Almost four-and-a-half-million students in the United States participated in programs for English learners (ELs) during the 2012–2013 school year, the most recent year for which data is available. These students make up 9.2 percent of the total student population (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).It is estimated that between one-quarter and one-half of all English learners who enter US schools in the primary grades will becomelong-term English learners (LTELs)．These students have been enrolled in school for over six years and are stalled in their progress toward reaching English language proficiency (Olsen, 2014). Not surprisingly, the challenge of learning a new language in school while also trying to learn advanced content in that language can lead toacademic struggles, disengaged learning behaviors, and withdrawal from the educational community.LTELs are more likely than their peers to drop out of school, to take longer to graduate, and to graduate at much lower rates (Callahan, 2013; Gwynne et al., 2012; Kim, 2011).

In the era of rigorous standards,English 3Dis specifically designed to support progressing English learners at various stages in their English language development so that they will have the tools needed to meet the challenges of the heightened expectations.Language development programs that are specifically designed to meet the needs of English learners are critical to help them accelerate toward English language proficiency.

While manyEnglish learners are competent in social and conversational English, they struggle with academic language.这些学生常常受到识字助教sks, especially as the texts they encounter become more complex. This creates acute gaps in their language and literacy skills that then contribute to performance below grade-level expectations at school. Some of the factors that contribute to English learners becoming long-term English learners include a language arts curriculum that is not designed to meet their needs, not enough targeted English language support, literacy interventions that do not include a focus on English language development, and isolation from classmates and language opportunities (Kinsella, 2011; Olsen, 2010).

尽管国家需要instr更有效uction for ELs and LTELs, there is a dearth of appropriate programs to address the academic language and discourse needs of these students. Many schools and districts have tried to address this gap by providing a mainstream English language arts class with an additional hour of support; however, this approach typically lacks an explicit focus on academic language (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007). As such, the challenge that educators face is finding a way to address students’ language needs effectively and efficiently in order to ensure that their education becomes a path to college, career, and life readiness (Kinsella, 2011; Olsen, 2010).

Language

English 3Dmeets rigorous ELA and ELD standards in Language by providing:

• Direct instruction in high-utility and domain-specific academic words, and frequent opportunities to read the words in authentic texts and use them in speaking and writing to build students’ academic vocabularies
• Instruction that frontloads academic vocabularyto allow students to access complex texts
• Study of academic word familiesto build word knowledge and understanding of how English works
• Development of nuanced word knowledge andpractice in choosing precise wordsto use in academic speaking and writing
• Opportunities for teachersto guide students in determining the meaning of unfamiliar wordsthat they encounter while reading complex texts
• Daily opportunities for written response and academic discussionsin pairs, small groups, and whole class to build language proficiency
• Response framesthat focus on essential language elements and grammatical targets
• Explicit instruction in conventions and language skillsrequired for success in writing specific academic text structures

Speaking and Listening

English 3Dmeets rigorous ELA and ELD standards in Speaking and Listening by providing:

• Academic discussions, speeches, and interviews that structurefrequent opportunities for students to prepare and present ideas orally using formal academic English
• Structured instructional routines that guide teachers to manage and facilitate student collaborationin pairs, in small groups, and as a whole class
• Increasingly sophisticatedframes that provide structure for language functionssuch as facilitating discussion, restating, comparing, agreeing and disagreeing, and listening actively
• Response and note-taking tasks that hold students accountablefor listening to and restating classmates’ ideas

Writing

English 3Dmeets rigorous ELA and ELD standards in Writing by providing:

• Writing frames that guide studentsin writing increasingly complex paragraphs, essays, and research papers
• Daily writing tasks that require brief constructed written responsesto prepare students for advanced assessments
• Instruction in thekey elements and text structures of specific academic writing types
• Extended formal writing assignments that focus on academic writing types, including summarizing, opinion/argument, informative text, and narrative text
• Clear expectations, self-assessment, and peer feedbackto inform revision, all based on the rubric that teachers use to assess student writing

Reading

English 3Dmeets rigorous ELA and ELD standards in Reading by providing:

• Authentic, complex literary and informational textsthat mirror texts students encounter in content-area classes and advanced assessments
• Texts that areengaging, relevant, and meaningfulto students
• Instruction that supports students inreading and evaluating information and datato use in academic speaking and writing tasks
• Text-based questions that require students to read closelyto synthesize key ideas and details and analyze craft and structure
• Multiple readings of relevant and engaging textswith recursive academic vocabulary to build reading fluency

English 3Dis a program for English learners in Grades 4–12 who have stalled in their English language development. Course A meets the needs of students in Grades 4–5, Course B is for students in Grades 6–8, and Course C is for students in Grades 9–12.

