No.

23 • June 2014

Teaching Content to English Learners in the

Era of the Common Core Standards
By Sultan Turkan and Megan Schramm-Possinger 1

Introduction: New Challenges for Teaching

Key Concepts The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were released in 2010 (for mathematics,
English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical
CCSS: Common Core subjects). These new standards set high benchmarks for what K–12 students need
State Standards to know to compete in a global, knowledge-based economy (Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2010; Hanushek, Peterson, & Woessmann, 2012). The standards,
DLK: Disciplinary Linguistic
adopted by 45 states, require students to demonstrate high levels of competency
Knowledge
in literacy skills. For example, the CCSS require all students to demonstrate critical
EL/ELL: English Learners/ thinking skills when processing texts of different lengths and levels of complexity,
English Language Learners to extract important concepts from a large amount of print and digital media, to
explain their point of view based on evidence, and, while doing so, to meet the
ESL: English as a Second
standards already established by content-area experts in mathematics, science,
Language
social studies, and other disciplines. It has been pointed out that the standards are
NCLB: The No Child Left intended to increase students’ ability to handle complex texts (Hiebert & Mesmer,
Behind Act of 2001 2013). Due to this specific change alone, it will be challenging for all students
throughout the nation to demonstrate the levels of academic competency defined
PLK: Pedagogical Language
by the CCSS. Furthermore, the emphasis on text complexity has consequences
Knowledge
for a subgroup of the student population, English learners (ELs), whose English
proficiency may be limited and who will be required to demonstrate complex
literacy and content skills that are highly dependent upon language ability. ELs
might demonstrate limited proficiency levels in academic English and native
language literacy skills due to a wide range of factors, including educational
opportunities in their native country or in the United States, the quality of schooling
they have received in the United States, and so on.

These factors may explain, at least in part, why a common definition of ELs across
schools, districts, and states is lacking (Linquanti & Cook, 2013). However, to help
establish a common ground, states are required to align their definitions of ELs with
the federal definition that refers to ELs as students whose English language proficiency
is insufficient to meet the standards in classrooms where English is the primary

1
 ditor’s note: Sultan Turkan is an associate research scientist at ETS’s Center for Validity Research. Megan
E
Schramm-Possinger is a research associate. Both work in ETS’s Research & Development division.

www.ets.org 1
 R&D Connections • No. 23 • June 2014

“ELs currently constitute language of instruction.2 As implied by this definition alone, many non-native
10 percent of the U.S. public speakers of English are expected to cultivate both their content knowledge and their
school population … and competency as English speakers, writers, and readers.
their numbers are growing: The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 required schools to assess, and be held
The United States had accountable for, ELs’ academic progress over time. The implementation of these
approximately 5.2 million reforms, together with demographic changes over the past decade, made it all the
more important for educators to pay attention to the academic needs, strengths,
EL students enrolled in public
and progress of ELs. The CCSS, which were built on a more uniform set of standards
schools in 2010, which is
compared to NCLB, brought renewed attention to the increasing numbers of ELs and
700,000 more than in the academic hurdles ELs face, an issue that is reflected in achievement gaps between
2000–2001 …” ELs and non-ELs in reading, mathematics, and other subjects.

ELs currently constitute 10 percent of the U. S. public school population (Bunch,

Kibler, & Pimentel, 2013), and their numbers are growing: The United States had
approximately 5.2 million EL students enrolled in public schools in 2010, which is
700,000 more than in 2000–2001 (National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition, 2011). In addition, many of these EL students face linguistic and academic
challenges (Bunch, 2013) as evidenced by an achievement gap in mathematics
and reading between ELs and non-ELs (Aud et al., 2011). The eighth-grade National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics test results from 2005
showed that 71 percent of eighth-grade ELs scored below the basic level,3 while only
29 percent of non-ELs did so. Sixty-nine percent of ELs and 26 percent of non-ELs
“… ELs will need even more scored below basic in mathematics in 2007. The achievement gap widened slightly
support from both their between 2005 and 2009, as 72 percent of ELs and 25 percent of non-ELs scored below
language and content area basic in 2009. Further, students who are classified as ELs4 drop out of high school at
teachers, particularly if they a higher rate compared to those who speak English at home (Short & Fitzsimmons,
are to meet CCSS’s more 2007). For all of these reasons, ELs will need even more support from both their
language and content-area teachers, particularly if they are to meet the CCSS’s more
rigorous academic standards.
rigorous academic standards. Hence, the entire educational community is now faced
Hence, the entire educational with the challenge of how to best address ELs’ educational needs.
community is now faced with
the challenge of how to best
address ELs’ educational 2
 he U.S. Department of Education (USED) requires states that are participating in the two Race to the Top consortia
T
needs.” to use a common definition that is in line with Section 9101(25) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA): LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT - The term limited English proficient, when used with respect to an
individual, means an individual — (A) who is aged 3 through 21; (B) who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an
elementary school or secondary school; (C)(i) who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a
language other than English; (ii)(I) who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying
areas; and (II) who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on
the individual’s level of English language proficiency; or (iii) who is migratory, whose native language is a language
other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and (D)
whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny
the individual — (i) the ability to meet the State’s proficient level of achievement on State assessments described
in section 1111(b)(3); (ii) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is
English; or (iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society.
3
 ighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should exhibit evidence of conceptual and procedural
E
understanding in the five NAEP content areas. This level of performance signifies an understanding of arithmetic
operations — including estimation — on whole numbers, decimals, fractions, and percents (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2013).
4
ELs who are reclassified as fluent English proficient may not be included in the count of EL dropouts.

