of the BES programme “is to systematically identify, evaluate, analyze, synthesise, and make accessible, relevant evidence linked to a range of learner outcomes” (Alton-Lee, 2004, p. 2).

The particular BES that relates to EAL students to some extent is that by Alton-Lee, Quality Teaching for Diverse Students in Schooling (2003). However the principles that arise from Alton-Lee’s synthesis require interpretation if they are to be specifically relevant for EAL students. This has been done by Franken and McComish (2003b), and further developed by Franken (2005). The following is an example from Franken and McComish (2003b) to show how this may be done.

(from Alton-Lee, 2003) (Franken & McComish’s interpretation for EAL learners)

Quality teaching is focussed on student achievement (including social outcomes) and facilitates high standards of student outcomes for heterogeneous groups of students.

Goals for L2 learners are age appropriate and are not limited to performance in easier contexts, or on easier objectives

Teaching is responsive to student learning processes.

Goals in second language learning do not focus on correctness at particular points, which cannot be guaranteed to be in line with a learner’s readiness.

Interpretation is possible. However, a more direct approach would be to instigate a BES for the teaching of EAL learners specifically.

20

3 SUMMARY OF SECTIONS 1 AND 2: THE CONTEXT OF ESOL IN THE NEW ZEALAND CURRICULUM

The place of EAL learners in the New Zealand curriculum is not clearly recognised:

• An understanding of the bilingual and biliterate learning context for EAL students remains under-developed.

• The 1993 New Zealand Curriculum documents provided no specific representation of ESOL at the meta-curriculum level. Although there have been significant changes to the New Zealand Curriculum in response to the 2002 curriculum stocktake, including a new Essential Learning Area ‘Language and Languages’, ESOL is not currently supported in the draft Essence Statement.

The two existing framework-type documents ELLF (English Language Learning Framework: Draft) and ELIP (English Language Intensive Programme: Years 7-13 Resource) do not describe levels of achievement, and therefore would better be categorised as support materials:

• ELLF consists of three discrete sets of descriptors (Oral language, Reading understanding and responding, and Writing) rather than an integrated framework.

• ELIP is a teaching progression, or syllabus organised primarily on the basis of genre.

Key supporting materials are numerous, and contain useful advice for teachers of EAL students:

• These include ESOL funding assessment and progress assessment guidelines, and the LEAP project (in progress).

• A number of materials which have been developed for ESB students are also relevant for EAL students to some degree.

• There is a lack of tools specifically designed for assessing literacy and curriculum proficiency and achievement of EAL learners.

• Some content area materials are designed to focus on language learning, but those analysed do not address the specific language needs of EAL learners.

These sections suggest a need for unification or synthesis at all levels of the New Zealand curriculum (meta-curriculum, curriculum, and supporting materials), by means of an overarching body of contemporary and specific research in the area of EAL learning in school settings.

21

4 CONSIDERATIONS OF AN ESOL FRAMEWORK

4.1 Wider curriculum reform: from content to outcomes

Education reforms in Britain, the US, Canada, and Australia, as Moore (1996, p. 190) states, “are attempting to restructure education by specifying standards in key curriculum areas at various stages of schooling”.

New Zealand too has undergone significant curriculum review and change in line with Moore’s description above. Since the early 1990s, New Zealand has seen a shift in curriculum policy “from a focus on content to a policy based on outcomes” (Ministry of Education, 2002, Executive Summary section, ¶ 1). The relatively recent Curriculum Stocktake Report (Ministry of Education, 2002) had as one of its three goals, to evaluate how well the curriculum contributed “to improved student outcomes, meeting the expectations of a range of stakeholders and against comparable international curricula” (Executive Summary section, ¶ 2).

This movement is not without its critics both within New Zealand and in other countries. In New Zealand, Elley cautioned against an uncritical adoption of this model of curriculum reform after its introduction as The New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Ministry of Education, 1993). He commented in 1996, “A new curriculum model is being introduced, which is ostensibly outcome-driven (objectives based), rather than interest based-without trial or adequate rationale, and following a British model which is widely recognized as unworkable” (Elley, 1996, p. 17). Scarino (2005) provides a range of international sources on this on-going issue. Others have written specifically about the adoption of this model for EAL learners in contexts other than New Zealand (Brindley, 1998; McKay, 2000; Moore, 1996; Scott & Erduran, 2004).

4.2 An EAL specific framework of language and literacy standards9

McKay (2000) argues the case for EAL specific language and literacy standards for minority language learners, and that the nature of those standards are important. There are a number of reasons why careful consideration should be given to a specific curriculum statement or framework for EAL students in the New Zealand context that arise from sections 1 and 2 above. Firstly as the discussion above shows, ESOL is not represented adequately in any of the Essential Learning Areas and their accompanying Essence Statements, and secondly, there is currently no overarching statement or framework to unify the initiatives in the area of ESOL provision.

9 To reiterate, the term ‘framework’ is used to refer to “statements of programme outcome which describe expectations of learner performance standards at different levels of achievement (Brindley, 1998, p. 46). These descriptions may in the literature be referred to in a variety of ways including ‘standards’, ‘benchmarks’, ‘bandscales’, ‘attainment targets’, or ‘competencies’ (Brindley, 1998, p. 46).

22

Given the context of the “increased focus on the collection and reporting of outcomes data at a national level” (McKay, 2000, p. 186), it is unlikely, and not necessarily desirable, that EAL students should escape inclusion in a system of standards or outcomes based assessments. They can be beneficial in terms of targeted finding. As McKay states,

[c]lear standards help the government to set the achievement targets and to know who is achieving, or not achieving according to these standards…. They also give the government the chance to push forward the required gains in education by allocating funds according to achievement or outcomes. (McKay, 2000, p. 186)

However, the nature of those standards, and the way in which they are represented should receive considerable attention from educators and researchers involved in working with EAL learners. This has been the case in Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Fancy, in a recent statement (2004), claimed that the changes of the 1990s began to introduce broader views of quality with the emphasis on skills, knowledge, and attitudes, and perhaps more significantly that these reforms could be placed alongside the importance of strength and confidence in identity, culture, and approaches to personal well-being. The latter are important considerations, particularly but not exclusively for EAL students. Curriculum reform as it applies to EAL students should be evaluated against this claim.

Some researchers and professionals have advocated for ESOL specific framework for the New Zealand school sector (see for instance Franken & McComish, 2003a, TESOLANZ Secondary Sector, 2005), but the nature of a possible framework, or set of standards has not has not yet been the subject of extensive and rigorous academic debate. This review therefore includes, but is not restricted to, an examination of frameworks of standards or descriptors, and how they can best work for EAL students in the New Zealand context. The reviewers take the view that this must be done first and foremost by considering both the role and nature of a framework for EAL learners and its position with respect to the mainstream (ESB referenced) curriculum.

4.2.1 What would a framework achieve in the New Zealand context? A framework for EAL students would complement the curriculum statements and standards already in place for mainstream subjects, in the New Zealand curriculum, as well as articulate the particular issues for EAL students in a system that is increasingly focused on national benchmarks, particularly in literacy and numeracy. Brindley (1998) recognises the particular issue of dual and potentially conflicting purposes for assessment (see also Read & Hirsh, 2005).

Teachers… are now finding themselves under pressure from two directions. On the one hand, they need to carry out detailed assessments at the individual level for purposes of diagnosis and feedback to learners…. However, at the same time, they are increasingly being called upon to report learners’ progress against national standards in order to meet accountability requirements. (Brindley, 1998, pp. 46-47).

23

A framework can provide teachers with a means of addressing both of the demands mentioned above, if it is referenced to national standards in a way that acknowledges different ways in which outcomes for EAL learners may be achieved.

An ESOL framework would enhance the visibility and coherence of ESOL in the school programme. EAL teaching and learning must be brought to the foreground in schools, rather than being thought of as either the sole responsibility of the English teacher (in secondary schools) and/or the sole responsibility of the ESOL teacher. Associated with the marginalised status is the common use of withdrawal or pullout programmes.

The downfall of pull-out programs is the tendency to assume that the short period of pull-out instruction is the learning for the day, while the time spent in mainstream classes is merely a waiting period until proficiency is acquired through the language program…. Such an assumption is especially detrimental at the secondary level where students have a ‘window of a few years‘ to acquire the language ability necessary for successful academic course work. (Anstrom, 1997, p. 5).

An EAL framework can provide the structure and guidance much needed by teachers. As Franken and McComish (2003a, p. 150) comment:

The low levels of school professional development and qualified staff in TESOL mean that there is a need for support of this kind. Staff are not skilled enough to design excellent ESOL language development syllabuses themselves, and neither should this be done on an individual school basis.

While this statement acknowledges the need for professional development, recent initiatives have occurred such as the Ministry of Education’s funded scholarships (TESSOL tuition fees scholarships) for teachers of international, Pasifika and migrant students. Professional development is also provided by the Literacy Advisors (ESOL), the Regional Migrant and Refugee Education Contacts, and the National Migrant, Refugee and International ESOL Team (see Ministry of Education, no date, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Resourcing Information). An example of targeted ESOL professional development has been that associated with ELIP in 2004 and 2005.

