Headrick 1

Jessi Headrick

Dr. Zepernick

ENGL-603-01

8 December 2017

Instructional Strategies for English Language Learners

“Research-based” is today’s buzzword for teachers when it comes to choosing modes of

instruction, curricula, and forms of assessment (Hill and Flynn 5). Particularly since the advent

of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), teachers can no longer rely solely on their knowledge

of best practices or their years of experience (Hill and Flynn).

In the late 1990s, researchers at Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning

(McREL) were at the forefront of this shift—a shift, essentially, from viewing teaching as an art

toward viewing it as a science (Hill and Flynn 5). Another shift in educational thinking was

under way at the same time: Researchers were realizing that studies from the 1960s and 1970s

indicating that school quality accounted for only about ten percent of differences in students’

academic performance (Coleman et al. 22; Jencks et al. 188-190) were not entirely accurate. In

particular, researchers found that even if a school was not highly effective in raising student

performance, individual teachers could still have a powerful effect on students’ academic

achievement (Brophy and Good 126; Sanders and Horn 247; Wright et al. 57).

Buoyed by this new line of research, McREL researchers began looking at studies of

various instructional strategies that could be used by individual teachers (Hill and Flynn 5). An

instructional strategy was defined as an alterable behavior on the part of teachers or students

(Hill and Flynn 5-6). Using meta-analysis, these researchers analyzed over one hundred studies

of instructional strategies, spanning thirty years (Hill and Flynn 6). Through their meta-analysis,
 Headrick 2

McREL researchers identified nine categories of instructional strategies that proved to be

exceptionally effective in increasing student performance: setting objectives and providing

feedback; nonlinguistic representations; cues, questions, and advance organizers; cooperative

learning; summarizing and note taking; homework and practice; reinforcing effort and providing

recognition; generating and testing hypotheses; and identifying similarities and differences (Hill

and Flynn 6). The results of this research are presented in Classroom Instruction That Works:

Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement (2001) by Robert Marzano,

Debra Pickering, and Jane Pollock (Hill and Flynn 6).

Although the nine categories of instructional strategies identified by McREL researchers

were proven to be exceptionally effective in increasing the performance of students in general,

Jane Hill and Kathleen Flynn differentiate those strategies for English Language Learners

(ELLs) in Classroom Instruction That Works with English Language Learners (2006). As

Claude Goldenberg notes in his article “Teaching English Language Learners: What the

Research Does—and Does Not—Say” from American Educator, “What we know about good

instruction and curriculum in general holds true for English language learners as well” (14).

Reports from both the National Literacy Panel (NLP) and the Center for Research on Education,

Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) conclude that ELLs learn in much the same way as non-

ELLS (Goldenberg 17). Good instruction for students in general tends to be good instruction for

ELLs in particular (Goldenberg 17). Therefore, with some differentiation, the nine categories of

instructional strategies identified by McREL researchers to be effective with students in general

is also exceptionally effective with ELLs.

The first category of instructional strategies identified by McREL researchers to be

effective in increasing student performance was setting objectives and providing feedback.
 Headrick 3

Setting objectives in the classroom helps focus the direction for learning and establish the

path for teaching (Hill and Flynn 22). For ELLs, setting objectives is especially important if one

considers the incredible amount of incoming stimuli bombarding these students as they try to

learn both a new language and content knowledge (Hill and Flynn). This sense of being

overwhelmed can subside when students are told exactly what they are going to learn each day

upon entering the classroom (Hill and Flynn). Aware of the intended outcomes, they know what

to focus on and what to screen out as they process new information (Hill and Flynn).

The educational environment also becomes a friendlier place for ELLs when they have a

clearly stated target for learning (Hill and Flynn 22). When teachers set objectives correctly,

students work toward clearly defined goals and are able to explain what they are learning and

why they are learning it (Hill and Flynn).

When teaching ELLs, it is also particularly important for teachers to ensure that feedback

is comprehensible, useful, and relevant (Hill and Flynn 31).

