Second Language Learning and Reading ComprehensionThe <strong>the</strong>oretical foundation for much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> literature on second language reading is <strong>the</strong> construct<strong>of</strong> linguistic interdependence based largely on Cummins’ (1981) construct <strong>of</strong> a Common<strong>Un</strong>derlying Pr<strong>of</strong>iciency (CUP),whereby skills transfer from one language to ano<strong>the</strong>r. The <strong>the</strong>ory<strong>of</strong> linguistic interdependence indic<strong>ates</strong> that well-established skills in <strong>the</strong> first language transfer to<strong>the</strong> second language. The <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> linguistic interdependence incorpor<strong>ates</strong> both content andprocesses in reading (e.g., subject matter knowledge, conceptual knowledge, higher-orderthinking skills and reading strategies). Support for <strong>the</strong> transfer phenomenon in studiesinvestigating reading behavior has been widespread (Fitzgerald, 1995; Krashen, 1996).Evidence c<strong>ited</strong> for <strong>the</strong> transfer hypo<strong>the</strong>sis centers around (a) use <strong>of</strong> similar strategies to read inboth languages (e.g., Pritchard, 1990); (b) predictability <strong>of</strong> level <strong>of</strong> reading pr<strong>of</strong>iciency in <strong>the</strong>second language on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> reading pr<strong>of</strong>iciency in <strong>the</strong> first (e.g., Calero-Breckheimer &Goetz, 1993; Carrell, 1991;Droop & Verhoeven, 1998; García, 1998; Geva, Shany, & Himel,1992;Saville-Troike, 1984); and (c) an apparently closer correlation between readingpr<strong>of</strong>iciencies in <strong>the</strong> two languages than between reading and oral pr<strong>of</strong>iciency in <strong>the</strong> secondlanguage (Geva, Wade-Woolley, & Shany, 1993;Saville-Troike, 1984).Some research has focused on specific language skills and <strong>the</strong> degree to which <strong>the</strong>y may transferfrom reading in one language to reading in ano<strong>the</strong>r. Durgunoglu, Nagy, and Hancin-Bhatt (1993)showed that young children’s phonological awareness and word recognition skills in Spanishwere predictive <strong>of</strong> phonological awareness and word recognition in English. However,Heubertand Hauser (1999) conclude that transfer is not automatic: “It occurs only whenconditions for <strong>the</strong> emergence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> analogous second-language skills exist, and it can be aidedby explicit support for <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> transfer”(p. 224). O<strong>the</strong>rs caution that when cognitive andlinguistic factors are taken into account to <strong>the</strong> exclusion <strong>of</strong> macro social factors (i.e., status <strong>of</strong>languages and relations among groups <strong>of</strong> people), evidence <strong>of</strong> variance in literacy success isoverlooked (Gee, 1999).<strong>In</strong>formation on text processing among bilinguals suggests that several factors may createdifficulties for students reading in <strong>the</strong>ir second language:(a) <strong>the</strong> degree to which readingcomprehension strategies are well developed in <strong>the</strong> first language (Jimenez, García, & Pearson,1996; Langer, Bartolome, Vasquez, & Lucas, 1990; Thonis, 1983; Westby, 1989; Laberge &Samuels,1974; Jimenez, 1997; Bialystok, 1991); (b) characteristic features <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Englishlanguage and <strong>the</strong> specifics <strong>of</strong> English text structures (Kucer & Silva, 1995);(c) inaccurate orincomplete background knowledge (Jimenez, García, &Pearson, 1996; Kucer & Silva, 1995;Flood & Menyuk, 1983; Vellutino, Scanlon,& Tanzman, 1990; García, 1991; Westby, 1989;Bartolome, 1994; Edelsky, 1983);(d) vocabulary limitations (Wong Fillmore, 1989; Gibbons,1991; Nagy, García, Durgunogulu, & Hacin-Bhatt, 1993; García, 1991; Baker, 2000); and(e)speed <strong>of</strong> processing (Fitzgerald, 1995; Jimenez, García, & Pearson, 1996).When reading comprehension is assessed through writing, <strong>the</strong>se difficulties are compounded(Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, Alvarez, & Chiu,1999; Reyes, 1992). As writing developmentmay tend to lag somewhat behind reading development in English language learners (DeAvila,1997), assessment <strong>of</strong> reading through writing could underestimate reading pr<strong>of</strong>iciency. Also,time limits fail to take into account <strong>the</strong> slower rate at which English learners process texts(Fichtner, Peitzman, & Sasser, 1994; Peitzman, personal communication, April 7, 2000; Carrell,1991; August & Hakuta, 1997; García& Pearson, 1991; Mercado & Romero, 1993; Pérez &Torres-Guzmán, 1996).© 2008 Dr. Ca<strong>the</strong>rine CollierAll Rights Reserved166
