International Journal of Arts & Sciences,

CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 :: 4(16):297–314 (2011)

Copyright c 2011 by InternationalJournal.org

SUPPORTING AT-RISK ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN AN

URBAN SECONDARY SCIENCE CLASSROOM: DEVELOPING
CONTENT LITERACY STRATEGIES IN A PEER ENHANCED
RESTRUCTURED CLASSROOM

Linda Gerena and Leslie Keiler

York College, The City University of New York, United States

This research study investigated the use of targeted literacy strategies that were introduced,
demonstrated and developed in two selected high school biology classes that integrated
content and language learning with second language learners. Over an academic year, eighteen
Teaching Assistant Scholars (TA Scholars) assisted 63 urban at risk students, 32 of whom
were English Language Learners (ELLs) or former English Language Learners (F-ELLs),
develop science-based literacy skills. The TA Scholars and their students worked in small
groups of three and four in an innovative and successful program titled Peer Enabled
Restructured Classrooms (PERC) funded by the National Science Foundation. Findings
demonstrate the success of the intervention for ELLs and provide the basis for further study
about using peer-led literacy strategies to enhance learning of complex academic content.

Keywords: English Language Learners, Literacy, Science, High School.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

English Language Learners (ELLs) are the fastest growing demographic population in US
schools (Hoffman & Sable, 2006), and according to the census data in 2004-2005 approximately
5.1 million or 10.5 percent of the US student population are ELLs (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007;
Boyson & Short, 2003; Kindler, 2002). According to a study published in 2009 by the American
Institutes for Research (AIR) and WestEd, during the 2004–05 school year, there were over 5
million ELLs in US schools, an increase of 65% from the 1993–94 school year (Parrish et al.,
2006). Spanish was the most common primary language spoken by ELLs, and about 70% of
ELLs were native Spanish speakers (Capps et al., 2005). The New York City (NYC) Department
of Education has reported the following statistics on the number of ELLs in NYC public schools
(Office of English Language Learners, 2008, 2009; Acompore, 2008).

• In 2008, both ELLs and former ELLs accounted for 26% (n=1,190,186) of the student
population in New York City public schools.
• In the 2007-2008 there were 129,004 General Education ELLs along with 19,397
special education ELLs. These students accounted for 14.1% of the total student
population.

297
298 Linda Gerena and Leslie Keiler

• During this time period 41,061 ELLs were enrolled in grades 9-12 (28%).
• Long-Term ELLs (LTEs) accounted for 14% of all ELLs. LTEs are those students
who have completed at least six years of ELL services in NYC schools and continue
to need services. The majority of LTEs (56%) are enrolled in grades 9-12. Most LTEs
speak Spanish (83%).
• ELL Students with Interrupted Formal Education (SIFE) accounted for 10.5% of all
ELLs. Of the new SIFE students, the highest number and percentage (1320 or 38%)
entered in grades 9 and 10 with a majority speaking Spanish (56.6%). Half of all
Spanish dominant SIFE ELLs are from the Dominican Republic.

These statistics demonstrate the prevalence of ELLs in US schools, particularly in urban centers
such as New York City. A wide range of statistics demonstrates the achievement gap between
ELLs and their English Proficient (EP) peers. Across the US, high school graduation rates and
college entrance lag significantly for most ELLs (Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004, Callahan & Gándara,
2004). In New York City, ELL graduation rates were 31.6% in 2003 and 30.8% in 2007 (Office
of English Language Learners, 2009) while the overall graduation rate for non-ELL students for
those years was 54.4% and 63.5% respectively. The achievement gap appears before students
enter high school, suggesting reasons for this disparity in graduation rates. For example, low-
level academic literacy is revealed in annual scores from the National Assessment for
Educational Progress (NAEP). In 2005, only 4% of 8th grade ELLs and 20% of students
classified as ‘formerly ELL’ scored at the proficient or advanced levels on the reading portion
(Perie, Grigg, & Donahue, 2005). In 2008, 42% of NYC 8th grade ELLs passed their state Math
exam. Of this 42%, the lowest percentage of pass rate by language spoken was that of Spanish
speakers at 33% (Office of English Language Learners, 2009, p 18). However, when the data is
disaggregated for special needs or SIFE, the overall pass rate on the 8th grade state math exam for
general education ELL students was 53% (Office of English Language Learners, 2009, p 19).
Either way, ELLs are entering high school with significantly lower academic performance levels
than are their native English counterparts. In 2010, 57% of English Proficient Students scored at
levels 3 and 4 in math in grades 3-8 as compared to 32% of ELLs. In that same year 46.8% of
English Proficient students scored at levels 3 & 4 in English language Arts in grades 3-8 as
compared to 13.5% of ELLs (Office of English Language Learners, 2009, p 21).
The research objectives of this study are to explore ways to help ELLs process the complex,
academically challenging materials of secondary school, using cognitive and metacognitive
literacy strategies in the content classroom. This study is being conducted within a larger project
that fundamentally alters the traditional, teacher-centered learning environment prevalent in
urban classroom across the nation. The central learning experience in participating classrooms
consists of small group learning experiences led by peer instructors. Growing out of a pilot study
in the spring of 2009, the current study examines this program’s potential to maximize ELL
content learning through improved literacy skills. The research questions are:

• What are the impacts of using peer-led literacy strategies in a Living Environment
class?
• How do students perceive their use of peer-led literacy strategies in a Living
Environment class?
 Supporting At-Risk English Language Learners in an Urban Secondary Science.... 299