Rhonda Oliver notes that the way in which teachers correct language usage affects

students’ verbal modifications (520). When teacher feedback on errors is constructive, students

use the feedback to rephrase (Oliver). According to Sharon Faith Schoen, Alexis Ann Schoen,

and Deborah Short, rather than immediately correcting students, teachers should simply restate

what the students say using the correct grammar, pronunciation, or vocabulary (Schoen and

Schoen 18; “Integrating Language and Content Instruction” 4). Students can refer to this model

in the future when they want to say something similar (Schoen and Schoen; “Integrating

Language and Content Instruction”). Modeling correct grammar is beneficial for the student, but

overemphasizing grammar is not (Schoen and Schoen; “Integrating Language and Content

Instruction”).
 Headrick 4

H. Douglas Brown and Scott Thornbury also contend that if language learners only get

positive messages about their output, they will not make attempts to restructure their grammar

(Brown 235-236; Thornbury 116-117). If they think that everything they are saying is accurate,

they will stop short of full language proficiency, and their incorrect usage will become

“fossilized” (Brown; Thornbury).

The second category of instructional strategies identified by McREL researchers to be

effective in increasing student performance was nonlinguistic representations.

Teachers mainly present new knowledge linguistically in the classroom, as they often ask

students to listen to or read new information (Hill and Flynn 36). However, because ELLs cannot

rely solely on linguistic ability to learn and retain knowledge in a new language, nonlinguistic

methods of learning are particularly important for them (Hill and Flynn).

To make English instruction as understandable as possible for ELLs, Deborah Short

recommends using diverse media. For example, Short first suggests that mainstream teachers

bring real objects and visuals such as photographs, graphs, and charts into their lessons to

communicate nonverbal information (“Integrating Language and Content Instruction” 7).

Second, Short suggests that teachers conduct demonstrations, matching their actions with their

words to convey meaning and giving directions by pointing, gesturing, showing, and explaining

(“Integrating Language and Content Instruction”). Third, Short suggests teachers use films, short

videos, or audio with books (“Integrating Language and Content Instruction”). Words alone on a

page will not hold meaning for students in the early stages of language acquisition (Hill and

Flynn 37). Students can connect with content better when they see and hear it (Hill and Flynn).

Lastly, Short suggests teachers have students do hands-on activities (“Integrating Language and

Content Instruction” 7-8).

 Headrick 5

The third category of instructional strategies identified by McREL researchers to be

effective in increasing student performance was cues, questions, and advance organizers.

Cues and questions are used at the beginning of a lesson to help students make

connections between what they already know (background knowledge) and what they will need

to know (Hill and Flynn 44, 54).

Cues are simply hints that let students know what they are about to experience (Hill and

Flynn 44). For example, before reading a novel, a teacher could give a cue by providing the topic

of a book students are about to read. This activates prior knowledge—the students will start

thinking about what they already know about the topic (Hill and Flynn 45).

Questions can do the same thing—for example, the teacher could simply ask students

what they know about the topic (Hill and Flynn 45).

Carmen Simich-Dudgeon, Lynn McCreedy, and Mary Schleppegrell encourage teachers

to ask questions frequently throughout a lesson because it provides many opportunities for ELLs

to use their new language (5). Students need a chance to put their thoughts into words, so

providing some wait time after asking questions often leads to higher-quality responses (Simich-

Dudgeon et al. 3). Participating in classroom interactions also helps students gain confidence in

themselves and their speaking abilities (Simich-Dudgeon et al. 5).

Like cues and questions, advance organizers help students use their personal experiences

and content knowledge to learn new information (Hill and Flynn 54).

Advance organizers are organizational frameworks presented in advance of lessons that

emphasize the essential ideas in a lesson or unit (Hill and Flynn 48). They focus student attention

on the topic at hand and help them draw connections between what they already know and the

new knowledge to be learned (Hill and Flynn).