The components ofEnglish 3Dare designed to engage all students— particularly students whose struggles with academic English have resulted in disengaged learning behaviors—with materials that develop academic vocabulary and language, speaking and listening, and writing skills. These student materials consist of theIssuesbook, theLanguage & Writing Portfolio, and the Independent Reading Library.

TheIssuesbook contains informational and literary textsbased on six high-interest, relevant issues for students to respond to in academic discussions and writing. It also includes:

• Data Fileswith statistical evidence from authentic sources
• Text Featuresthat include graphs, diagrams, and content connections
• Academic Glossary发音、含义的例子,字源自ins, and Spanish cognates
• Academic Language Handbook杜语言功能参考帧ring discussions
• Academic Writing Handbookwith descriptions, structure, and transitions for academic writing types

TheLanguage & Writing Portfoliois an interactive worktextwith scaffolds for student learning, instruction, and practice. It provides:

• High-utility and domain-specificacademic vocabulary
• Frames for language functionsto exchange information and ideas, support opinions and persuade others, participate in academic discussions, and complete academic writing tasks
• Close reading and viewing questions that prompt students torespond with text evidence and analyze craft and structure
• Formal assignments for academic writing types, including opinion/argument, summary, informational text, and narrative, withopportunities for self-assessment and peer feedback
• Frames to write and presentopinion/argument, informative, and narrative speeches

TheIndependent Reading Library consists of 20 high-interest, relevant, and engaging titlesthat span a wide variety of genres, text types, levels, and topics. The library includes:

• 15 literary texts; four copies each
• Five nonfiction titles; four copies each

TheTeaching Guideis a comprehensive guidefor routines, instruction, assessment, and differentiation. It contains:

• Initial Issue with instruction tointroduce and practice instructional routinesduring the first few weeks of school
• Recursive instructional routinesfor academic vocabulary, speaking and listening, and writing
• Planning Guideswith targeted language objectives
• Differentiated Supportstrategies to meet students at their level of English language proficiency
• Daily Do Now tasksfor reviewing and assessing academic vocabulary
• Guidance for planning anindependent reading programwith summaries, discussion questions, and writing prompts for all Independent Reading titles
• Information for placing and exiting students, administering and scoring summative, curriculum-embedded, and formative assessments, and using data to inform instruction
• Resources to supportlanguage transfer, contrastive analysis, and using Spanish cognates
• Glossaryof English language arts and English language development terms

HMH Teacher Central^®is a digital environmentwhere educators can access tools and resources to instruct, differentiate, and assess. It includes:

• Interactive whiteboard toolsto display tasks and responses, model best practices, view multimedia, and make learning more visual and engaging
• More than 200 projectable and printable resourcesincluding student assessments, rubrics, interview assignments, additional texts, resources for differentiation, grammar and conventions practice, language posters, and family letters
• More than 90 classroom videos of Dr. Kinsellaand other expert teachers modeling key instructional routines

English 3Doffers teacherstools to place students, assess learning, inform instruction, and assign grades.The program contains a comprehensive system of assessments for learning (formative assessments) and assessments of learning (summative assessments) in addition to curriculum-embedded and performance-based assessments. The Individual Language Inventory andHMHReading Inventory^®help educators to inform placement and exit from the program, monitor progress, and assess English proficiency in speaking, listening, and writing.

curriculum-embedded问题测试评估坏蛋ricular goals of each unit of instruction, including academic vocabulary and writing skills. The performance-based writing assignments and speeches include rubrics for students to self-assess as well as for teachers to provide feedback and inform grades. Finally, formative assessments, such as the Daily Do Now—a brief vocabulary task that students complete during the first three to five minutes of class—help teachers to inform instruction.

For English learners to advance in their education, they requireaccess to rigorous curricula at their grade levelsin a way that supports English language development. Without explicit English language development, most English learners will not gain proficiency in academic English (Olsen, 2010; Scarcella, 2003).

Effective language teaching is not synonymous with effective content teaching. English learners needdedicated time for second-language learning and practice(Kinsella, 2011; Gersten & Baker, 2000).