BACKGROUND

Funded through a Mathematics and Science Partnership grant from the National Science
Foundation, science and education faculty, teachers and high school students in New York City
have collaborated to develop a highly successful instructional model for mathematics and science
classrooms serving at risk students. In the Peer Enabled Restructured Classroom (PERC)
students work in groups lead by a Teaching Assistant Scholar (TA Scholar) who guides the
group activity, scaffolds learning of new concepts, and assesses student understanding. The TA
Scholars must have passed the course and the state end-of-course exam in the relevant subject
area, but do not need to have achieved an advanced score or be eligible for honors classes. The
model initially was developed in a summer school for students who had not passed their state
end-of-course exam during the academic year. Both test scores and qualitative studies of student
and TA Scholar affective responses to the program suggested a highly successful model (Author
1 & Author 2, 2009a; Author 1 & Author 2, 2009 b; Author 2, 2010). The extremely high pass
rates for this program, two to 12 times standard city summer school pass rates, led to the
adoption of the model for the academic year. In 2008-2010 field trials, participating classes had
exam pass rates 20 percentage points higher than comparison classrooms. While these results
have showed great promise for extending the model to additional schools and classrooms, the
research team continues to explore ways to improve its application and develop ways teachers
and peer instructors can be supported during its implementation.
Transitioning the PERC model from a summer revision program to a school year initial
experience offered many challenges and opportunities during this period. These included the
requirement of using high school students as TA Scholars, rather than the college students who
performed this function during the summer. This decision was made in order ensure daily
support in the classrooms, which was not feasible for college students’ schedules. The model of
using high school students as the TA Scholars required creation of a separate course to facilitate
their experience. During the summer of 2008, three Living Environment (LE = biology) teachers
worked together to develop this course for the peer instructors, creating a set of lesson plans for
the year. The course introduced some pedagogical skills in the first segment, but quickly moved
away from this focus to enriching the students’ understanding of biological content. The TA
Scholars were earning a science credit for the course, making it seem important to spend the
majority of the students’ time learning new content. However, observations of this 2008-2009
inaugural peer instructor course suggested that most class time was spent on immediate
preparation for the next PERC lesson, which was confirmed in teacher interviews. When asked
about the differences between the high school TA Scholars during the school year and the
college students who staffed the summer programs, teachers immediately spoke of the difference
in content knowledge expertise and confidence. This perception led teachers to estimate that they
spent 60-90% of their TA Scholars class on reviewing and preparing the content for the PERC
class. This was far from the original plan of the TA Scholars course and left the teachers
wishing that they could achieve a broader range of strategies, methodology, and pedagogical
objectives with their TA Scholars.
In addition to the need for greater emphasis on strategies and overall effective practices with
the PERC students, the researchers expressed concern that the second language students were
experiencing additional difficulty in accessing the content curriculum due to the fact that these
students were learning complex concepts and scientific material in their second language. While
the numbers of identified ELLS and F-ELLs were sometimes available to the teachers through
student records, previous studies of the PERC program documented the lack of awareness of
which students in the program were ELL or Former ELL (F-ELL) students (Author 1 & Author
2, 2009a; Author 1 & Author 2, 2009 b; Author 2, 2010) and the level of support that these
300 Linda Gerena and Leslie Keiler

students required. During interviews and surveys, teachers and TA Scholars expressed a desire to
provide their peer instructors with more targeted pedagogical tools to support the PERC students,
particularly ELLs. During a feedback session, TA Scholars reported that one of their most
significant frustrations involved working with ELL students who did not speak the TA Scholar’s
native language.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Second language acquisition is a complex process that encompasses social or conversational

language (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills, or BICS) and academic language
proficiency (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency, or CALP) (Cummins, 1994, 1981).
ELLs initially develop social language through daily interactions with English speakers. ELL
adolescents may use conversational language fluently, even incorporating idiomatic expressions
effectively, because social language is relatively easy to master and is acquired through
interaction with peers and adults, both in and out of school. It is developed using face-to-face
interaction and concrete contextualization in social settings. However, social language is not
sufficient to process challenging content in an academic setting.
The language of academic proficiency is developed over many years of academically
challenging grade level content instruction and is difficult to master. It is the language of school
and usually tied to abstract concepts, de-contextualized thought processes, and abstract language
skills. In the classic literature of social language versus cognitive academic language proficiency,
experts in the field of second language acquisition argue that social language is simply the
language of everyday conversations supported with contextual clues while academic language is
the language of school and is usually developed through literacy (Balderrama & Diaz-Rico,
2006; Chamot, 2009; Chamot, & O'Malley, 1994; Cummins, 1981, 1994; Curtin, 2009;
Echevarria, Short, & Vogt, 2008; Faltis & Coulter, 2008; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders,
& Christian, 2006; Reiss, 2008; Thomas & Collier, 2002). Development of academic language
for ELLs/F-ELLs in challenging content takes considerably longer than social language to fully
develop and is dependent on a student’s previous schooling and literacy development (Cummins,
1994, 1981).
Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer and Rivera (2006) make a clear case for the need to develop
academic language in ELLs:

Unfortunately, ELLs often lack the academic language necessary for success in school.
This lack of proficiency in academic language affects ELLs’ ability to comprehend and
analyze texts in middle and high school, limits their ability to write and express
themselves effectively, and can hinder their acquisition of academic content in all
academic areas, including mathematics.

It is important to distinguish academic from conversational language skills, as many

ELLs who struggle academically have well-developed conversational English skills. To
be successful academically, students need to develop the specialized language of
academic discourse that is distinct from conversational language (p. 7).

A review of the literature and a review of research findings show that ELLs need to develop
specific literacy skills in order to be successful in content area learning. Out of this grows the
conceptual framework that ELLs must be given explicit training and teaching in cognitive and
metacognitive strategies to help them process complex, academically challenging materials while
they are acquiring a second language (Balderrama, & Diaz-Rico, 2006; Carlo, August,
 Supporting At-Risk English Language Learners in an Urban Secondary Science.... 301

