Case Study of an English Language Learner

Isabelle Ciaramitaro

Student name: Steve* Grade: 12th grade

Age: 17 L1: Spanish

Setting: Memphis, TN Time period of visits: September 2023 - October 2023

* This is a pseudonym
 1
Part I: Introduction to the learner

This analysis focuses on Steve (pseudonym), a seventeen-year-old English language learner

living in Memphis, Tennessee. His first language is Spanish, and he started learning English in

April of 2019 (around four and a half years ago) when he immigrated to the United States from

Honduras. His family enrolled him in public schools shortly after he arrived. He started eighth

grade in the fall of 2019 and is now a senior in high school. The context in which Steve learned

and continues to learn English is the school environment. Steve says that reading books in

English at school contributed the most to his language acquisition. He also says school is the

only context in which he practices speaking English because outside of school he engages in

primarily Spanish-language media whether that is T.V., movies, YouTube, or social media. The

only time he speaks English is with his teachers. Many of his friends at school also speak

Spanish and his family members are not proficient in English. He does however listen to some

English-language music and is exposed to English-language print media throughout the city of

Memphis. Steve is my husband’s cousin and we met in 2019, but only interacted at family

events. For this case study, I met with Steve one-on-one over a three-month period. Our

discussions covered a range of topics from his life in Honduras to his experience at school. In

addition to our conversations, I collected two writing samples from Steve (one informal and one

formal). The three visits along with the writing samples gave me significant data related to

Steve’s oral and written English language abilities in pragmatics, phonology, grammar, and

semantics. Analyzing the data allowed me to determine his current stage of English language

acquisition.
 2
Part II: Description of the learner’s oral language abilities

A. Pragmatics

Utterances can be evaluated for how they fit into a conversations’ various contexts

(linguistic, physical, social, and situational) as well as whether they meet Grice’s Cooperative

Principle by following Grice’s maxims of quality, relation, quantity, and manner (Dawson et al.,

2022, p. 290). I applied these pragmatic concepts to my conversations with Steve and determined

both his strengths and areas for growth. Steve demonstrated a pragmatic strength in his ability to

meet Grice’s maxim of relation by responding to most questions I asked with relevant

information. For example, when I asked him questions about his life in Honduras, such as what

he did for fun and whether he lived around animals, he responded with appropriate details. He

explained the game they played as kids called La Culebrita and gave multiple examples of

animals he interacted with including horses, chickens, pigs, and cows (Visit 1, Lines 120-144).

There were moments when he became confused. When I asked him what his mom was like, he

responded by telling me what she liked to do versus details about her personality (Visit 1, Lines

58-59). When I asked him what his town looked like (such as its colors), he responded by telling

me it had a small school (Visit 1, Lines 113-115). However, these divergences were minor, only

slightly infelicitous, and still gave me some information related to my question. Overall, his

utterances stayed on topic and demonstrated his ability to understand linguistic context because

his statements connected to those that preceded.

During the conversation, Steve was also attentive to the maxim of quality. If Steve was

not sure if what he was saying was completely true, instead of saying it anyway, he would use

hedges to signify uncertainty. An example from our conversation is when he explained to me

how he prepares beans. I asked him if he mashed them and he responded by saying “something
 3
like that” (Visit 1, Lines 375-378). Additionally, when I asked him about the appearance of his

hometown he responded, “I’m not sure now” (Visit 1, Lines 111-112). His adherence to the

quality maxim also appeared in his frequent use of the phrase “I don’t know” (Yule, 2023,

p.161). When he did not understand a question or how to express a phrase in English, he was

honest. When I asked him to tell me about his trip to the United States from Honduras, he said “I

don’t know was (what’s) treep (trip)?” instead of pretending he knew what I meant (Visit 1,

Lines 172-177). This practice kept our communication effective and cooperative. This

communicative approach will help him connect with other English speakers because people will

be more likely to trust him.