For English learners, a course focused on English language development will be more effective than a traditional English as a Second Language (ESL) course. A focused English language development course can addressacute and distinct linguistic needswith an emphasis on academic speaking and writing. In this way, English learners can be propelled beyond an intermediate level in order to thrive in school (Olsen, 2010; Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007).

Proficiency in English requirestargeted, systematic, and explicit instruction in English language development在一个单独的学校的时间。学生enrolled in an English language development course experience more growth in oral language than students who are not. Ad hoc, incidental lessons within another discipline do not provide the support that is needed for relevant English speaking and listening skills (Norris & Ortega, 2006; Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010).

Current research shows that effective English language development within core English classes transcends what is generally thought of as “good teaching.” By providing adedicated context for explicit and informed language instruction, educators can reengage English learners who may have become discouraged by equipping them with the communicative confidence and competence needed to realize their academic and personal goals (Kinsella, 2011).

Half to three-quarters of LTELs have spent one to three years in mainstream classes with no special services. ELs in these classes exhibit higher dropout rates and lower levels of English proficiency than students in specific EL programs (Olsen, 2014).

Effective teaching practices for all students, and especially for English learners, include aspects such aswell-designed instruction and instructional routines, well-established classroom routines and behavior norms, clear instruction and supportive guidance as learners engage with new skills, effective modeling of skills, strategies, and procedures, and structured, focused interactions with other students (Goldenberg, 2013).

English learners requireconsistent instructional routines, rather than an eclectic array of strategies and activities, so that they can focus on learning critical content and using academic English (Goldenberg, 2008).

Instructional routines that are consistent withclear teacher and student roles, steps, and language targetsmaximize student engagement and language development (Gersten & Baker, 2000; Goldenberg, 2008).

Using aconsistent array of strategies and activitiesto build vocabulary knowledge makes it more likely that English learners will internalize the steps needed to grapple with new concepts, language, and skills. It also gives them a better understanding of the teacher’s expectations for performance (Kinsella, 2011).

Instructional routines encourage students to engage with material by providingscaffolds that structure and supporttheir responses. The instructional routines help to create a learning environment in which students can actively participate in a nonthreatening and flexible way (Kinsella & Feldman, 2005).

HowEnglish 3DDelivers

English 3Dincludesconsistent instructional routinesfor vocabulary, academic discussion, writing, and more. Teachers use the recursive, research-informed instructional routines to facilitate lesson planning and maximize student engagement and learning.学生find that teacher expectations and how students are encouraged to work are consistent, freeing up cognitive space for them to learn new content and skills.

There are three essential routines (Partner & Group Interactions, Using Response Frames, and Setting Up & Monitoring Tasks) as well as additional instructional routines (including Daily Do Now, Building Reading Fluency, Words to Know, Academic Discussion, Words to Go, and Peer Feedback). Guidance for using the essential routines is embedded throughout instructional routines at point of use. Each instructional routine includes a rationale and an “at a glance” section. The rationale explains why the routine is important and how it helps students develop language proficiency. The routine at a glance provides a quick reference and reminder of the steps to follow.

One of the three essential routines is the Partner & Group Interactions routine. This基本日常给老师明确的想法for preparing students for discussions: organize the classroom, partner and group students, and troubleshoot expectations. Once the class is prepared, the routine contains the following steps: establish expectations, assign “fast-finisher” tasks, assign “attentive listening” tasks, check for understanding, and cue start.

One of the instructional routines is the Words to Know routine. The purpose of the Words to Know instructional routine is to build domain-specific academic word knowledge to speak and write about an issue. The routine follows these steps: pronounce words to know, rate word knowledge, discuss word knowledge, explain meaning, and discuss examples.

TheTeaching Guidecontainsstep-by-step instructions and sample modelingto support teachers to use the routines flexibly withEnglish 3Dlessons and beyond. TheTeaching Guidealso includes additional implementation support that offers practical ideas for making the routines successful in the classroom. For example, ideas for using the interactive whiteboard tools appear throughout the instructional routines. In addition, teachers have access to professional learning videos of Dr. Kinsella and other expert teachers modeling the instructional routines in classrooms available on HMH Teacher Central.

A recent Practice Guide published by the Institute for Educational Sciences onTeaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle Schoolresulted in fourevidence-based recommendations:

• Teach a set of academic vocabulary words intensively across several days using a variety of instructional activities.
• Integrate oral and written English language instruction into content-area teaching.
• Provide regular, structured opportunities to develop written language skills.
• Provide small-group instructional intervention to students struggling in areas of literacy and English language development (Baker et al., 2014).

