Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
BOSTON, MA
PERMIT NO. 1839
J O URNAL O F ED UCATIO N
Journal of Education
J O UR N A L O F E D UC AT I ON
Founded in 1875
J O U R N A L O F E D U C AT I O N
volume 196, number 2, 2016
Early Career Scholars
vii
Roselmina Indrisano
Learning to Think Mathematically: Problem Solving, Metacognition, and Sense Making in Mathematics (Reprint)
Alan H. Schoenfeld
39
Katherine E. Lewis
63
69
89
101
Kristy A. Brugar
academic/professional texts
115
121
Daniel J. Osborn
susan hopewell, sandra butvilofsky, and kathy escamilla, university of colorado boulder
ABSTRACT
In this article the authors propose that biliteracy is a more challenging and rigorous form of literacy than the English-only orientation
of the Common Core State Standards (NGACBP & CCSSO, 2010).
Because learning to read and write in two languages differs from
learning to read and write in one, we argue that biliteracy requires
its own pedagogies, methodologies, and assessment systems. Data
derived from the reported study support a trajectory toward bilingualism informed by a framework that capitalizes on theories of
integrated and holistic biliteracy in order to re-conceptualize the
ways educators can interpret biliteracy assessments of emerging
bilingual learners in Spanish and English.
develop assessment systems and frameworks for examining students understandings and academic achievement that embrace
this holistic lens and that conceptualize translingual processing as a
natural part of this endeavor.
Adopting a holistic understanding of language and literacy
development necessitates consideration of how to expand opportunities to develop literacy and language learning such that they
establish, sustain, and advance mature bilingualism. From this perspective, it is understood that all reading, writing, speaking, listening, and viewing, regardless of language, contribute to a strong
foundation for the development of biliteracy. Thus, the totality of
childrens experiences leading to formal schooling provides a vast
linguistic repertoire that should be valued and accessed in service
to inclusive language and literacy development.
A theory of holistic bilingualism allows the reconceptualization
of how literacy achievement intersects across named languages. It
provides a framework for creating an assessment trajectory that
requires that students in biliteracy programs be assessed in two
languages and that these assessments be interpreted together to
allow a more complete understanding of literacy accomplishments
and biliterate proficiencies.
Key to this plan is the development of assessment systems for
examining students understandings and academic achievement
that embrace this holistic lens and a conceptualization of translingual processing as a natural part of this endeavor. Attention to the
pedagogies of bilingualism that create the conditions and contexts
within which students can thrive is a universal responsibility that
will require knowledgeable leadership. Beyond the mandates of the
CCSS, we need to explore and test promising practices that invite
and celebrate biliteracy, but, in addition, we must adopt frameworks that are defensible, affirming, and holistic.
PEDAGOGICAL MODEL: Literacy Squared
Literacy Squared (Escamilla et al., 2014) is an innovative biliteracy
model that provides a pedagogical framework for complementing
and augmenting the language arts standards in the CCSS. Initiated
in 2004, Literacy Squared begins with the premise that literacy across
languages should be synchronized, and that instruction in two languages begins in kindergarten. The introduction to two-language
literacy (paired literacy) beginning in kindergarten is a fundamental departure from traditional bilingual education models that insist
on delaying literacy instruction in one language until students meet
a particular set of criteria in the other. In this model literacy is not
conceived as specific to individual languages, rather, it is enacted
holistically such that instruction in each language is coordinated
and interdependent.The literacy instruction that takes place in one
language is directly and explicitly connected to the literacy instruction that takes place in the other. The overarching connections
begin with the themes, genres, texts, comprehension strategies,
and oracy structures that overlap to provide a common context for
reading and writing instruction. From the outset, a teacher plans
knowing that the genres and texts that students experience in one
91
1996). Specifically, we invoked evidence to create and test a biliterate reading trajectory that describes and predicts students biliteracy reading development when they are taught within a biliteracy
reading model, in this instance, Literacy Squared, described in the
previous section.
Knowing that becoming literate in two languages differs from
becoming literate in one led to the conclusion that monolingual
assessments and monolingual expectations were likely not capturing or documenting the aggregate accomplishments of students
becoming biliterate. In response, we hypothesized that because the
path to biliteracy is uniquely singular, varying by languages, contexts, and age of acquisition, an individuals trajectory would be
better measured using a two-language continuum that allowed for
a students reading achievement to be interpreted in comparison
to a range of levels rather than a fixed cut score (Hopewell & Escamilla, 2014b). Further, biliterate development is not always a linear process, and ranges of levels reflect better the complexity that
becoming biliterate entails (Moll, Sez, & Dworin, 2001). While
a true biliterate trajectory should include attention to more than
reading, we needed a starting place, and reading theory, research,
and assessment in both monolingual and bilingual systems are better established than those of writing or oral language. Therefore,
we began by examining how systems of reading assessments might
be used to model the development of biliteracy.