Steve did at times flout maxims to express humor. A speaker flouts a maxim when they

say something that violates a maxim, but “the listener is expected to understand the meaning

being conveyed” (Dawson et al., 2022, p. 293). In our conversation, to be funny, he flouted the

maxim of quality by claiming his rice was as good as his aunts even though we both know they

are significantly better cooks (Visit 1, Lines 341-343). Later, I asked him if he drove the speed

limit and again, he flouted the maxim of quality by saying “sometimes,” causing us both to laugh

since we knew his tone implied the actual answer was “no” (Visit 1, Lines 446-448). In the same

part of our conversation Steve continued to be humorous by using his knowledge of situational

context. When I asked him why he did not drive the speed limit, he replied “this is Memphis”

(Visit 1, Lines 448-449). This utterance contains an implicature because it implies something that

is not said: Memphis is known for fast, reckless driving (Yule, 2023, p.163). Steve uses our

situational context (the city of Memphis) to assume that I would understand what his statement

meant even though on the face of it, his response did not answer my question. Steve’s use of

humor throughout our visit points to his ability to at times manipulate the English language to
 4
express his personality. This skill will help him build relationships with native English speakers

(and native Memphians) as humor can be bonding.

There is a lot to celebrate when it comes to Steve’s understanding of pragmatics. There

are also some areas of growth. His utterances sometimes unintentionally flouted the maxim of

quantity (contributions are as informative as required) (Yule, 2023, 162). When it came to

quantity, he frequently gave one-word responses to questions which led me to sometimes ask

more than one follow-up question to gain full understanding. An example is when he said that

some people rob his apartments. I had to ask multiple questions to get clarity on who was robbed

and what was being broken into (Visit 1, Lines 392-406). The lack of quantity in some of his

utterances could come from nervousness (which he expressed during the conversation), lack of

vocabulary, and/or fear of saying something incorrect. During our conversation, Steve showed

his understanding of physical context by responding appropriately when I used deictic language

and anaphora, but rarely used them himself. The absence of Steve using deictic expressions and

anaphora makes me think he needs more instruction in this area.

When considering the major influencing factor that allows Steve to maintain a socially

acceptable conversation, my hypothesis is that input from Steve’s family is the primary

ingredient. Having spent time around Steve’s family and observed his interactions with his father

it is apparent that they value respect and honesty, and they encourage these values in their

children. Steve’s parents likely gave him daily input when he was a child that guided him to

understand conversational rules (Hummel, 2014, pg. 93). I predict that Steve’s competency with

the maxim of quality and following conversational norms, such as taking turns when speaking,

are a result of Steve transferring those skills from his first language to English. The input he

receives at school is also a critical factor in the development of his pragmatic skills. At school he
 5
listens to and engages in conversations in English. The social environment provides him with

opportunities to observe how to flout maxims to express humor. It also likely cultivated his

attentiveness to the maxim of quality. As a newcomer to the United States, he knew in

conversations he needed to be cautious of being misunderstood.

 6
B. Phonology

Steve pronounces many words accurately enough in English that I am usually able to

identify most words he says. Still, his strong accent can cause misunderstandings; therefore,

conversing with Steve requires concentration on the part of the listener. Steve’s frequent

substitution of the fricative “sh” sound with the affricative “ch” sound is an example of this.

Multiple times during Visit 1, Steve pronounced the word “she” as “chee.” When describing his

sister he said, “ches (she) turning thirteen this mon-a-th (month) (Visit 1, Lines 52-53).” When

he described his grandmother, he followed the same pronunciation pattern. He said “chee (she) is

just fun…chee (she) is really nice (Visit 1, Lines 251-255).” As the listener I was able to use

context clues to deduce he meant “she,” but I momentarily thought Steve was saying “he.” This

systematic pronunciation error is likely caused by Steve transferring a Spanish phonological

pattern onto English. The “ch” sound exists in Spanish, but the “sh” sound does not. It is possible

that Steve is not consciously confusing the two sounds. The two phonemes are both voiceless

post-alveolars so they sound similar. Learners often struggle with the “subtle distinctions, such as

the articulation of certain sounds that vary in small ways from their counterparts in the L1

(Hummel, 2014, p. 64).” He also transfers some Spanish vowel sounds onto his pronunciation of

English vowel sounds. For instance, when he said the word “trip” he replaced the /ɪ/ phoneme

with the /i/ phoneme (Visit 1, Line 176). His substitution of /i/ with /I/ is likely because the

Spanish language does not have the /I/ sound, so it is not recognizable to him.