www.ets.org 2
 R&D Connections • No. 23 • June 2014

“One reason that most In this essay, we explore the implications of the CCSS and what they mean for
mainstream teachers are teachers who instruct EL students in subjects such as science, social studies/history,
insufficiently equipped mathematics, and English language arts. Are these content-area teachers adequately
prepared to teach ELs? Will content-area teachers in mathematics, English language
to teach ELs effectively
arts, social studies, and science need specialized training to be able to cultivate literacy
could be that developing skills among ELs? If so, then what do teachers of science, history and other subjects
ELs’ language skills has need to know and be able to do in order to meet the needs of these students?
traditionally been viewed
as the responsibility of Training for Teaching Content to English Learners (ELs)
ESL teachers.” Mainstream teachers (i.e., content teachers) who teach math, history/social studies,
English, and science/technical subjects but who are not trained in English as a
second language (ESL) are currently not sufficiently equipped to fully address ELs’
academic needs. Many educators have had few, if any, opportunities for professional
development that would allow them to teach ELs (Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll,
2005). Forty-two percent of teachers report that they are teaching EL students, but
less than 8 percent of them have had access to eight or more hours of EL-oriented
pedagogical training (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). This problem is
felt most acutely by mainstream teachers in states and classrooms with large numbers
of ELs (Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005).

One reason that most mainstream teachers are insufficiently equipped to teach
“All teachers, not just ESL ELs effectively could be that developing ELs’ language skills has traditionally been
teachers, must therefore viewed as the responsibility of ESL teachers. These teachers have been designated
be held responsible for as “EL-dedicated staff” since the Lau v. Nichols U.S. Supreme Court Decision and the
effective instruction of ELs 1968 Bilingual Education Act (Hamann & Reeves, 2013). However, with the increasing
number of ELs in many classrooms, it has become impossible to ignore the role of
… How then can content
content teachers who are teaching both language and content to EL students. All
area teachers improve their teachers, not just ESL teachers, must therefore be held responsible for effective
instructional practice?” instruction of ELs (de Jong & Harper, 2008; de Jong & Harper, 2011; Lucas, 2011; Lucas,
Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008). How then can content-area teachers improve
their instructional practices with ELs?

Improving Teaching of Content to English Learner (EL) Students

First and foremost, we believe that teachers need to recognize the central role
language plays in the teaching of content, and develop their teaching skills through
understanding the role of language in teaching content. This is one of many areas of
effective EL teaching that warrants consideration. Second, we need to agree on what
content teachers need to know about language in order to guide them toward a better
understanding of the role language plays in content learning and toward engaging
ELs in using the language of the discipline.

The role of language in teaching content. It is crucial for content area teachers to
effectively address the linguistic challenges EL students face when learning academic
content taught in English. This includes facilitating ELs’ comprehension of language
specific to the particular discipline or subject matter, as students build their content
knowledge through this medium (Barron & Menken, 2002; Hamann & Reeves, 2013;
Kindler, 2002; Waxman & Tellez, 2002). Addressing language barriers is challenging,

www.ets.org 3
 R&D Connections • No. 23 • June 2014

“… teachers need to recognize and failing to do so adequately can prevent ELs from learning content (de Oliveira &
the central role language Cheng, 2011; Fang, 2006; Schleppegrell, 2001).
plays in the teaching of The following examples illustrate the role linguistic features can have in
content, and develop their content learning:
teaching skills through
• “If the total number of soccer and basketball players is 60, then how many
understanding the role of
soccer players are there in the school?” In this sentence, the if-then clause helps
language in teaching content. construct the logical relationships that a mathematical equation carries at the
… we [also] need to agree on sentence level (Schleppegrell, 2004). If ELs do not comprehend this particular
what content teachers need to relationship, they might have a hard time forming an algebraic equation to
know about language …” solve the word problem.