Our initial conjecture established a series of increasingly more
advanced ranges of reading outcomes that would allow us to capture and better describe students relative progress across two languages without the concomitant need to describe that trajectory
in unnecessarily negative, derogatory, or deficit terms. Reading
ranges differ from traditional cut scores in that a wider spectrum of outcomes is accepted as evidence of sufficient progress as
opposed to a single minimum score. At first grade, for example,
the publisher of the tests we administered, the Evaluacin de lectoescritura (EDL2) (Ruiz & Machado Cuesta, 2007) and Developmental
Reading Assessment (DRA2) (Beaver & Carter, 2007), recommends
that a student should end the year reading independently at a level
16. In biliteracy classrooms, we suggest that reading scores in the
range of 1216 in Spanish and 810 in English be interpreted as
evidence of adequate biliteracy progress. By rejecting a fixed cut
score we also changed the dialogue with regard to these students
accomplishments and recognized that literacy development in two
languages may take longer and follow a unique path with regard to
reading levels. It is not without precedent for a student to plateau
in one language as the other advances. This student should not be
considered in terms of stagnating growth but rather, having made
advances within the overall system. While the establishment of
ranges does not completely eradicate the problems inherent in cut
scores, it somewhat attenuates what can be an unstable and unreliable means of making decisions regarding growth and development
(Francis, Fletcher, Stuebing, Lyon, Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S.
E., 2005). Furthermore, it begins to capture the holistic notion
that a students language and literacy capacities may vary by context and content, and that all these variables must be considered
92
when determinations are made regarding emerging bilingual students growth and development in language and literacy (Grosjean, 2008).
Any assessment system purporting to chronicle a trajectory
toward biliteracy must include evaluations in each language; therefore, we created a SpanishEnglish trajectory that began with the
premise that each students literacy levels would need to be measured in both Spanish and English. The scores of the EDL2 (Ruiz
& Machado Cuesta, 2007) and the DRA2 (Beaver & Carter, 2007)
were used to determine the relationship of reading levels that represented what students who were becoming biliterate ought to achieve
if each students abilities in each language grew in parallel, though
not necessarily at an equivalent pace. This assessment system was
chosen because the EDL2 and DRA2 are parallel instruments that
measure similar constructs in Spanish and English and have been
determined to be valid and reliable measures of reading (Pearson
Education, 2011). While these instruments served our purposes
well, the trajectory was not contingent upon the use of these particular assessments; the theoretical and practical suppositions could be
applied using any set of parallel assessment instruments to document
and understand students biliteracy achievement.
With regard to a SpanishEnglish trajectory, we assumed that
a students literacy level in Spanish would be slightly higher than
the literacy level in English, and that given appropriate instruction, including explicit attention to paired literacy across languages
beginning in kindergarten, there would not be an extensive gap
between these levels, and that over time the literacy outcomes
might converge. We expected Spanish to be the language of greater
literacy accomplishment for two reasons: (a) in nearly all biliteracy programs designed to meet the needs of SpanishEnglish
emerging bilingual learners, literacy instruction begins with the
language thought to be more dominant in the home (i.e., Spanish),
and (b) Spanish (as compared to English) has a more transparent
orthography whereby the pronunciation of a word is predictable
as lettersound correspondence is mostly stable and strongly rule
governed. The set of skills and strategies associated with becoming literate in Spanish, however, is applicable to those required to
become literate in English, so we determined that with appropriate instruction in which teachers made these connections clear,
English language literacy would advance in parallel. The EDL2 and
DRA2, when administered and examined simultaneously, provided insights into these relationships and allowed us to observe
and document childrens holistic growth with regards to biliterate patterns of progression as each documents the development of
emergent concepts about print, oral reading fluency, oral reading
accuracy, and comprehension ability in both fiction and non-fiction
texts. Considerations across languages with regard to establishing
comparable text difficulty include text structure, number and size
of graphic features, literary features such as description of setting
or character development, amount of picture support, text size
and layout, and number of words/lines per page (Pearson, http://
assets.pearsonglobalschools.com/asset_mgr/current/201324/
EDL2_Sampler.pdf, n.d.). Each evaluation system includes
J O U R N A L O F E D U C AT I O N V O L U M E 1 9 6 N U M B E R 2 2 0 1 6
A3
A3 (Exposure)
46
A3
810
46
1216
810
1828
1216
3038
1828
40
3038
5060
40+
EDL2 (Spanish)
DRA2 (English)
DRA2 (English)
A2
A2
A2
36
A2
13
810
36
24
1216
810
36
1828
1216
1018
3038
1828
2028
40
3038
3040
5060
40+
38+
93
discussion. The hope was that with greater fidelity of implementation to the instructional aspects of Literacy Squared, we might anticipate increased student outcomes.