In the Spanish language, consonant clusters rarely appear at the ends of words like they

do in English. Steve frequently transfers this characteristic of Spanish to English. He often

deletes or reduces the end consonant sounds of English words. This phonological habit is

worrisome because it impacts people’s ability to comprehend him. It caused a couple of points of
 7
confusion during our second visit. When I asked him when he felt most comfortable with English

he responded, “I don't know when umm when I-I got with uhh-I have a tex (text) (Visit 2, Lines

59-62).” I had to ask clarifying questions to understand he meant an academic text. During the

same visit while describing his job he said “I gotta umm–I gotta pain (paint) in my job (Visit 2,

Line 225).” If I did not already know about his job, I might have thought he was saying his work

caused him physical pain.

Coherency is one of Steve’s strengths. When speaking English, he speaks clearly (does

not mumble), intelligibly, and at a volume that is easy to hear. He uses the appropriate intonation

when asking questions. (Visit 2, Lines 168). There were only a few brief moments during our

visits where his speech was indistinguishable. He repaired the mispronunciations, which is

evidence of phonological understanding.

It is possible to make everyday conversation with Steve, but his gaps in vocabulary,

pronunciation, and grammar do take away from his fluency. Our conversations are meaningful,

but slow and choppy. He frequently pauses to think in the middle of speaking or before

answering a question (Visit 2, Lines 193-194). There are also moments when the dialogue stops

because he asks how to say something (Visit 2, Line 43) or for clarification. Steve values being

understood, and it takes effort for him to formulate and express his thoughts in English. This, on

top of his nervousness, leads to short responses. During visit one there were a few moments

when Steve code-switched and started speaking in Spanish. The pace at which he spoke Spanish

was faster and his contribution more detailed (Visit One, Line 99). I predict as Steve’s English

phonological skills improve so will his flow of speech and the quality of his responses.
 8
C. Grammar

One of Steve’s morphological strengths is his accurate use of functional morphemes such as

pronouns, prepositions, and articles (Yule, 2023). In our conversations he correctly switched between I,

he, she, you and they depending on the subject. In his writing sample he correctly used “the” and “a” in

each paragraph. At one point he does make an error when he uses “a” instead of using “an” in front of

the word emergency (informal writing sample, Line 8). I would have to see more of his writing to

determine if this was simply a mistake or if he needs instruction on when to use “an.” An area of

improvement for Steve is his use of the past tense (including both the regular and irregular past tense).

Instead of using the past tense Steve uses the present tense. For example, when he described what he

used to carry to his house in Honduras he said, “bring to my house” instead of “brought them to my

house” (Visit 1, Line 155). When we discussed how the school counselor helped him drop his ROTC

class, he used the present tense of the verbs “go” and “say” and the infinitives of “talk” and “change”

instead of conjugating the verbs into the past tense (Visit 3, Line 56). The only time he used the -ed

ending is when he described how someone “shooted” a soccer ball. (Visit 3, Line 149). These examples

demonstrate that Steve is missing key morphological knowledge on how to formulate the past tense.

Also absent from his dialogue was the use of auxiliary verbs. Their absence prevented him from

expressing both the passive present and passive past tense. During our second visit he said, “I reading”

instead of “I am reading” (Visit 2, 66). When explaining why he changed schools for his sister he said,

“she waiting for me like twenty minutes…and now she waiting like five or less” (Visit 3, Line 96-99).

Auxiliary verbs are supposed to co-occur with -ing forms of verbs. This frequent constituent violation

communicates to me that he does not understand the role these verbs play in helping him formulate

different tenses (Yule, 2023). On the other hand, it is encouraging that he has knowledge of how and

when to attach the -ing suffix to verbs.