McLaughlin, Snow, Dressler, Lippman, Lively, & White, 2004; Chamot, 2009; Cummins, 1994,
1981; Curtin, 2009; Echevarria, Vogt & Short, 2004; Faltis, & Coulter, 2008; Fradd & Lee,
1999; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, &, Christian, 2006; Hart & Okhee, 2003; Reiss,
2008; Thomas, & Collier, 2002.) In fact, Meltzer and Hamann (2005) state that “If, as student
outcome data suggest, traditional approaches to content-area teaching and learning are not
meeting the needs of many students, serious changes are in order” (p.61).
Torgesen, Houston, Rissman, Decker, Roberts, Vaughn, Wexler, Francis, Rivera and Lesaux
(2007), Metzer and Hammon (2005), and The National Reading Panel (August & Shanahan,
2006) state that literacy strategies are key to ELLs’ access to content area knowledge. ELLs need
“direct and explicit” instruction (Torgesen, et al. p 97) to develop academic language, word
learning skills (use of cognates, word roots, base words), vocabulary, comprehension, thinking
skills. They need expressly to be taught strategies and approaches to process text and
sophisticated higher order thinking skills, such as questioning, clarifying, predicting, and
summarizing. Even students who come to the content class with well developed literacy skills in
their first language will need direct and purposeful instruction to access these skills. Those who
come with low levels of first language literacy will struggle even more. Approaches are needed
that will allow students to process both language and content, develop comprehension skills and
provide systematic opportunities for peer interaction.
Content teacher pedagogy must include using specific cognitive, metacognitive and social
interactive strategies to help second language learners become more scientifically and
mathematically literate and to develop and expand the specific skills needed to be successful in
the math and science classrooms. The development of cognitive skills can help the learner
develop an active role in organizing the information to be learned, including note taking,
visualizing, drawing, illustrating, predicting, guessing, rereading or re-listening. Metacognitive
strategies help the learner take steps towards self-monitoring or self-assessing, by planning
strategies, such as previewing materials, thinking while reading or speaking, reflecting and
maintaining journals or logs. Social affective strategies help learners practice communication and
social skills in conjunction with others who are also learning the material (Chamot, 2009;
Corder, 2007; Curtain, 2009; Echeverria, Short & Vogt, 2008; Peregoy & Boyle, 2008).
Also it is not sufficient to simply use literacy interventions and strategies that have proven
useful to or successful with native English speakers. Strategies must be targeted and tailored to
the specific needs of the ELL and struggling F-ELL students to maximize their effectiveness.
The need to develop vocabulary, oral language, and background schema are more pronounced in
ELLs than native English speakers (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007). August and Shanahan (2006)
report in the Executive Summary of the National Literacy Panel that the experts agree that:

Instructional approaches found to be successful with native English speakers do not have
as positive a learning impact on language-minority students. It is not enough to teach
language-minority students reading skills alone. Extensive oral English development
must be incorporated into successful literacy instruction. The most promising
instructional practices for language-minority students bear out this point: Literacy
programs that provide instructional support of oral language development in English,
aligned with high-quality literacy instruction are the most successful (p 4).

Highly developed literacy strategies in an academically challenging subject such as biology are
critical to student success. We have seen how Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
(CALP) skills are requisite for students to be able to read and process information (Cummins,
1981, 1994). Student literacy levels must be developed in the content area to assure access to the
conceptual and analytical skills required to achieve at a high level in the content classroom.
Unfortunately ELL students lag far behind native English speakers in their development of
302 Linda Gerena and Leslie Keiler

literacy skills and the gap between ELLs and non-ELLs has been a consistent cause for concern
(Koelsch, 2006, Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000; Snow, 2002; Snow & Biancarosa, 2003). While
this may be cause for concern for all ELLs, the Hispanic ELLS are the least prepared in literacy
and have the lowest high school graduation rates of all ELLs (Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000). As
researchers seek information on the causes of and remedies to these dismal statistics, several
areas of intervention have been recommended. Content area teachers must infuse literacy skills
into the content curriculum by tapping into students’ prior knowledge, modeling and
demonstrating how to make inferences, and develop text level literacy skills, and integrate
metacognitive skills and cognitive skills to develop both vocabulary and expository text
awareness (Lesaux et al., 2006). It is believed that providing ELLs with rich literacy skills and
strategies will improve educational outcomes, and increase high school graduation rates (Lesaux
& Geva, 2006). In fact, more successful high schools have been identified as those where
teachers work collaboratively, meet regularly and engage their students in high level literacy
activities. Teachers in these schools appreciate the importance of professional development and
search for connections across curriculum lines (Langer 2009). In a report prepared by the
National High School Center (2009) it was revealed “high schools that emphasized literacy
across the curriculum areas were identified as having higher achievement levels and ‘better-than-
average performance among ELLs’ ” (p5).
Strategy development to improve literacy among adolescent ELLs has been identified as a
critical area of need and a precursor to improved educational outcomes. In grades 6-12 students
must be able to read, discuss and write in the subject area they are studying. High school teachers
must therefore become literacy teachers; in effect they must provide their student with strategies
to negotiate the content reading material. This may be a new role for high school teachers who
traditionally see themselves as experts in the content and not in reading. As a result, teachers
need to be retrained to understand the value of literacy strategies and to provide students with
opportunities to use strategies in the content classroom. Content areas teachers must take on the
role of literacy teachers because increasing literacy skills will improve ELLs academic success
(Koelsch, 2006; Leasaux, & Geva, 2006; Walqui, 2001, 2000). Thus, the ability to impact
student learning must come from a better prepared educational community. Teachers must infuse
these literacy skills in their content classrooms and to do so successfully they must receive
quality ongoing professional development to improve literacy skills in their ELL student
population (Walqui, 2001; Walqui, van Lier, & Koelsch, forthcoming). Heller and Greenleaf
(2007) state it succinctly and unconditionally: “Perhaps the greatest challenge of all has to do
with the scarcity of ongoing high quality professional development for teachers. In spite of the
many workshops and textbooks dedicated to literacy across the curriculum, and in spite of the
single pre-service course required in most states, few of the nations secondary school teachers
have had meaningful opportunities to learn about the reading and writing practices that go on in
their own content areas” (p18).
Approaches to improve literacy in ELLs includes explicitly teaching reading comprehension
strategies, such as making inferences, predicting, summarizing, previewing, reviewing,
comparing contrasting, analyzing, note taking, clarifying, interpreting, understanding
relationships, identifying main idea, connecting themes, ideas and concepts, and linking to
previous knowledge (Denti & Guerin, 2004; Garcia & Godina, 2004; Bernhardt, 2005). Short
and Fitzsimmons (2007) describe the challenges and solutions of providing literacy skills to
adolescent ELLs. They report on a successful high school that incorporated a variety of literacy
strategies such as anticipatory activities, shared reading or read-aloud activities, structured note-
taking, graphic organizers, vocabulary instruction, writing to learn prompts, and reciprocal
teaching addition to questioning techniques as part of the overall classroom structure to help
improve ELL literacy skills. If students are literate in their home language, these strategies may
 Supporting At-Risk English Language Learners in an Urban Secondary Science.... 303