• “Finches with larger and stronger beaks were better able to open the tough
pods than were finches with smaller, weaker beaks [ABLE TO OPEN THE TOUGH
PODS]” (Fang, 2006, p. 497, capitals in the original article). The phrase “able to
open the tough pods” is omitted at the end of the sentence to avoid repetition
and redundancy. This is a typical feature of written English commonly found in
science texts and it can pose challenges for some struggling readers. ELs may
have a hard time understanding the comparison between the two finches,
particularly in relation to their ability to open the tough pods.

The language used in these sample texts could present more of a challenge for
an EL student who is faced with the classroom use of the language specific to a
content area, which is going to be very different from the everyday spoken or written
English language he/she normally reads or listens to (Cummins, 2001). As described
above, the connection between building knowledge about content and cultivating
language skills cannot be separated. Thus, content-area teachers should be aware of
how content-specific language is perceived by EL students, as well as the cognitive
demands it places upon EL students when they produce spoken and written products
(Brisk & Zisselsberger, 2011; Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2004).

For example, a science teacher should be able to understand why ELs might be having
a hard time writing their laboratory reports (Schleppegrell, 2004) and provide a writing
exemplar to reduce the cognitive load. Likewise, a mathematics teacher should be
able to help EL students explain solution processes and/or describe conjectures
(Moschkovich, 1999), just as a social studies teacher should be able to facilitate ELs’
ability to describe a set of events in chronological order. Such support could benefit
all learners and is crucial if teachers are to meet the needs of their EL students
effectively (Bunch, 2013). These content teachers would learn how to engage ELs
in the appropriate use of the language of the particular discipline to perform these
language-related activities. They would also acknowledge that the responsibility to do
so is theirs as well (Bunch, 2013).

What content teachers need to know. There are several complementary perspectives
that shed light on what content teachers need to know to engage ELs in understanding
and using the language of the discipline appropriately.

www.ets.org 4
 R&D Connections • No. 23 • June 2014

“Teachers need DLK to Galguera (2011) and Bunch (2013) offered insights that can begin to answer questions
identify linguistic features or regarding teaching content to ELs. Bunch argued that teachers need to understand
characteristics and help ELs pedagogical language “directly related to disciplinary teaching and learning and
situated in the particular (and multiple) contexts in which learning and teaching take
make appropriate linguistic
place” (p. 307). For Bunch, content teachers should be equipped with linguistic and
choices when expressing pedagogical tools and strategies that make content accessible to ELs. Bunch asserted
meaning using the language that those teachers’ pedagogical language knowledge (PLK) surfaces when they focus
of a specific content area.” on the central role of language in content instruction.

In a similar vein, Turkan, de Oliveira, Lee, and Phelps (2014) stated that disciplinary
linguistic knowledge (DLK) is central to the work of teaching content to ELs. DLK refers
to the linguistic knowledge base that all teachers of EL students need to develop to
facilitate ELs’ understanding of oral and written language within a discipline and their
use of language in ways that allow them to actively participate in the discourse of the
particular discipline. Teachers need DLK to identify linguistic features or characteristics
and help ELs make appropriate linguistic choices when expressing meaning using
the language of a specific content area. This knowledge base also allows teachers
to model for EL students how to communicate their ideas using the language of the
subject matter, orally and/or in writing. When working with ELs, content teachers
“DLK refers to the linguistic
would find it helpful to be able to identify which linguistic characteristics ELs do or
knowledge base that all
do not find difficult. It would also be useful for content teachers to know how to model
teachers of EL students need appropriate ways of communicating ideas in the particular subject.
to develop to facilitate ELs’
This can be illustrated with an example of a mathematics teacher teaching the
understanding of oral and
Pythagorean theorem and how to find the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle.
written language within a The teacher elaborates upon the meaning of the text that contains clauses written
discipline and their use of in a technical and mathematical language such as “taking the square root involves
language in ways that allow finding the number that, when multiplied by itself, gives 25” and expressions such as
them to actively participate “inverse operations.” She identifies various features of the technical language and tries
in the discourse of the to make it accessible to everybody in the class. Later during the lesson, the teacher
particular discipline.” asks students to find the unknown side of the right triangle shown in a worksheet and
explain in writing how they solved the problem.