 9
Steve repeatedly left out auxiliary verbs also when formulating questions which negatively

impacted his sentence structure. During visit two instead of asking “do you understand me?” he said,

“you understand me?” (Visit 2, Line 168). The missing auxiliary deviated from the typical inverted

question structure. Steve also frequently left out the “to” before an infinitive verb. For instance, he

would say things like “I don’t know how say the problem” instead of “I don’t know how to say the

problem” (Visit 2, Line 93). Because Steve made this mistake so frequently it leads me to infer that his

knowledge of when to use infinitives and how to form them needs to be developed. In terms of linking

devices, Steve struggled with appropriate use. He frequently used the word “and,” often repeating it

multiple times in one sentence. In the writing sample, he wrote “the house can have 2 to 3 bedroons

(bedrooms) and like 2 restrooms and a small sala” (informal writing sample, Line 11). While he appears

to understand that “and'' can be used to join items on a list, he does not follow the syntactic pattern of

only using it once. When describing getting injured at soccer, he used “and'' three times in one utterance

creating a long run-on sentence. (Visit 3, 149-151). This led his story to be confusing and difficult to

follow. A strength of Steve’s syntax is that he can accurately use “don’t” in a variety of contexts.

Unfortunately, beyond that his negation skills are limited. In his writing sample he wrote that the house

he would buy “is no to be the perfect house” (informal writing sample, Line 7). This suggests that his

successful use of “don’t” could be related to vocabulary knowledge rather than an understanding that

“n’t” can be used to negate auxiliary verbs. Steve rarely displayed difficulty with word order, but he also

frequently spoke in short utterances. His speech was mostly made up of independent clauses and short

sentence patterns such as one subject, one verb. His use of simple sentences also means that he did not

frequently use modifiers such as adverbs or adjectives in his communication. When he did, he placed

them correctly in relation to the sentences’ nouns or verbs. Overall, in terms of syntax Steve

demonstrated understanding of some concepts, but significant difficulties with others.

 10
Some of Steve’s grammatical challenges come from Steve’s transference of Spanish grammar

structures to English. In Spanish the infinitive version of a verb is formed by removing the verb ending

and adding the appropriate infinitive ending (-ar, -ir, or -er). This could explain why Steve does not

realize that he needs to add “to” before a verb in English to make it an infinitive. Additionally, the

differences in word order between English and Spanish lead Steve to stick to expressing himself in

simple short sentences and code switching to Spanish when expressing more complex ideas. During our

first conversation, when explaining the motivations for his family immigrating to the United States, he

started to use Spanish (Visit 1, Line 36). He said “Lo mataron y los tuvimos que venir para aca'” which

translates to “they killed him and we had to come here.” The Spanish version of this utterance follows

different grammatical rules than the English translation. In Spanish objective pronouns (in this case

“him”) generally come before the conjugated verb while in English they come after. Additionally, the

subject (in this case “they”) is sometimes left out of a sentence and is instead implied in the conjugation

of the verb.
 11
D. Semantics

Steve and I’s conversations covered a wide range of topics, which gave me insight into

his semantic capabilities. Steve was always able to follow the line of conversation revealing that

his semantic comprehension when listening to English is well-developed. At moments his output

signaled advanced semantic capabilities. He used the tier three words “decimal” and “fraction”

when discussing his math work (Visit 2, Lines 86-97). During our second visit, he identified a

misunderstanding between me and him over the word “text.” I thought he was using it to mean a

form of communication, while he meant it as a type of writing. He clarified his use of the word

by saying “packet text” ( Visit 2, Lines 59-62).

Despite these flashes of strong semantic ability, overall, he had significant difficulty

producing lexical output in English to match his listening comprehension. Use of figurative

language and idioms were entirely absent. He demonstrated some command of simple Tier 1

English vocabulary, but overall his knowledge needs to be broadened and deepened. For

instance, he used the modifiers small, easy, good, but otherwise adverbs or adjectives were

absent from his utterances. The narrow nature of his lexicon was apparent even when we

discussed everyday topics like cooking. When asked to describe his cooking, he used the words

cook, beans, rice, and chicken, but otherwise had to ask me for help. For example, he asked me

how to say the words stove, onion, garlic in English (Visit 1, Lines: 349-371). The gaps in his

lexicon led him to frequently code switch. At times he would say “I don’t know how to say this''

and then ask if he could “say in Spanish (Visit 1, Line 32-36).” When I asked him what kind of

job he wanted after graduating he responded, “Uh, I don (don't) know. Uno que no sea dificil y

que no sea tan facil a lo mejor (One that is not difficult and one that is not too easy too) (Visit 3,

Lines 86-87). This trend also appeared in his writing. When describing his dream house he
 12
wrote, “The house can have 2 to 3 bedroons and like 2 restrooms and a small sala (Writing

Sample, Lines 10-11).” Sala is the Spanish word for living room. It is concerning that Steve has

trouble producing some basic Tier 1 English vocabulary. His narrow lexicon inhibits him from

fully expressing his thoughts, feelings, and needs to English speakers (particularly if they do not

speak Spanish).