 Headrick 6

Sharon Faith Schoen and Alexis Ann Schoen recommend advance organizers, noting that

they help ELL students understand key concepts that they will be exposed to in a text (Schoen

and Schoen 19). For example, when webs are used as advance organizers, students can see

connections between words or phrases and the topic by following symbols and arrows (Schoen

and Schoen).

The fourth category of instructional strategies identified by McREL researchers to be

effective in increasing student performance was cooperative learning.

Educators have found that cooperative learning groups foster language acquisition in

ways that whole-class instruction cannot (Hill and Flynn 56). So what is it about these groups

that make them such a rich opportunity for ELLs?

First, ELLs working in small groups have many more opportunities to speak than they

have during whole-class instruction (Hill and Flynn 56). Small groups “create opportunities for

sustained dialogue and substantive language use” as students use language to accomplish the task

at hand (Zehler 6-7). In fact, cooperative learning groups “demand speech” because each

member must carry out his or her role if the group as a whole is to succeed (Alanis 222).

Second, group members must also “negotiate meaning” as they speak, meaning that they

must adjust their language so that it is comprehensible to other members (Hill and Flynn 56). In

doing this, students ensure that all members are able to understand what others have said

(Englander 8; Kagan 2). Because students are in small groups, it is easy to check for

understanding and adjust the level of speech appropriately—something that a teacher or student

cannot do easily in a whole-class session (Kagan).

Third, small groups allow for the repetition of key words and phrases (Hill and Flynn 56).

According to Spencer Kagan, language acquisition is not ensured “unless the input is received
 Headrick 7

repeatedly from a variety of sources” (2). Repetition allows the ELL to move the content he or

she hears “from short-term comprehension to long-term acquisition” (Kagan).

Fourth, small groups require functional, context-relevant speech (Hill and Flynn 56).

Speech that is “personally relevant” and “representative of actual speech” is more likely to add to

an ELL’s fluency (Kagan 3).

Fifth, small groups are “feedback-rich” (Hill and Flynn 56). Not only are there far more

opportunities for feedback and correction in a small group setting, but the feedback and

correction occur in the context of actual conversation, rather than in a formal instructional

situation (Hill and Flynn). An English language learner is less likely to feel self-conscious about

being corrected in a small group setting (Kagan 4).

Sixth, small groups can greatly reduce student anxiety (Hill and Flynn 56). Because small

groups are supportive and interdependent, ELLs feel more comfortable speaking (Hill and

Flynn). Negative emotions (such as anxiety and lack of self-confidence) can impede language

acquisition (Hill and Flynn).

The fifth category of instructional strategies identified by McREL researchers to be

effective in increasing student performance was summarizing and note taking.

Though there has historically been a great deal of emphasis on learning strategies, too

few ELLs receive instruction in the use of thinking skills essential to summarizing and note

taking (Padrón 35). Many teachers mistakenly believe that these higher-level skills cannot be

taught to students until they have full mastery of English (Garcia and Pearson 2). In fact, a 1992

study by Yolanda Padrón found that ELLs can benefit from learning cognitive strategies (35).

By teaching summarizing and note-taking techniques, teachers can enhance students’

ability to synthesize and organize information in a way that captures the main ideas and
 Headrick 8

supporting details (Hill and Flynn 9). Both summarizing and note taking help students process

information (Hill and Flynn).

Summarizing is primarily about distilling information, finding patterns, filling in the

missing parts, and synthesizing the information into a condensed form (Hill and Flynn 9).

According to Deborah Short, when ELLs are taught to understand text patterns and recognize the

signal words accompanying them, reading and writing skills improve (“Study Examines Role of

Academic Language” 2).

Note taking is closely related to summarizing because it requires that students take

information and synthesize it using their own words (Hill and Flynn 69). The purpose of note

taking is to help students acquire and integrate knowledge; it is a way to organize and process

information (Hill and Flynn). Because ELLs are extracting new knowledge in a new language,

they need explicit instruction in the art of note taking (Hill and Flynn).

The sixth category of instructional strategies identified by McREL researchers to be

effective in increasing student performance was homework and practice.

