See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267778281

Turning the tide

Article · January 2010

CITATIONS READS
0 102

2 authors, including:

Andrea Honigsfeld
Molloy College
55 PUBLICATIONS   762 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Project-based Learning in Science with ELs View project

Co-Teaching integrated, secondary social studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrea Honigsfeld on 05 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Methodology
Turning the TIDE
Audrey Cohan and Andrea Honigsfeld suggest best practices for teaching
English learners who may have learning difficulties
One of the greatest challenges confronting teachers
today is how to best serve the needs of linguistically diverse chil-
dren with possible special needs. It used to be that only Texas,
New York, California, Illinois, and Florida had an overwhelming
number of newcomers in the classrooms. Now, it is not uncommon
for a teacher anywhere in the U.S. to have a class filled with stu-
dents who speak multiple languages and come from diverse cultur-
al backgrounds. Within these classes of English language learners
(ELLs), teachers often report that there are several children show-
ing signs of learning difficulty or learning disability (LD) as well. So
both new and experienced teachers are faced with the difficulty of
how to determine if an ELL student has a disability and how to
best respond to the needs of the English language learner who is
also struggling academically.
Challenges of Determining Learning Difficulty in ELLs
In a previous issue of Language Magazine (December 2008), we
redefined LD as Language Distance, Learning Difficulty, Linguistic
Diversity, Language Distinction, and Learning-style Differences and
suggested that they should be considered first before considering
a diagnosis of a language learning disorder or a learning disability
(Cohan & Honigsfeld, 2008) . Elsewhere, we presented a pre-refer-
30 http://www.languagemagazine.com
ral data collection tool that contains a series of open-ended ques-
tions that suggest teachers collect essential information about the
target student(s) to either support or defer a special education
referral process (Honigsfeld & Cohan, 2010). When using this tool,
teachers have the opportunity to collaboratively develop an in-
depth learner profile as they collect evidence on a student’s
(a) language background, (b) personal/cultural/educational
background, (c) language acquisition patterns, (d) learning pat-
terns, and (e) behavioral patterns. It is also suggested that teams (f
) describe behavior modifications implemented with the student, (g)
explore dimensions of LD detection, (h) pinpoint child’s learning
problem from the perspective of several teachers (ESL, main-
stream, content area specialists, SPED teachers), (i) consider some
key questions, and finally (j) design, implement, and document the
outcomes of pre-referral instructional interventions. (p. 18).
Best Practices for ELLs with Learning Difficulties
After conducting many workshops on the topic of meeting the
needs of struggling ELLs, we have found that the question of best
practices for students with learning difficulties or disabilities always
arises. With this focus in mind, we created a model to support
learning for ELLs who may or may not have special needs. Artiles
September 2010

