Integrating Literacy and Inquiry for English Learners

0 downloads 0 Views 427KB Size Report
May 8, 2011 - Lindsey: What are you working on? Estrella: ... say and when to say it. For ELs, the ... and appropriation of literacy practices by the three ... visible, and the rich, key moments that occurred dur- .... questions and a debate arose about whether toucans can ... only able to answer one question, some of his ques-.
Integrating Literacy and Inquiry for English Learners Lindsey M. Guccione

Through inquiry, English learners take their place in the classroom community— and develop both their content knowledge and their language skills.

I

n the second-grade classroom, students are sprawled on the floor surrounded by books, large posters, markers, paint, and glue. Samples of their work hang everywhere from the ceiling and walls. Instead of individual student desks, a few small tables are placed here and there. The classroom looks like a workshop, filled with artisans surrounded by their tools. I sit next to Estrella (all names are pseudonyms), a native Spanish speaker, and ask what she is doing: Lindsey: What are you working on? Estrella: Well, I’m researching bioluminescent animals.

Lindsey: Oh yeah? What are those? Estrella: Well, actually…Maria and I were both researching about different bioluminescent animals because we were learning about the coral reef. See up there? [points to a large poster of a coral reef, illustrated and labeled by the students] We both liked them because they glow. So, I saw her research and she saw my research and we thought, “Hey, let’s put our thinking together and co-research!” Then we were talking and reading and writing about them, but we didn’t know how they light up. I thought there’s no way that they can be plugged into something to charge because they live in the coral reef, so then I thought maybe

The Reading Teacher, 64(8), pp. 567–577 DOI:10.1598/RT.64.8.2

they have batteries. We didn’t know, and it didn’t have it in the books. Lindsey: How did you figure it out? Estrella: We Googled it with [the teacher]. They don’t have batteries or plug in! See? [points to the information on her research poster] It is something they do to help protect them from predators. It’s a chemical reaction. (Reflection Journal, April 2008) Later that day, driving home from this inquirybased classroom where I would spend the next year pursuing a research study, I marveled at how articulate Estrella was and how engaged she and her classmates were. These were second graders. As a former second-grade teacher, I wondered how these children could be doing so much so early in the school year and where they would be at the end of the year. I asked myself how these students got to the point where they were talking nonchalantly about coresearching bioluminescent animals. How did they make sense of such complicated texts? How was the teacher integrating literacy and inquiry? Brian, the classroom teacher, stayed with his students for first and second grade. When I began my ethnographic study the following school year (Guccione, 2010), he had just started with a new class of first graders, several of whom were English learners (ELs). In this article, I share successful ways of integrating literacy practices in an inquiry environment for ELs that I observed in my yearlong investigation.

The Literacy Instructional Needs of ELs The enduring achievement gap between native English speakers and ELs, who make up more than

© 2011 International Reading Association ISSN: 0034-0561 print / 1936-2714 online