An EL student hands in the following answer:

The student got the right answer, but there is a problem in how the student wrote the
answer. How can the teacher help the student express the solution to the problem
correctly, using the language of mathematics? The teacher needs to understand that
the EL student’s mistake stems from confusing two expressions — i.e., “to square” and

www.ets.org 5
 R&D Connections • No. 23 • June 2014

“It is crucial to emphasize “to take the square root of,” two related but inverse mathematical operations. While
in teacher training that non-ELs might make a similar mistake, the point we are making here is that it is the
language plays an integral teacher’s job to help the student accurately formulate his/her answers with accurate
use of mathematical language. The teacher could underline the verb “squared” and
role in content learning and
remind the student of the correct phrase — “take the square root of.”
teaching, and should not be
treated as something that is The question now becomes: Is it sufficient for the teacher to correct the EL student’s
use of the verb “squared”’ with “take the square root of”? Seen from the perspective of
separate from, prior to, or
DLK, the starting point for this teacher should be to identify what the student can and
subsequent to it.”
cannot do at the appropriate word, sentence, and discourse levels for mathematics,
which calls for knowledge of language as it relates to the specific content area.
“Discourse” refers here to how language is used appropriately by members of a group
of mathematicians to communicate mathematical ideas, concepts, and reasoning. The
teacher identifies which linguistic level (i.e., word, sentence, discourse, or all three)
the student is having a hard time with. In this case, the student might be making the
mistake due to confusion at the word and discourse levels. Then, the teacher should
explain and model for the EL student why “take the square root of” is the “correct” way
to express the result of this particular mathematical operation. To show the student
how to use the mathematical language appropriately will require systematic and
repetitive practice to which the teacher should be willing to dedicate time. In this
scenario, a teacher who has not been trained to understand how EL students may
think, and/or how to teach them the mathematical language, could fail to link the EL’s
mistake to underlying linguistic or conceptual misunderstandings. The teacher may
instead simply provide the correct answer and move on.

If we look in a similar fashion through the lens of PLK, we realize that the teacher needs
certain strategies to facilitate ELs’ use of language specific to mathematics. In addition,
the teacher should facilitate the students’ understanding of the underlying linguistic
misconceptions and how to correct them. This underlines the importance of providing
teachers with training so that they have the pedagogical and linguistic skills needed to
effectively foster the academic growth of ELs in content classrooms.

Implications for Teacher Training

The CCSS will affect teaching of all learners, not only EL students. It will, however,
be particularly important for EL students to improve their linguistic skills in order to
learn the content. Hence, it is crucial to emphasize in teacher training that language
plays an integral role in content learning and teaching, and should not be treated as
something that is separate from, prior to, or subsequent to it. Teacher training should
provide explicit instruction on how to identify what language skills EL students need
to understand the content, and opportunities to put these skills into practice. The
specific demands for this training, its length and components — fieldwork, extended
apprenticeships, and didactic coursework — need to be researched further.

www.ets.org 6
 R&D Connections • No. 23 • June 2014

Suggestions for More Research

Research will pave the way for understanding what teacher education and teacher
support systems must do to ensure quality instruction for ELs. To this end, we could
start with several broad but important questions:

• What are the competencies above and beyond content knowledge for teaching
of a specific discipline that teachers need to know when teaching content
to ELs?

• What do student teachers need to learn in order to acquire these skills? What
practice-based learning experiences should accompany this knowledge?

• What should teacher training programs add to their curricula so that pre-
service teachers become well equipped to meet the needs of EL students upon
graduation/entry into the field?

• What, if anything, should teacher training programs remove from their curricula
in order to make time for the additional focus on the needs of ELs?

• How can assessment tools be used to determine whether the requisite skills
have been acquired and diagnose areas for improvement? What formative
assessment tools could guide teachers’ professional development?

These questions and others could, in a well-formulated research agenda, inform

the development of formative and summative teacher assessment measures that
benefit teacher educators and employers. It is critical that all educators are sufficiently
equipped to meet new challenges like the CCSS. This will not only benefit EL students,
but will also benefit the general student population.

Summary
The CCSS require students to master complex literacy skills and increase their ability to
acquire high-level concepts. This requirement underlines the central role teachers have
in teaching higher literacy skills, and it comes with higher demands on teachers and
teacher training. It will be a challenge for all students to reach the current proficiency
standards and even more so for EL students who are academically disadvantaged.
Teachers will shoulder most of the weight in addressing the increasing academic
demands on all learners, and they will need explicit training in how to teach content
to students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Teachers need to
strengthen their role as language teachers — even if they are technically mathematics
or science teachers. It is important to realize that teaching content to ELs is neither
simply good teaching nor an intuitive skill. It is a specific body of knowledge and skills
that goes above and beyond the best practices for teaching particular disciplines. In
order for ELs to excel in academics — which is a goal of the CCSS — they need to be
able to understand their teachers’ explanations, and be able to write and speak using
the language of the particular discipline. The task of creating and presenting content
to EL students is complex and challenging; therefore, we need to support teachers in
this task in order to provide equal learning opportunities for all learners.

www.ets.org 7
 R&D Connections • No. 23 • June 2014

References
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Tahan, K. (2011). The
Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011033.pdf

Barron, V., & Menken, K. (2002). What are the characteristics of the bilingual education
and ESL teacher shortage? Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs.