As well as giving support for pedagogy, a framework could also potentially provide language knowledge for teachers. The need for all teachers to be prepared for the specific language needs of EAL students has been stressed internationally, with particular concern at the levels of language awareness (including ‘critical’ language awareness) among teachers and school leadership (Cummins, 2000, p. 251; Kaplan, 2000, p. xii). This concern has been paralleled in this country for student teachers (Nicholson 1999), practising teachers across curriculum areas (Penton, 1996; Gray & Penton, 1998), secondary ESOL teachers (Lawson 2000), and school management (Penton, 1996). A Ministry of Education (2003c) survey of teachers of primary and secondary English found that the highest qualification for 19.9% was Sixth Form Certificate English, 4.4% had Masters degrees, and 5% had other specialist qualifications such as a Diploma in ESOL teaching. This low level of specialisation among those most likely to be language experts in schools may reflect the ambivalent

24

attitudes found by Smith 2004 (p. 245) in some New Zealand teacher educators towards language experts such as linguists.

While these reasons above are compelling in the light of curriculum policy and implementation, the theoretical and research-based imperative is that second language acquisition and bilingualism proceed in a different and distinct way from first language acquisition. A second language appropriate framework is one way in which the particular developmental path and language learning needs of EAL students can be acknowledged. Scott and Erduran, in their article analyzing frameworks in Australia and the USA, make the following comment:

Underpinned by theories of language acquisition and assessment, these [EAL] frameworks reflect widespread international recognition that learners with English as an Additional Language (EAL) progress in English language development in ways that are different from those of mother tongue English speaking learners, but no less positive…. (Scott & Erduran, 2004, pp. 409-410)

A separate framework for EAL learners enables teachers to find and be guided by age appropriate objectives for EAL students, and to avoid searching for outcomes at lower levels of the other curriculum statements.

A separate framework is also needed to acknowledge the bilingual aspects of EAL learners’ proficiency. This is articulated in the Australian NLLIA ESL Bandscales. In their statement below, McKay, Hudson and Sapuppo consider that advanced EAL learners will ideally be bilingual:

The most advanced levels of proficiency in each of the ESL Bandscales are not intended to describe “native-speaker-like” ability. It is felt that the goal for ESL learners in schools is to be an effective bilingual, most likely with ongoing characteristics which are somewhat different from native speakers. (McKay et al., 1994, volume 1 A 29)

4.2.2 Standards for the language and literacy assessment of EAL students

In Australia, the US, England and Wales, EAL students are assessed against national ESB based curriculum standards or benchmarks. Abedi, Lord, Boscardin and Miyoshi argue,

since most state and national assessment tools are constructed and normed for native English speakers, using such assessments for LEP students may not be fair. It would follow that until more valid and fair assessment tools are provided, LEP students should not be included in such assessments. (Abedi et al., 2001, p. 1)

Shin’s (2004) article suggests that if ESB literacy benchmarks are used for EAL learners, that much more research is needed specifically to find out how long it takes EAL learners to reach these benchmarks, and what factors may influence their achievement.

25

For national reporting purposes, a separate framework does provide an alternative to ESB based standards or benchmarks.

In most Australian states, an exemption from reporting EAL students’ scores is given on the basis of time in the country. Different states vary but the longest time period for exemption is two years. Similarly in the United States, EAL students are exempt from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) if they have had fewer than two years’ instruction.

Queensland takes a different approach. Exemption from state-based assessment is tied to the student’s level of ESL proficiency. Students may be exempt from doing the assessment if their first language is not English and if they are assessed by an ESL and/or classroom teacher as achieving at or below Level 2 using the Draft Queensland ESL Proficiency Levels, or below Level 3 Reading and Writing on the NLLIA ESL Bandscales (Zammitt, Meiers & Frigo, 1999, p. 35).

Exemption from national reporting is one solution but has possible negative implications. As Zammitt et al. (1999, p. 35) comment,

… exempting ESL students due to low levels of proficiency in English is not appropriate when schools and systems are to be held accountable for the achievement of all their students. The issue is therefore how to meaningfully include ESL students in state-wide assessments for accountability purposes while at the same time making sure that there is neither misinterpretation nor misuse of their results.

Another approach investigated by Abedi et al. (2001) is that of accomodation to a test or a testing procedure. In their study they evaluated the effects of such modifcations on NAEP scores. Examples of the accomodations they investigated are listed in Figure 2 below.

Two categories of accommodations for English language learners

Modifications of the test Assessment in the native language Text changes in vocabulary Modifications of linguistic complexity Addition of visual supports Use of glossaries in English Use of glossaries in native language Linguistic modification of test directions Additional example items

Modifications of the test procedure Extra assessment time Breaks during testing Administration in several sessions Oral directions in the native language Small-group administration Separate room administration Use of dictionaries Questions read aloud in English Answers written directly in test booklet Directions read aloud or explained

Figure 2: Potential accommodation strategies for English language learners (Butler & Stevens, cited in Abedi et al., 2001, p. 9)

Some of these accommodations should not be restricted only to formal assessment contexts but may also be useful to consider in curriculum delivery, as suggested by Navarrette and Gustke (1996).

26

McKay (2000) sums up the concerns discussed in this section:

[W]ith only an ESB reference point and with no reminder that ESL learners progress along a different though positive language development pathway (McKay et al., 1994), teachers and administrators must assess second language features as falling short of the descriptors set out in the ESB material and view EAL learners as ‘deficient’, instead of progressing successfully according to expected ESL pathways. Without an ESL reference point for long-term monitoring of language and literacy development within the curriculum, teaching is less likely to include second language informed strategies, ESL learners may fail in ESB-referenced assessments and, in a more general sense, teachers may lose sight of the bilingualism and biculturalism of their learners. (McKay, 2000, p. 189)

27

5 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL PROVISIONS AND FRAMEWORKS

This section begins with a brief overview of ESOL in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, and describes in brief two sample frameworks used in Canada and Australia. This is followed by a more in-depth analysis of these frameworks in terms of exemplifying particular approaches and strengths.

5.1 Overview of ESOL in the curriculum in the United Kingdom

Scott and Erduran (2004) explain the U.K. context by stating that it is “based on a combination of National Curriculum descriptors developed for mother tongue speakers together with supplementary descriptors in A language in common10… and a wide range of EAL descriptors generated by local authorities and schools (Scott & Erduran, 2004, p. 409).

In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, curriculum documents have a strong emphasis on testing, with national tests at five Key Stages: age 7 (English and mathematics), 11 (English, mathematics and science), 14 (English, mathematics and science), and 16 (GSCEs), and 17 or 18 (A levels or vocational examinations) (Qualification and Curriculum Authority, 2005a). There is a strong emphasis in the areas covered on 'standard English' and language structure. This focus on testing carries through to ESOL, which at programme level is referred to as English as an Additional Language (EAL)11.

Scotland has its own curriculum, but again has no specific ESOL curriculum. There are five curriculum areas for ages 5 to 14: (English) language, religious and moral education, environmental studies, mathematics, expressive arts and physical education. Some areas are split into further areas at higher secondary level, but remain the same for language (Learning and Teaching Scotland, 1999; 2000).

5.2 Overview of ESOL in the curriculum in Canada

In Canada there is no central curriculum framework; the education curriculum is decided at provincial or territorial level. The language context varies greatly from area to area, which is to a large extent reflected in the status of ESOL curricula. However, there are two groupings: the Western and Northern Protocol (including British Columbia and Yukon, Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and

10 A Language in Common: Assessing English as an Additional Language is an assessment document for the evaluation of EAL students produced by the Qualification and Curriculum Authority (2000). 11 It is interesting to note that the UK uses the term ‘bilingual learners’ to explicitly recognise learners’ bilingualism, although the curriculum refers to EAL at school level and ESOL at adult level.

28

Nunavut) which supports the development of common curriculum frameworks; and the Atlantic States (including Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island) which all have a Language Arts curriculum, in which English is taught. Many provinces also have French immersion programmes.

5.3 Two sample Canadian frameworks

5.3.1 The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1 to 8: English as a Second language and English Literacy development – A resource guide

The curriculum statements in Ontario are divided into two documents. The statement for Grades 9 to 2 (Ministry of Education and Training, 1999) was written before the statement for Grades 1 to 8 (Ministry of Education and Training, 2001). The documents present separate curriculum progressions and have very different approaches. However the grades 9 to 12 document foreshadows some of the conceptualisation behind the grades 1 to 8 document. As the latter is the more recent document, this features predominantly in the analysis.

The development is based on a four-stage model in the students' development of Standard Canadian English (Ministry of Education and Training, 2001, p. 9):

Stages of Second Language acquisition for ESL students Stage 1 Using English for survival purposes

Stage 2 Using English in supported and familiar activities and contexts

Stage 3 Using English independently in most contexts

Stage 4 Using English with a proficiency approaching that of first-language speakers

The documents at both levels set out two distinct sets of progressions: one for learners who need ESL support and another for learners who need ELD (English literacy development) support (see section 5.6.3 for a fuller explanation of this term). The progressions within the ESL strands are expressed through three sets of descriptors: for Grades 1 to 3, 4 to 6, and 7 to 8. These are in Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Orientation. The following example shows the four stages with respect to Listening at Grades 1 to 3.

29

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Students understand basic spoken English.

Students understand key information presented in highly supported contexts in a variety of settings.

Students understand social English, but require contextual support to understand academic language.

Students understand spoken English in most contexts.

They follow simple directions with support from visual cues

They participate in conversations on familiar topics

They respond to discussions and conversations

They participate in most social and academic discussions

(Ministry of Education and Training. 2001, p. 28)

5.3.2 Alberta In Alberta ESL curriculum documents have been written for elementary and senior high school level. None is available for junior high school level. The elementary document is a 90-page teachers' guide, written in 1996 (Alberta Education, 1996), and the senior high school document is a 24-page document of learner outcomes, written in 1997 (Alberta Education, 1997).