not have to be explicitly re-taught as it is widely held that comprehension and literacy skills may
be transferred from the first language to English reading with guidance from a skilled literacy
teacher (August, 2002; Riches & Genesee, 2006). But if students are not fluent readers in their
home language, these strategies will have to be explicitly taught in the second language and
applied consistently.
Another area that needs to be explicitly developed in ELLS is vocabulary. In order for high
school students to access the high level content they must have approximately a vocabulary of
50,000 words (Graves, 2006). ELLs are under increasing pressure to acquire this vocabulary
knowledge in a relatively short amount of time. Strategies to increase vocabulary include a wide
variety of graphic organizers, use of visuals and demonstrations, use of cognates, use of affixes
and prefixes for word identification and meaning, use of context clues, understanding words with
multiple meanings, idiomatic and metaphorical expressions, and specific content related words.
This vocabulary growth must be expressly and explicitly taught to ELLs in the content area
classroom as well as the English classroom (August, 2003; Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004;
Graves, 2006).

METHODOLOGY

This study grew out of a larger study funded by the National Science Foundation to examine the
processes and impacts of an intervention to improve content learning by at-risk urban secondary
mathematics and science students known as the Peer Enabled Restructured Classroom (PERC).
As part of that study, a university faculty member who was an expert in Living Environment
curriculum (Author 2) worked with and supported teachers and TA Scholars in the academic
content. A university faculty member who was an expert in English Language Learner (ELL)
development (Author 1) was invited to participate in the project as a co-investigator to assure
that ELL pedagogy and linguistic needs were met. With this additional resource, the project
began to identify and address some of the pedagogical, linguistic, instructional and academic
supports needed for the ELL and F-ELL students and began to provide workshops and seminars
for the teachers and TA Scholars explicitly directed towards second language learners. Both
researchers focused on delivering the strategies and learning tools to help TA Scholars be
successful at helping other students learn and effectively support the learning of ELL students in
addition to their role as researchers in the project.

The Pilot Study

In response to this need, Author 1 began teaching a select set of research-based literacy
interventions to a group of TA Scholars with one LE teacher during spring of 2009. Strategies
included concept definition maps, vocabulary graphic organizers and a text deconstruction
strategy known as Questions Answer Response (QAR). These were introduced to the TA
Scholars as well as the teacher, who had not utilized literacy-based strategies in her content
classroom, although she had completed the relevant coursework required for state teacher
certification. Class observations, discussions with the TA Scholars, and teacher interviews
provided insights into the implementation of the strategies that shaped subsequent work. For
example, during the pilot study, this teacher reported that the TA Scholars and PERC students
were successful using vocabulary-based tools and reading comprehension strategies during the
PERC classes. During a TA Scholars class observation, Author 2 noticed a negotiation between
the teacher and TA Scholars resulting in an effective modification of one vocabulary tool based
upon TA Scholars’ observations from the previous day. The conversation appeared to deepen the
304 Linda Gerena and Leslie Keiler

TA Scholars’ understanding of the concept being studied, provide feedback about student
understanding to the teacher, and prepare both teacher and TA Scholars for the up-coming
lesson, achieving many goals of the TA Scholars class. Author 1, in questioning the TA Scholars
during their collaborative class with the teacher, found that the graphic organizer strategy that
had been implemented the previous two weeks was generally considered by the TA Scholars to
be an effective learning tool, especially with the ELL students. TA Scholars stated that the PERC
students learned the vocabulary better, and that it was not time consuming to use the graphic
organizer. Statements from TA Scholars included: “They (vocabulary maps) help explain the
words they (the PERC students) have to learn” and “It is helpful for them to see words and
meanings.” On the time issue it was stated that, “It only took a few minutes once they (the PERC
students) understood what to do.” However, the teacher reported that not all TA Scholars used
the tools regularly with their students, raising questions of who should be making such
implementation decisions. What was learned from this initial study and research about other
aspects of the program (Author 1 & Author 2, 2009a; Author 1 & Author 2, 2009 b; Author 2,
2010) shaped the current exploration of utilizing literacy-based strategies with TA Scholars and
ELL/F-ELL students.

The Current Study

At the completion of the 2009 summer school project, the researchers identified one teacher who
was interested in incorporating research-based literacy strategies into his Living Environment
PERC classes in a science-themed urban high school serving struggling, at risk students, both
mainstream and ELLs. The teacher had two PERC classes and one TA Scholars class, plus other
classes not related to the program. This became phase 1 of the subsequent literacy-based
interventions over the fall 2009 and spring 2010 academic year. The researchers worked with
the teacher and the TA Scholars in the PERC classroom and provided the TA Scholars with an
extensive and coherent selection of research-based literacy strategies that would support the
content curriculum and provide a set of pedagogically effective practices to support their
students, particularly the ELL students.

TA Scholar Participant Characteristics

At the beginning of the academic year, the TA Scholars were asked to complete a survey
ascertaining their own language backgrounds, their experiences with and attitudes about working
with ELLs, and their expertise in using various literacy strategies. Ten of the 12 Living
Environment TA Scholars at the study school who completed the survey indicated that they grew
up speaking a language other than English, with seven claiming oral and written literacy skills in
that other language. Eight TA Scholars indicated Spanish as their primary language, one
Albanian, and one Urdu.
On this preliminary survey, the TA Scholars were asked about their experiences, beliefs and
comfort levels concerning learning math and science with literacy pedagogies and ELL students.
All but two of the TA Scholars indicated some experience using reading skills to learn math and
science themselves, and all claimed to believe that reading would help their students learn
content. However, only one of these respondents indicated that at this point they were
comfortable using literacy to teach science, the lowest level of agreement for all the statements.
While all but one TA Scholar believed that they were capable of working with ELL students,
four did not believe that their students would be successful passing the state exam. This data
 Supporting At-Risk English Language Learners in an Urban Secondary Science.... 305

suggests that the TA Scholars, based upon their experiences and attitudes, need to and are
prepared to learn literacy-based pedagogy to help their ELL students to master science content.

