Grade Levels and Students

¶ … connected with me in a very logical way. The point that Peregoy and Boyle (2013) make about how sheltered instruction puts "both subject matter and language" together I found to be completely sensible. Subjects and language should go together when teaching ELLs.

The name for this practice -- sheltered instruction -- was also something I thought to be interesting: the idea that this kind of approach not only builds on foundations already poured (like all homes), but that it also provides a roof over the student's head that keeps out the confusion and turmoil that can sometimes rain down as a result of improper or inadequate instruction.

By helping students to make connections, this type of instruction provides them with a bigger picture experience so that they can see how the learning applies to their own life, how it builds upon what they have already learned. They get a sense of real progression and can feel confident that they are moving forward. At the same time, the teacher is able to provide enough support that the student does not feel overwhelmed.

This support can come by way of technology -- using digital media or Internet-based interactive exercises that can be exciting for students and give them motivation to dig in and develop their skills. Uniting various materials into one lesson gives the class a very distinct and varied feel -- students are always given something new to keep them engaged and teachers are never flummoxed by doing the same repetitive thing over and over again, worrying that the lessons are becoming stale and boring.

Sheltered instruction looks like it would work for everyone and I think it would be a very successful approach for my students in the future. Literary Article Review The journal article by Sireci and Faulkner-Bond (2015) focuses on the assessment of ELLs by emphasizing the importance of breaking the examinee population into subgroups, since not all examinees are truly at the same level. The study shows that these subgroups should have their own special assessment criteria since they are all coming from different places or levels of understanding and skill set.

As the researchers state, "no test is perfectly suited for all students" and thus "it is important to consider indentifiable subgroups. when considering the fairness and appropriateness of educational tests" (Sireci, Faulkner-Bond, 2015, p. 215). The key concept of the article is that ELLs can be deprived of "valid interpretations" of assessments when they are all judged by a standardized assessment (Sireci, Faulkner-Bond, 2015, p. 215).

The main finding of the study is that ELLs can more effectively improve their vocabulary acquisition skills when they are assessed according to subgroups rather than by a standardized test. The conclusion that the researchers draw from this finding is that ELL instructors should prepare for assessment by identifying subgroups among their classes and preparing individualized assessments for each group.

This study is helpful because it shows how grade levels themselves can be inadequate indicators of achievement or skill level, especially among ELLs, since they may be placed in grade levels based on their age group rather than upon their actual skill level. When trying to teach vocabulary to such students, there are many different levels that the students may be on -- some may be advanced, some moderate, and some at the beginner level: yet all may be in the same grade level.

Thus, the ELL can best be served by being approached at a more individualized level, with the instructor assessing learners in subgroups. This can help each subgroup to focus more specifically on areas that need focusing, which can permit them to catch up to where they are expected to be, with respect to the standardized level. Subgroup specific assessment can be an effective way of engaging with learners, and as Peregoy and Boyle (2013) show, one of the most important aspects of teaching ELLs is maintaining adequate engagement.

The question I would pose for others is this: Would dividing ELLs in subgroups be too much work for a teacher who already has to manage assessments for individual classes? I find that when I think about implementing such a strategy it might be overwhelming for the instructor attempting to engage.