Steve shared with me a summary he wrote on the Tell Tale Heart by Edgar Allen Poe for

English class (Formal Writing Sample). I was shocked by the amount of academic language

present in the writing. He used words like “rationality” and “insanity.” The quality of the writing

did not align with his informal writing sample and his conversational output. I asked him if he

had assistance with the writing. He said he used both google translate, Chat GPT, and a teacher

example to help him construct the summary. This illustrates to me that the language instruction

Steve is receiving lacks quality and is not helping him build independence as a user of English.

This is preventing Steve from reaching his full academic potential. If we broaden our analysis of

Steve’s semantic ability to include his Spanish output and his English listening comprehension, it

is clear that Steve's knowledge of word relations and meanings is deep. If his school provided

him with more instruction on vocabulary of various tiers, with more appropriate levels of

scaffolding, and adopted a translanguaging pedagogy he would not be dependent on AI tools to

complete his assignments.

 13
PART III: Solom, SLA theoretical framework, and an exploration of the sociocultural
factors that impact the learner

On the SOLOM scale Steve is on level three for comprehension, fluency, vocabulary,

pronunciation, and a level two for grammar. Steve understands a lot of written and spoken

English, but some repetition and rephrasing is needed. Steve's output is limited by his search for

the correct manner of expression caused by an inadequate vocabulary and an underdeveloped

morphological and syntactic knowledge of English. While Steve’s errors rarely obscure meaning,

his difficulties with properly conjugating verbs, formulating questions, and constructing complex

sentence patterns makes it difficult for him to tell stories, get to know others, and express

complex thoughts. His output is further hindered by a narrow lexicon. Though, he still knows

enough basic vocabulary to participate in discussions on a range of topics. His pronunciation

errors necessitate concentration on the part of the listener, but he is not very hard to understand.

When determining the factors that affect Steve’s acquisition of English it is best to take a

sociocultural approach. Steve’s family, his age, his school’s environment, and his first language

Spanish are the greatest influences on Steve’s acquisition of English. Having spent time around

Steve’s family and observed his interactions with his father it is apparent that they value respect

and honesty, and they encourage these values in their children. Steve’s parents likely gave him

daily input when he was a child that guided him to understand conversational rules (Hummel,

2014, pg. 93). This resulted in Steve closely attending to the maxim of quality and his ability to

maintain a socially acceptable conversation (such as not interrupting and taking turns when

speaking).

Steve arrived in the United States when he was thirteen years old. His age makes it more

challenging for him to learn English because he is not an infant who can pick up differences in

sounds and he is not an elementary school student with a lot of free time. Steve spends most of
 14
his free time helping his father with work or with household chores. Living thirteen years in

Honduras also attached Steve to Honduran culture. This leads Steve to choose to consume

Spanish-language media (T.V., movies, YouTube, or social media) over English-language media.

It is possible that if he arrived in the United States at a younger age he would be more motivated

to engage with English-language entertainment.

His family is proficient in Spanish, but not English. So school is where he receives the

most English input. Steve remarked that reading books in English at school and listening to

discussions about them is what helped him learn English. I asked Steve if he received any other

support in developing English skills at school and he said no. The lack of instruction Steve

received means that he likely picked up English grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and

pragmatic skills through social interactions with teachers and peers. The schools Steve has

attended in the United States have had a majority Black population. He is exposed to African

American Vernacular English (AAVE) on a day to day basis. In AAVE the auxiliary verb “be'' is

at times omitted before present progressive verbs. Exposure to this pattern may be a reason he

also frequently omits auxiliary verbs before -ing forms of verbs. The social environment also

provided him with opportunities to observe how to flout maxims to express humor. It also likely

cultivated his attentiveness to the maxim of quality. As a newcomer to the United States, he

knew in conversations he needed to be cautious of being misunderstood. Steve described his

social circle at school as mostly being made up of other Spanish speakers with whom he speaks

mostly Spanish. This probably influenced his desire to code switch during our conversations. I

think Steve is motivated to learn English, but not incentivized to practice it because he does not

need it to communicate with his friends in addition to his family.