Instruction that helps English learners recognizespecific linguistic elementsmakes it far more likely that students will acquire them. The use of both isolated and integrated lessons in form-focused instruction has proven effective, depending on the language feature that is being taught (Spada & Lightbown, 2008).

For English learners to develop a competent command of English, they needinformed and intentional instruction in how English works．This can be accomplished by explicitly teaching language elements such as vocabulary, word usage, grammatical features, and syntactic structures (Kinsella, 2011).

English learners, especially those whose English development has stalled, must haveconscientiously planned, explicit instruction in language elements以及日常结构化的和负责任的朋友rtunities to practice language so that they can leverage reading and writing assignments (Dutro & Kinsella, 2010).

While English learners benefit from targeted reading and writing interventions, just as English-proficient students do, their literacy support must include anexplicit and systematic program that strengthens their verbal command of Englishvocabulary, syntax, and grammar (August & Shanahan, 2006).

Norris and Ortega (2006) analyzed 77 studies on second-language teaching practices and consistently found thatform-focused, explicit teaching methods were most effective for English learners．Three of the elements of explicit language teaching that they pinpointed were: conscientiously directing students’ attention to a new word, grammatical form, or language rule; clearly explaining and demonstrating the language element; and providing ample opportunities for use of the language target in meaningful, scaffolded, and monitored contexts (Kinsella, 2011).

English learners mustlearn about how English works通过结构和获得的理解文本cohesion, using nouns, verbs, and adjectives effectively to expand and enrich ideas, and connecting and condensing ideas within sentences (California Department of Education, 2012).

学生come to school with meaningful experiences that are often culturally specific.Teachers have the opportunity to build on these experiences and make critical links between new information and the students’ prior knowledge (Echevarria, 2008; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992).

For students who are at a linguistic disadvantage in terms of lesson comprehension, tying new information to students’ previous personal, cultural, or academic experiencesestablishes the links that they critically need to make meaning of the content(Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2007).

Helping learners from diverse backgroundsretrieve and enhance relevant background knowledgethrough brainstorming, visual media, or direct experiences increases their ability to learn and retain new information. These learners can struggle with comprehending a text or lesson concept because their schema or world knowledge does not match those of the culture for which the text was written (Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1996).

For English learners, text comprehension and associated discussions can be positively impacted bybuilding and using critical vocabularyas a curricular anchor (Gersten & Baker, 2000).

Utilizing multi-modal instructionhelps to bring what students already know to new learning experiences. Actively involving English learners in activities such as pronouncing and applying topic-related and high-utility vocabulary helps them to apply this knowledge to materials across subject areas (Dutro & Kinsella, 2010).

• Exploring prior knowledge of a topic and taking notes using a graphic organizer
• Reading data and statistics about a topic and discussing initial reactions with partners
• Drawing on prior knowledge to make concept and language connections to deepen understanding of the central issue
• Discussing understanding of topic-related academic words in collaborative groups
• Generating written examples for topic-related academic words

The first section for every Issue helps students build knowledge: students read an overview of the Issue in theIssuesbook, complete a brainstorming activity, and then exchange their ideas with classmates. This allows the students toactivate, exchange, and enhance their prior knowledge．After the Build Knowledge activity, students interact with a Data File in theIssues本书提供了相关的背景知识nd vocabulary around the Issue.

Teachers can use the Brainstormer on the interactive whiteboard to activate background knowledge by brainstorming and recording ideas about the topic. The Brainstormer displays a graphic organizer in which the teacher can model responses or ask students to fill it in. The teacher can then save the graphic organizer and/or print copies for students to reference throughout their study of the Issue. The program contains many additional graphic organizers, which give students a note-taking device to record ideas as they activate prior knowledge about topics in small groups.

TheIndependent Reading Library inEnglish 3Dconsists of culturally responsive textswith a representative sample of characters and authors. Students read engaging and meaningful books that they have interest in and also have some background knowledge in to support their understanding of the text. The texts in the library provide students with mirrors to themselves and windows on the world. In addition to the library,students interact with one type of multimedia per Issue,如一首诗,作者阅读特克斯的音频t, or video about a current event. Content connections throughout the texts support students in associating Issue topics to other content areas, such as science, social sciences, health, economics, and technology.

English learners need significant, structured opportunities to engage in academic discourse through speaking and writing (Francis et al., 2006; Kinsella & Feldman, 2005). For English learners,structured approaches that model how to use academic Englishhave been found to be more effective than approaches without structure or modeling scaffolds (Shanahan & Beck, 2006).