Phase II: Refining the Trajectory
Again, and importantly, in Phase I, we advocated beginning paired
literacy instruction in Spanish and English beginning in first grade.
During Phase II, the explicit and formal introduction to English
literacy, scaffolded on the literacy skills and knowledge being
acquired in Spanish, began in the spring of the kindergarten year
and had important and consequential effects on students likelihood
Table 3. Targeted and Research-Based Biliterate Reading Zones, Phase II, 20102014, N = 209
20102011
(Grade 1)
DRA2 Range
above
projections
N of Ss above
DRA2 range
Total N of Ss in
or above
projected ranges
10
83
11
92
13
62
824
18
86
810
28
45
1216
12
40
65
89
1216
34
38
1828
44
78
88
18
1828
11
61
30
14
78
3038
n/a
40+
n/a
TOTAL
161
77
EDL2 Range
N of Ss in EDL
Range
DRA2
Projected Range
N of Ss in
projected zone
46
12
A3
810
21
46
1216
62
1828
3038
40
50-60
20112012
(Grade 2)
46
A3
810
46
25
10
50
1216
12
810
25
1218
67
1828
88
12 -16
37
42
18 30
37
74
84
3038
88
1828
44
50
3040
37
81
92
40
13
3038
10
77
40
11
85
50-60
40+
100
100
177
85
TOTAL
20122013
(Grade 3)
20132014
(Grade 4)
46
A3
100
100
810
46
1216
810
1630
100
1828
26
1216
27
1834
18
25
96
3038
105
1828
28
28
3040
68
96
91
40
57
3038
21
37
50
30
51
90
50-60
16
40+
16
100
16
100
TOTAL
191
91
46
A3
810
46
1216
810
1828
11
1216
1440
10
11
100
3038
52
1828
12
23
3050
39
51
98
40
69
3038
25
36
50
42
67
97
5060
74
40+
66
89
66
89
195
93
TOTAL
94
J O U R N A L O F E D U C AT I O N V O L U M E 1 9 6 N U M B E R 2 2 0 1 6
N Reaching
EDL2 (Spanish)
Benchmark or
Higher
% Reaching
EDL2 (Spanish)
Benchmark
(N/209)
% of Ss at
Benchmark
or Higher in
Spanish and in
Biliteracy Zone
Level 12 or
higher
170
81
78
Level 18 or
higher
190
91
88
Level 30 or
higher
178
85
92
Level 40 or
higher
139
70
Number of Students
60
50
40
30
20
10
68
96
0
Gr Gr
1 2
Gr Gr Gr
1 2 3
Gr Gr Gr Gr
1 2 3 4
Gr Gr Gr Gr
1 2 3 4
Gr Gr Gr
2 3 4
EDL2 810
DRA2 46/
820
EDL2 1216
DRA2 810/
1030
EDL2 1828
DRA2 1216/
1840
EDL2 3038
DRA2 1828/
1840
EDL2 40
DRA2 3038/
4050
95
200
180
Number of Students
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Gr 1
Gr 2
Gr 3
Gr 4
97
98
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., Misra, M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection
in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica
128(3), 416430.
Loes, K., & Saavedra, L. (2010). A new vision to increase the academic
achievement for English language learners and immigrant students.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.
urban.org/UploadedPDF/412265A-New-Vision-to-IncreaseAcademic-Achievement.pdf
Moll, L. C., Sez, R., & Dworin, J. (2001). Exploring biliteracy: Two
student case examples of writing as social practice. The Elementary
School Journal, 101, 435449.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of
Chief State School Officers [NGACBP & CCSSO]. (2010). Common
Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/
social studies, science, and technical subjects (with Appendices A &
B). Washington, DC: Author.