Intervention Principles
TIDES of Learning
T is for Teacher Collaboration
I is for Integrating Content and Language Instruction
D is for Differentiation of Instruction
E is for Exploration and Inquiry-based Practices
S is for Scaffolding
and Ortiz (2002) argue “that substantial evidence indicates that edu-
cational services offered to students with culturally and linguistically
diverse home backgrounds are not sufficient to meet their needs”
(p. 7). Trying to decide if the child is experiencing difficulty due to
second language acquisition issues, or determining if there is an
underlying learning disability, takes significant time and careful doc-
umentation by a team of educators and evaluators who can offer
multiple perspectives.
So how should teachers proceed before a referral is completed?
And how important is it that we classify a student with the LD label?
McDermott, Goldman and Varenne (2006) state that “LD is made
consequential by gatekeepers assigning children to fixed positions”
(p.15). It is our premise that the best practices implemented for
ELLs do support struggling learners regardless of whether or not a
disability is established.
TIDES: Intervention Principles
to Support Struggling ELLs
To help teachers effectively work with ELL/LD students, we begin by
recognizing that many of the instructional strategies that are already
used by teachers work well. Relying on successful research-based
strategies should be the cornerstone of an effective program for all
learners. It is to that end that we suggest the TIDES model for learn-
ing. Research on the developmental and linguistic needs of ELLs
(Goldenberg, 2010) has shaped the intervention principles that sup-
port this model, and work toward the achievement of all learners.
T is for Teacher Collaboration
As Danielson (2009) notes “it’s through conversations that teachers
clarify their beliefs and plans and examine, practice, and consider
new possibilities” (p. 1). Teacher collaboration — ranging from
ongoing professional conversations about ELLs’ needs to collabora-
tive planning, instruction, and assessment to joint decision making
— allows for ELLs to receive the best possible education.
In 2006, TESOL, the international professional organization, sug-
gested that ESL teachers should collaborate by co-planning instruc-
tion or other activities with content-area specialists and classroom
teachers as well as all other school faculty. When they work with
September 2010 http://www.languagemagazine.com
Methodology
bilingual teachers, they can tap into the ELLs’ first language. When
literacy or math specialists or resource teachers work with ESL
teachers, they may share results of diagnostic and formative
assessments or design intervention techniques. When special edu-
cation teachers collaborate with ESL professionals, they can review
student data together, attend pre-referral and, if needed, individual-
ized education planning (IEP) meetings, and may jointly inform par-
ents about best available services. Foremost, ESL teachers should
also collaborate with school administrators to design, implement,
and coordinate ESL services, to plan joint professional develop-
ment, in order to enforce state and local guidelines.
When teachers collaborate, they share their insights about their
students’ needs and design appropriate instructional practices for
them. Students become integrated into the fabric of the classroom,
the school community, and, ultimately, into the larger society of the
U.S. when teachers successfully share their knowledge and skills
(Honigsfeld & Dove, 2010).
I is for Integrating Content and Language Instruction
Ma (2002) notes that ESL or English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
instruction traditionally consists of programs “in which students
receive specific periods of instruction aimed at the development of
English language skills, focusing on grammar, vocabulary, and com-
munication rather than on academic subjects” (p. 4). However, there
is an increase in the popularity of ESL programs that also address
age- and grade-appropriate, general-education, content-area stan-
dards. As early as the beginning of the 1980s, the focus of ESL
instruction has shifted from building linguistic competence to also
addressing academic language in the curricular areas of English
Language Arts, social studies, and math, and science. In response
to this shift in focus, content-based instruction (CBI) (Brinton, Snow,
& Wesche, 1989) and sheltered instruction (Echevarria, Vogt, &
Short, 2008), as well as several other models and approaches, have
emerged (Gibbons, 2002).
The benefits of integrating language acquisition and academic
goals are manifold: (a) students receive opportunities to practice
and polish their language skills while mastering important content
knowledge needed to succeed in today’s highly competitive, high
31
 Methodology
stakes testing world, (b) the combined process of learning helps
English language learners develop their second language while con-
cepts and skills are not being ignored.
D is for Differentiation of Instruction
Tomlinson (1999) has developed a comprehensive approach to the
differentiation of instruction used by teachers today. There are gen-
erally four instructional elements which can be modified by the
teacher in response to learner needs (Tomlinson 1999, 2003;
Gregory & Kuzmich, 2005a, b): content, process, product, and
learning environment. Differentiation by content means that the
teacher may modify what students will learn and the materials that
represent it. In contrast, differentiation by process refers to the var-
ied activities through which students make sense of key ideas using
essential skills. Widely used by teachers, the technique for differen-
tiation of the product allows students to demonstrate what they
have learned and understood in multiple ways. Lastly, a teacher
may differentiate the learning environment, such as changing a
classroom condition or arrangement. The general principles of dif-
ferentiation remind language teachers to be mindful of respectful
tasks, flexible grouping, and to incorporate continual assessment.
E is for Exploration and Investigation
The position statement of the National Science Teacher Association
32 http://www.languagemagazine.com
(NSTA) (2002) includes, “Students learn science best when they are
involved in first-hand exploration and investigation and inquiry/
process skills are nurtured” (para. 3). Inquiry-based education relies
on the concept that when students make a systematic search for
answers, they will ultimately make their own science discoveries.
English language learners benefit enormously from hands-on
experiences and explorations as they learn new vocabulary and
develop new concepts in all content areas. Engagement is generally
considered the first step in the discovery cycle and is highly moti-
vating and student-centered. Abruscato and DeRosa (2010) note
that during the second, exploration phase of concept development,
the teacher “provides an opportunity for children to encounter and
reflect on new content” (p. 71). Often, the teacher presents materi-
als, poses questions, and offers problems and challenges that invite
the children to think about the science work at hand. The explana-
tion stage is a more teacher-directed activity which focuses on the
acquisition of new knowledge. Lastly, in the elaboration stage, real-
life applications are implemented so that students can apply and
reinforce what science concepts they have discovered.
In fact, learning about the natural world, and making sense of
one’s surroundings is something that ELLs do on a daily basis, as
they try to balance acquiring two languages and two cultures. It is
for this reason that ELLs will be more successful in an exploratory,
inquiry-based, hands-on program. A possible content-based exam-
September 2010
 Methodology