Research shows that there is a strong and apparentreciprocal relationship between reading comprehension and knowledge of both conversational and academic vocabulary(Baumann, Kame’enui, & Ash, 2003; Duke & Pearson, 2002; Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). By modeling verbal and written academic English, students have exposure to words through speaking and reading that can help them to build a wide range of oral and print vocabulary, which in turn aids reading comprehension (National Institute for Literacy, 2007).

For students to acquire the language of literacy, or academic language, they must encounter the structures and patterns of academic language in the materials they read.Modeling for English learners multiple ways in which to approach complex textsallows them access to and practice with academic language, and having them interact with the texts allows them to discover how English works (Fillmore & Fillmore, 2012).

Some specific strategies that assist English learners in writing essays and research papers that are required of them as they progress in school are tomodel strategies for communication using exemplars of sentences and paragraphsthat demonstrate the vocabulary and sentence patterns of academic discourse (Wong, Fillmore, & Snow, 2000).

For English learners, providing explicit, interactive instruction that includes modeling of how to effectively use verbal and written academic English results in the greatest text comprehension gains, especiallywhen the instruction relates the academic vocabulary words in the text to focal lesson conceptsor when the words have general use in academic contexts (Kinsella, 2013).

Teachers model how to choose and use appropriate and precise words for presentations, how to share and restate responses, and how to report and compare ideas.

The Academic Discussion instructional routine gives teachers and students aconsistent format and relevant language supports to practice academic discussion around issue-related topics．It provides modeling and structured guidance for students to learn how to discuss lesson content using an appropriate academic register. This scaffolded routine begins with students brainstorming ideas in everyday language and then choosing more precise academic vocabulary from their receptive vocabularies and a targeted word bank. Students use academic frames to make a claim on one side of the issue, while noting syntactic and grammatical targets. Finally, partners voice their perspectives before contributing to a class discussion and taking notes.

The Student Writing Model instructional routine guides students through identifying, analyzing, and discussing key elements of an academic writing type in preparation for a formal writing assignment. In this routine, students analyze a writing model according to the rubric criteria that the teacher will use to assess their writing. This way, theexpectations are transparent, and struggling writers can visualize the requirements of the assignment．The academic writing types and expectations gradually increase in complexity.

Language objectives and the opportunity to apply the objectives in conversation are necessaryto promote substantive oral language growth. Small-group and partnering activities will not be effective unless they appropriately apply principles of language development (Foster & Ohta, 2005; Gersten & Baker, 2000).

English learners need opportunities each day to communicate usingmore sophisticated social and academic Englishin order to make second-language acquisition gains. Oral language proficiency is necessary in order for reading and writing proficiency to develop (August & Shanahan, 2006).

Based on the research, best practices for English learners at various levels of English language learning include clustered placement into grade-level content classes with English proficient students, academic interactions with skilled English speakers to learn a more correct version of spoken English, andaccess to rigorous curricula at their grade levels(Kinsella, 2011; Olsen, 2010; Scarcella, 2003).

Expert opinion supports incorporatingstructured peer discussions around relevant content-area literacy instructionso that students have multiple opportunities to practice and hear academic language, which is especially important for English learners (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Dutro & Kinsella, 2010; National Institute for Literacy, 2007).

Creating an environment thatencourages peer interactionswith clear roles, language targets, accountability for implementation, and monitoring helps to ensure that English learners will make gains in language proficiency (Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010).

Language acquisition is an evolving and dynamic phenomenon. It is better conceived as adevelopmental process of ongoing and fluid change rather than as a skill that is innately set届学生有静态拥有一些linguistic knowledge or behavior (Spada & Lightbown, 2008; Norris & Ortega, 2003).

In order to develop within students a sense of accountability to contribute equitably and responsibly while in the classroom and beyond, teachers mustset expectations and carefullymonitor student interactions．Monitoring the communication of English learners involves conscientiously listening to verbal responses and carefully reading written responses so as to determine whether students are skillfully applying the language skills that they are learning (Kinsella, 2011).

To elicit conceptually competent responses with linguistic accuracy, educators mustestablish clear language goalsthat go beyond just friendly discourse (Foster & Ohta, 2005).

Form-focused instruction assists students in learning features of the target language through providing communicative or content-based instruction that includes features of the language that they may not acquire without guidance. Intentional monitoring allows foropportunities within the classroom for productive form-focused feedback for studentsas well as subsequent unified-class lessons (Spada & Lightbown, 2008).