567

reading comprehension (Romance 10% of the K–12 student population PAUSE AND PONDER & Vitale, 2005), student motivain U.S. public schools (Padolsky, tion, and attitudes toward learning 2004), is a cause of concern among ■■ What literacy practices (Mansfield, 1989). In a large study educators and policymakers. Kindler are evident in your of inquiry-based integrated science– (2002) noted that only 18.7% of stuclassroom? To what extent literacy programs for low-income dents classified as limited English do you teach them and Spanish-speaking second-grade stuproficient met state standards for observe students using dents, Varelas and Pappas (2006) reading in English. Decoding and them in an integrated found progress in second-language fluency difficulties have been seen fashion? learning, increased contributions as the cause of many students’ strug■■ How might inquiry and to content-related discussion, and gles with reading comprehension. integrated literacy increased use of comprehension However, even children who display practices contribute to strategies such as making connecfluent reading behaviors and strong meeting the needs of your tions. Other researchers have found decoding skills can lack reading students? If you have similar results (see, e.g., Conant, comprehension abilities because of English learners in your Roseber y, Warren, & Hudicourtlimited background knowledge and class, how might this approach benefit them Barnes, 2001). underdeveloped vocabulary (Muter, specifically? Education researchers working Hulme, Snowling, & Stevenson, within the sociocultural tradition 2004). Children of poverty (Hart & have asserted that the most effecRisley, 1995) and linguistically ditive means of constructing knowledge is through verse students (National Research Council, 1997) dialogue arising from cooperative inquiry (Beach & show increased risk of having limited background Myers, 2001; Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Tejeda, knowledge, underdeveloped English vocabulary, 1999; Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992). Wells and lower performance on reading comprehension (1999) argued that by creating a collaborative comtasks. munity instead of the traditional highly structured, Many schools and districts in the United States teacher-directed classroom, students learn with and have adopted scripted literacy programs that fofrom each other as they engage in dialogic inquiry. cus heavily on fluency and phonics in the primary Haneda and Wells (2008) suggested discourse plays grades. Teachers and students alike are told what to an essential social role in the construction of knowlsay and when to say it. For ELs, the resulting emphaedge, and that there is a need for dialogic inquiry in sis on drill and practice of decontextualized literacy the instruction of ELs. skills results in an inadequate focus on meaningful literacy practices that better ensure equal access to content—and therefore to equal educational opMy Inquiry portunity (Fitzgerald, 1995; Gutiérrez, 2001; Neufeld In my yearlong study, I sought to discover firsthand & Fitzgerald, 2001). While young ELs need explicit what transpires with respect to literacy practices in instruction in phonemic awareness and word recoga first-grade classroom where the teacher engages nition just as much as their English-speaking peers children with an inquiry mindset. I used ethnogra(Geva & Zadeh, 2006; Lesaux & Siegel, 2003), they also phy, an approach in which the researcher becomes benefit from meaning-rich activities that embrace immersed in the cultural setting (in this case, a classtheir cultural and linguistic resources, enhance oral room) for an extended period and uses thick, rich language development, and facilitate opportunities description to report findings. For the purposes of to interact with print in meaningful ways (Fitzgerald, this study, inquiry-based instruction was defined as 1993; Lenters, 2004; Moll & González, 1994). a student-centered approach to teaching and learnIn contra st to scr ipted literacy programs, ing through the use of teacher scaffolding to guide inquiry-based instruction provides a more balanced independent and group investigations that interested approach to literacy teaching and learning by emthe students. This type of instruction aims to create phasizing the importance of student engagement a community of thinkers and inquirers who seek and and meaningful interactions with print. Inquiry has share knowledge. been shown to enhance content knowledge and

568

The Reading Teacher      Vol. 64, No. 8      May 2011

A specific focus of my study was the experience of ELs. The three first-grade ELs I selected as case studies were all labeled non-English proficient according to their performance on the Colorado English Language Assessment but represented the widest range of scores. All three case studies’ home language was Spanish. Ivette was a 6-year-old first grader whose performance on the state English language proficiency exam was not high enough to register a score at the end of her kindergarten year. She was quiet and attentive during class, but talkative and playful when speaking in Spanish with her friends and classmates. Juan was also 6, and his performance on the English language proficiency exam was the median score of all of the ELs in the class. Juan was energetic and constantly contributed to classroom and social discussions in both English and Spanish. Emilio was 7 and demonstrated the highest English proficiency according to the exam. Emilio participated in class discussions, but had a more reserved nature and disposition with social interactions in both English and Spanish. Once a week for an academic year, I captured data through video and audio recordings and still photography during the language arts period. I also interviewed the students and teacher at the beginning, middle, and end of the year; kept detailed field notes and researcher journals; and collected student artifacts and assessment data. Weekly video-recording summaries were created to document classroom events as they unfolded in 30- to 60-second intervals. These were then coded to enable categorization of events and to relate events to one another. I used the broad code “Literacy Practices (LP)” to document the various uses of literacy in meaning construction. Data were coded LP when specific uses of reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, or visually representing as part of a literacy event were visible, and the rich, key moments that occurred during the year were noted. I also identified LP events that were first introduced by Brian, practiced with teacher guidance, modeled by peers, and eventually taken up and used independently by students. After conducting a count to find the five literacy practices used most frequently by students to construct meaning from expository text, I undertook an in-depth examination of participants’ discourse (beyond the literal transcription) to examine use

and appropriation of literacy practices by the three case-study children.