The elementary level document includes charts of the language characteristics of ESL learners in Listening and Understanding, Speaking, Reading, and Writing. The authors state that these are intended as general guidelines, and that not all students will progress linearly (Alberta Education, 1996, p. 58). They note that the charts were compiled after a review of documents including some from Australia and New Zealand. The four one-page charts are divided into Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced. An example of the elementary levels for Listening and Understanding is as follows:

Listening and Understanding

Beginner Intermediate Advanced Low beginner > High beginner Low intermediate > High intermediate

The student: "listens" by watching actions of the teacher

The student: follows simple instructions

The student: relies more on aural input than on visual input in group lessons

(Alberta Education, 1996, p. 59)

In the senior high school document, the programme has five levels (Alberta Education, 1997, p. 2):

30

Level 1: Students who are acquiring literacy for the first time or who have had significant gaps in previous schooling

Level 2: Students who have had little or no experience with English prior to entering Alberta schools

Level 3: Students who have some competency in English and need a program focused specifically on language development for academic learning

Level 4: Students who are able to succeed in most high school courses with consistent support in English language development for academic learning

Level 5: Students receive assistance with subject-specific language development in a variety of ways, such as in learning centres, from peer coaching and with teacher assistance

The Senior High School curriculum is based around four General Outcomes (Alberta Education, 1997, p. 2), which are similar to the six general outcomes in the English Language Arts document.

Students will use spoken and written English to:

1. gather, interpret and communicate information

2. establish and maintain relationships

3. make decisions, solve problems, and plan and carry out projects

4. explore, respond to and extend ideas and experiences

Each General Outcome has between five and ten 'organizational statements' which specify more fully what the outcome might involve. For example, under General Outcome 1, they 'locate, gather, and interpret information', 'categorize and classify information', and so on. The specific outcomes of each organizational statements are listed in columns for each level. For example, the first specific outcome for General Outcome 1 is divided as follows:

Students locate, gather and interpret information. They:

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 connect oral language with print; read short, simple sentences, stories and collaboratively-written reports

comprehend the gist of short, well-organised texts on familiar topics

comprehend and interpret the general meaning of texts on familiar topics, and make appropriate references

comprehend and interpret the meaning of written texts on topics of study

comprehend and interpret the meaning of a variety of written texts on topics of study; explain how new information relates to previous learning

(Alberta Education, 1997, p. 4)

This makes for a complex analysis of outcomes but one that is closely referenced in a helpful way to the levels.

31

5.4 Overview of ESOL in the curriculum in Australia

In Australia, the National Literacy and Numeracy Plan is endorsed at a Government, State and Territory level. The plan aims to achieve the following:

1. Assessment of all students by their teachers as early as possible in the first years of schooling;

2. Early intervention strategies for those students identified as having difficulty;

3. The development of agreed national benchmarks for Years 3, 5 and 7, against which all children's achievement in these years can be measured;

4. The measurement of students' progress against these benchmarks using rigorous state-based assessment procedures;

5. National reporting of student achievement against the benchmarks, within the framework of the annual National Report on Schooling in Australia (ANR);

6. Professional development for teachers to support the key elements of the Plan.

(Department of Education, Science and Training, no date, National Literacy and Numeracy Plan section, ¶ 1)

The bullet points in 3 to 5 above include mention of the benchmarks that “articulate nationally agreed minimum acceptable standards for literacy and numeracy, [but] are not intended to reflect development in a language other than English” (Zammitt et al., 1999, p. 5). However EAL learners can be assessed against them.

As discussed in section 4.2.1, some EAL students are exempt from national reporting against benchmarks. The National Literacy and Numeracy Plan acknowledges that other frameworks may be more appropriate for EAL learners, such as the NLLIA ESL Bandscales or the ESL Companion to English Curriculum Standards Framework (CSF). These are discussed below.

5.5 Two sample Australian frameworks

5.5.1 The ESL Companion to the English CSF 11 The ESL companion was designed for teacher planning, but “ because it is prepared in the form of outcomes for reporting purposes, may be considered multi-purpose” (McKay, 2000, p. 192).

The ESL companion has three levels: lower primary, middle/upper primary and secondary. The lower primary has two stages, the middle/upper primary has three, and the secondary has four.

The framework itself is represented in the form of overviews of learning outcomes for each of the levels and stages in the following three skills areas (or strands): speaking and listening, reading, writing. Each of the skills have the following components or substrands:

32

Aspects of language Communication

Contextual understanding

Linguistic structures and features

Strategies

Different criteria are used to differentiate outcomes at the early stages and the more advanced stages. The following is a list of the ways in which differentiation is marked, and the way in which this is realised in the outcome statements.

Differentiation Early stages More advanced stages

by activity concrete experientially known reduced number of steps required in activity simple, highly controlled linguistic features

becoming more abstract experientially new increasing number of steps increasingly complex linguistic features

by text - spoken and written

student/teacher-developed texts, shorter, more basic mainstream texts text using simple familiar subject matter frequent use of non-linguistic cues reduced speed and/or number of speakers

accessible mainstream texts, more extended texts text using less familiar and more complex subject matter, including mainstream texts appropriate to the year level less reliance on non-linguistic cues greater speed and/or number of speakers

by conditions extensive support from an understanding teacher little time restriction placed on completion of activities extensive preliminary work to introduce activities extensive opportunity for reworking material produced

reduced support time limits imposed on activities reduced preliminary work reduced opportunity for reworking due to increased demands on students

by expectations response short and simple less concern with accuracy and fluency high tolerance for error high acceptance of any attempt to communicate in English

longer, more complex response expected increased expectations of accuracy and fluency less tolerance for error increased demand for use of standard English

(adapted from Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority, 2002a, Criteria used to differentiate outcomes section)

This is a helpful addition often the particular parameters on which of differentiation is established between levels is not articulated in frameworks.

33

5.5.2 The NLLIA (National Language and Literacy Institute of Australia) ESL (English as a second language) bandscales

The dual purposes of the framework are:

• to assist teachers of ESL learners (ESL specialists and mainstream teachers) in schools to identify ESL learners, to understand better the language learning processes of these learners, and to assess and record their progress in English and English across the curriculum; and

• to provide a means of reporting to other teachers, to parents and learners and administrators about SL learner proficiency in English (McKay et al., 1994: volume 1, A17).

There are separate scales for secondary, middle/upper primary and junior primary, and each of the bandscales are divided into four skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing.

The descriptors within each skill area are developed in two contexts: language ability across a range of personal, social and general school contexts; and application and extension to academic contexts. An additional section within each skill has suggested implications for placement. To supplement the language analysis the descriptors are observation guides. These specify the parameters a teacher may look at under each of the headings below:

Listening Speaking Reading Writing A. text, context and task

content text features language features task features




B. the student

task behaviours comprehension knowledge of vocabulary

task content behaviours features of speech textual features grammatical accuracy

orientation to literacy task text behaviours comprehension knowledge of vocabulary

orientation to literacy task content behaviours textual features accuracy

(McKay et al., 1994. Volume 1 F4)

For example, under Listening content the following parameters are given:

• topic/curriculum area • text type: purpose/function (e.g. to inform, entertain, instruct, caution, explain,

persuade) • form (e.g. conversation, announcement, TV programme) • speaker/audience relationship (familiar/unfamiliar, degree of formality) • degree of abstraction in language (how concrete or abstract are the concepts

used, how familiar to the student?)

34

The observation guides are generic in that they apply to all levels. This is a useful way of helping teachers analyse a language task.

5.6 Strengths of the sample frameworks

The literature on EAL specific standards suggests a number of criteria against which any frameworks or set of standards could be analysed and evaluated. In critiquing frameworks, some of the writers frame their critique by means of criteria or questions (McKay, 2000; Scarino, 2003; Scott & Erduran, 2004). The following section incorporates some of these questions, and adds additional ones in order to explore some of the strengths of selected frameworks in Canada and Australia.

5.6.1 What model(s) of language development informed by research and theory is/are articulated in the framework?

This question arises in both Brindley (1998) and Shohamy (1997). Shohamy (1997, p. 146) suggests that there is often no firm empirical underpinning for frameworks for EAL students. Her claim is that frameworks have mostly been constructed by experts using intuitive judgments about the nature of developing language proficiency. However there is merit in incorporating both intuitive judgements from experts including teachers, and theoretical models, some of which may have played a part in informing experts’ judgments (Moore, 1996, p. 205).

Shohamy also explains that the language learning process may not be constant but rather exhibit “discontinuity” and “U-shaped behaviour” (1997, p. 146). However we are still lacking a full account of how this process takes place. Read and Hirsh sum this up by stating that Second Language Acquisition research (SLA) “at present can only offer a fragmentary account of the developmental sequences in second language learning, particularly as it occurs in the classroom” (2005, p. 13). One model of developmental sequences in second language acquisition that is frequently referred to is that by Pienemann and Johnson (1987). This model focuses on the level of syntax and morphology. It is evaluated in Pienemann and Mackey (1994) as a part of the development project for the Australian NLLIA Bandscales.

Read and Hirsh (2005) comment on the fact that more research is needed to broaden our understanding of how development of language proficiency in school contexts may occur.

5.6.2 What model(s) of language informed by research and theory is/are articulated in the framework?

A number of key researchers in the area of second language acquisition stress that the complex nature of language learning has particular implications for the way in which proficiency and development is represented (Brindley, 1998; Shohamy, 1997; Spolsky, 1995). They agree that it should be a multi-dimensional, and that any framework should have multi-dimensional scales rather than a one-dimensional scale

35

that groups together a range of competencies. Spolsky’s (1995, p. 358) view is that only relatively complex assessment procedures and profiles can give a true picture of language proficiency.