ple of the use of inquiry-based learning is the

The concept of differentiation of instruction for reading content has recently been
observation of the monarch butterfly’s life
made easier by the publishers of children’s books. For instance, National
cycle. Observing caterpillars not only provides
Geographic has produced a series of science and social studies theme sets which
opportunities for ELLs to develop inquiry
meet the NSTA and NCSS standards and are differentiated for reading ability. The
process skills, but also allows them to learn
topics, questions, headlines and format are aligned so that students can complete
about investigation design, develop new con-
similar tasks, but the complexity of the assignment differs. Reading levels vary from
cepts and vocabulary (Shimkanin & Murphy,
2.9 to 6.9. For life cycles, for example, ELLs can study the Giant Pandas, Monarch
2007), as well as build language skills needed
Butterflies, Poison Dart Frogs, or Komodo Dragons in a jigsaw activity which is
to describe and evaluate their observations.
designed to match resources to students’ literacy abilities.
Explorations and investigations allow stu-
dents to generate their own questions, search
for answers, and integrate other content
areas such as mathematics or social studies. The use of inquiry- strategies, and skills. These interactive scaffolds can gradually be
based concept development also offers opportunities for learning removed as students start to learn more independently” (p. 135).
basic skills such as observation, classification, communication, Research further suggests that scaffolding is an effective tool for
measurement, prediction, and inference (Abruscato & DeRosa, children with special needs (Cooper, 2006). Generally, scaffolding is
2010), in conjunction with linguistic skills. done by modifying the task or the materials presented. An example
of a task scaffold appropriate for ELLs is a picture that goes along
S is for Scaffolding with the written word. To use the example of the monarch butterfly
Scaffolding provides necessary support to help the English language life cycle, a photo of a chrysalis may be placed alongside the new
learner make connections for learning and understanding new mate- term. A scaffolding task for learning about the monarch life cycle
rial. Artiles and Ortiz (2002) explain that scaffolds “can be used to may be to ask some children to write about the four stages of
temporarily assist both English language learners and academically growth, while others draw or photograph their observations.
proficient students, as they develop knowledge, understanding, Mediated scaffolding requires a teacher or peer to work with the