Educators should provide instruction that isfocused on the forms of language that occur naturally．These forms of language are best modeled and practiced in the course of activities that use the language in meaningful interactions (Spada & Lightbown, 2008).

Timely feedback from an educator is a critical partof teaching students about the accuracy of their language use. This type of productive feedback on students’ spoken and written English is necessary for English learners to correct their errors (Spada & Lightbown, 2008).

Providing explicit instruction on specific language elements along with effective feedback is the most advantageous approach to responsive instruction on language use. Instilling in students linguistic awareness that is developed throughconscientious instruction and structured practiceallows educators to more easily guide students to internally identify errors and self-correct (Kinsella, 2011).

In a meta-analysis of 15 studies that investigated the effects of corrective feedback for English learners, Russell and Spada (2006) found thatcorrective feedback is absolutely necessary for studentsas well as lasting in its impact. The meta-analysis found that both oral and written and explicit and implicit corrective feedback is effective.

Corrective feedback on verbal production errors can be given through methods that aretimely, effective, and respectful．By eliciting the correct form of language and utilizing metalinguistic prompts, short-term and long-term language learners receive greater benefit than from using recasts (Kinsella, 2011).

学生will respond to different types of corrective feedback in different ways, so teachers need to be able toprovide oral and written feedback in a variety of waysand to adapt the feedback to particular students (Ellis, 2009).

学生prefer to receive more corrective feedback than teachers feel they should provide. Teachers must be willing and able to adapt their corrective feedback to their students’ abilities and the instructional context. Students who are struggling to complete an activity beyond their current ability may benefit from feedback that recasts their errors, while thosecloser to mastery may benefit from self-correction(Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013).

Sato and Lyster (2012) compared the effects of English interventions that teach students to provide peer feedback and interventions that only include peer interactions. They found that, while the interventions that included peer interactions offered opportunities for repeated practice and improved speech fluency,the interventions that taught students to provide peer feedback improved the students’ accuracy and fluencyas well as the ability to monitor both their own language production and that of their peers.

HowEnglish 3DDelivers

English 3Dprovides multiple opportunities for teachers to provide corrective feedback to students. The Daily Do Now provides opportunities for students toreceive immediate corrective feedback on their understanding and use of academic words．鼓励学生分享他们的反应to the Daily Do Now activities and to explain the rationale for their responses. The teacher then points out the academic words, correct word forms, and relevant content in the student reporters’ responses.

In addition to the Daily Do Now, teachers have the opportunity to provide feedback on students’ writing assignments and speeches. Rubrics for teachers to score student writing and provide feedback are available on HMH Teacher Central. A scoring guide in theLanguage & Writing Portfolioand a rubric on HMH Teacher Central allow students and teachers to score their speeches.

The step-by-step procedures and implementation support that are found across the instructional routines include specific suggestions for providing feedback to students. These suggestions include how to giveconstructive feedback on the strategies that students learn and practice during the routine．

In addition to the support provided to teachers to give effective feedback,English 3Dincludes extensive support for facilitating peer feedback. The Peer Feedback instructional routine actively engages students in developing revision skills and improves the overall quality of their writing. ThePeer Feedback routine is a structured and accountable writing revision strategy．During this routine, two students work together using a scoring guide to assess the content and organization of their drafts and to offer focused suggestions for revision. This routine develops students’ revision skills, clarifies writing expectations, increases accountability for writing, builds academic speaking and listening skills, provides immediate feedback, and reduces the number of drafts the teacher reads and assesses. Students use the same criteria during the Peer Feedback routine that teachers use to assess their final drafts.

Both assessment for learning (formative assessment) and assessment of learning (summative assessment) are essentialfor helping English learners reach proficiency in academic English. Teachers must be able to collect information about student learning on a daily basis to focus their instruction and also measure student progress toward learning goals (Alvarez et al., 2014).

Formative assessment, or assessment for learning,provides immediate and actionable informationto teachers about student learning so that teachers can adjust their instruction to meet the students’ needs. Effective formative assessment must have lessons with clear goals, processes for gathering evidence of learning during lessons, processes for providing meaningful feedback to the evidence, peer and self-assessment, and a collaborative classroom culture (Linquanti, 2014).

Shepherd and Marzola (2011) found that teachers who incorporated formative assessments into their lessons increased student reading achievement scores more than teachers who did not use formative assessments. While formative assessments are beneficial for all students, they are particularly helpful for English learners as theyhighlight troublesome areas and provide guidanceon what needs to be done to overcome them (Black & William, 2009).