My Discoveries Brian began the school year by setting the tone for the classroom community of practice. Within this community, routines were established involving literacy practices that drew on all of the language arts to enable students to construct meaning from expository text. These concepts are interrelated and nested within one another. In Brian’s class, students used all of the language arts when constructing meaning from expository texts. Literacy practices were part of patterned ways of interacting within the classroom community. I observed 11 literacy practices used by the students to construct meaning (see Table 1). In my coding, most were labeled with terms used by the students and teacher, and I created labels for others (for example, interactive components, decoding, and code-switching). Brian introduced, modeled, and provided guided practice with each of the literacy practices before students used them independently. While students used all 11 of these practices to construct meaning, for the purposes of this article, only the 5 most common are examined in depth— namely, viewing, “I learned,” interactive components, schema, and connections.

Table 1 Literacy Practices Observed During One Year in the 90-Minute Language Arts Block Literacy practices Viewing Learned Interactive components Schema Connections Questions Art strategies Decoding Text features Code-switching Sources

Frequency count 233 202 202 193 136 113 108 79 66 37 27

Integrating Literacy and Inquiry for English Learners

569

Viewing Viewing was the most commonly observed literacy practice. Data were coded in this category only if the viewing activity or practice observed assisted in the construction of meaning. Construction of meaning was related to a range of topics, from understanding classroom expectations and practices to using photographs to building knowledge about a topic being explored (e.g., animal habitats). Viewing was introduced, emphasized, and used on the first day of school. As he greeted parents and children, Brian directed other students to “grab a book.” I noted, “Emilio and Juan seem to be fascinated with the snake books and are speaking in Spanish about them. They are not reading the book, but they are turning the pages and talking about the pictures” (field notes, August 19, 2008). While I did not consider their viewing to be “reading the book” at this point, later when I analyzed and documented this literacy practice, I found it to be the most prevalent strategy used by students to assist in constructing meaning. On the first morning of school, Brian modeled viewing during the classroom tour. Instead of having one shelf or area for books, Brian had books

Figure 1 Poster Used in a Viewing Activity

570

The Reading Teacher      Vol. 64, No. 8      May 2011

in labeled tubs on the floor and on low shelves all around the room so that students could easily access them. He took the students around the classroom and asked them to “notice what I am doing.” Students viewed how the room was set up to facilitate the communal use of supplies and texts. Next, Brian asked the students to watch him as he modeled selecting five books, telling them that they would be selecting five books themselves to place in their own book tubs. Brian used a think-aloud to talk about the personal interests that influenced his text selections. Students followed him, viewing how he selected different types of texts in various areas of the room. This literacy practice was also emphasized as a way to gain information from expository texts. Photographs and illustrations were viewed, and students discussed what they saw as a valid source of information. For example, after students viewed a photograph in the newspaper about a local fire, Brian gave each student a paper with the language frame caption “I see.…” The students were asked to create their own visual representation of the fire and complete the sentence with words to describe what they viewed (see Figure 1). Students then added their

images with captions to a class poster, which was displayed in the classroom. Brian thus introduced viewing as a valuable literacy practice, and it became part of all research presentations. Students also used photographs to settle disputes about content knowledge. Figure 2 shows Emilio encouraging peers to view a photograph in order to settle a debate about whether frogs can go underwater. Using viewing as a valid literacy practice allowed Emilio to use a photograph in addition to language as a legitimate form of research and support for his claim that frogs can go underwater.