Many frameworks explicitly mention the model or models of language on which they draw to conceptualise what language proficiency entails. Bachman and Palmers’ (1996) model of language ability (below) is the basis for a number of frameworks for EAL students. It incorporates both a strategic component and language component. In fact, in Bachman and Palmers’ earlier model (1993) strategic competence was thought of as metacognitive strategies.

Strategic competence Language use

• goal setting - deciding what one is going to do

• assessment - taking stock of what is needed

• planning – deciding how to use what one has

organisational knowledge • grammatical - vocabulary, syntax,

phonology/graphology • textual – cohesion, rhetorical or

conversational organisation pragmatic knowledge

• functional - ideational, manipulative, heuristic, imaginative

• sociolinguistic - dialects/varieties, registers, natural or idiomatic expressions, cultural references and figures of speech

Figure 3: Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) model of language ability

Other models further elaborate on strategies, particularly as used in academic settings. One such often used model is that of Chamot and O’Malley (1987) and O’Malley and Chamot (1990). O'Malley and Chamot (1990) divide strategies into three main types: cognitive, metacognitive, and socio-affective, each of which includes a number of sub-strategies. For example, rehearsal, summarising, deducing, and imagery are substrategies of the cognitive type.

A number of frameworks also draw on models of that particularise language learning in an academic context. One such well known model distinguishes between BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills) and CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) – now termed Conversational and Academic Language Proficiency (Cummins, 2000). This model has two dimensions: cognitive demand and contextual embeddedness (Cummins, 2000), which represent the learning burden of tasks in school settings.

36

Figure 4: The model of cognitive demand and contextual embeddedness (from Cummins, 2000)

The Alberta Elementary English as a second language: Guide to implementation is an example of one framework that uses the Cummins framework (Cummins, 1984). In addition, it uses Mohan's Knowledge Framework (1986), a theoretical framework which is one of the ESL instructional frameworks being implemented across Canada in all school levels (Alberta Education, 1996, p. 67; Kouritzin, 2004, p. 484). This framework is founded on the idea that all knowledge is in one or more of six major knowledge structures (Alberta Education, 1996, p. 68).

The Knowledge Framework Thinking Skills Classification Principles Evaluation

classifying categorizing defining

explaining predicting interpreting data and drawing conclusions developing generalizations: cause-effect, rules, means-ends, reasons hypothezing

evaluating judging criticizing justifying preferences and personal opinions recommending

observing describing naming comparing contrasting

relating: time between events sequencing: spatially, steps in progress

forming personal opinions making decisions

Description Sequence Choice

Figure 5: Mohan's Knowledge Framework (1986)

Cognitively Undemanding

Cognitively Demanding

Context Embedded

Context Reduced

Quadrant 1 (conversation)

Quadrant 3 (group work/ journals)

Quadrant 4 (Classroom discourse)

Quadrant 2 (email/texting)

Deleted: <sp><sp><sp>

Deleted: <sp>¶

37

The Australian NLLIA ESL Bandscales framework draws on the Bachman and Palmer’s (1993) model of second language ability which incorporates both language knowledge (grammatical, textual, lexical, functional and sociolinguistic), and metacognitive strategies. It focuses on the fact that Bachman and Palmer emphasise language use in context. In addition, the framework specifies what context might mean by referring to Cummins’ (1984) distinction between BICS and CALP; and the distinction between context embedded and reduced communication, as well as cogitively undemanding and cognitively demanding tasks. It also draws on Systemic Functional Linguistics and the ‘Sydney School” of genre theory (see Hyland, 2002, p. 115).

5.6.3 Is there a consideration of both language and literacy development?

Language and literacy/literacies need to be considered as two interrelated aspects of development for EAL learners. Franken and McComish (2003a) propose the following model of learner goals, which sets out these various aspects:

• literacies including how to read and write in English • English language proficiency • academic literacies including how to read and write in curriculum areas • academic proficiency including vocabulary, discourse etc. related to

curriculum areas.

The NLLIA ESL bandscales at secondary level acknowledge that there are increasing subject specific language and curriculum demands. Most of the descriptors at this level are organized around the following two language contexts:

7. language ability across a range of personal, social and general school contexts, and

8. application and extension to academic contexts.

The ESL Companion incorporates a broad notion of literacy, and it is to this notion that the framework is referenced.

The ESL Companion to the English CSF is an adjunct to the English Curriculum and Standards Framework (CSF)…. The study of English, and the broader concept of literacy in English, as it is described in the English CSF, is about the appropriate and effective use of English language, the use of English language as a means of learning and the development of knowledge about language. Through English language use, students convey and discover information, work through ideas and express feelings. Students learn how English language works and how to use it well. (Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority, 2002a, Rationale section, ¶ 1 & 2)

38

The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1 to 8: English as a Second language and English Literacy development makes a distinction between ESL and ELD learners and programmes, as does the curriculum statement for Grades 9 to 12.

Students who have immigrated to Canada, students from Canadian communities in which a language other than English is spoken, and students who speak a language other than English at home may come to school with a limited understanding of English. These students are usually proficient users of their own languages but require assistance to learn English, the language of instruction on Ontario schools. English as a second language (ESL) instruction is designed to provide such assistance.

Students who have not developed literacy skills in their first language because of limited access to schooling or who come from communities where standard English is the official language but where other varieties of English are in common use…. English literacy development (ELD) instruction is designed to help such students to improve their skills in reading, writing and oral communication in English. (Ministry of Education and Training, 2001, p. 6)

5.6.4 How is the framework for EAL learners referenced to mainstream content curricula?

Language and literacy development for EAL students cannot be seen as the responsibility or preserve of the English curriculum. Franken and McComish’s list of learner goals, (at the beginning of the previous section 3.6.3) also represent the fact that language and literacy learning needs to occur in the context of curriculum learning. Franken and McComish talk about the “inseparability of English language goals and conceptual goals in curriculum areas” (Franken & McComish, 2003a, p. 25). This makes it an imperative to reference any EAL framework to other curricula. If a framework is curriculum referenced and likewise curricula themselves encompass language and literacy issues particularly as they pertain to EAL students, then some of the inequities in curriculum assessment for EAL students may be addressed. As Abedi et al. (2001, p. 1) report, “We now have clear evidence that students’ language background and the language of assessment impact on student performance on content area tests…. Language is therefore a crucial issue in the assessment of students with limited English proficiency” (see section for a discussion of some of these issues).

Anstrom’s report to the U.S. Department of Education (1997) is a good example of how linkages between content curricula and EAL learning can be established. Anstrom analyses the four content areas of social studies, science, mathematics and language arts in the secondary curriculum with a view to outlining the way in which standards in these content areas can best be framed and taught for EAL students with academic and subject specific literacy the goal.

The Ontario Curriculum for English as a Second Language and English Literacy Development is a good example of a particular framework that achieves this criterion. The aim of the document is to describe programmes to support ESL/ELD students in

39

their curriculum requirements, rather than as a separate curriculum subject (Ministry of Education and Training, 2001, p. 6).

The document specifies the standards as described in sections 5.3.1 and 5.6.6, however over half of the document is comprised of a resource guide organised around sample curriculum units (e.g. Science and Technology at Grades 2 and 8; Language at Grades 3 and 8: Grade 1 Social Studies, Grade 2 Science and Technology, Grade 3 Language, Grade 4 Mathematics, Grade 5 Science and Technology, Grade 6 Social Studies, Grade 7 History, Grade 7 Geography, Grade 8 Science and Technology, Grade 8).

Accompanying each of these units are the curriculum outcomes aligned with language outcomes, so that teachers can see how to specifically address the needs of ESL/ELD learners within a mainstream context. Further support for teachers is given in the form of teacher strategies for drawing on prior knowledge and skills, for planning and carrying out teaching and learning tasks, and for assessment and evaluation. Some frameworks may also, or only, include a statement about the curriculum being the most productive context for EAL learning, provided a number of conditions exist in that context. For example, the Alberta Elementary English as a second language: Guide to implementation focuses on the needs of ESL students, outlining the support they need so that they can “experience success” in curriculum learning (Alberta Education, 1996, p. 1). This is achieved by a language across the curriculum approach (Alberta Education, 1996, p. 2):

When we include ESL students in the classroom right from the start, they are free to hear good models of language from their native English-speaking peers and can continue developing conceptually in all content areas. They learn best in structured, cooperative learning settings where learning is student-centred and where they work with students from varied ethnic and racial backgrounds.

5.6.5 How is the framework for EAL learners referenced to the mainstream English curriculum?

Just as it would be inappropriate to restrict EAL learners to a special language learning curriculum which allowed no possibility of participating in the content curricula, so too is it inappropriate to restrict their participation in the subject of English.

Some frameworks are most closely referenced to an English curriculum statement or framework. The Victorian ESL Companion is one good example of a framework that integrates ESL learning outcomes with the English curriculum. The endpoint for each level is its connection with the English Curriculum and Standards Framework12. The endpoint is proficiency in English. The ESL companion “emphasises that teachers need to teach these students English language skills systematically and explicitly until

12 See Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority (2002a) for a diagrammatic representation of this relationship.

40

a point is reached where the outcomes of the English CSF are appropriate for them” (Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority, 2002a Rationale section, ¶ 2)

While a close connection between the ESL Companion and the English Curriculum and Standards Framework allows for EAL learners to participate in mainstream curriculum English, this could be achieved in a way that need not assume that monolingualism is the best outcome.

Brindley (cited in Read & Hirsh, 2005) urges that a framework be “sensitive to different classroom learning contexts, with context related descriptors”, and if it includes “explicit procedures for relating teacher observations, assessments and tests directly to outcome statements” (Brindley, cited in Read & Hirsh, 2005, p. 13). This suggests that there is some merit in a shared framework but that particular descriptors could be developed for EAL learners.