Survey responses: Experiences and Attitudes

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree
I have experience using reading skills to 5 5 1 1 0
learn math and science.
Reading skills will help the students in 6 6 0 0 0
my group learn math and science.
I am comfortable teaching reading skills 1 4 6 1 0
to my English Language Learners in my
content area teaching.
I am comfortable in my ability to teach 2 9 1 0 0
science and math to English Language
Learners.
My English Language Learner students 4 4 3 1 0
can pass the Regents Exam at the
minimum score of 65.

Survey responses: Experience with Literacy Strategies

On the preliminary survey, the TA Scholars reported widely varying experience with the
different areas of literacy strategies. Most or all TA Scholars reported that they have used pre-
viewing, summarizing, inferring, and predicting. Approximately half the TA Scholars reported
having used reciprocal teaching and graphic organizers, while only one third had used mapping
techniques or learning logs. This data about the TA Scholar’s experiences helped shape the
selection of strategies for the project.

Strategy Vocab/ Pre-viewing Summarizing Inferring Predicting Reciprocal Graphic Learning

Content Teaching Organizers Logs
Definition
Maps

# TAS 4 11 12 11 10 8 6 3
used

Selection of Strategies

At first, the researchers and the teacher created a list of possible strategies that would be
developed with the TA Scholars. These included: 1) vocabulary building/concept definition
306 Linda Gerena and Leslie Keiler

mapping, 2) pre-viewing/reviewing text, 3) summarizing, 4) comprehension/ inferring/analyzing,

5) main idea/predicting/visualizing, 6) reciprocal teaching, 7) learning logs and self assessments,
and 8) graphic organizers. The strategies were organized into four blocks, each of which had
several strategies from which to choose. Some of the strategies that were considered for
inclusion into the blocks were:

Strategy Block 1 Strategy Block 2 Strategy Block 3 Strategy Block 4

Vocabulary Elements of Text Summarizing Comprehension
Building: and Text Analysis Activities
Content, Process (Cognitive and
and Function Metacognitive)
words

Vocabulary Maps Selective Attention GIST QAR

Concept Maps Skimming Scanning Two Column Notes SQ3R
Semantic Webbing Highlighting
T Charts Cloze
Word Walls Tiered
Vocabulary Jig-Saw

Introduction and Development of Strategies

Each week the researchers met with the teacher and his TA Scholars during their class to provide
professional development on how to utilize the selected literacy strategies to enhance content
learning, particularly by ELL students. Each month a different area of literacy was the focus of
the professional development. During planning periods, the teacher was introduced to multiple
specific strategies within each area so that he could develop a complete literacy ‘tool kit’ to
implement throughout his career. In collaboration with Author 2, the teacher evaluated the
literacy strategies for appropriate matches with the content being taught each month. Author 2
and the teacher then provided professional development to the TA Scholars in how to utilize the
selected strategies, with particular attention to how to use the strategies with ELL students.
Based upon feedback from the pilot study teacher about minimizing the number of specific
strategies in order to enable the TA Scholars to master implementation, new strategies were
introduced when the TA Scholars are proficient in using the previous strategy. However, while
the strategies were decided upon at the beginning of the year, the exact sequence or order of
introduction of the strategies was not decided upon at this time of the project. In fact, the teacher
sometimes realized that he had not incorporated a literacy strategy into a lesson that the
researchers came to observe. This caused him to make last minute changes to his lesson plans
and limited the preparation of the TA Scholars for the task they were facilitating.
Throughout the study, the TA Scholars were observed teaching and interacting with their
small groups in the classroom. During PERC classes each week, data was collected through
classroom observations and collection of students work samples. Observational field notes were
gathered that allowed the researchers to analyze the methods and materials that the TA Scholars
were using to introduce and utilize the literacy strategies with their students. Throughout the
project, after a strategy had been used several times, TA Scholars were asked to complete
surveys to provide feedback on the usefulness of the strategy and the perceived successes and
 Supporting At-Risk English Language Learners in an Urban Secondary Science.... 307

difficulties of their students in using the strategy. The TA Scholars were also asked to reflect
upon their assessment of their students’ success in comprehending the content material.
In addition to the written surveys, TA Scholars and the teacher were interviewed as a group
during the scheduled classroom period time dedicated for TA Scholar/Teacher interaction.
During that period, the TA Scholars would provide oral feedback on their successes and
difficulties, and they would discuss ways to improve their teaching and methods to assure that
their students were grasping the academic content. Focus group interviews (2-3 TA Scholars or
PERC students in each group) were also conducted to be able to go more in depth and receive
more detailed feedback on the tutoring processes and the effectiveness of the strategies and to
ascertain their perceptions of the success of the literacy strategy implementation program
Ultimately, the impact of the program was measured based upon the performance of the ELLs
and other students in their coursework and state end-of-course exam. All participants were
assigned pseudonyms.
The various data sets, including surveys, interviews, focus groups, and classroom
observations, were analyzed and interpreted to develop findings, themes, and suggestions,
following Kruger and Casey (2009) and Yin (2009). Thorough reiterative readings, patterns
emerged from the data sets that provided insights about the processes occurring the classroom
(Huberman & Miles, 1994). This article focuses on the PERC student test scores and on
qualitative data from the interviews with the PERC students and TA Scholars.

FINDINGS

Quantitative Data Analysis

Following the year of literacy strategy interventions, quantitative data was gathered based on the
results of the scores on the state end-of-course exam. Based upon exam scores, it was revealed
that the overall class pass rate, including the English only, the ELLs and the F-ELLs was 81%.
Of the two classes that participated in the study (Class A and Class B) Class A had an 83%
overall pass rate and Class B had a 79% pass rate. The average pass rate for the three additional
Living Environment classes in the larger project who did not participate in the literacy strategy
training and skills development was 52%.
Overall, the ELLs and the F-ELLs in the literacy project had an 88% pass rate. ELLs & F-
ELLs in Class A registered an 83% pass rate, and ELLs & F-ELLs in Class B recorded a 92%
pass rate. These results are noteworthy because while ELLs and F-ELLs usually underperform
English Only students on high stakes tests, the ELLs and F-ELLs in this project matched or
exceeded the EPs performance levels.
Another remarkable result was that the ELLs and F-ELLs in both classes outperformed
similar students in a comparison class in the larger project who did not participate in the literacy
skills development project. The overall pass rate of the ELLs/F-ELLs who took the exam in the
general project class was 72% and the pass rate for the ELLs/F-ELLs in the literacy interventions
was 82%.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Experience with literacy strategies prior to the study