Summative assessment, or assessment of learning, is used to determine whether students have reached proficiency in a skill or subject after instruction and can behelpful in determiningstudent placement, interventions, and grades．For English learners, summative assessment is especially important for determining whether students should continue to be placed in an English development instructional course or if they should be reclassified (California Department of Education, 2014).

Standardized achievement tests often do not produce reliable and valid scores for ELs because they are not designed with the particular strengths and needs of these students in mind. Performance-based assessments can remove unnecessary linguistic complexity and offer opportunities for these students to present a more comprehensive picture of what they know in addition to their needs. Students often findperformance-based assessments to be more engaging, and teachers often find them to be more instructionally useful (Abedi, 2010).

HowEnglish 3DDelivers

English 3Dincorporates assessments for learning and assessments of learning. The program offers teachersdaily opportunities to assess learning, inform instruction, and assign grades．Assessments, such as the Individual Language Inventory, also help schools and districts to assess students’ learning over the course of the year. The assessments inEnglish 3Dinclude:

• Daily Formative Assessments
• Individual Language Inventory
• Curriculum-Embedded Assessments
• Performance-Based Assessments in Writing and Speech

The Daily Do Nows assess students’ understanding and application of high-utility academic vocabulary. These daily formative assessments are brief vocabulary tasks that students complete during the first three to five minutes of class to review and assess domain-specific and high-utility academic words. Based on students’ responses to the tasks each day, the teacher can decide to review, reteach, or reinforce a particular academic word.

Teachers administer the Individual Language Inventory (Part 1: Oral) before beginningEnglish 3Dand after Issue 5.These one-on-one interviews allow teachers to collect data to consider student placement or exit, monitor progressin oral language based on English language development standards for speaking and listening, and determine a relative English proficiency level for a class to make informed decisions about instruction and differentiated support. The Individual Language Inventory (Part 1: Oral) was developed in collaboration with Dr. Jeff Zwiers, a senior researcher at Stanford University. His current work, supported by a National Professional Development grant, focuses on developing teachers’ practices for fostering students’ academic language and literacy across disciplines.

Teachers administer the Individual Language Inventory (Part 2: Writing) before beginningEnglish 3D, after Issue 3, and after Issue 6. These formal writing tasks help to inform placement and exit fromEnglish 3D, monitor progress in writing, and determine students’ relative English language proficiency in writing.

Issue Tests are curriculum-embedded assessments that students complete at the end of each Issue．These tests assess domain-specific academic vocabulary, high-utility academic vocabulary, the language and convention skills of academic writing, and the text structure of academic writing.

Performance-based assessmentsinclude formal writing assignments in every Issue and speeches that students present after every two Issues. The formal writing assignments follow instruction for specific writing types (formal summary, opinion/argument, informative text, and narrative). Students complete a formal writing assignment anduse a rubric with specific criteria to score their writing assignments and guide revision．HMH老师中央包括老师的题目s to score students’ writing, offer specific feedback, and inform grades. The speeches require students to plan, write, and present an opinion/argument, informative, or narrative speech. Throughout the year, each student will make a total of three formal academic speeches. TheLanguage & Writing Portfolioincludes a rubric for students to self-assess their speeches and set priorities for improvement. Teachers use speech rubrics from HMH Teacher Central to score students’ speeches, offer specific feedback, and inform grades.

Abedi, J. (2010).Performance assessments for English language learners．Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

Alvarez, L., Ananda, S., Walqui, A., Sato, E., & Rabinowitz, S. N. (2014).Focusing formative assessment on the needs of English language learners．Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006).Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth．Center for Applied Linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Kieffer, M. J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014).Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school(NCEE 2014-4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website:http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx

Batalova, J & McHugh, M. (2010).Number and Growth of Students in US Schools in Need of English Instruction．Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Baumann, J. F., Kame’enui, E. J., & Ash, G. E. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.),Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts(2nd ed., pp. 752–785). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002).Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction．New York, NY: Guilford.

Black, P., & William, D. (2009).Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability,21(5), 5–31.