5.6.6 Is the role of L1 acknowledged as an important resource in the curriculum learning, and language and literacy development of EAL learners?

The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9-12: English as a second language and English literacy development is one example that emphasises the academic, social and emotional benefits of students maintaining proficiency in their first language (Ministry of Education and Training, 1999, p. 7). However while the focus is on English, suggestions are made for linking the student to another speaking the same language and including bilingual resources in order to facilitate understanding of subject material and classroom or school processes. The role of parents in first language maintenance is stressed (p. 20).

The Alberta Elementary English as a second language: Guide to implementation points out that second language learning builds on previous knowledge and experience. “Successful language learning is dependent on the continual maintenance of first language literacy, which is achieved when parents/guardians or friends listen to, read and talk about stories in the first language” (Alberta Education, 1996, p. 4).

Group work with peers who speak the same L1 is mentioned (Alberta Education, 1996, p. 21), and the importance of speaking and reading in L1 in the home is stressed for its importance both in retaining contact with the students’ language group and in providing a strong foundation for English. It is also suggested that students should be encouraged to bring L1 books to school (Alberta Education, 1996, p. 46).

The Victorian ESL Companion is an example of a framework that specifically incorporates a consideration of the role of L1 into the outcomes. From middle primary to upper secondary, whether or not students have had little or no literacy in their first language is built in, at the ‘basic’ levels.

The NLLIA ESL Bandscales framework recognises bilingualism and the place of L1 in English language acquisition. Within some of the level descriptors, there is an additional information section focusing on the role of the L1 in supporting performance related to the descriptor e.g. Listening level 1 for Middle and Upper Primary includes the following statement: “are likely to bring with them listening abilities in their L1, within a range of registers experienced in their L1 home community, and (is experienced) school life” (McKay et al., 1994, volume 1, C3).

41

Within reading and writing at junior primary there is the additional information which categorises learners on the basis of L1 literacy experiences. For instance in Reading level 1 Junior Primary five groups of learners are identified one of which Home-based literacy background with some exposure to English. At Level 1 (the initial stage of Middle and Upper Primary, and Secondary levels reading and writing), two groups are identified: New L1 school literacy learners and low literacy background students.

5.6.7 How accessible/manageable is the framework to teachers? Frameworks vary greatly in how they approach support for teachers.

The Alberta Elementary English as a second language: Guide to implementation provides a brief but comprehensive coverage for teachers of EAL students, from preparing for EAL students, orientation of newcomers, creating a supportive learning environment, and strategies for teaching. It has a bibliography and list of resource organisations. The senior high school document itself does not contain extra support material, but is supplemented by a 100-page authorised resource list and annotated bibliography (Alberta Learning, 2004).

To a large extent, the Victorian ESL Companion provides many of the materials and methods needed by teachers. It does this through the curriculum focus statements at each level of the English curriculum for several levels of ESOL proficiency, and through the detailed learning outcomes and indicators at each level. In order to interpret the framework, the following are resources that constitute the companion.

The learning outcome statements are accompanied by clear indicators. The following is an example of the way indicators match a standard, in this case the standard A1.2 ESWRA102.

Contextual understanding

Demonstrate early awareness that written texts in English are presented according to certain conventions which change according to context and purpose.

This is evident when the student is able to:

• show awareness that English writing consists of words formed by letters, and sentences made up of words, e.g. leaves spaces between groups of letters or between words

• use the terms writing and drawing appropriately • size writing appropriately for a variety of simple tasks and contexts, e.g. size of paper,

size of lines, amount of text • take particular care with handwriting, drawing, or choosing materials when writing for

special purposes, e.g. ‘publishing’ a story, making a birthday card.

(Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority, 2002b, Lower Primary: Stage A1: Writing section)

Learning contexts for ESL students are described for primary and secondary, and annotated work samples accompany those descriptions.

42

Like a number of other frameworks, the NLLIA ESL Bandscales include exemplars to guide assessment, observation guides that not only focus on students’ performance but also record include contextual information, and a reporting form (the summary ESL profile report).

Some frameworks are made much more accessible because they are web-based. The ESL Companion is an example of a well designed web based document, with clear navigation.

5.6.8 Other questions There are a number of other questions that are of relevance in considering the design of a framework and materials and processes that support its application. The first of these relates to clarifying the purpose of the framework:

1. What is the purpose of the framework? How does it address different purposes? e.g. national reporting, benchmarking, achievement and proficiency?

Some of these questions are closely aligned to those asked above and have to some extent been commented on in section 5.3:

2. How is progression conceptualised?

3. Does the framework incorporate a high degree of contextualisation to take account of specific learning situations, characteristics of different learner groups, various forms of teacher support? (Scott & Erduran, 2004).

Lastly and very importantly, a framework needs to address the following question:

4. Do teachers have a central role in the assessment process? (Brindley, 1998; Moore, 1996)

43

6 SUMMARY OF SECTIONS 4 AND 5: ANALYSIS OF ESOL FRAMEWORKS

Education reforms in a number of countries, including New Zealand, have focused on specifying standards, although this remains controversial. An ESOL specific framework for New Zealand has been advocated by a number of professionals, but this has not yet been the subject of rigorous academic debate.

Several benefits of having a specific ESOL framework are identified. They would:

• complement the standards in place for mainstream subjects, • enhance the visibility and coherence in the school programme, • provide guidance for teachers, and enhance their language knowledge, • avoid the search for lower outcomes in ESB standards for EAL students, and • acknowledge the bilingual aspects of EAL student proficiency.

There are also alternatives to specific ESOL standards:

• Exemption from reporting or assessment EAL student achievement, and/or • accommodation to test or testing procedures.

The situation in three countries where English is the medium of instruction was investigated:

• The UK has no specific ESOL curriculum; EAL descriptors are generated by local authorities and schools.

• The curriculum in Canada is decided at provincial or territorial level. Examples of well-developed frameworks are found in Ontario and Alberta.

• Australia’s national literacy and numeracy plan is endorsed at government, state and territory level. Two well-developed frameworks are The English Companion to the English CSF 11 and the National Language and Literacy Institute of Australia NLLIA ESL Bandscales.

The strengths of the UK, Canada and Australian ESOL frameworks were analysed using seven criteria:

1. What models of language development informed by research and theory is articulated in the framework?

e.g. Pienemann and Johnson’s (1987) and Pienemann and Mackey’s (1994) models of developmental sequences are used in the Australian NLLIA ESL Bandscales.

2. What model(s) of language informed by research and theory is/are articulated in the framework?

44

e.g. the Alberta curriculum is based on Cummins’ (1982) model of cognitive demand and contextual embeddedness, and Mohan’s (1986) knowledge framework.

3. Is there a consideration of both language and literacy development?

e.g. the Ontario curriculum makes a distinction between ESL and ELD learners.

4. How is the framework for EAL learners referenced to mainstream content curricula?

e.g. The Alberta curriculum focuses on a language across the curriculum approach.

5. How is the framework for EAL learners referenced to the mainstream English curriculum?

e.g. The endpoint for the each level in the Victorian ESL Companion is its connection with the English Curriculum.

6. Is the role of L1 acknowledged as an important resource in the curriculum learning, and language and literacy development of EAL learners?

e.g. The Alberta curriculum emphasises ways in which second language learning builds on first language learning.

7. How accessible/manageable is the framework to teachers?

e.g. the NLLIA ESL Bandscales include exemplars, observation guides, and a reporting form.

These analyses therefore show that ESOL frameworks in countries where English is the medium of instruction are at various stages of development, with particular approaches and strengths.

45

7 CONCLUSION

In critiquing contemporary curriculum reform, Wenger (1998, p. 3) reminds us that learning does not have a beginning and an end, is not best organised so it is separated from the rest of our activities, should not be required to be demonstrated out of contexts, and is not primarily about designed products and outputs rather than what actually emerges. Likewise, the Curriculum Stocktake Report called for reform based on the learning needs of students when it considered that teachers need to know “the most effective strategies for integrating and linking curriculu/ngā marautanga”, and they also needed to support so that they can better recognise and cater for diversity in all of the essential learning areas…” (Ministry of Education, 2002, Recommendations section, ¶ 13).

This review leads to the following recommendations to support the place of ESOL in the New Zealand curriculum:

• Given that ESOL is not included in any of the current Essential Learning Areas or Essence Statements, the teaching and learning of EAL students needs to be given due consideration in the curriculum.

• Given that current curriculum statements will largely be subsumed within Essential Learning Areas and Essence Statements, and given that we do not as yet have a framework that adequately describes EAL learner needs and learning pathways, a valid and comprehensive framework needs to be developed.

• Given that we have models of and critera for effective frameworks, this need not be a process initiated ‘from scratch’.

• Given what we know about the inappropriateness of ESB assessment tools for EAL learners, it is necessary to develop more EAL referenced assessment material, and to select appropriate materials from existing resource banks which can be developed with EAL specific descriptors.

• Given that a number of international frameworks have addressed curriculum linkage and integration, we have good models as the basis for a revision of the current provisions.

46

8 REFERENCES

Abedi, J., Lord, C., Boscardin, C. K., & Miyoshi, J. (2001). The effects of accommodations on the assessment of limited English proficient students in the National Assessment of Educational progress (NAEP). Los Angeles, CA: University of California. Retrieved October 16, 2005, from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/CRESST/Reports/TR537.pdf.

Alberta Education. (1996). Elementary English as a second language: Guide to implementation. Curriculum Standards Branch, Alberta Education, Canada. Retrieved October 6, 2005, from http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curriculum/bySubject.