Finally, when second language readers have <strong>the</strong> opportunity to use <strong>the</strong>ir dominant language todiscuss texts written in <strong>the</strong>ir second language, <strong>the</strong>y reveal deeper understandings than <strong>the</strong>y wereable to demonstrate when required to talk about <strong>the</strong>m in English (Díaz, Moll, & Mehan, 1986).Itseems reasonable to assume that <strong>the</strong>se factors may contribute to English language learners’ poorperformance on alternative assessments, unless <strong>the</strong>y have been developed with English languagelearners in mind. These issues in <strong>the</strong> assessment <strong>of</strong> bilingual readers and particularly transitionalstudents, point to <strong>the</strong> need for continued exploration <strong>of</strong> effective assessment instruments that takeinto account <strong>the</strong> unique pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> bilingual readers.Background to <strong>the</strong> StudyThis study took place in an ethnically diverse urban school district in <strong>the</strong> West San FranciscoBay. Of <strong>the</strong> 8,500 students in <strong>the</strong> district, 49% were minority and 95% <strong>of</strong> those were Mexican-American. The district’s bilingual program had been in place for many years and followed <strong>the</strong>multi-year program design based on California’s “<strong>Sta</strong>te Program for Students <strong>of</strong> Lim<strong>ited</strong> EnglishPr<strong>of</strong>iciency,” where students receive primary language instruction in content areas for four years,in addition to daily English as a second language instruction. Students begin English content areainstruction in science and/or math in fourth grade and language arts instruction in English in fifthgrade. Students who enter after kindergarten are placed in primary language or English contentarea instruction based on <strong>the</strong>ir school background and language pr<strong>of</strong>iciency test scores.During <strong>the</strong> study <strong>the</strong> district was in <strong>the</strong> fourth year <strong>of</strong> a major standards-based reform effort inlanguage arts, ma<strong>the</strong>matics, and social studies,K-8. The district had changed from astandardized, norm-referenced test to a Performance-Based Assessment (PBA) given at second,fifth, and seventh grades. <strong>In</strong> general, English learners had scored poorly in <strong>the</strong> first few years <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> PBA. Many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> district’s bilingual teachers had been involved in scoring <strong>the</strong> districtassessment and believed <strong>the</strong> English learners’ poor performance was indicative <strong>of</strong> aninappropriate instrument ra<strong>the</strong>r than a reflection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> students’ abilities. They were particularlyconcerned that <strong>the</strong> reading level, vocabulary, content, and <strong>the</strong>matic focus <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> readingselections were inappropriate for <strong>the</strong>se students. After trying several alternative approaches andaccommodations, teachers in <strong>the</strong> bilingual department proposed <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> analternative assessment specifically designed for <strong>the</strong> transitional bilingual students. This paperdiscusses <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> first administration <strong>of</strong> this teacher-developed alternative assessment.MethodParticipantsThe primary participants in <strong>the</strong> study were 89 fifth-grade students in transition, completing <strong>the</strong>irfirst year <strong>of</strong> English language arts instruction. All were from lower socio-economic status (SES),Mexican-American homes where Spanish was <strong>the</strong> primary language. While <strong>the</strong> criterion fortransitioning to English instruction was grade level reading in Spanish, in practice many studentswere transitioned before that level <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>iciency was reached. The test development workgroupconsisted <strong>of</strong> 10 teachers, <strong>the</strong> director <strong>of</strong> bilingual education, and two consultants from <strong>the</strong>WestEd Regional Educational Laboratory. The teachers were ei<strong>the</strong>r state certified bilingualteachers or Specially Designed Academic <strong>In</strong>struction in English (SDAIE) teachers who hadparticipated in specialized training in effective techniques for teaching transitional students. Thedirector <strong>of</strong> bilingual education and <strong>the</strong> regional laboratory consultants all had extensiveinstructional experience with English language learners and alternative assessment and advanceddegrees in linguistics and education.© 2008 Dr. Ca<strong>the</strong>rine CollierAll Rights Reserved167