Homework provides students with opportunities to practice, review, and apply knowledge

(Hill and Flynn 77). Although homework is an effective means of extending student learning

beyond the school day, there are some general guidelines to keep in mind regarding homework

for ELLs (Hill and Flynn). The National Clearinghouse for English Language Arts Acquisition

(NCELA) recommends that mainstream teachers include the following items to help ensure that

homework assignments will be understood and accomplished: concrete, nonlinguistic examples

such as photographs, objects, visual organizers, graphics, demonstrations, notes, or outlines;

opportunities for students to ask questions and discuss assignments orally; native language

support through bilingual tutors, instructions, or materials; peer support for note taking and
 Headrick 9

homework; modified or additional instructions; and tips and strategies for learning (Hill and

Flynn 77-78).

The NCELA also advises teachers to make time available for ELLs to ask questions

about homework and receive further explanations from the teacher (Hill and Flynn 78). Students

will better understand their assignments if teachers provide clear and concise directions, post the

assignment on the board, and offer visual organizers (Hill and Flynn).

Homework can be modified for ELLs by reducing complexity and increasing

applicability (Hill and Flynn 78). For example, teachers might shorten the list of terms on a study

sheet (reduced complexity) or extend the due date (increased applicability) (Hill and Flynn).

Appropriate homework assignments require students to practice things they have already learned

in the classroom, such as vocabulary, concepts, or written language activities (Hill and Flynn).

Students practice to deepen their understanding of content and to become proficient at

skills (Hill and Flynn 83). During practice, teachers can carefully point out errors and common

difficulties, so students do not continue to make mistakes (Hill and Flynn).

Students should practice skills or process so that they can attain automaticity (Hill and

Flynn 83). It is up to the teacher to decide what is worth practicing (Hill and Flynn 83-84). He or

she must make sure enough time is available for students to engage in practice (Hill and Flynn

84).

When it comes to ELLs, practice is particularly important (Hill and Flynn 84). Students

should not spend too much energy on certain skills and not enough on others when time is of the

essence (as with older ELLs) (Hill and Flynn). Choosing practice activities carefully helps make

the time a teacher has with students more productive and focused (Hill and Flynn).
 Headrick 10

The seventh category of instructional strategies identified by McREL researchers to be

effective in increasing student performance was reinforcing effort and providing recognition.

Classroom Instruction That Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student

Achievement indicates that reinforcing effort and providing recognition affect student attitudes

and beliefs (Marzano et al. 49-59). Stephen Krashen’s “affective filter” hypothesis describes how

negative feelings and lack of self-confidence and motivation can reduce a student’s ability to

acquire a new language (30-32). If a student suffers from low self-esteem, inadequate

motivation, and apprehension, an affective filter goes up like an imaginary wall, seriously

affecting the process of language acquisition (Krashen).

Reinforcing effort is about enhancing students’ understanding of the relationship between

effort and achievement by addressing attitudes and beliefs about learning (Hill and Flynn 11).

Providing recognition involves giving students rewards or praise for accomplishments related to

the attainment of a goal (Hill and Flynn 92).

English language learners are always trying to accomplish two main goals: improvement

of academic achievement and an increase in their English language proficiency (Hill and Flynn

94). They need to be recognized for this double duty, as they not only have to learn new subject

matter but also have to learn it in a new language (Hill and Flynn).

Students should also be recognized for progressing to a different stage of language

acquisition (Hill and Flynn 94). When it comes to personalizing recognition, there may not be

anything more personal to an ELL than being recognized for becoming bilingual—a feat that

perhaps only a small number in the school will accomplish (Hill and Flynn).

The eighth category of instructional strategies identified by McREL researchers to be

effective in increasing student performance was generating and testing hypotheses.

 Headrick 11

When the phrase “generating and testing hypotheses” is heard, many people’s minds

jump to science; they think of laboratories, test tubes, and scientists in white coats (Hill and

Flynn 95). However, science does not have an exclusive claim on this instructional strategy,

which engages students in complex reasoning that can be used in other content areas (Hill and

Flynn).

