Readingpen
English Language Learner (ELL)
Technology for K-12 Teachers and Students March 2005

Scientific Base

Acquiring English language skills is a high priority in the U.S. education system. Being able to read, write, and speak English are requisite skills for success in the public school system. The Readingpen™ with its ability to pronounce, syllabicate, define, and translate is an optimal technology for English Language Learner (ELL) students. As the ELL student acquires the language, his or her English-speaking classmates do not stand still. Research shows that it takes the second language learner approximately three-to-five months’ extra growth (beyond English-speaking classmates) per year to close the achievement gap. “In other words, they must achieve 13-to-15 months’ learning for every 10 months of an academic school year” (Mora, 2005).

Further, as all school children move up through the elementary grades, they encounter ever-increasing levels of difficulty in the literacy tasks and content in the curriculum. Many educators refer to this increased challenge as the fourth-grade slump. At about 4th grade, the curriculum takes a dramatic shift. It moves from simple stories and writing tasks to significantly greater amounts of technical and content area vocabulary. Often, just as ELL students are getting a handle on English literacy, they are thrown a curve ball.

• Students who are still struggling with decoding English are asked to think critically, analyze abstract concepts, and master unfamiliar content-laden reading materials.

• In the upper elementary grades, many English learners begin to lose whatever ground they may have made up in the primary grades.

In order to develop appropriate content-area instruction for ELL students, it is important for teachers to have a basic knowledge of language acquisition theories. Reed and Railsback provide an extremely valuable overview of the key concepts for teachers (2003). They point out that one theory that is endorsed by most experts is Krashen’s “comprehensive input” hypothesis. This theory suggests that learners acquire language by receiving input that is one step beyond his or her level of competence. For example, if an early production learner already understands the phrase, “Go to school,” the teacher can provide appropriate linguistic challenge by altering the phrase to “Go to the playground.” This process builds on prior knowledge and adds to the learner’s vocabulary (Krashen, 1981).

An extension of Krashen’s input hypothesis is “comprehension output.” According to several studies, important language acquisition also occurs when learners have the opportunity to use the language and skills they have acquired, at a speaking and writing level in which they are competent (Pica et al., 1989, 1996; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). The difficulty for ELL students is that they are faced with ever increasing challenges to expand their level of competence rapidly.

Experts also agree that language acquisition can be directly influenced by affective variables such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. According to Krashen, practicing a new language can result in anxiety, embarrassment, or anger. Negative emotions such as these can create a mental block that prevents the learner from processing new “input” (Krashen, 1981; Krashen & Terrell, 1983).

Since the English used in the content-area classes is more abstract and difficult to understand, it is widely agreed that ELL students take longer to develop fluency in academic English than in conversational English. Researcher Jim Cummins asserts that it can take from four to seven years for an average student to achieve cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Reed & Railsback, 2003; Collier, 1987; Klesmer, 1994; Cummins, 1981). On the other hand, fluency for basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) may take only two to five years. Thus, students may seem to be appropriately placed based on a conversational skills, while the challenges they face in the academic environment of the mainstream classroom may be substantial.

ELL students go through sequential stages of language development, from no knowledge of the new language to a level of proficiency that is almost identical to a native speaker (Krashen & Terrel, 1983; ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, 1986; Ellis, 1994).

• Stage I: The Preproduction Stage: This stage is often called “the silent period,” where students have minimal listening and understanding of the new language. They can respond by pointing, drawing, or gesturing.

• Stage II: Early Production: During this stage, students can understand common, high frequency expressions. They can engage in simple direct conversations. Although still dependent on visual cues, students can start to understand main ideas and follow class readings if they are repeated several times.

• Stage III: Speech Emergence: At this stage, students begin to produce language by narrating or describing in strings of sentences. They can initiate and carry on conversations. They can read independently without much visual support.

• Stage IV: Nearly Fluent: Students at this stage can read a variety of grade level materials with good comprehension. They can understand without visual support. Their listening skills are also much improved; they can understand non-face-to-face communication, such as speech from a telephone or radio. Students at this stage can also write cohesive, connected paragraphs with a high degree of grammatical accuracy.

Given the various levels of language proficiency and the diversity of the student population in each school, identifying the best method for fully assimilating ELL learners into the mainstream classroom is a controversial issue. Some believe that extended bilingual education is the most successful method by which ELL students learn English. Others believe students should be immersed into the normal classroom setting as soon as possible.

Whatever the method, three instructional objectives for ELL students can be directly applied in the classroom:

• increase comprehensibility
• increase interactivity
• increase higher thinking skills (Jameson, 1998).

Many different techniques can be used to further each of these objectives.

To increase comprehensibility, teachers can use a variety of tools and strategies to make content more understandable, using nonverbal cues like pictures, objects, demonstrations, and gestures. Teachers can also incorporate the student’s native language into instruction to improve the student’s comprehension. As the student’s language competency develops, teachers can access his or her prior knowledge to make connections and build on what the student already knows.

Interaction is also an important aspect of a student’s language acquisition. According to the comprehensible output theory, teachers should provide opportunities for students to use their language skills, such as collaborative problem solving, study-buddies, project-based learning, or teacher/student interactions.