“I Learned” Brian first introduced this practice on my third day of observation in his classroom. Brian was planning to introduce a nonfiction text about the desert. He had made color photocopies of its pages, mounted them on construction paper, and tacked them on a bulletin board. When the students came in that morning, they gathered around the board rather than in the circle where they typically started their day. They were pointing to the pictures and talking. Emilio pointed

at a picture of a pupfish and said, “There isn’t water in the desert.” Brian looked at me and said he had not planned on doing this until later, but that he was going to seize the moment. He sat down with the students and listened to them talking among themselves. He then told students he was going to share some of his thinking with them. On a sticky note, Brian wrote an “I wonder” statement and positioned it next to the picture he was wondering about. Then he modeled reading the text and using another note to write an “I learned” statement about the information he gained from his reading. Students were invited to share their own “I wonder” and “I learned” statements, which Brian wrote down and posted on the bulletin board. After giving everyone a chance to share, he told the students they could use the sticky notes to do this whenever they wanted with their own reading and learning. “I learned” statements took many forms during the year. They were used in everything from individual reading to discussions to research posters and presentations. Eventually, a code was developed to signal the use of this common literacy practice. Figure 3 shows Ivette’s independent use of “I learned”

Figure 2 Viewing Images to Build Content Knowledge

Integrating Literacy and Inquiry for English Learners

571

Figure 3 “I Learned” Statements on a Research Poster

statements on a research poster about the rainforest, where she documented important information she learned. She used the “I learned” stem only once, while in the remaining three statements on the poster, she used an L in a circle to indicate that she had learned this information.

Interactive Components Interactive components were embedded in many aspects of this inquiry-based classroom, though they occurred most frequently during Book Club periods or when students were presenting or sharing their writing or research. Brian also encouraged students to interact and respond to one another about text and new knowledge. Sometimes the interaction would take the form of oral response, but at other times it involved a written artifact or even part of the original research or writing. When coding my data for interactive components, I looked specifically for instances when Brian or others asked for “questions, comments, or connections,” which was the common language used to invite interaction and response to students’ work

572

The Reading Teacher      Vol. 64, No. 8      May 2011

(oral, written, or illustrated). This language was first documented during my second day of observation, when Brian invited Alexis to share her writing with the class. She came up to where he was sitting, and Brian prompted her to start with “Please listen to my important writing.” She repeated the phrase and then shared her writing with the other students, who were sitting in a circle to listen. Brian then told her to ask, “Any questions, comments, or connections?” Alexis repeated the question and, as some students raised their thumbs, she made eye contact with her peers one at a time. Students shared comments, opening with “I like your story because….” Alexis thanked each student who offered a comment. In this first instance, no connections or questions were shared. As the year progressed, interaction became common and eventually more sophisticated. While the prompt remained the same—“Any questions, comments, or connections?”—the responses moved beyond discussion to both visual and written representations that were shared orally and then incorporated as part of the original artifact. For example, Figure 4 shows Alexis working on a three-dimensional

representation of a dart frog in response to Emilio’s research presentation on frogs. She wrote a caption, created an illustration of a frog, and then taped the cup over the illustration to represent a trapped frog. Ultimately, she shared both a written and this visual response to his presentation before taping them to a designated area on his poster calling for questions, comments, and connections.

Figure 4 Alexis Contributes Her Response to Emilio’s Research Presentation

Schema Students referred to schema in multiple ways. The concept was initially introduced by Brian, who used the actual word on my second day of observation in his classroom. However, as students began documenting schema to respond to questions or before starting research projects, it was most commonly referred to by the students as “I think” (although headings such as “My Schema” appeared multiple times on research posters). As with “I learned” statements, “I think” statements were so frequently used that a code was developed: Students would indicate schema using the letter T in a circle. Brian’s introduction of schema occurred as he reviewed an anchor chart about “easy books” and how to pick them. Brian read what the students had previously written about easy books (characteristics including big print, pictures, not too many words, patterns) and modeled selecting a book. He told students that an easy book might be about a topic that was already familiar to the reader. Then Brian told students that the “teacher word” for “already knowing about a topic” was schema. Students discussed book topics for which they already had schema and the criteria for selecting easy books. On the second day of researching the rainforest, questions and a debate arose about whether toucans can fly. Brian asked the entire class to share their thinking in written and oral form before providing students with a visual and encouraging further research. Alexis argued toucans cannot fly because their beaks are too big, but other students disagreed. Figure 5 illustrates the students’ line of thinking and reasoning on a poster that included questions, “I learned” statements, and multiple students’ schema or “I think” statements. All students drew on their prior knowledge and logical reasoning to share their thinking with the class, and some students opted to post their written questions and statements on this classroom poster.