Brisk, M. E., & Zisselsberger, M. (2011). We’ve let them in on the secret: Using SFL theory
to improve the teaching of writing to bilingual learners. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher
preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators
(pp. 55–73). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream

teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research
in Education, 37, 298–341.

Bunch, G. C., Kibler, A., & Pimentel, S. (2013). Realizing opportunities for English learners
in the Common Core English language arts and disciplinary literacy standards.
Retrieved from the Stanford University website: http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/
default/files/events/Bunch-Kibler-Pimentel_AERA_2013-04-08.pdf

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved
from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy

Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse

society. 2nd Ed. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.

de Jong, E., & Harper, C. (2008). ESL is good teaching “plus.” In M. E. Brisk (Ed.),
Language, culture, and community in teacher education (pp. 127–148). New York,
NY: Taylor & Francis.

de Jong, E., & Harper, C. (2011). Accommodating diversity: Preservice teachers’ views
on effective practices for English language learners. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher
preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators
(pp. 55–73). New York, NY: Routledge.

de Oliveira, L. C., & Cheng, D. (2011). Language and the multisemiotic nature of
mathematics. The Reading Matrix, 11(3), 255–268.

Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school.

International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.

Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-
based pedagogy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Galguera, T. (2011). Participant structures as professional learning tasks and the

development of pedagogical language knowledge among preservice teachers.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 38, 85–106.

www.ets.org 8
 R&D Connections • No. 23 • June 2014

Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English
language learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and
professional development needs. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching
and Learning.

Hamann, E. T., & Reeves, J. (2013). Interrupting the professional schism that allows less
successful educational practices with ELLs to persist. Theory Into Practice, 52(2),
81–88.

Hanushek E. A., Peterson P. E., & Woessmann, L. (2012). Achievement growth:

International and U.S. state trends in student performance. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
subject/publications/main2013/pdf/2014451.pdf

Hiebert, E. H., & Mesmer, H. A. E. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the
common core state standards: Examining its potential impact on young readers.
Educational Researcher, 42(1), 44–51.

Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of states’ limited English proficient students and available
educational programs and services: 2000–2001 summary report. Washington,
DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language
Instruction Educational Programs.

Linquanti, R., & Cook, G. H. (2013). Toward a “common definition of English learner”:
A brief defining policy and technical issues and opportunities for state
assessment consortia. Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2013/Toward_a_Common_Definition_2013.pdf

Lucas, T. (2011). Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for
teacher educators. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive

teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language
learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373.

Moschkovich, J. N. (1999). Supporting the participation of English language learners in

mathematical discussions. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(1), 11–19.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2011, February). The

growing numbers of English learner students 1998/99–2008/09 [poster]. Retrieved
from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/9/growingLEP_0809.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Schools and staffing survey, 1999–2000.
Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs
elementary and secondary schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

www.ets.org 9
 R&D Connections • No. 23 • June 2014

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: A first look: 2013
mathematics and reading (NCES 2014-451). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2013/pdf/2014451.pdf

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics

and Education, 12(4), 431–459.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to
acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners.
A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for
Excellent Education.

Turkan, S., de Oliveira, L., Lee, O., & Phelps, G. (2014). Proposing a knowledge base for
teaching academic content to English language learners: Disciplinary linguistic
knowledge. Teachers College Record, 116(4).

Waxman, H. C., & Tellez, K. (2002). Research synthesis on effective teaching practices for
English language learners. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.
R&D Connections is published by

ETS Research & Development

Educational Testing Service
Rosedale Road, 19-T
Princeton, NJ 08541-0001
email: RDWeb@ets.org
Editor: Hans Sandberg
Copy Editor: Eileen Kerrigan
Layout Design: Sally Acquaviva
Visit ETS Research &
Development on the web
at www.ets.org/research
Follow ETS Research on Twitter®
(@ETSresearch)
Copyright © 2014 by Educational Testing
Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo
and LISTENING. LEARNING. LEADING. are
registered trademarks of Educational Testing
Service (ETS). All other trademarks are the
property of their respective owners. 26225