In order to develop higher order thinking skills, teachers should provide activities that give students the opportunity to categorize, interpret, list, predict, infer, compare, and evaluate.

Understanding the various stages of language acquisition and current language acquisition theories enables teachers and administrators to design instruction that is better suited to serve culturally and linguistically diverse students (Reid & Railsback, 2003).

The Readingpen can assist in instructional activities designed by teachers for ELL students. The Readingpen helps each learner at his or her own level of language proficiency to:

• Decode words
• Translate words into their native language
• Learn correct pronunciation
• Support spelling skills
• Expand vocabulary
• Develop fluency in English
• Develop independence in reading
• Increase reading motivation

This is a convenient tool that allows learners to find the meaning of an unknown word without interrupting the flow of reading. It encourages readers by providing an instant check on the meaning, enabling them to develop a deeper understanding of the text.

The Readingpen is a valuable tool for ELL students and teachers who are working to acquire the English language and to achieve national, state, and local reading standards. Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate how the Readingpen provides the kind of support detailed in the TESOL 2005 English Language Proficiency Standards.

TESOL’s Vision of Effective Education for All Students

The English language proficiency standards build upon the groundwork established by the ESL Standards published in 1997. In that document, TESOL describes the requirements for effective education for all students as a context for understanding the role of ESL standards.

The Role of Language Proficiency in School

In line with the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the needs of ever-increasing numbers of English language learners in US schools, the 2005 language proficiency standards are expanded in scope and breadth. The new edition of the standards reflects the growing body of literature and methodologies that focus on language proficiency within the academic demands of the classroom.

The three scenarios that follow illustrate ways the Readingpen can be incorporated into ongoing instruction with ELL students at various proficiency levels.

Scenario #1: Early Production and Speech Emergence Learners in the Mainstream Classroom

Students who are literate in their own language can use the Readingpen with its bilingual dictionary feature to translate English into their native language. Since the Readingpen will read the word out loud in English, this models the pronunciation of the word, teaching both language and content. Students may view and hear the English definition for these words as well.

Students in fourth grade at S. Elementary School are given sample sentences and adjacent words to ensure additional exposure to English vocabulary. This activity provides enhanced opportunities for “comprehensible input,” where students can continually build on their base knowledge (Krashen, 1981).

Scenario #2: Word Banks for Speech Emergence Learners

To expand basic vocabulary, teachers can ask students to build word banks of specific themes. The themes can be of any topic. They can vary from “clothing” to content specific vocabulary such as “ocean.”

Seventh grade LEP students at M. Middle School go on scavenger hunt to find texts that contain, “shark, current, sea weed.” Students can use these word banks in graphic organizers such as a KWL chart. Activities such as these encourage students to use the language they have acquired and enhance their language acquisition (Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Including thematic units in the curriculum also helps ELL students make connections and achieve a deeper understanding of concepts.

Scenario #3: Using the Readingpen™ as a Pre-Reading Tool

Whenever possible, English teachers at B. High School provide ELL students with a list of essential vocabulary a day or two prior to the introduction of a new lesson, so that students can use the Readingpen with a bilingual dictionary to familiarize themselves with the words. This strategy also helps students to access prior knowledge about the topic to be studied in their native language.

These three scenarios, and the research and standards upon which these practices are based, illustrate how current classroom reading activities focused on language acquisition for English Language Learners can be enhanced through the use of the Readingpen.

Appendix A: Pen Features and Specifications

Built in Text-to-Speech technology provides immediate word-by-word pronunciation of a scanned English word or full line of text.

Pen Scanning Language: English

Recognizes 6-22 point font size text (bold, italic, underlined, inverted).

Voice: The product's built-in Text-to-Speech technology provides immediate word-by-word pronunciation of a scanned English word or full line of text.

Size: ergonomic 6 inches x 1 1/2 x 1, lightweight three ounces.

Built in Text-to-Speech technology pronounces scanned English words aloud.

Optical character recognition at 97% (based on standard font and size average).

Appendix B: References

ACTFL proficiency guidelines. (1986). Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.

Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641.

Cummins, J. (1981a). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada. A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2, l32-l49.

Cummins, J. (1981b). Bilingual and minority-language children. Toronto: OISE Press.

Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.

Ellis, Rod. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jameson, J. (1998). Three principles for success: English language learners in mainstream content classes (From Theory to Practice Issue No. 6). Tampa, FL: Center for Applied Linguistics, Region XIV Comprehensive Center. Retrieved December 12, 2002, from www.cal.org/cc14/ttp6.htm

Klesmer, H. (1994). Assessment and teacher perceptions of ESL student achievement. English Quarterly, 26:3, 5-7.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei Lectures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Alemany Press.

Mora, J. K. (2005). A Road map for effective biliteracy instruction. Retrieved August 8, 2005, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/MoraModules/BiliteracyRoadMap.htm

National Center for Technology Innovation. (2004). The Reading Matrix. www.nationaltechcenter.org

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. NIH Pub. No. 00-4754.

Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in second language acquisition, 11(1), 63–90.

Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59–84.

Reed, B. & Railsback, J. (2003, May). Strategies and resources for mainstream teachers of English language learners. By Request. NW Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved July 20, 2005 from
http://www.nwrel.org/request/2003may/introduction.html

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391.