Connections Students commonly made three types of connections—text to self, text to text, and text to world—which Brian introduced in that sequence. Connections were usually preceded by the stem “This reminds me of….” As research and literacy practices became more sophisticated throughout the year, students began using arrows to visually represent connections between their own questions, answers, knowledge, and thinking. Making connections was introduced during the third week of school. Leisl, a new student from the Netherlands, was crying when she came to class. She was in the very back of the carpet area on her knees, resting her head on the ground and sobbing. Brian tried to console her and asked if she wanted to sit by

Integrating Literacy and Inquiry for English Learners

573

Figure 5 Student Documentation of Their Schema for Toucans

presentation to the class, he stated, “I connected my thinking. They’re both [referring to two questions] about food, but one is a little bit more. Just like this one and this one [pointing to arrows connecting two other questions].” Emilio’s use of arrows to connect his thinking visually can be seen in Figure 6.

Integrated Literacy Practices Embedded in Inquiry

him. She sobbed more loudly and would not lift her head. I grabbed some tissues, put my hand on her back, and asked what was wrong. She replied, “Want mom.” Brian was leading the class in a discussion about the desert photographs, so I took her hand and we went to get a drink of water. She calmed down, and we went back to class, where Brian was reviewing Kevin Henkes’s Wemberly Worried and helping students write text-to-self connections. They connected with the main character’s worries about coming to school on the first day. While Leisl herself did not verbalize a connection, Alexis related the story to Leisl’s being sad and wanting her mother. Later in the year, students would “connect their thinking” with arrows on research posters. In an interview near the end of the school year, I asked Emilio why he used the arrows. He said, “To connect my thinking,” and explained that while he was only able to answer one question, some of his questions were related to other questions. When giving a

574

The Reading Teacher      Vol. 64, No. 8      May 2011

In Brian’s classroom, individual literacy practices were complex and rarely, if ever, occurred in isolation. Instead, multiple literacy practices were documented within single literacy events. Emilio’s presentation on frogs, for example, incorporated 10 of the 11 documented literacy practices: viewing, “I learned,” interactive components, schema, connections, questions, art strategies, decoding, text features, and sources. During his presentation, he decoded and shared the “I think,” “I wonder,” and “I learned” statements that had arisen as he researched frogs. He asked his classmates to view his illustrations as he described the art strategies he had used to make visual representations of information from nonfiction texts and how he connected his thinking. Finally, during the classroom discussion, Emilio referenced his research sources to refute Mathew’s claim that frogs cannot go underwater. Brian modeled and reinforced the simultaneous use of multiple literacy practices when conducting research and sharing products with others. “I wonder” and “I learned” statements were introduced together and became inextricably linked throughout the research process. The use of arrows as a strategy for visually representing connections in thinking and Brian’s modeling of various literacy practices through think-alouds during the creation of model research posters reinforced the importance and effectiveness of simultaneous use of literacy practices when researching. Further, within literacy practices, students used multiple language arts of reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and representing. The literacy practices were introduced as tools to construct and document meaning making, not as decontextualized skills to be acquired and assessed. Brian never dictated which strategies were required for research posters or during presentations. He aided students in selecting and using strategies that suited their reading, research, and presentation needs and encouraged them to work together to support one another.