The process of generating and testing hypotheses requires ELLs to access prior

knowledge, apply new knowledge, and explain their conclusions (Hill and Flynn 95). Anytime

“if-then” reasoning is used, the realm of generating and testing hypotheses is entered (Hill and

Flynn). For example, when studying literature, a teacher might ask students what would happen

to a character in the literature if he or she made one decision as opposed to another (Hill and

Flynn).

Having students explain their hypotheses and conclusions presents an excellent

opportunity for ELLs to develop oral and academic language (Hill and Flynn 96). When students

are explaining hypotheses and conclusions, it is important to find time to facilitate language

development (Hill and Flynn).

The ninth and final category of instructional strategies identified by McREL researchers

to be effective in increasing student performance was identifying similarities and differences.

When teachers ask ELLs to identify similarities and differences, those teachers give the

students the opportunity to learn content at a deeper level (Hill and Flynn 101). In order to

complete this task, students are required to activate prior knowledge, make new connections,

construct meaning, and talk about their reasoning (Hill and Flynn).

Identifying similarities and differences also allows ELLs rich opportunities to develop

their second language (Hill and Flynn 109). Teacher-directed activities are important as students
 Headrick 12

become familiar with the tasks of comparing, classifying, creating metaphors, and creating

analogies (Hill and Flynn). Teachers should allow for plenty of talk time as students demonstrate

verbal abilities before moving them into written forms of distinguishing similarities and

differences (Hill and Flynn).

English language learners are the fastest growing student population in the U.S. public

school system (Gonzalez 1). Unfortunately, though, many mainstream teachers are not prepared

to meet the needs of this special population (Hill and Flynn 118), and the need for teachers who

are prepared to work with ELLs has never been greater (de Jong et al. 89-90).

What many teachers lack in formal education and preparation, however, they try to make

up in research. Although a list of strategies like the one in this paper don’t come close to giving a

teacher the skills he or she needs to be successful with ELLs, it’s important to remember that

these strategies are simply a starting point. Instruction for English language learners, and for

students in general, is not a “one size fits all” approach. Instead, the strategies described here are

meant to be modified and adapted to fit the needs of the individual students who help make our

classrooms so diverse.
 Headrick 13

Works Cited

Alanis, Iliana. “Effective Instruction: Integrating Language and Literacy.” Scholars in the Field:

The Challenges of Migrant Education, edited by Cinthia Salinas and Maria E. Franquiz,

Appalachian Regional Education Laboratory, 2004, pp. 211-224. Education Resources

Information Center, files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED482321.pdf.

Brophy, Jere E., and Thomas L. Good. “Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement.” The

Institute for Research on Teaching, 1984, pp. 1-164. Hathi Trust Digital Library,

hdl.handle.net/2027/pur1.32754061748053.

Brown, H. Douglas. “Cross-Linguistic Influence and Learner Language.” Principles of Language

Learning and Teaching, 4th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 2000, pp. 207-244.

Coleman, James S., et al. “Summary Report.” Equality of Educational Opportunity, U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1966, pp. 3-34. Education Resources Information Center,

files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf.

de Jong, Ester J., et al. “Enhanced Knowledge and Skills for Elementary Mainstream Teachers of

English Language Learners.” Theory Into Practice, vol. 52, no. 2, Apr. 2013, pp. 89-

97. Academic Search Premier [EBSCO], doi:10.1080/00405841.2013.770326.

Englander, Karen. “Real Life Problem Solving: A Collaborative Learning Activity.” English

Teaching Forum, vol. 40, no. 1, Jan. 2002, pp. 8-11.,

https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/02-40-1-d.pdf.

Garcia, Georgia Earnest, and P. David Pearson. “Modifying Reading Instruction to Maximize Its

Effectiveness for All Students.” 1990, pp. 1-20, files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED314723.pdf.

 Headrick 14

Goldenberg, Claude. “Teaching English Language Learners: What the Research Does—and

Does Not—Say.” American Educator, 2008, pp. 8-44.,

www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/goldenberg.pdf.