Integral to this project is the introduction and teaching of cognitive and metacognitive learning
strategies to Teaching Assistant Scholars and PERC students, and by extension, the participating
308 Linda Gerena and Leslie Keiler

teacher. During the study, literacy strategies were incorporated into the content teaching. These
strategies were introduced, modeled, demonstrated, monitored and observed by both
investigators. Observational and qualitative data was collected during the study through field
observations and weekly meetings with teacher and TA Scholars. Quantitative data was collected
through surveys of the teacher, TA Scholars and students, as well as test scores and grades.
Preliminary findings suggest potential for the literacy interventions to have a positive impact on
student content learning as well as raising questions for further exploration. The teacher and the
TA Scholars reported that these strategies were beginning to show effective student outcomes,
such as greater ability to read questions and the ability to organize high-level content material.

ELL Student and TA Scholar perspectives on literacy strategies

Responses to literacy strategies

When asked about the most important thing she had taught her students this year, TA Scholar
Susan answered, “Probably GIST, things like strategies…because it helps them minimize the
question or a paragraph into something they will understand better.” Susan claimed that her
students had a range of responses to the strategies such as GIST. For example when asked if
students used strategies on their own, she explained, “Francesca, she hates using GIST, which is
why I like to use GIST so she’ll get accustomed to it. That’s why she was sarcastic today. Yeah,
they use it and then they put it into smaller words.” This TA Scholar perceived that some
students were able to appreciate the importance of the literacy strategies while others had to be
encouraged to persist with the tasks.

Literacy and test-taking

Both ELL students and their TA Scholars claimed that the literacy strategies assisted students
with high stakes tests. David and Jose, ELL students in the PERC class, claimed that their TA
Scholar helped them to approach test questions effectively. Danny started describing what they
were taught, “Every time your going to do an outline, or a question, or multiple choice, read the
question. Read the questions before any passages; try to break it down in different ways so you
can understand it.” Jose added, “To like really read the question over. Sometimes you may slip
up.” And David concluded, “So you can get the point of the question.” These students suggested
that the strategies helped them make sense of test passages and questions, leading to success in
answering these literacy-based science questions.
The TA Scholars talked about the ways in which literacy strategies helped the students
persist with difficulty questions. For example, Nadia described her students’ approach to test
questions that require reading a passage before and after literacy intervention:

I think a lot of the test-taking strategies, like mostly when they, when they’re presented
with a test they just read through it and if they don’t understand they just keep moving
through it. But now they’ve more learned a dissecting a question and seeing what parts
they understand and how they can infer what the answer is. Before, “oh, I don’t
understand; let me just skip it.”…
 Supporting At-Risk English Language Learners in an Urban Secondary Science.... 309

When asked for a specific example, she continued,

Like with Michael, before if he didn’t understand something he would just like let it go,
and he would just leave the paper there, and now, we were going over a paper, we were
going over a test, and he showed me that he was underlining what the question was
asking him. Maybe not for all questions, but he tried for some of the questions and it was
a big improvement from just throwing the question away.

This persistence is vital if the ELL students are going to succeed on high stakes exams, which are
required for graduation and important in college admission.

Transfer of literacy strategies

The ELL students discussed the ways that they used what they learned in Living Environment
class to help them succeed with literacy-based tasks in other classes. Anna explained that her TA
Scholar had taught her to “take apart a text,” which she used in other classes. In response to a
question about using these literacy strategies in other classes, Hugo explained that he used them
in, “English or even by my own self. If I’m doing something at home, homework or
something…. usually when I don’t understand something, I probably highlight it. That way, the
next day, I make sure I ask the teacher what I’m having problems with. And, I get to learn the
topic to the full extent.” Maria described an experience with a reading during the evolution unit,

The TAs had to teach us a certain way that you could read it without the information all
getting, like thrown at you. So we would summarize the whole first paragraph and then
move on to the next one. So now in English that makes it so much more easy than you
just reading it and being like, “Oh, what did I just read?”

Maria’s description suggests that the literacy strategies helped her take ownership of reading
assignments in multiple classes. David claimed that he used the approach to breaking down
questions that his TA Scholar taught him in his other classes, asserting that this raised his grades,
resulting in an upward spiral of performance: “you get a better grade, then you start getting
things more, you start doing your homework. It’s going to be easier.” David believed that the
literacy strategies he was learning in Living Environment improved his learning, performance
and attitudes across subject areas.
The TA Scholars also believed that students could and did transfer the literacy strategies
they learned in Living Environment class to other courses that did not have TA Scholars. Susan
argued that having TA Scholars in Living Environment helped students in other classes because
they could transfer literacy skills that the TA Scholars taught to classes such as English and
Global History. Matthew claimed that the literacy skills the students developed in Living
Environment was important for all classes, providing an example,

Some students have read books in their English classes and some don’t understand what’s
going on in the story. So, sometimes they read one page and on another paper they just
write what that page talks about and it just helps them remember things. And, they
always ask themselves a question, “What is this passage saying?” in their head, without
even writing it down. So, it’s pretty helpful.
310 Linda Gerena and Leslie Keiler

Ivonne shared, “I heard one of my students said that they used GIST for English, to review. I
guess it was an essay or something like that. And it really helped them.” Amy summarized her
discussion of ABC Brainstorming, GIST, and tiered vocabulary by proposing that: “The literacy
strategies, they can recycle.”

The literacy strategies also benefitted the TA Scholars in their other classes. Both Susan and
Denise claimed that they themselves used the literacy strategies that they were teaching their
students in their own classes. Denise explained, “When I have to do my AP US outline, because
they’re really long and tedious, so I have to use GIST to write a sentence for each paragraph.”
She then shared her wish that she had used the strategy on her SAT exam, believing that it would
have improved her English score. Ivonne argued that being TA Scholars helped them be better
students because they used study guides, GIST, and concept maps as TA Scholars, which they
could then use in other classes. The TA Scholars spontaneously transferred these skills to their
own learning experiences, as neither the teacher nor the researchers suggested that they do so.