Figure 6 Emilio’s Research Poster, With Arrows Showing Interconnections

My observations indicating that many literacy strategies were used simultaneously to scaffold students’ learning validate research that has investigated the efficacy of instruction of reading comprehension strategies (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pressley et al., 1992). While some teachers introduce reading comprehension strategies to be used independently, this is in contrast to what readers really do when they engage with texts (Anderson, 1979). Students need to learn strategies to support their comprehension, not to demonstrate the acquisition of a new skill. Teachers can use aspects of transactional strategy instruction (Pressley et al., 1992) combined with reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), as outlined in Table 2, to help students (including ELs) acquire and appropriate literacy practices to support the construction of meaning. Brian introduced, modeled, and provided guidance in integrated use of the various literacy practices to construct meaning before students began independent inquiry. Throughout the inquiry process, students learned with and from

one another as they used literacy practices in new and diverse ways to support their meaning making. My investigation helped me to see the benefits of inquiry-based instruction and understand how it can be implemented successfully in real classrooms. I observed an increase in students’ engagement, comprehension, and abilities to search out information related to topics of interest to them. The children in Brian’s classroom became self-regulated learners who saw learning as an enjoyable, rewarding activity. I also discovered that ELs in particular benefit from being seen and seeing themselves as valuable members of the learning community. As members of the community, they, like their classmates, are expected, taught, and encouraged to use integrated and meaningful literacy practices to construct meaning as they develop both academic and social vocabulary. Integrated literacy practices in an inquiry environment provide an authentic context in which ELs can and do excel.

Integrating Literacy and Inquiry for English Learners

575

Table 2 Key Characteristics of Transactional Strategy Instruction and Reciprocal Teaching Instructional approach

Teacher role

Transactional strategy instruction (Pressley et al., 1992)



Reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984)



Provide long-term strategy instruction Describe and model multiple successful strategies through think-alouds ■ Encourage students to use appropriate strategies as needed ■ Emphasize and discuss the usefulness of strategies on an ongoing basis ■ Allow students to discuss their use of strategies and processing that takes place during comprehension and dialogue about text ■

Encourage multiple strategy use  ave students make predictions, ask questions, seek clarification, and H summarize text as they read in groups ■ Relinquish control of strategy use as much as possible ■ Encourage student discussion about the use of strategies and processes involved in comprehension ■

Ta ke Ac tion! Here are some ideas for integrating inquiry and literacy practices across the curriculum.

1. Writing instruction—Many teachers allot 30 to 60 minutes each day for writing. This is a perfect opportunity to incorporate inquiry. Students can use writing to document their thinking and understanding throughout the research process as they discuss, research, and report. The inquiry process is similar to writers’ workshop because students move at their own pace through activities that are meaningful and useful to them. If you are already using writers’ workshop, this will be an easy transition! If you are not using writers’ workshop, inquiry could be a new way for you to infuse content and authentic contexts for student writing and sharing.

2. Science instruction—Many people immediately think of science when they hear inquiry instruction. “Discovery learning” is typical in

576

science class and has been shown to enhance students’ scientific content knowledge. Students are naturally curious about the world around them and often have background knowledge about scientific concepts, so inquiry can be used to pique their interest and extend their thinking. Go to the library and collect expository texts related to scientific concepts. Model questions and curiosities you have about a specific topic (natural disasters are often a fascinating topic for young learners). Model using the literacy practices described in the article as students assist you in getting your research and poster started. Allow students to browse texts and ask questions about scientific concepts that interest them, and encourage them to use the literacy practices as they begin their own independent inquiry. Use the workshop model to provide guidance and feedback as they move through the inquiry process.

The Reading Teacher      Vol. 64, No. 8      May 2011

3. Social studies instruction— Social studies content provides a wonderful opportunity for inquiry. Students bring background knowledge and innate curiosities about the social world. For ELs, this can be a particularly beneficial opportunity, since they can explore topics related to their backgrounds. For example, one of my Mexicanborn second graders was fascinated with stories his grandfather told him of caballeros and vaqueros, so he completed an extensive inquiry project titled “Mexican Cowboys.” Similar to using inquiry during science instruction, go to the library and collect expository text related to social studies concepts. This could include historical events, cultural traditions, religion, geography, anthropology, and so on. Model your use of literacy practices during the inquiry process with student assistance, and allow students to begin their own inquiry as you use the workshop model to help facilitate.