- Page 2 and 3:
"Those who arrive by age 12 or 13 m
- Page 5:
Article I.2 Are Signed Languages "R
- Page 8 and 9:
Biological analyses of the status o
- Page 10 and 11:
and beyond, speaking and signing ch
- Page 12 and 13:
Conclusion: Are Signed Languages Re
- Page 14 and 15:
Article I.3 The Interpreter: Has a
- Page 16 and 17:
A few weeks earlier, I had called F
- Page 18 and 19:
“We struggled even getting to the
- Page 20 and 21:
herself by strapping a cassette rec
- Page 22 and 23:
In 1998, after nine years as the ch
- Page 24 and 25:
momentary burst of excitement that
- Page 26 and 27:
can shape core grammar. Because the
- Page 28 and 29:
The authors compared animal and hum
- Page 30 and 31:
monkey moved. He followed it with h
- Page 32 and 33:
delight, fear, laughter, and surpri
- Page 34 and 35:
Piipaío in a hut: Pirahã huts typ
- Page 36 and 37:
LEP students, and equitable organiz
- Page 38 and 39:
4. Second language development crea
- Page 41 and 42:
curriculum or "teaching to the test
- Page 43 and 44:
portfolio work was scanned and stor
- Page 45 and 46:
experiences of many groups of stude
- Page 47 and 48:
While not disagreeing that interpre
- Page 49 and 50:
sound educational practice, however
- Page 51 and 52:
arises from the efforts to abstract
- Page 53 and 54:
Article II.2 Cross-Cultural Communi
- Page 55 and 56:
males who can serve as positive rol
- Page 57 and 58:
Understanding another culture is a
- Page 59 and 60:
Pets and AnimalsWhich animals are v
- Page 61 and 62:
to teach standard English is reflec
- Page 63 and 64:
Asking personal questions of a pers
- Page 65 and 66:
Using Cross Cultural Communication
- Page 67 and 68:
Why Do Nonstandard English-Speaking
- Page 69 and 70:
Before beginning to teach standard
- Page 71 and 72:
• Negative attitudes toward low p
- Page 73 and 74:
New standardized tests and assessme
- Page 75 and 76:
Each of the behaviors listed above
- Page 77 and 78:
Article II.3 Hard Work Hypothesis:
- Page 79 and 80:
each point higher in SES, students
- Page 81 and 82:
This case does not provide strong s
- Page 83 and 84:
Article II.4 Language Acquisition a
- Page 85 and 86:
1992, p. XI). These researchers, wh
- Page 87 and 88:
comprehend a word within a specific
- Page 89 and 90:
more to the truthfulness of the chi
- Page 91 and 92:
This idea of “semilingualism” c
- Page 93 and 94:
Article III.1 A Brief Description o
- Page 95 and 96:
take different lengths of time to c
- Page 97 and 98:
example, should involve the same co
- Page 99 and 100:
As with all stages of BICS acquisit
- Page 101 and 102:
Assessment techniques at stage 3 ca
- Page 103 and 104:
different. Therefore, the social di
- Page 105:
integrative motivation. Basically,
- Page 109 and 110:
(Ellis, 1985; Hakuta, 1986). Howeve
- Page 111 and 112:
that sociocultural processes have o
- Page 113 and 114:
Article III.3 How Children Acquire
- Page 115 and 116: phonetic units (unique to signed la
- Page 117 and 118: Article III.4 Toward a Sociocultura
- Page 119 and 120: emember is that the fundamental goa
- Page 121 and 122: The best practices models can be th
- Page 123 and 124: By focusing on the dialectic betwee
- Page 125 and 126: intergenerational wisdom shared by
- Page 127 and 128: Daily Realities RecappedThe above v
- Page 129 and 130: traditions. At a time in our histor
- Page 131 and 132: We will now look at two examples of
- Page 133 and 134: Speakers communicate fluently, main
- Page 135 and 136: question the effects of such attitu
- Page 137 and 138: Article IV.3 Culture Change: Effect
- Page 139 and 140: and psychological characteristics o
- Page 141 and 142: Contraryto what wewere expecting, t
- Page 143 and 144: Article V.1 Assessment in ESL & Bil
- Page 145 and 146: vocabulary does the student lack?Is
- Page 147 and 148: whether they are LEP and to provide
- Page 149 and 150: Fourth, ESL and bilingual program s
- Page 151 and 152: competent reader/writer. All versio
- Page 153 and 154: Table 1Comparison of Recent Accultu
- Page 155 and 156: unilinear model, which measures the
- Page 157 and 158: an English-only instructional progr
- Page 159 and 160: Article V.3 Assessment of English L
- Page 161 and 162: 8. Change answers only for a very g
- Page 163 and 164: Riles, 1979; Jose P. v Ambac, 1983)
- Page 165: proficiency is often underestimated
- Page 169 and 170: for their decisions, noting issues
- Page 171 and 172: As mentioned above, when the transi
- Page 173 and 174: ather than generic adjectives and t
- Page 175 and 176: their imagined points of view. Ther
- Page 177 and 178: English texts and demonstrate progr
- Page 179: using inter-district teams). In the