1

Grace Kendall

Dr. Wang

EDES 503

26 February 2021

ELL Student Profile: Who Are My Students?

INTRODUCTION

The English language learner detailed in my student profile is Son Nguyen. Son was a

vietnamese student in the 10th grade (a sophomore in high school), and part of the English

Language Development (ELD) program. I thought the interview was very informative of the

student’s educational environment and experiences, as well as to the procedures and protocols of

the school and its ELD program. From the information gathered in my interview, I believe that

Son Nguyen was enrolled in an effective English language learning program, and that his

experience with language acquisition was, for the most part, relatively positive.

My position on the quality of Son Nguyen’s ELL experience is supported by various

aspects of the ELD program, including the placement of ELL students, the instruction methods

used, the classroom climate, and the program’s theoretical approaches. Son received multiple

forms and levels of support during his language acquisition, including encouragement and other

social assistance. Students new to the English language were given opportunities to communicate

and receive assistance from students with the same first language, allowing “the home language

[to act] as a bridge for children, enabling [students] to participate more effectively in school

activities while they are learning English” (McLaughlin, p.7). Furthermore, Son and his fellow

ELL students received a more equitable education when compared to secondary students of other
 2

California public schools, whose “unique needs… are often overlooked entirely in California's

schools” (Gándara, Rumberger, p. 2). Son’s school only placed ELL students in classrooms with

BCLAD or CLAD teachers, in both their mainstream and ELD classrooms, so students are not

subjected to “pull-out instruction,” which “has been found to be among the least successful of

instructional strategies for EL students” (Gándara, Rumberger, p. 8). In building my student

profile, the information I received provided multiple other factors that have shaped my position,

as will be discussed throughout this report.

METHODS USED AND DATA

The interview was conducted with the former English Language Development

Coordinator, Miss Thompson, at Son’s school, who worked with Son throughout his high school

education. Son was a student at North High School, within Torrance Unified School District.

Son, aged 15, was a Vietnamese immigrant. Son immigrated to America with his family at the

age of 10, seeking politice refuge. Son had an older brother, Dung (although he went by his

English name, Dan), who was two years Son’s senior in age, but a grade level below Son in

school. His father worked as a dishwasher in a local restaurant, and his mother’s occupation is

unknown. Son’s home language was Vietnamese, and he was literate in it. His parents were also

literate in Vietnamese, but they did not speak any English. At the point of time from which the

data reflects, Son had been in America, and enrolled in school, for five years. He had been at

North High School for two years. There were approximately 200 students in the school’s ELD

program. Level 2, which Son Nguyen was placed in, was the most populous level, with

approximately 150 students.

DISCUSSION
 3

Program options. The ELD program at North High School consisted of four levels. Level

1 ELD students spoke very minimal to no English, and they had usually recently immigrated into

the United States. Level 2 students are English language learners who are still trying to master

proficiency in English, but have had some exposure to American speech and customs. Level 1

and Level 2 students were combined in ELD subject specific classrooms, as well as ELD elective

classrooms. Level 3 students were considered proficient in English, and were integrated into the

mainstream classroom, but they were not yet considered fluent. Level 4 students were considered

fluent and had passed state mandated proficiency tests.

Supports. Level 1 students received the most academic and sociocultural support. Along with

their content classes, they were placed in ELD electives: English reading acquisition class,

English writing acquisition class, and a course on American culture, customs, and traditions. As

a Level 2 student, Son was only in the English reading and writing acquisition courses. These

electives had an informal classroom environment, and students were able and encouraged to

work together and help each other. Furthermore, there were also weekly “work days” in ELD

elective courses, where students could receive help with their content classes on any assignments

or projects. This could greatly benefit students, being that “some children in some cultures are

more accustomed to learning from peers than from adults” (McLaughlin, p. 9). Students in the

mainstream classroom had various accommodations, including the option to take tests in an ELD

classroom. Additionally, students were able to go to the ELD coordinator with any social

adjustment issues.
 4

Teaching Approaches and Instruction. As mentioned earlier, all teachers with English language

learning students were credentialed and educated to do so. This is of great importance to ELLs,

being that “in their function as interlocutor, teachers need to know something about educational

linguistics” (Wong Fillmore, Snow, p. 6). Teachers received in-services and training in various

Language Acquisition techniques. The ELD coordinator regularly observed classrooms and

worked with teachers to improve content accessibility for ELL students. Instruction included

various modes of learning: kinesthetic, visual, and auditory. ELD classes, including subject

specific ones, had easily accessible visual reminders of content information around the room.

Furthermore, instruction was modeled on Krashen’s theories of second language acquisition;

most specifically, Krashen’s input hypothesis was used to inform practice. In his input

hypothesis, Krashen theorized that “we acquire language when we understand messages or

obtain comprehensible language or input” (Wright, p. 51).

Sociocultural Factors. Based on the information gathered from my interview, the most

prominent affective factor of Son’s and other students’ language acquisition were sociocultural

ones. Son and his ELL peers felt incredibly shy and nervous, and were often silent when

integrated with native English speaking students; opposingly, those students were very

comfortable and outgoing in the ELD classroom. Students expressed fear of mispronouncing

words, or being mocked for their accents. Students considered themselves subordinate to English

speakers, and their perceived spot on the social hierarchy was based on their English proficiency.

This, however, could have been a motivational factor in their language acquisition, being that

“the attitude learners have towards the members of the cultural group whose language they are

learning” is, according to Gardner and Lambert’s studies, the most important effect of attitudes
 5

on language learning (Brown, p. 193). Therefore, their value of the English language that caused

them to feel lesser than fluent English speakers could also be an affective factor of their language

learning.

CONCLUSION

From conducting this student profile activity, I learned a lot about the programming of

English language learning students, as well as gained insight to some experiences of an ELL

student. My interview with the ELD coordinator left me wanting to use Krashen’s theories of

second language acquisition in my own future classroom. In my own personal experience with

second language acquisition, I found that using previous knowledge and context to understand

messages was the most effective way to acquire a language. I also want to implement some of

the techniques I learned about in my interview, including using visual and auditory clues to assist

with language learning. Most importantly, I want to create the same classroom climate detailed in

my interview: a place where students feel comfortable and accepted. By doing this, the ELD

coordinator was able to act as an agent of socialization for her ELL students and help “children

make the necessary transitions in ways that do not undercut the role that parents and families

must continue to play in their education and development” (Wong Fillmore, Snow, p. 12).
 6

Works Cited

Gándara, P. and Rumberger, R. (2003). The Inequitable Treatment of English Learners in

California’s Public Schools

http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Docs/Gandara%20and%20Rumberger.pdf

McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning (Digest

EDO-FL- 92-10). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.

Read it on-line at: www.ncela.gwu.edu/miscpubs/ncrcdsll/epr5.htm

Wong Fillmore, Lily, and Catherine Snow. Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, 2000,

What Teachers Need to Know About Language.

Wright, W. (2010). Foundations for teaching English Language Learners: Research, theory,

policy and practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.