References Anderson, T.H. (1979). Study skills and learning strategies. In H.F. O’Neil & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Cognitive and affective learning strategies (pp. 77–98). New York: Academic. Beach, R., & Myers, J. (2001). Inquiry-based English instruction: Engaging students in life and literature. New York: Teachers College Press. Conant, F., Rosebery, A., Warren, B., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). The sound of drums. In E. McIntyre, A. Rosebery, & N. González (Eds.), Classroom diversity: Connecting curriculum to students’ lives (pp. 51–60). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fitzgerald, J. (1993). Literacy and students who are learning English as a second language. The Reading Teacher, 46(8), 638–647. Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language reading instruction in the United States: A research review. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(2), 115–152. Geva, E., & Zadeh, Z.Y. (2006). Reading efficiency in native English-speaking and English-as-a-second-language children: The role of oral proficiency and underlying cognitivelinguistic processes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(1), 31–57. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1001_3 Guccione, L. (2010). An ethnographic approach to examine the community of practice, literacy practices and construction of meaning among first-grade linguistically diverse learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO. Gutiérrez, K.D. (2001). What’s new in the English language arts: Challenging policies and practices, ¿y qué? Language Arts, 78(6), 564–569. Gutiérrez, K.D., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal, 6(4), 286–303. Haneda, M., & Wells, G. (2008). Learning an additional language through dialogic inquiry. Language and Education, 22(2), 114–136. doi:10.2167/le730.0 Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday lives of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M.J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 665–681. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.665 Kindler, A.L. (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 & Language Educational Programs. Lenters, K. (2004). No half measures: Reading instruction for young second-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 58(4), 328–336. doi:10.1598/RT.58.4.2 Lesaux, N.K., & Siegel, L.S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39(6), 1005–1019. doi:10.1037/ 0012-1649.39.6.1005 Mansfield, B. (1989). Students’ perceptions of an integrated unit: A case study. Social Studies, 80, 135–140. Moll, L.C., & González, N. (1994). Lessons from research with language-minority children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(4), 439–456.

National Research Council, Institute of Medicine. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Neufeld, P., & Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Early English reading development: Latino English learners in the “low” reading group. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(1), 64–109. Padolsky, D. (2005, March). Ask NCELA no. 1: How many schoolaged English language learners (ELLs) are there in the U.S.? Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs. Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. doi:10.1207/ s1532690xci0102_1 Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P.B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J., Almasi, L., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 513–555. doi:10.1086/461705 Romance, N.R., & Vitale, M.R. (2005). A knowledge-focused multipart strategy for enhancing student reading comprehension proficiency in grade 5. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, San Antonio, TX. Rosebery, A.S., Warren, B., & Conant, F.R. (1992). Appropriating s cient ific di s cour s e: Findings from langua ge minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1), 61–94. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0201_2 Varelas, M., & Pappas, C.C. (2006). Intertextuality in read-alouds of integrated science-literacy units in urban primary classrooms: Opportunities for the development of thought and language. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 211–259. doi:10.1207/ s1532690xci2402_2 Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theor y of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511605895

Guccione teaches at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, USA; e-mail lindsey.guccione@ unco.edu.

More to E xplore IRA Book ■■

 ne Classroom, Many Learners: Best Literacy O Practices for Today’s Multilingual Classrooms, edited by Julie Coppola and Elizabeth V. Primas

IRA Journal Articles ■■

■■

 ‘A Squirrel Came and Pushed Earth’: Popular “ Culture and Scientific Ways of Thinking for ELLs” by Kathryn M. Ciechanowski, The Reading Teacher, April 2009 “WebQuests for English-Language Learners: Essential Elements for Design” by Amanda Sox and Eliane Rubinstein-Ávila, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, September 2009

Integrating Literacy and Inquiry for English Learners

577

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Title: Integrating Literacy and Inquiry for English Learners Source: Read Teach 64 no8 My 2011 p. 567-77 ISSN: 0034-0561 DOI:10.1598/RT.64.8.2 Publisher: International Reading Association, Inc. 800 Barksdale Rd., Box 8139, Newark, DE 19714-8139

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: http://www.reading.org/

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sublicensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.