Alberta Education. (1997). English as a second language (Senior High). Alberta Education, Canada. Retrieved October 6, 2005, from http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curriculum/bySubject.

Alberta Learning. (2004). Senior High English as a second language (ESL) Grades 10-12 Alberta authorised resource list and annotated bibliography. Retrieved October 13, 2005, from http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curriculum/bySubject/ESL.

Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Alton-Lee, A. (2004). Improving educational policy and practice through an iterative best evidence synthesis programme. Paper prepared for OECD-US Seminar, Evidence-based Policy Research, Washington DC, April 19-20, 2004. Retrieved December 15, 2005, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz.

Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest. Education Resources Information Center. Retrieved December 28, 2005, from http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0110anderson.html.

Anstrom, K. (1999). Preparing secondary education teachers to work with English language learners: Mathematics. Washington, DC: Centre for the Study of Language and Education. Retrieved January 19, 2006, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/resource/ells.

Anstrom, K. (with Lynch, S.) (1998). Preparing secondary education teachers to work with English language learners: Science. Washington, DC: Centre for the Study of Language and Education. Retrieved January 19, 2006, from www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/resource/ells.

Anstrom, K. (1997). Academic achievement for secondary language minority students: Standards, measures and promising practices. Report to U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved October 16, 2005 from www.ksde.org/sfp/esol/secondary_strategies.doc.

August, D., Hakuta, K., & Pompa, D. (1994). For all students: Limited English proficient students and goals 2000. Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, 10. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

47

Bachman, L. & Palmer, A .S (1993). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brindley, G. (1998). Outcomes-based assessment and reporting in language learning programmes: A review of the issues. Language Testing, 15(1), 45-85.

Carrell, P. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? The Language Teacher, 22(3), 7-14. Retrieved December 11, 2005, from http://jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/98/mar/carrell.html.

Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1987). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A Bridge to the Mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21(2), 227-249.

Corson, D. (1990). Language policy across the curriculum. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Corson, D. (1997). The learning and use of academic words. Language Learning, 47(4) 671-718.

Coxhead, A. (1998). An academic word list. English Language Institute Occasional Publication no. 18. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Department for Education and Skills. (2005). Adult ESOL core curriculum [Electronic version]. Retrieved October 23, 2005, from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/curriculum_esol.

Derewianka, B. (1999). Exploring how texts work. Sydney, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association (PETA).

Edwards, F., Hill, S. & Hume, A. (1992). Language and learning in secondary schools: Science. Wellington: Learning Media.

Elley, W. B. (1996). Curriculum reform: Forwards or backwards? Delta, 48(1), 11-18.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4, 193-220.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis. R. (2004). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33, 209-224.

Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition. A literature review. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Research Division, Ministry of Education.

Fancy, H. (2004) Education reform: Reflections on New Zealand experience. A presentation by the New Zealand Secretary for Education at the Education for Change Symposium held in Melbourne, June 2004. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education, 31 May 2004. Retrieved September 8, 2004, from

48

http://www.minedu.govt.nz/print_doc.cfm?layout=document&documentid=9750&fromprint=y.

Ferguson, S. (2002). Report on the New Zealand National Curriculum 2002. Australian Council of Educational Research. Retrieved September 4, 2003, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=7473&data=l.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners’ cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65, 145-190.

Fradd, S. H., Lee, O., Sutman, F. X., & Saxton, M. K. (2001). Promoting science literacy with English language learners through instructional materials development: A case study. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 417-439.

Franken, M. (2002a). Report on stage 1: Language analysis of Samoan curriculum textbooks. Uniservices, University of Auckland. Unpublished report.

Franken, M. (2002b). Report on SSECRP: Text production workshop, In-service training workshop. Uniservices, University of Auckland. Unpublished report.

Franken, M. (2002c). Report on stage 2: Language analysis of Samoan curriculum textbooks. Uniservices, University of Auckland. Unpublished report.

Franken, M. (2005). Principles of effective literacy practice for EAL students in New Zealand classrooms. Waikato Journal of Education, 11(2), 67-82.

Franken, M., & McComish, J. (2003a). Improving English language outcomes for students receiving ESOL services in New Zealand schools, with a particular focus on new immigrants. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Franken, M., & McComish, J. (2003b). Contexts for learning EAL in New Zealand schools. Paper presented at the International Conference on Language, Education and Diversity Conference, November 23. University of Waikato. Hamilton.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language - Scaffolding learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Glynn, T. (2003). Responding to language diversity: A way forward for New Zealand Education. In R. Barnard & T. Glynn (Eds.), Bilingual children’s language and literacy development (pp. 194-224). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Gray, S., & Penton, R. (1998). Language education for secondary teachers: Pre-service and beyond. Paper presented at the 6th National Conference on Community Languages and English for Speakers of Other Languages (CLESOL), September 1998.

Hardin, V. B. (2001). Transfer and variation in cognitive reading strategies of Latino fourth grade students in a late exit bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 417-439.

Hill, S., & Edwards, F. (1991). Language and learning in secondary schools: Mathematics. Wellington: Learning Media, Ministry of Education.

49

Hyland, K. (2002). Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 113-135.

Jin, Q. (2004). Appendix 7: Proposal for an English-Chinese bilingual school. In C. Butler (Ed.), Seriously Asia: Final report (appendices) (pp. 95-97). Wellington: Asia 2000 Foundation of New Zealand. Retrieved September 23, 2004, from http://www.asianz.org.nz/research/final_report_appendices.pdf.

Johnson, K. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks. Hampshire and New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kaplan, R. B. (2000). Foreword. In J. K. Hall & W. G. Eggington (Eds.), The sociopolitics of English language teaching (pp. vii-xiv). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kouritzin, S. G. (2004). Programs, plans, and practices in schools with reputations for ESL student success. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(4), 481-499.

Lawson, O. (2000). Secondary ESOL teachers: The importance of qualifications. Many Voices, 16, 12-14.

Learning and Teaching Scotland. (1999). Curriculum design for the secondary stages: Guidelines for schools. Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum. Retrieved October 23, 2005, from http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/nq/nqframework.

Learning and Teaching Scotland. (2000). The structure and balance of the curriculum. Scottish Executive. Retrieved October 23, 2005, from http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/5to14/guidelines.

Le Métais, J. (2002). New Zealand Stocktake: An international critique. National Foundation for Educational Research. Retrieved September 7, 2003, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=7258&data=l.

Locker-McKee, R., & Biederman, Y. (2003). The construction of learning contexts for Deaf bilingual learners. In R. Barnard & T. Glynn (Eds.), Bilingual children’s language and literacy development (pp. 194-224). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

May, S., Hill, R., & Tiakiwai, S. (2004). Bilingual/immersion education: Indicators of good practice. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

McCaffery, J., Tuafuti, P., Maihi, S., Elia, L., Ioapo, N., & Aukuso, S. (2003). Samoan children’s bilingual language and literacy development. In R. Barnard & T. Glynn (Eds.), Bilingual children’s language and literacy development (pp. 80-107). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

McKay, P. (2000). On ESL standards for school-age learners. Language Testing, 17(2), 185-214.

McKay, P., Hudson, C., & Sapuppo, M. (1994). ESL development: Language and literacy in schools (Volumes 1 and 2, 2nd edition). Canberra: National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.

McKeon, D. (1994). When meeting ‘common’ standards is uncommonly difficult. Educational Leadership, 51(8), 45-49.

50

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (1993). The New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (1994). English in the New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (1996a). Ta'iala mo le gagana Samoa i Niu Sila. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (1996b). Samoan in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (1996c). Exploring language: A handbook for teachers. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (1999). Non-English speaking background students: A handbook for schools. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (2000). Developing programmes for teaching pacific islands languages. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (2002). Curriculum stocktake report to the Minister of Education, September 2002. Retrieved October 10, 2005, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (2003a). English language intensive programme Years 7-13 Resource. Auckland: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (2003b). Effective literacy practice in Years 1 to 4. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (2003c). Teachers’ experiences in curriculum implementation: English, languages, science and social studies. Retrieved June 17, 2003, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (2003d). ESOL effective provision for international students. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (2003e). Refugee handbook for schools. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (2004a). Effective literacy strategies in Years 9 to 13. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (2004b). ESOL funding assessment guidelines. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (2005a). What’s happening – Learning languages. Retrieved September 23, 2005, from New Zealand Curriculum Marautanga Project website http://wwwtki.org.nz/r/nzcurriculum/whats_happening/learn.language_e.php.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (2005b). English Language Learning Framework: Draft. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (2005c). ESOL progress assessment guidelines. Wellington: Learning Media.

51

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (in press). Effective literacy practice in Years 5 to 8. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (no date). New Zealand curriculum marautanga project. Retrieved October 20, 2005, from http://www.tki.org.nz/r/nzcurriculum.

Ministry of Education (Te Tahuhu o te Mātauranga). (no date). English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) resourcing information. Retrieved February 1, 2006, from Ministry of Education website, http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=7785&data=l.

Ministry of Education and Training. (2001). Ontario curriculum Grades 1-8: English as a second language and English literacy development - A resource guide. Retrieved October 6, 2005, from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca.

Ministry of Education and Training. (1999). Ontario curriculum Grades 9-12: English as a second language and English literacy development - A resource guide. Retrieved October 6, 2005 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca.

Mohan, B.A. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Moore, H. (1996). Telling what is real: Competing views in assessing ESL Development, Linguistics and Education, 8(2), 189-228.

Nagabhand, S., Nation, P., & Franken, M. (1993). Can texts be too friendly? Reading in a Foreign Language, 9(2), 895-907.

Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Nation, I. S. P. (Ed.). (1996). Vocabulary lists. Wellington: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, ELI Occasional Publication # 17.

Nation, P. (2000). Designing and improving a language course. English Teaching Forum, 38(4), 2-11.

Navarrette, C., & Gustke, C. (1996). A guide to performance assessment for linguistically diverse students. Albuquerque, NM: Evaluation Assistance Center West, New Mexico Highlands University. Retrieved October 17, 2005, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/eacwest/performance.

Neville-Barton, P., & Barton, B. (2005). The relationship between English language and mathematics learning for non-native speakers. Teaching and Learning Research Initiative, New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER). Retrieved January 17, 2006, from http://www.tlri.org.nz/pdfs/13909.pdf.

Nicholson, T. (1988). Reading and learning in the junior secondary school. Wellington: Department of Education.

Nicholson, T. (1999). A survey of the linguistic knowledge of teacher education trainees. Paper presented at the New Zealand Linguistics Society Conference, Palmerston North.

O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

52

Penton, R. (1996). Analysis of the language content and perspectives in the national curriculum statements. Many Voices, 9, 4-10.

Phillips, G., McNaughton, S. & MacDonald, S. (2001). Picking up the pace: Effective literacy interventions for accelerated progress over the transition into decile 1 schools: Final report to the Ministry of Education on the professional development associated with the Early Childhood Primary Links via Literacy (ECPL) Project. Auckland: The Child Literacy Foundation & Woolf Fisher Research Centre.

Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research. Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre (pp. 45-141). Adult Migrant Education Program.

Pienemann, M., & Mackey, A. (1994). An empirical study of children’s ESL development and rapid profile. In P. McKay (Ed.), Language and literacy in schools project. Volume 2: Documents on bandscale development and language acquisition, 2nd ed. (pp.115-259). Canberra: The National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2000). A language in common: Assessing English as an additional language. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from http://www.qca.org.uk/3359.html.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2005a). National curriculum online. Retrieved October 23, 2005, from http://www.qca.org.uk/2812.html.

Read, J. & Hirsh, D. (2005). Export levy programme. Project E4: English language levels in tertiary institutions. Final project report. Wellington: Education New Zealand.

Rea-Dickens, P. (2000). Assessment in early years language learning contexts. Language Testing, 17, 115-122.

Scarino. A. (2003). Learning languages in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from http://nzalt.org.nz/whitepapers/Scarino.pdf

Scott, C., & Erduran, S. (2004). Learning from international frameworks for assessment: EAL descriptors in Australia and USA. Language Testing, 21(3), 409-431.

School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (1996). Teaching English as an additional language: A framework for policy. London: Author.

School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (1997). Use of language: A common approach. London: Author.

Shin, F. (2004). English development standards and benchmarks: Policy issues and a call for more focused research. Bilingual Research Journal, 28(2), 253-266.

Shohamy, E. (1997). Second language assessment. In R. Tucker & D. Corson (Eds.), Second language education (pp. 141–149). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.

53

Smith, H. A. (2004). Attitudes of teacher educators in Aotearoa New Zealand towards bilingualism and language diversity. Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.

Spolsky, B. (1995). Measured words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

TESOLANZ Secondary Sector. (2005). Concerns about the place of ESOL in the curriculum project. Retrieved October 19, 2005, from http://www.tesolanz.org.nz/Curriculum_review_ESOL_concerns.doc.

Upton, T. (1007). First and second language use in reading comprehension strategies of Japanese ESL students. TESL-EJ, 3(1). Retrieved December 13, 2005, from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej09/a3.html.

Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority (2002a). ESL companion Introduction. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from http://csf.vcaa.vic.edu.au/es/koes-g.htm.

Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority (2002b). ESL Companion Lower Primary: Stage A1: Writing. Retrieved October 22, 2005, from http://csf.vcaa.vic.edu.au/es/lieswra1.htm.

Vine, E. (1997). Language across the curriculum: The language learning potential in a science text. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wray, D., & Lewis, M. (1998). An approach to factual writing - An invited article. Retrieved January 11, 2006, from Reading Online, http://www.readingonline.org/articles/writing/index.html.

Zammit, S. A., Meiers, M., & Frigo, T. (1999). Assessment and reporting of student achievement for students with specific educational needs against literacy and numeracy benchmarks. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

54

9 APPENDICES

55

APPENDIX 1: AN INVENTORY OF MINISTRY OF EDUCATION DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS TO SUPPORT EAL LEARNERS’ ACCESS TO MAINSTREAM CURRICULA

Print materials Exploring Language: A Handbook for Teachers. Learning Media, Ministry of Education (1996). Also available online at www.english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/exp_lang

This handbook for teachers developed to assist with the exploring language objectives of English in the New Zealand Curriculum. It is accompanied by two videotapes, on oral and visual language. Sections cover English in New Zealand, The Grammar Toolbox, Oral Language, Written Language, Visual Language, and Ideas for the Classroom. It aims to set out a framework of concepts and terminology for formal discussions of language, which would be useful for teachers of ESOL students (e.g. the International Phonetic Alphabet). Issues for ESOL learners are briefly addressed in the English in New Zealand section.

How is my Child Progressing?

A brochure available in English, traditional Chinese and Korean, providing information for parents of ESOL children on assessment and what to ask their children’s teachers.

Language and Learning in Secondary Schools: Mathematics. Sylvia Hill and Fran Edwards (1992).

Language and Learning in Secondary Schools: Science. Fran Edwards, Sylvia Hill and Anne Hume (1991).

Teacher materials outlining approaches for teaching the language aspects of mathematics and science at secondary level for all students.

Non-English-Speaking Background Students: A Handbook for Schools. (1999).

An 80-page handbook clarifying effective policies and practices for ESOL students.

Non-English-Speaking Background Students: Information for Schools. (no date).

A folder provided to schools with ESOL-funded or international students, to help schools and teachers develop policies, procedures, and programmes.

Selections: “Making it Happen” and “Insects” and “Teachers’ Notes”

Theme-based reading for ESOL students in Years 7 to 10, selected from School Journals.

Promoting Positive Race Relations in New Zealand Schools: Me Mahi Tahi Tātou. Mary Donn and Ruth Schick (1995).

Report from research focusing on collecting examples of ‘good practice’ in race relations in schools. Examples relating to ESOL students are included throughout, and Language across the Curriculum issues.

56

Periodicals English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) News Sheets.

Published two or three times per year by the Migrant, Refugee and International Support Team, they inform teachers of ESOL teachers about curriculum resources and support available. (Available www.minedu.govt.nz)

Many Voices

From Learning Media, a twice-yearly journal addressing issues for teachers of multicultural and multilingual learners. A new magazine-style format was introduced in 2005.

Videos Cross-Cultural Communication: A Resource for Staff Working with International Students.

A video and CD-Rom designed for all staff who work with international students in New Zealand. Supported by a web page within the Ministry of Education website (?).

ESOL in the Mainstream

This video profiles a number of schools in order to reinforce the importance of the mainstream classroom teacher providing a supportive and accessible learning environment.

Documents on the Ministry of Education website (www.minedu.govt.nz) Bilingualism/Immersion Education: Indicators of Good Practice. Steven May, Richard Hill, Sarah Tiakiwai (2004).

This literature focuses on national and international research in bilingual education relevant to Maori-medium education, and includes indicators of good practice which are also applicable to other bilingual contexts such as ESOL learning.

English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL): Effective Provision for International Students (A Resource for Schools).

A 26-page document providing ideas for effective ESOL provision in the export education school sector, through five sections: Preparing for International Students; Managing Enrolment and Placement; Delivering Effective Programmes, Monitoring Students; Developing English within the Home and Community.

English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL): The Refugee Handbook for Schools.

This 62-page document consists of five sections: Preparing the school to welcome refugees, On enrolment, Planning and delivering a teaching programme, Identifying and managing at risk students, Planning for transition from school. It contains practical suggestions, worksheets, etc, many of which would be useful for teachers of any ESOL student.

English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Resourcing Information.

A document with information about applying for resourcing for ESOL students, suggestions for policy and practice for ESOL students, and contacts for the National Migrant, Refugee

57

and International Team, Regional Migrant and Refugee education, and Literacy Advisors (ESOL).

Families Learning Together: A resource for Students and Families. ESOL/Refugee Team, National Operations Ministry of Education Auckland (2002).

Available in English, Arabic, Somali, Amharic, Farsi, Khmer, Chinese, Korean, and Hindi, these booklets include suggestions for parents of ESOL students for how to support their children’s listening and talking, reading, writing, and learning Mathematics.

Improving English Language Outcomes for Students Receiving ESOL Services in New Zealand Schools, with a Particular Focus on New Immigrants. Margaret Franken and Johanne McComish (2003).

Research report which includes a literature review identifying good practice for teaching and learning for NESB students, and an investigation into the ways in which schools provide for and meet the language needs of their NESB students.

Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Rod Ellis (2005).

A literature review most relevant to foreign or international languages because it does not take into consideration the wider context for ESOL learners, but coverage of language learning theory is also applicable to ESOL learners.

Interventions for Refugee Children in New Zealand Schools: Models, Methods, and Best Practice. Richard J. Hamilton, Angelika Anderson, Kaaren Frater-Mathieson, Shawn Loewen, Dennis W. Moore (n.d.).

This literature review focuses on the refugee context, and includes a chapter on second language concerns.

Learning Languages: A Guide for New Zealand Schools. Learning Media (1992).

Although this resource focuses on the teaching of foreign or international languages in the school setting, there is some relevance for ESOL learners in the section which gives an overview of links for language learning in the (then) seven Essential Learning Areas - four or five conceptual ideas issues or ideas for each area.

