The role of language learning progressions in improved instruction and assessment of english language learners

TESOL Quarterly

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 480-506

  Bailey, Alison L ^a   Heritage, Margaret ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b National Center for Research on Evaluation Standards and Student Testing   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84906501061     PISSN: 00398322     EISSN: 15457249     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tesq.176     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147-179. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00061-7
2. Bailey, A. L., (2007). A research agenda for the future of English language development. In A. L. Bailey (Ed.), Language demands of school: Putting academic language to the test (pp. 211-216). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3. Bailey, A. L., Butler, F. A., Stevens, R., & Lord, C. (2007). Further specifying the language demands of school. In A. L. Bailey (Ed.), Language demands of school: Putting academic language to the test (pp. 103-156). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4. Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2008). Formative assessment for literacy, grades K-6: Building reading and academic language skills across the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin/Sage.
5. Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2010). English language proficiency assessment foundations: External judgments of adequacy. Evaluating the Validity of English Language Proficiency Assessments (EVEA) Project. Retrieved from http://www.eveaproject.com
6. Bailey, A. L., & Wolf, M. K. (2012). Assessing language proficiency aligned to the Common Core State Standards for English language learners: Challenges and some possible solutions. Paper commissioned by the Understanding Language Initiative, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
7. Beals, D. (1993). Explanatory talk in low-income families' mealtime conversations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 489-514. doi:10.1017/S0142716400010717
8. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M., Croft, W., & Ellis, N. C.,. Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59, 1-26. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x
9. Bennett, R. E. (2010). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning (CBAL): A preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspective, 8(2-3), 70-91. doi:10.1080/15366367.2010.508686
10. Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. California Department of Education. (2012). The California English Language Development Standards. Sacramento, CA: Author.
12. Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
13. Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641. doi:10.2307/3586986
14. Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2010). The construction, refinement, and early validation of the equipartitioning learning trajectory. International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 1, 968-975.
15. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & &. Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform of teaching (CPRE Research Report 63). New York, NY: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Center on Continuous Instructional Improvement, Teachers College, Columbia University.
16. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2012). Framework for English Language Proficiency Development Standards corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: CCSSO.
17. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). Introduction. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 1-28). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
18. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266
19. Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System, 31, 313-330. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00045-9
20. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
21. Flores, S. M., Batalova, J., & Fix, M. (2012). The educational trajectories of English language learners in Texas. Washington, DC: The Migration Policy Institute.
22. Gamson, D. A., Lu, X., & Eckert, S. A. (2013). Challenging the research base of the Common Core State Standards: A historical reanalysis of text complexity. Educational Researcher, 42, 381-391. doi:10.3102/0013189X13505684
23. Goldfield, B. A., & Reznick, J. S. (1990). Early lexical acquisition: Rate, content, and the vocabulary spurt. Journal of Child Language, 17(1), 171-183. doi:10.1017/S0305000900013167
24. Gregg, K. R. (2010). Review article: Shallow draughts: Larsen-Freeman and Cameron on complexity. Second Language Research, 26, 549-560. doi:10.1177/0267658310366582
25. Hammond, J. (2014). An Australian perspective on standards-based education, teacher knowledge, and students of English as an additional language. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 507-532. doi:10.1002/tesq.173
26. Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from www.ccsso.org/content/PDFs/FAST%20Learning%20Progressions.pdf
27. Heritage, M. (2011). Knowing what to do next: The hard part of formative assessment? CADMO, 19(1), 67-84. doi:10.3280/CAD2011-001009
28. Heritage, M. (2013). Formative assessment in practice: A process of inquiry and action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
29. Heritage, M., Walqui, A., & Linquanti, R. T. (2013, May). Formative assessment as contingent communication: Perspectives on assessment as and for language learning in the content areas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
30. 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, 44-51. doi:10.3102/0013189X12459802
31. Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental Psychology, 49, 4-14. doi:10.1037/a0027238
32. Krashen, S. (2012). Developing academic language: Some hypotheses. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(2), 8-15.
33. Larsen-Freeman, D. E. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning, 26, 125-134. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00264.x
34. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141-165. doi:10.1093/applin/18.2.141
35. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
36. Mahn, H., (2013). Vygotsky and second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.)., The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 6150-6157). Oxford, England:Blackwell.
37. McCabe, A., & Rollins, P. R. (1994). Assessment of preschool narrative skills. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 3(1), 45-56. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0301.45
38. McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113-128. doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.113
39. Mislevy, R. J., & Durán, R. P. (2014). A sociocognitive perspective on assessing EL students in the age of Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 560-585. doi:10.1002/tesq.177
40. Mosher, F. A. (2011). The role of learning progressions in standards-based education reform. Consortium for Policy Research in Education: Policy Briefs (September), 1-16.
41. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
42. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science of design and educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
43. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
44. New Zealand Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Using the English language learning progressions: Professional support for leaders and teachers. Retrieved from http://esolonline.tki.org.nz/ESOL-Online/Student-needs/English-Language-Learning-Progressions/ELLP-professional-support-modules
45. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
46. Ortega, L. (2013a). Language learning and teaching: Overview. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 3041-3048). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
47. Ortega, L. (2013b). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63, 1-24. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00735.x
48. Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., Lewedeg, V., & Oller, D. K. (1997). The relation of input factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 41-58. doi:10.1017/S0142716400009863
49. Shavelson, R. J., & Kurpius, A. (2012). Reflections on learning progressions. In A. C. Alonzo and A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science (pp. 13-27). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
50. Shepard, L., Daro, P., & Stancavage, F. B. (2013). The relevance of learning progressions for NAEP. Paper commissioned by the NAEP Validity Studies (NVS) Panel. Washington DC.: American Institutes of Research.
51. Snow, C. (1991). The theoretical basis for relationships between language and literacy development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6, 5-10. doi:10.1080/02568549109594817
52. Steedle, J. T., & Shavelson, J. R. (2009). Supporting valid interpretations of learning progression level diagnoses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 699-715. doi:10.1002/tea.20308
53. Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Holt Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: Toward a theory of teaching. Educational Research, 41, 147-156. doi:10.3102/0013189X12442801
54. Valdés, G. (2005). Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost or seized? The Modern Language Journal, 89, 410-426. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00314.x
55. van Lier, L., & Walqui, A. (2012). Language and the Common Core Standards. In K. Hakuta & M. Santos (Eds.), Understanding language: Commissioned papers on language and literacy issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards (pp. 44-51). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
56. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57. Wilkinson, L., & Silliman, E. (2008). Academic language proficiency and literacy instruction in urban settings. In L. C. Wilkinson, L. M. Morrow, & V. Chou (Eds.), Improving literacy achievement in urban schools: Critical elements in teacher preparation (pp. 121-142). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.