September 2010 http://www.languagemagazine.com 33

 Methodology
student in making the learning process easier. An example of this
would be buddy reading for a book on the life cycle of butterflies.
The concept of buddy reading, or mediated scaffolding, has recent-
ly been made easier by the publishers of children’s books. Books in
the Two Can Read series by Edupress
(http://www.highsmith.com/edupress) allow two children (one read-
ing on the 1st grade and one on the 3rd grade level) to share a
book meaningfully by reading alternating pages.
Some commonly used instructional scaffolding techniques
include modeling, bridging, contextualization, building schema, re-
presenting text, and developing metacognition (Walqui, 2006).
Scaffolded, partially completed graphic organizers, mentor texts,
carefully designed templates, outlines, and sentence starters are all
examples of effective scaffolding techniques.
Implications for Learning
What we envision from an implementation of the TIDES of learning
is a multi-faceted approach to teaching English language learners
who may also be struggling learners. We are less concerned with
the actual label or classification of learning disabilities, and more
concerned with finding a comprehensive educational approach
which will help all learners despite their apparent strengths and
weaknesses in a particular moment in time. In this overview, we
highlight the instructional strategies which can assist a teacher in
34 http://www.languagemagazine.com
best meeting the needs of many students. We recognize that there
is no single panacea; but encourage classroom teachers and ESL
specialists to meld the strategies we present with their own best
practices, innovative ideas, and varied, differentiated resources to
create the best teaching environment possible.
References
Abruscato, J., & DeRosa, D. A. (2010). Teaching Children Science:
A Discovery Approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Artiles, A. J., & Ortiz, A. A. (2002). English Language Learners with
Special Education Needs: Identification, Assessment and
Instruction. Washington, DC, and McHenry, IL: Center for Applied
Linguistics and Delta Systems.
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-
Based Second Language Instruction. New York: Newbury House.
Cohan, A., & Honigsfeld, A. (2008). “Needs are Special.” Language
Magazine, 8(4), 18-21.
Cooper, J. M. (Ed.). (2006). Classroom Teaching Skills. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Danielson, C. (2009). “A Framework for Learning to Teach.”
Educational Leadership Online, 66. Retrieved August 31, 2009,
from http://www.ascd.org/publications/
educational_leadership/summer09/vol66/num09/
A_Framework_for_Learning_to_Teach.aspx
September 2010

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2008). Making Content
Comprehensible for English Language Learners: The SIOP Model
(3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning:
Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goldenberg, C. (2010). Promoting Academic Achievement Among
English Learners: A guide to the Research. Thousand Oaks: CA:
Corwin Press.
Gregory, G. H., & Kuzmich, L. (2005a). Differentiated Literacy
Atrategies for Student Growth and Achievement in Grades K-6.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gregory, G. H., & Kuzmich, L. (2005b). Differentiated Literacy
Strategies for student Growth and Achievement in Grades 7-12.
Thousand Oaks: CA: Corwin Press.
Honigsfeld, A., & Cohan, A. (2010). “Piloting a Pre-Referral Data Col -
lection Tool: A Documentary Account.” Insights on Learning Dis-
abilities: From Prevailing Theories to Validated Practices, 7(1), 15-28.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (August 2010). Collaboration and Co-
Teaching: Strategies for English Learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Ma, J. (2002). What Works for Children: What We Know and Don’t
Know about Bilingual Education. Boston: Harvard University Press.
McDermott, R., Goldman, S., & Varenne, H. (2006). “The Cultural
Work of Learning Disabilities.” Educational Researcher, 35(6) 12-17.
September 2010 http://www.languagemagazine.com
View publication stats
Methodology
NSTA Position Statement. (2002). Retrieved from
http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/elementary.aspx
Shimkanin, J., & Murphy, A. (2007). Let Monarchs Rule: An Integrated
Butterfly Unit Begins in the Field. Science and Children, 45(1) 32-36.
Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding
to the Needs of All Learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2003). Fulfilling the Promise of the Differentiated
Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding Instruction for English Language
Learners: A Conceptual Framework. The International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.
Audrey Cohan, Ed.D. [acohan@molloy.edu] is a Professor in the
Division of Education at Molloy College, Rockville Centre, New York.
She teaches both undergraduate and graduate courses. She has
published on child sexual abuse and effective professional develop-
ment practices.
Andrea Honigsfeld, Ed.D. [ahonigsfeld@molloy.edu.] is Associate
Professor in the Division of Education at Molloy College, Rockville
Centre, New York. She teaches courses related to cultural and lin-
guistic diversity and has published on the topics of differentiated
instruction and learning styles, with a special attention to the needs
of English Learners.
35