Pearson Education (2011). DRA2 K8 Technical manual (2nd ed.)
Retrieved from http://assets.pearsonschool.com/asset_mgr/
current/20139/DRA2_Technical_Manual_2012.pdf.
Pearson Publishing. (n.d.). Evaluacin del desarrollo de la lectura,
Segunda Edicin. Retrieved from http://assets.pearsonglobalschools.
com/asset_mgr/current/201324/EDL2_Sampler.pdf
Poulin-Dubois, D., Blaye, A., Coutya, J., & Bialystok, E. (2011). The
effects of bilingualism on toddlers executive functioning. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 108(3), 567579.
Ruiz, O., & Machado Cuesta, V. (2007). Evaluacin del desarrollo de la
lectura (2nd ed.). Parsipanny, NJ: Pearson.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Susan Hopewell is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Equity and Cultural Diversity in the School of Education at the University of Colorado Boulder. Dr. Hopewell can be reached at susan.hopewell@colorado.edu.
Sandra Butvilofsky is a professional research associate in the BUENO Center
for Multicultural Education at the University of Colorado Boulder. Dr. Butvilofsky can be reached at sandra.butvilofsky@colorado.edu.
Kathy Escamilla is a professor in the Department of Educational Equity and
Cultural Diversity in the School of Education at the University of Colorado Boulder. Dr. Escamilla can be reached at kathy.escamilla@colorado.edu.
J O U R N A L O F E D U C AT I O N V O L U M E 1 9 6 N U M B E R 2 2 0 1 6
School
Observer
Time
Teacher
Grade
SPANISH LITERACY
Scheduled
min
Observed
min
Domain/Indicators
= Developing/Not evident
= Evident
+ = Exceptional
N/A = Not applicable (Only possible for italicized indicators)
Reading
MCEI
Writing
MCEI
Subject
LITERACY-BASED ELD
Scheduled
min
Observed
min
Reading
MSCI
Writing
MSCI
Oracy
Matches literacy objective
Students likely to encounter or use target vocabulary (from text and objectives)
Opportunities to dialogue are purposeful
Student participation in dialogue is scaffolded to ensure their success
Meaningful selection of language structures
Multiple opportunities for students to rehearse, appropriate, and respond to
target language structures
Teacher talk vs. student talk ( = 40%60% student talk;
+ = 61% student talk)
Multiple opportunities for connected discourse
Specifically address register and language variation
Structured student talk (e.g., think-pair-share, inside outside circles)
Accountability
Teacher has high and clear student expectations
All students are held accountable for actively participating in the activity/lesson
Teacher checks for student understanding
Teacher provides appropriate feedback to enhance student learning
All students are held accountable for completing their work
Cross-Language Connections
Connection between literacy environments (e.g., theme, genre, standards)
Visual side-by-side analysis of languages (e.g., cognates, anchor posters)
Metalanguage
Strategic translation (e.g., as se dice, homonym translation)
Teacher uses languages strategically to enhance student learning
(e.g., clarification, preview/review, instructions)
Teacher flexibly responds to students language alternations
(e.g., response to code-switching)
99
Student Involvement
Students are actively engaged in activity/lesson
Students actively use language related to the lesson
Students communicate in whole groups or w/peers in a way that is
relevant to the lesson objective
Reading
Writing (or text related drawing)
Listening
Speaking
Students share prior knowledge or personal connections
Students demonstrate understanding of objectives or new learning
Students take pride in their work/learning
Lesson Delivery
Teacher clearly communicates literacy objective to students (How)
Teacher clearly communicates literacy objective to students (Why)
Teacher clearly communicates oracy objective to students
Teacher fosters safe environment for risk taking
Language specific metalanguage
Teacher successfully scaffolds students literacy learning based on their needs
Teacher explicitly models literacy and language objectives
Teacher gradually releases responsibility to students in an appropriate way,
allowing them to successfully meet the learning/language objective(s)
TheDictado
Students skip lines
Students use colored pen to self-correct
Students make self-corrections
TheDictado is comprehensible and contextualized
Same Dictado 3x/week
Clear teaching points
Explicit talk through is metalinguistic
TheDictado is between 1520 minutes
TheDictado has a title
Teacher reads entire Dictado for meaning
100
J O U R N A L O F E D U C AT I O N V O L U M E 1 9 6 N U M B E R 2 2 0 1 6