Making a Difference in the Classroom: Effective Teaching Practice in Low Decile, Multicultural Schools. Jan Hill and Kay Hawk (2000). Further investigation as part of the AIMHI project (see Towards Making Achievement Cool below), in which teaching practice was critiqued in order to identify factors of effective teaching and learning strategies.

Non-English-Speaking Background Students: A study of Programmes and Support in New Zealand Schools. Shelley Kennedy and Sharon Dewar (1997).

Findings from an exploratory study of the programmes for ESOL students in 14 schools. Individual chapters may be downloaded, and include a description of programmes that schools provide, characteristics of ‘good’ programmes, practical tips, and where to access resource materials.

58

The Experiences of International Students in New Zealand. Colleen Ward and Anne-Marie Masgoret (2004).

Results of a survey of international students in New Zealand at secondary schools, tertiary institutions and private language schools, in order to identify their general characteristics; assess their self-reported academic performance; determine their satisfaction with educational, pastoral and support services, living conditions and social circumstances; and ascertain their future plans.

The Impact of International Students on Domestic Students and Host Institutions. Colleen Ward (2001).

A literature review considering the educational, social and cultural impacts of international students on domestic students, educational institutions, and domestic students. The review includes an examination of strategies to enhance intercultural relations.

Towards Making Achievement Cool: Achievement in Multi Cultural High Schools (AIMHI). Kay Hawk and Jan Hill (with Teau Seabourne, Lita Foliaki, Lonise Tanielu, Tawhiri Williams) (1996).

Findings from a project to identify factors that influence the achievement of students at eight low decile schools with high ratios of Pasifika students (see also Making a Difference in the Classroom above).

Quality Teaching for Diverse Students in Schooling: Best Evidence Synthesis. Adrienne Alton-Lee (2003).

Ten characteristics of quality teaching were identified from a synthesis of research findings of evidence linked to student outcomes.

Related Ministry of Education websites ESOL Online: www.tki.org.nz/r/esol/esolonline

This website is produced by Unitec for the Ministry of Education, to provide resources for teachers of ESOL students. It is divided into Professional Readings, School Policies, Teachers, Classroom Practice, New Arrivals, New to Teaching ESOL Students, and a Forum.

ESOL TKI Community News: www.tki.org.nz/e/community/esol

A teacher-oriented website, with lesson plans, information about curriculum updates, and other information and websites which may be relevant to teachers of ESOL students.

English Online: www.english.unitecnology.ac.nz

A site for teachers of English in schools. It includes English units, classroom strategies, professional readings, resources for students, and discussion forums. Includes the online version of Exploring Language: A Handbook for Teachers. The ESOL section links through to ESOL Online.

59

APPENDIX 2: THE INVENTORY OF MINISTRY OF EDUCATION DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS TO SUPPORT EAL LEARNERS’ ACCESS TO MAINSTREAM CURRICULA CATEGORISED ACCORDING TO TYPE

ESO

L se

ctor

in

form

atio

n

Res

earc

h fin

ding

s

Lite

ratu

re re

view

Scho

ol/c

lass

room

po

licy/

app

roac

hes

Teac

her p

lann

ing

mat

eria

ls/e

xem

plar

s

Stud

ent c

lass

room

m

ater

ials

/exe

mpl

ars

Pare

nt m

ater

ials

Print materials Exploring Language: A Handbook for Teachers

√

How is my child progressing? √ Language and Learning in Secondary Schools: Mathematics

√ √

Language and Learning in Secondary Schools: Science

√ √

Non-English Speaking Background Students: A Handbook for Schools

√ √ √

Non-English Speaking Background Students: Information for Schools

√ √ √ √ √

Selections √ √ Promoting Positive Race Relations in New Zealand Schools: Me Mahi Tahi Tātou

√ √ √

Periodicals English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) News Sheets

√ √

Many Voices √ √ √ Videos Cross-Cultural Communication: A Resource for Staff working with International Students

√

ESOL in the Mainstream √ Documents on www.minedu.govt.nz

Bilingualism/Immersion Education: Indicators of Good Practice

√ √

English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Effective Provision for International Students

√ √

English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL): The Refugee Handbook for Schools

√ √ √

English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Resourcing Information

√

Families Learning Together: A Resource for Students and Families

√ √

Improving English Language Outcomes for Students Receiving ESOL Services in New Zealand Schools, with a Particular Focus on New Immigrants

√ √ √ √

60

Instructed Second Language Acquisition √ Interventions for Refugee Children in New Zealand Schools: Models, Methods, and Best Practice

√ √ √

Learning Languages: A Guide for New Zealand Schools

√

Making a Difference in the Classroom: Effective Teaching in Low Decile, Multicultural Schools

√ √

Non-English-Speaking Background Students: A Study of Programmes and Support in New Zealand schools

√ √ √

The Experiences of International Students in New Zealand

√ √ √

The Impact of International Students on Domestic Students and Host Institutions

√ √

Towards Making Achievement Cool: Achievement in Multi Cultural High Schools (AIMHI)

√ √ √

Quality Teaching for Diverse Students in Schooling: Best Evidence Synthesis

√

Related Ministry of Education websites

ESOL Online √ √ √ √ √ √ ESOL TKI Community News √ √ √ √ √ √ English Online √ √ √

61

APPENDIX 3: A DESCRIPTION OF KEY ESB ASSESSMENT TOOLS AsTTle

AsTTle stands for Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning (He Pūnaha Aromatawai mō te Whakaako me te Ako). It is an educational resource for assessing literacy and numeracy (in both English and Māori) developed for the Ministry of Education by the University of Auckland.

AsTTle provides… information about a student's level of achievement, relative to the curriculum achievement outcomes, for levels 2 to 6 and national norms of performance for students in Years 4 to 12.

Teachers can use asTTle to create 40-minute paper and pencil tests designed for their own students' learning needs. Once the tests are scored, the asTTle tool generates interactive graphic reports that allow teachers to analyse student achievement against curriculum levels, curriculum objectives, and population norms.

(What is asTTle? section, ¶ 1, http://www.tki.org.nz/r/asttle)

Assessment resource banks

The Assessment Resource Banks (ARBs) are collections of assessment resources in English, Mathematics, and Science.

• The ARBs are developed by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research under contract to the Ministry of Education. ….

• They are aligned to the New Zealand curriculum statements in English, Mathematics, and Science at levels 2 to 5. There are a few level 6 resources in Science….

• They are intended for assessment within New Zealand classrooms. Many of the resources include formative assessment support for teachers and students.…

• They consist of tasks for students to complete, and a Teacher Information page.

• They include a broad range of assessment tasks. (What are the ARBs? section, ¶ 1, http://arb.nzcer.org.nz/nzcer3/what.htm)

Exemplars

An exemplar is an authentic piece of student work, annotated to illustrate learning, achievement, and quality in relation to the levels in the national curriculum statement. The purpose is to highlight features that teachers need to watch for, collect information about, and act on to promote learning. Exemplars help to answer the question, "What is quality work?"

(What is an exemplar? section ¶ 1 and 2, http://www.tki.org.nz/r/assessment/exemplars/index_e.php)

What Next

What Next is an indexed database of educational resources. Teachers can use What Next in conjunction with the asTTle or as a standalone resource. What Next also has links to other sites primarily to support English teaching

(What is what Next? section, ¶ 1, http://www.tki.org.nz/r/asttle/whatnext/index_e.php)

62

APPENDIX 4: SUPPORT FOR INDIVIDUAL PUPILS IN DEVELOPING THE USE OF LANGUAGE

In planning support for these pupils in any area of the curriculum,

the following questions may be used to help identify important aspects of provision:

the following issues need consideration in providing for particular groups of pupils:

Language expectations Planning support

• What vocabulary will pupils need, and what new vocabulary will be taught?

• will it be necessary to adapt or simplify abstract concepts for pupils with learning difficulties, eg giving concrete examples? • how will earlier vocabulary work be reinforced and made relevant, eg recalling information through discussion, displaying

key words already known?

• What language structures and grammatical conventions will pupils need to understand and use?

• how will new learners of English be alerted to language structures, eg use of past tense, ways of forming complex sentences, ways of asking questions?

• where pupils have difficulties with sequencing, how will they be helped to structure chronological and logical accounts?

• Will pupils be expected to listen to and understand extended discussion or presentation?

• Which purposes for talk will best support pupils’ learning?

• What skills in speaking and listening will be necessary for full participation in the work?

• what arrangements should be made for pupils with hearing difficulties, eg seating, use of appropriate aids? • what explicit teaching and modelling of talk will be necessary, eg hypothesising, evaluating, summarising? • how will the talk be structured to support less confident pupils, eg giving pupils particular roles, using short written

prompts? • how will the oral skills of pupils learning EAL be monitored and developed, eg by individual feedback?

• In order to be able to explore a topic in depth, will pupils need to use sustained, independent writing?

• where pupils find continuous writing difficult, what use can be made of aids such as key words, topic sentences, outline plans, concept keyboards?

• how will this writing task contribute to pupils’ development in spelling, handwriting and presentation? • what texts can be used as models for pupils’ writing?

• What reading skills will pupils need and what are they expected to learn from the text?

• what support should be offered to pupils with reading difficulties, eg listing key words, structuring the reading task, working with support staff?

• how will pupils make use of what they learn from their reading and how does this affect the teaching task? • how will the reading materials and activities extend the subject knowledge of more able pupils?

(School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 1997, pp. 12-13).

The Place of ESOL in the New Zealand Curriculum Discussion Paper

Documents

Transcript of The Place of ESOL in the New Zealand Curriculum Discussion Paper