Modifying literacy strategies

While the TA Scholars appreciated many of the strategies, they emphasized the need to prioritize
the students when making instructional decisions. Nadia recommended, “I think adapt the
strategies to the kids. Not adapt the kids to the strategies, but the strategies to the kids.” When
asked to expand on this she explained,

a lot of the strategies is with an ideal type of student in mind. It’d be better if we saw a
group of students that learn the same and see how, what they do that helps them. And
then modify it and create a strategy rather than get a strategy and see how it works on
your kids. It should be from them up, not from like the other way around.

This approach to strategy development holds promise for future research.

IMPLICATIONS

This study explored ways that content area teachers could provide language in context,
modeling, critical thinking and reasoning activities, exposure to scientific text structures, and
active student involvement in processing text. Along with these strategies, active participation
and interactive collaborative learning are indispensable if ELLs are to be provided with an
equitable and comprehensible education in the secondary content classroom (Jamestown Reading
Navigator, 2007; Meltzer & Hamann, 2005, 2004; Peregoy & Boyle, 2008, 2000). Stoddart,
Pinal, Latzke, and Canaday (2002, p 683) go further to state that “The integration of authentic
hands-on inquiry with linguistic and metacognitive analysis serves to promote the development
of higher order thinking skills.” These types of learning experiences are imbedded in the
structure of the PERC classroom, and this study demonstrates ways that a focus on literacy can
be integrated into such active learning experiences.
Based on the overall class scores on the state exam, it appears that ELLs and F-ELLs who
participated in the literacy strategies skills development outperformed similar second language
students as well as English Only Students. Additionally, all students, not only the ELLs and the
F-ELLs, benefitted form the literacy interventions. Although the literacy strategies were
effective for the original target population, all students appear to have benefitted from this
approach to teaching and learning.
 Supporting At-Risk English Language Learners in an Urban Secondary Science.... 311

Based on the feedback from the surveys and interviews, the TA Scholars reported that
students learned to break down complicated text into manageable components. The strategies
helped the students understand complex text and succeed on text-based exam questions. Perhaps
more importantly, the students were able to apply the relevant strategy to the appropriate task.
Another important implication from this study was that the TAS used the strategies
themselves in their own coursework and the students used the strategies in other courses. The TA
Scholars also reported that the literacy strategies were some of the most important skills that they
taught the students all year. Prior to the literacy strategy teachings, students tended to give up
when they saw a passage in an exam question. Development of the literacy strategies led students
to be persistent and successful when working with text.
The participating teacher also reported that his teaching had improved and that he believed
that infusing literacy strategies into the content classroom was an essential component of
effective teaching. He grew in his belief in the need to centralize literacy strategies in his
planning and his ability to create literacy-based lesson plans. During the subsequent school year
he taught literacy skills to his TA Scholars and planned literacy-based activities for each unit.
His enthusiasm and belief in using literacy strategies in the content classroom has encouraged
and enabled him to provide professional development seminars and workshops for his peers. He
has played a leading role in professional development of the other PERC teachers and other
PERC teachers report incorporating literacy strategies learned from him into their lessons.
Literacy skills and learning strategies must be developed if ELLs are to be successful in the
secondary science classroom. While there is general agreement that ELLS share many
characteristics with struggling native English readers (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007; Ruiz-de-
Velasco & Fix, 2000), there are language specific areas that impact ELLs in the literacy process.
Multiple meanings of academic vocabulary and terminology, lack of culturally acquired prior
knowledge, low levels of oral language proficiency which impacts comprehension of the written
text, all affect ELLs in the content classroom. Content-area literacy, which includes vocabulary
development, activating background knowledge, specific literacy comprehension skills (main
idea, prediction, inference, etc), and text awareness (text organization, key concepts, expository
text structure, etc) are essential for adolescent ELLs who lack reading strategies in their native
language (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007; Meltzer & Hamann, 2005). This project has given second
language students a means to develop the critical literacy, vocabulary, text organization and
compression skills that the research expects consider essential to academic success, and it has
resulted in positive outcomes, successful results, and rewarding consequences.

CONCLUSION AND FURTHER STUDIES

Based upon exam scores, classroom observations, TA Scholar surveys, and interviews with the
teacher, students, and TA Scholars this study found that the TA Scholars were effective in
implementing the literacy strategies. Students were able to use literacy strategies to learn new
science content and to improve their performance on high stakes tests. Students, both PERC and
TA Scholars, were able to use literacy strategies to learn new science content, transfer these
strategies to other content areas, and improve their performance on high stakes tests.
Additionally, the teacher is now leading sessions at monthly PERC professional development
meetings on GIST and Tiered Vocabulary. Teachers who participate in these teacher-led
professional development sessions claim to be implementing literacy strategies to their lessons.
Research has continued on the impacts of literacy development on the PERC program. This
literacy based strategy project was further developed and continued during the 2010-2011
academic year with two additional teachers at a different school site, also with at-risk secondary
science students in an urban high school. Research and findings on the second year of infusing
312 Linda Gerena and Leslie Keiler

research based literacy strategies is currently being analyzed and quantitative and qualitative data
is currently being organized and analyzed for further dissemination.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The MSPinNYC is supported by funds from the National Science Foundation Grant # 40560-
0001.