Gonzalez, Monica M. “Preparing Teacher Candidates for the Instruction of English Language

Learners.” Networks: An On-Line Journal for Teacher Research, vol. 18, no. 2, 2016, pp.

1-9. Education Resources Information Center, files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1152320.pdf.

Hill, Jane D., and Kathleen M. Flynn. Classroom Instruction That Works with English Language

Learners. 1st ed., Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2006.

Jencks, Christopher, et al. “Inequality in Occupational Status.” Inequality: A Reassessment of the

Effect of Family and Schooling in America, Basic Books, Inc., 1972, pp. 176-208.

Kagan, Spencer. “We Can Talk: Cooperative Learning in the Elementary ESL Classroom.” ERIC

Digest, May 1995, pp. 1-6. Education Resources Information Center,

files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED382035.pdf.

Krashen, Stephen D. “Second Language Acquisition Theory.” Principles and Practice in Second

Language Acquisition, Pergamon, 1982, pp. 9-56.

Marzano, Robert J., et al. Classroom Instruction That Works: Research-Based Strategies for

Increasing Student Achievement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development, 2001.

Oliver, Rhonda, and Alison Mackey. “Interactional Context and Feedback in Child ESL

Classrooms.” The Modern Language Journal, vol. 87, no. 4, 2003, pp. 519-533. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/1192801.
 Headrick 15

Padrón, Yolanda N. “The Effect of Strategy Instruction on Bilingual Students’ Cognitive

Strategy Use in Reading.” Bilingual Research Journal, vol. 16, 1992, pp. 35-51.,

www.ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/BE021078/The_Effect_of_Strategy.pdf.

Sanders, William L., and Sandra P. Horn. “Research Findings from the Tennessee Value-Added

Assessment System (TVAAS) Database: Implications for Educational Evaluation and

Research.” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, vol. 12, no. 3, Sept. 1998, pp.

247-256. ProQuest,

library.pittstate.edu:2048/login?url=https://library.pittstate.edu:4471/docview/763035534

?accountid=13211.

Schoen, Sharon Faith, and Alexis Ann Schoen. “Action Research in the Classroom: Assisting a

Linguistically Different Learner with Special Needs.” TEACHING Exceptional Children,

vol. 35, no. 3, 2003, pp. 16-21. Academic Search Premier [EBSCO],

library.pittstate.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&

AuthType=ip&db=aph&AN=8735161&site=ehost-live.

Short, Deborah J. “Integrating Language and Content Instruction: Strategies and Techniques.”

NCBE Program Information Guide Series II, no. 7, 1991, pp. 1-21.,

www.ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/BE018150/PIG7.pdf.

Short, Deborah J. “Study Examines Role of Academic Language in Social Studies Content-ESL

Classes.” Forum, vol. 17, no. 3, 1994, pp. 1-3.,

www.ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/BE024341/Forum_v17_n3_Spring_1994.pdf.

Simich-Dudgeon, Carmen, et al. “Helping Limited English Proficient Children Communicate in

the Classroom: A Handbook for Teachers.” NCBE Program Information Guide Series I,

no. 9, 1988, pp. 1-21., www.ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/BE016994/pigs9.pdf.

 Headrick 16

Thornbury, Scott. “How to Deal with Grammar Errors.” How to Teach Grammar, edited by

Jeremy Harmer, Pearson Education Limited, 1999, pp. 113-127.

Wright, S. Paul, et al. “Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on Student Achievement:

Implications for Teacher Evaluation.” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, vol.

11, no. 1, Apr. 1997, pp. 57-67. ProQuest,

library.pittstate.edu:2048/login?url=https://library.pittstate.edu:4471/docview/763045390

?accountid=13211.

Zehler, Annette. “Working with English Language Learners: Strategies for Elementary and

Middle School Teachers.” NCBE Program Information Guide Series II, no. 19, 1994, pp.

1-14., www.ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/BE020280/PIG19.pdf.