 15
Because Steve’s schools did not provide him direct instruction on English grammar and

pronunciation, Steve uses his knowledge of Spanish to formulate his English output. He transfers

both Spanish phonological patterns (like substituting the /I/ phoneme with the /i/ phoneme) and

Spanish grammatical structure to English (not adding a “to” before an English verb). In the next

section I outline instructional practices that honor Steve’s knowledge of Spanish while

simultaneously introducing him to the key features of the English language.

 16
PART IV: Specific instructional plan for this learner.

A. Pragmatics and Grammar

Steve needs instruction that will develop his ability to construct longer, more detailed

utterances. Steve also needs instruction that improves his ability to construct the past tense in

English. I developed a lesson arc that addresses both of these needs. During the first lesson, the

instructor will provide Steve explicit instruction on how to construct the simple past tense in

English by adding the -ed ending. The instruction should also include a few examples of how to

conjugate some common irregular verbs (be, have, go) into the past tense. After the direct

instruction, the teacher will give Steve a practice worksheet. The worksheet will have an

uncompleted funny short story with blanks for the verbs. Steve will have to fill in those blanks

with the appropriate conjugation of a verb. The infinitive for the verb he will need to use will be

provided in parenthesis next to the blank. The verbs used will be ones that follow the simple past

tense structure or the irregular verbs he encountered in direct instruction.

On the second day of instruction, the teacher will deliver explicit instruction on basic

connectives such as first, next, and later (Crosson, 2013). After this activity the instructor will

direct Steve to write his own short story. The prompt will be for him to tell a funny story from

his childhood. He will be required to use the simple past tense as well as the previously taught

irregular verbs and connectives. The teacher will provide Steve a who, what, when, where, why

writing checklist so that he does not leave out important details from the story. During the

writing process the teacher will host one on one conferences with the students to provide praise

and constructive corrective feedback that supports students in revising their writing to meet the

assignment guidelines.
 17
B. Phonology

Instruction to address Steve’s pronunciation difficulties should focus on errors (which are

systematic) versus mistakes (Shaofeng Li, 2014, p. 197). Educators should avoid “becoming

linguistic imperialists” and view Steve’s L1 knowledge as a strength and make use of it in their

instruction (Nair, 2017). I designed a lesson plan for Steve that uses contrastive analysis between

English and Spanish to help him understand the pronunciation differences between the “sh”

sound and the “ch” and the /i/ sound and the /I/ sound. First the instructor will review the /ʃ/

sound with Steve and establish that it is also used in English and represented by the digraph “ch.”

Then the instructor will introduce Steve to the /ʧ/ sound by playing a video of someone making

the /ʧ/ sound and explaining that it is represented by the digraph “sh.” Steve will be given a

mirror while practicing articulating the /ʧ/ sound so that he can notice how his mouth moves

differently based on whether he is saying the /ʃ/ and /ʧ/ sounds. Next, the instructor will show

examples of English words and sentences that use the /ʧ/ sound and practice choral reading them

with him. Lastly, the teacher will play a game with Steve that uses minimal pairs. The teacher

will display a minimal pair chart that has words that use the /ʃ/ sound in column A (example:

chip) and words that use the /ʧ/ sound in column B (example: ship). The teacher will then say a

word in the minimal pair set out loud and direct Steve to hold up a card with the letter “A” or

“B” to signify which sound was articulated. This activity will not only help Steve practice

distinguishing between the two sounds, but also demonstrate how a substitution error could cause

someone to be misunderstood. This instructional plan should be replicated for the /i/ sound and

the /I/ sound.