REFERENCES

1. Acompore , J. (2008). New York City English Language Learner (ELL) Enrollment Data: School Year
2007-08. Brooklyn/Queens Regional Bilingual/ESL Technical Assistance Center . Long Island University,
Brooklyn, NY.
2. Amaral, O. M., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase achievement through
inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 213–239.
3. Author 1 & Author 2 (2009a). Peer tutoring and academic success; The Personal Assistance Learning (PAL)
classroom in MSPinNYC. Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and New Learning
Technologies of The International Association for Technology, Education and Development (IATED).
Barcelona, Spain. http://www.iated.org/edulearn09/publications.
4. Author 1 & Author 2 (2009b). Using peer tutors with at risk high school English Language Learners: A case
study of the effectiveness of Personal Assisted Learning (PAL) in a special MSPinNYC summer course.
Proceedings of the International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI 2009). Madrid,
Spain. http://www.iated.org/iceri2009/
5. Author 2 (2010). Elements of success: What an effective summer school program can teach educators about
science teaching and learning. The Urban Review- Online First.
6. Balderrama, M. V., & Diaz-Rico, L. T. (2006). Promoting academic achievement for English Learners (chapter
7). In Teaching performance expectations for educating English Learners (pp. 172-176; 178-184). Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson.
7. Boyson, B. A., & Short, D. J. (2003). Secondary school newcomer programs in the United States (Research
Report 12). Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education Diversity & Excellence
8. Callahan, R., & Gándara, P. (2004). On nobody’s agenda: Improving English-language learners’ access to
higher education. In M. Sadowski (Ed.), Teaching immigrant and second language students: Strategies for
success (pp.107–127). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
9. Cadiero-Kaplan, K. (2004). The literacy curriculum and bilingual education: A critical examination. New York:
Peter Lang.
10. Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new democracy of America’s
schools. Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved July 28,
2009, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311230_new_demography.pdf
11. Carlo, M.S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C.E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D.N., Lively, T.J., & White, C.E.
(2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and
mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly 39(2):188–215.
12. Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic
language learning approach. New York: Addison-Wesley.
13. Cummins, J. (1994). Primary language instruction and the education of language minority students. In
C. F. Leyba (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Second Edition. Los
Angeles: CSULA
 Supporting At-Risk English Language Learners in an Urban Secondary Science.... 313

14. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language
minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Office of
Bilingual Bicultural Education, California State Department of Education, Sacramento. Los Angeles:
Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.
15. Curtin, E. M. (2009). Teaching English Language Learners in the content areas Language Arts, Social Studies,
Math and Science. In Practical Strategies for teaching English Language Learners (pp. 141-174). Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson.
16. Echevarria, J., Short, D. & Vogt, M. (2008). Implementing the SIOP model through effective professional
development and coaching. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
17. Faltis, C. J., & Coulter, C. A. (2008). Teaching and learning math for English Learners. In Teaching English
Learners and immigrants students in secondary schools (pp. 94-112). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
18. Fradd, S.H. & Lee, O. (1999). Teacher’s roles in promoting science inquiry with students from diverse language
backgrounds. Educational Researcher, August–September, 14–20, 42.
19. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, B., &, Christian, D. (2006). Educating English Language Learners.
MA. Cambridge University Press.
20. Hart, J.E. & Okhee, L. (2003). Teacher Professional Development to Improve the Science and Literacy
Achievement of English Language Learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27:3 Fall 2003.
21. Hoffman, L., & Sable, J. (2006). Public Elementary and Secondary Students, Staff, Schools, and School
Districts: School Year 2003–04 (NCES 2006-307). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics
22. Jamestown Reading Navigator (2008). How Jamestown Reading Navigator TM Supports Research-Based
Instruction for Struggling Adolescent Readers: English Language Learners. Interactive Educational Systems
Design,
23. Inc. Glencoe-/McGraw Hill. New York. Retrieved on July 15, 2009 from http://www.readingnavigator.com/
mkt/assets/english_language_learners_071808.pdf
24. Kindler, A. (2002). Survey of the states' limited English proficient students and available educational programs
and services: 2000–2001 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition.
25. Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. (2009). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Fourth Edition
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
26. Lockspeiser, T.A, O’Sullivan, P., Teherani, A., & Muller, J. (2008) Understanding the experience of being
taught by peers: the value of social and cognitive congruence. Advances in Health Sciences Education,13,
361–372.
27. Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E. T. (2005). Meeting the literacy development needs of adolescent English language
learners through content-area learning: Part two: Focus on classroom teaching and learning strategies.
28. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from
http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/adlit/adell_litdv1.pdf.
29. Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E. T. (2004). Meeting the literacy development needs of adolescent English language
learners through content area learning: Part one: Focus on motivation and engagement. Providence, RI: The
Education Alliance at Brown University. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from http://www.alliance.brown.edu/
pubs/adlit/adell_litdv1.pdf.
30. Office of English Language Learners (2008). Designing Better High Schools for ELLs: Research Summary.
New York: Department of Education. Downloaded August 12, 2009 From http://schools.nyc.gov/
NR/rdonlyres/E5BF4C47-6C62-4D67-8449-6AC894F3E0A4/39554/HSResearchSummary_2008_
FINALReadOnly.pdf
31. Office of English Language Learners (2009). Diverse learners on the road to success: The performance of New
York City’s English Language Learners. New York City: Department of Education. Downloaded August 12m
314 Linda Gerena and Leslie Keiler

2009 from http://print.nycenet.edu/NR/rdonlyres/3B377E6B-5E22-4E63-A4DA-2B7FD14E5D62/57000/

ELLPerformanceReport2009.pdf
32. Parrish, T. B., Merickel, A., Perez, M., Linquanti, R., Socias, M., Spain, A., et al. (2006). Effects of the
implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K–12: Findings from a 5-year
evaluation (Final report for AB 56 and AB 1116, submitted to the California Department of Education). Palo
Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
33. Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2000). English learners reading English: What we know, what we need to know.
Theory Into Practice, 39(4), 237–247.
34. Peregoy, S. & Boyle, O. (2008). Reading, writing and learning in ESL. Fifth Edition. New York: Longman.
35. Perie, M., Grigg,W. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2005). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006-451).
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
36. Reiss, J. (2008). 102 content strategies for English Language Learners: Teaching for academic success in grades
3-12. NY: Allyn & Bacon.
37. Rollnick, M. (2000). Current issues and perspectives on second language learning of science. Studies in Science
Education, 35, 93–122.
38. Ruiz-de-Velasco, J., & Fix, M. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant student in U.S. secondary
schools. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from http://www.urban.org/
pdfs/overlooked.pdf.
39. Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and
academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. New
York: Alliance for Excellent Education.
40. Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language
development for English Language Learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 664–687.
41. Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (2002). Final report: A national study of school effectiveness for language minority
students’ long-term academic achievement. Alexandria, VA: CAL
42. Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Fourth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.