California Department of Education. (2011).A blueprint for great schools．Retrieved fromhttp://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/bp/documents/yr11bp0709.pdf

California Department of Education. (2012).Overview of the California English Language Development Standards and Proficiency Level Descriptors．Retrieved fromhttp://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/documents/sbeoverviewpld.pdf

California Department of Education. (2014).The English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Framework for California Public Schools．Retrieved fromhttp://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/elaeldfrmwrkbeadopted.asp

Callahan, R. M. (2013).The English learner dropout dilemma: Multiple risks and multiple resources．(Report No. 19). Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Santa Barbara, Gervitz Graduate School of Education, California Dropout Research Project. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cdrp.ucsb.edu/pubs_reports.htm

Duke, N., & Pearson, D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. Samuels (Eds.),What research has to say about reading instruction(pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Dutro, S., & Kinsella, K. (2010). English language development: Issues and implementation at Grades 6–12.Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches．California Department of Education.

Echevarria, J. (2008). Instruction for English language learners. Retrieved fromhttp://www.macmillanmh.com/connectED/mkt/HTMLFiles/pdf/jana_echevarria.pdf

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2007).Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model, 3rd ed., Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development.L2 Journal,1, 3–18.

Fillmore, L. W., & Fillmore, C. J. (2012). What does text complexity mean for English learners and language minority students?Commissioned Papers on Language and Literacy Issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 94, 64.

Foster, P., & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms.Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430.

Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006).Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions．Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English language learners.Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454–470.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research.Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279–319.

Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say.American Educator, 2(2), 8–12, 42–44.

Goldenberg, C. (2010). Reading instruction for English language learners. In M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.),Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. IV, (pp. 684–710).

Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners.American Educator,37(2), 4–11, 38.

Gwynne, J., Pareja, A. S., Ehrlich, S. B., & Allenworth, E. (2012).What matters for staying on-track and graduating in Chicago Public Schools: A focus on English language learners．NChicago, IL: University of Chicago, Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved fromhttps://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/ELL%20Report_0.pdf

Jimenez, R. T., Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles.Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90–112.

Kim, J. (2011).Relationships among and between ELL status, demographic characteristics, enrollment history, and school persistence．(CRESST Report No. 810). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards & Student Testing. Retrieved fromhttps://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R810.pdf

Kinsella, K. (2011).Helping long-term English learners master the language of school．New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Kinsella, K. (2013). Cutting to the Common Core: Making vocabulary number one.Language Magazine,12(12), 18–23.

Kinsella, K., & Feldman, K. (2005).Structures for active participation and learning．New York, NY: Scholastic RED.

Linquanti, R. (2014). Supporting formative assessment for deeper learning: What policymakers must know and be able to do. Paper prepared for the Formative Assessment for Students and Teachers (FAST) State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.),Handbook of second language acquisition(pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second-language classrooms.Language Teaching 46(1), 1–40.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms.Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). English Language Learners. Retrieved fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp

National Early Literacy Panel (NELP). (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy, National Center for Family Literacy.

National Education Association Policy and Practice Department, National Education Association Human and Civil Rights Department & Center for Great Public Schools. (2008).English Language Learners Face Unique Challenges: An NEA Policy Brief.

National Institute for Literacy. (2007).What content area teachers should know about adolescent literacy.Washington, DC: The National Institute for Literacy, The National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Vocational and Adult Education.

Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis.Language Learning, 50, 417–528.

Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),The handbook of second language acquisition(pp. 717–761). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2006).Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching．Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Olsen, L. (2010).Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for California’s long-term English learners．Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.

Olsen, L. (2012). Secondary school courses designed to address the language needs and academic gaps of long-term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.

Olsen, L. (2014).Meeting the unique needs of long term English language learners: A guide for educators．National Education Association.

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.),Synthesizing research on language learningand teaching．Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Pubs.

Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626.

桑德斯,B。,&戈登伯格(2010)。研究guide English language instruction. InImproving education for English learners: Research-based approaches．California Department of Education.

Scarcella, R. (2003).Accelerating academic English: A focus on the English learner．Regents of the University of California.

Shanahan, T., & Beck, I. (2006). Effective literacy teaching for English language learners. In D. August & T. Shanahan,Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth(pp. 415–488). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Shepherd, M. J., & Marzola, E. S. (2011). Assessment. In J. R. Birsh (Ed.),Multisensory teaching of basic language skills(3rd ed., pp. 427–458). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company.

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

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form–focused instruction: Isolated or integrated?TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181–207.

Uro, G., & Barrio, A. (2013).English language learners in America’s great city schools: Demographics, achievement, and staffing．Washington, DC: Council of Great City Schools.

Wong, L., Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2000).What teachers need to know about language．(Contract No. ED–99–CO–0008). U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Center for Applied Linguistics.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2013 Reading Assessment.