 18
C. Semantics

One idea for instruction to support Steve’s vocabulary development is for him to create a

semantic map on a relevant topic such as cooking. He can use Spanish words in the creation of

the map, but he should be encouraged to also include as many English words as possible. Then

the teacher will read different books, watch different videos, and show different images to Steve

related to that specific subject. Next, from those sources the teacher will pre-select a handful of

vocabulary words to direct teach to Steve. The teacher’s selection should include words that are

cognates (example: refrigerator), highly utilized (example: to bake), and also some that are

discipline specific (example: to dice). The teacher should also consider the needs of the learner

when selecting the words to teach Steve (González-Fernández and Schmitt, 2017). Examples are:

What ingredients does he frequently use? What forms of cooking are a part of his daily life?

Afterwards, the teacher will tell Steve to add those words to the semantic map he previously

created. On the following days, the teacher can design games to help Steve practice the

knowledge he is gaining. For instance, he could play a categorization game where he has to sort

words related to a subject under different headings. Continuing with the example of cooking he

would have to sort words under the headings of ingredients, kitchen utensils, and kitchen

appliances.
 19
PART V: Critical reflection

A significant take away from my time with Steve is that teenage newcomers need small

group instruction on features of the English language including pronunciation, grammar, and

vocabulary. Because Steve arrived in the United States around four and a half years ago, I

expected his level of English acquisition to be more advanced. In previous years, I worked with

students from similar circumstances who had been learning English for shorter periods of time

yet were farther along in their language acquisition. What differentiates Steves from those

students is the quality of language instruction his schools provided him. The schools Steve

attends are not set up to support older newcomers and do not provide Steve necessary small

group instruction. When I asked him about his ESL class he said he did nothing in the class and

actually did not have an ESL teacher. Instead, he is sent to a random general education room

during that time (Visit 2, Lines: 156-178). Steve is motivated to learn English, but it is difficult

for him to acquire it effectively if he is just learning from social interaction. He and other

learners like him need academic programs that support their acquisition by providing them with

direct instruction on the English language. I will advocate for this if absent from school

communities I join.

A second takeaway is that contrastive analysis is a useful instructional approach for older

multilingual learners who have strong grasps on their L1s. Steve transfers many characteristics of

the Spanish language to English and the contrastive analytical approach helps illuminate both

when that is serving him and when it is hindering his communication. Before working with

Steve, I had not considered how analyzing the similarities and differences between an L1 and an

L2 could support a student’s learning. When I learned French in school it was taught in a

vacuum. I do not remember discussing how the language compared to English. Yet that would
 20
have been so helpful, especially with the formation of the infinitive and French phonemes. I

developed an instructional plan for Steve that incorporates contrastive analysis. I plan to utilize

and adapt that lesson structure in my future work with multilingual learners. If I work with

students whose L1 is not Spanish, it will be important for me to research their first language to

identify features that would fit the contrastive analysis approach.

My final takeaway is that writing should be incorporated into multilingual instruction. A

student’s writing provides instructors with data on the student’s pragmatic, phonological,

grammatical, and semantic capabilities. Some things you learn through a student’s writing are

more difficult to learn through a student's speech. In the case of Steve, I learned that he needs to

be taught more linking devices and the difference between “a” and “an.” Instructors do not

typically record and transcribe their conversations with multilingual learners. Thus, in a school

setting it can take many conversations with a learner to determine a gap or strength in their

language capabilities while it may only take one writing assignment.

 21
References

Crosson, A. C., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013). Connectives. The Reading Teacher, 67(3)

Dawson, H., Hernandez, A., & Shain, C. (2022). Language files materials for an introduction to

language and linguistics. The Ohio State University Press.

González-Fernández, B., & Schmitt, N. (2017). Vocabulary acquisition. In Loewen, S., & Sato,

M. (Eds.). The routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp.

280-298). Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.

Hummel, K. M. (2014). Introducing second language acquisition: Perspectives and practices.

Wiley.

Li, S. (2013). Oral corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 68(2), 196–198.

Nair, R., Rajasegaran Krishnasamy, & Geraldine De Mello. (2017). RETHINKING THE

TEACHING OF PRONUNCIATION IN THE ESL CLASSROOM. The English

Teacher, XXXV, 14.

Schickedanz, J. A., & Collins, M. F. (2013). So much more than the abcs: The early phases of

reading and writing. National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Yule, G. (2023). The study of language (Eighth). Cambridge University Press.