Pennington Publishing Blog

Sam and Friends Phonics Books

Many ELL teachers are curious about the Science of Reading and (SOR) and, specifically, what a complete SOR phonics-based lesson looks like for their struggling readers. Following are two complete lessons (free) to study and try out with your students. Lesson 5 is a beginning short vowel /u/ focus, and Lesson 40 is a more advanced diphthong /ow/ focus. The lessons are 90 minutes each and include initial instruction and weekly review activities.

Each word recognition (phonics) lesson includes these instructional routines and resources:

1. Phonemic and Morphological Awareness
2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling
3. Sounds and Spellings and Heart Words Practice
4. Say It! Spell It! Read It! Word Chains:
5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (Decodable texts on the lesson focus and review, featuring read alouds, comprehension questions, word fluency practice and timings, re-reads)
6. Elkonin Sound Box Dictations, Personal Sound Walls, and Morphology Walls

CLICK TO VIEW LESSON 5 GOOGLE SLIDES AND PRINT VERSIONS

CLICK TO VIEW LESSON 40 GOOGLE SLIDES AND PRINT VERSIONS

The author, Mark Pennington, is an MA reading specialist. Mark is happy to answer any questions about these lessons or how to implement SOR with your struggling readers. Email mark at mark@penningtonpublishing.com.

Grammar/Mechanics ELL, English language learners, ESL, phonics, phonics lessons, science of reading, science of reading lessons, science of reading programs

The Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts are divided into Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language strands. The Common Core Grammar Standards are detailed in the Anchor Standards for Language. It is notable that grammar and mechanics have their own strand, unlike the organization of many of the old state standards, which placed grammar and mechanics instruction solely within the confines of writing or speaking standards.

Of course, the writers of the Common Core use the ambiguous label, Language, to refer to what teachers and parents casually label as grammar and mechanics or conventions. To analyze content and educational philosophy of  the Common Core State Standards Language Strand, it may be helpful to examine What’s Good about the Common Core State Standards Language Strand? as well as What’s Bad about the Common Core State Standards Language Strand? chiefly from the words of the document itself.

What’s Good about the Common Core State Standards Language Strand?

Autonomy is Maintained

The Common Core Language Strand dictates the what, but not the how of instruction. From the Common Core State Standards introduction:

“The Standards are not a curriculum. They are a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed. Local teachers, principals, superintendents and others will decide how the standards are to be met. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms.” http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

“By emphasizing required achievements, the Standards leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how those goals should be reached and what additional topics should be addressed. Thus, the Standards do not mandate such things as a particular writing process or the full range of metacognitive strategies that students may need to monitor and direct their thinking and learning. Teachers are thus free to provide students with whatever tools and knowledge their professional judgment and experience identify as most helpful for meeting the goals set out in the Standards.”

Differentiated or Individualized Instruction is Validated

The Common Core Language Strand assumes that teachers will need to differentiate instruction to master both grade-level and previous grammatical standards. Again, from the Common Core State Standards introduction:

“Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms.”

“The Standards set grade-specific standards but do not define the intervention methods or materials necessary to support students who are well below or well above grade-level expectations. No set of grade-specific standards can fully reflect the great variety in abilities, needs, learning rates, and achievement levels of students in any given classroom. However, the Standards do provide clear signposts along the way to the goal of college and career readiness for all students.

It is also beyond the scope of the Standards to define the full range of supports appropriate for English language learners and for students with special needs. At the same time, all students must have the opportunity to learn and meet the same high standards if they are to access the knowledge and skills necessary in their post–high school lives.” http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

Review is Emphasized

The Common Core Language Strand identifies specific standards and skills that are “particularly likely” to require review.

“The following skills, marked with an asterisk (*)  are particularly likely to require continued attention in higher grades as they are applied to increasingly sophisticated writing and speaking.” http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

A considerable number of skills are marked with the asterisks throughout the K-12 language strand. To me, this indicates a basic acknowledgement of the cyclical nature of grammar instruction and the necessity for review and differentiated instruction in grammar, mechanics, and spelling.

Many Language Standards are Specific or Detailed

Examples of Specific or Detailed Language Standards

• Use a comma to separate coordinate adjectives (e.g., It was a fascinating, enjoyable movie but not He wore an old[,] green shirt). L.7.2.
• Form and use verbs in the indicative, imperative, interrogative, conditional, and subjunctive mood. L.5.2.

Many Language Standards Integrate Grammar into the Writing Context

Examples of Language Standards Emphasizing Application to Writing

• Vary sentence patterns for meaning, reader/listener interest, and style. L.6.3.
• Maintain consistency in style and tone. L.6.3.

I find a nice balance between focusing on the correctness of usage and application to writing. The standards go out of their way to assert that grammar, mechanics, and spelling are best taught within the context of reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

The Importance of Grammatical Correctness is Emphasized

“To build a foundation for college and career readiness in language, students must gain control over many conventions of standard English grammar, usage, and mechanics as well as learn other ways to use language to convey meaning effectively… The inclusion of Language standards in their own strand should not be taken as an indication that skills related to conventions, effective language use, and vocabulary are unimportant to reading, writing, speaking, and listening; indeed, they are inseparable from such contexts.” http://www.corestandards.org

In other words, the prescriptivists have the upper hand in the Common Core State Standards for grammar. Notice the oft-repeated “correct” and “correctness” throughout the Language Strand. The specific Standards which remedy non-standard English support the traditional instruction of grammar.

Examples of Language Standards Emphasizing Correctness

• Ensure that pronouns are in the proper case (subjective, objective, possessive). L.6.1.
• Recognize and correct inappropriate shifts in verb voice and mood. L.8.1.

Most Common Core Language Standards are Rigorous

Examples of Language Standards Emphasizing Rigor

• Produce and expand complete simple and compound declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory sentences in response to prompts. L.1.1
• Form and use comparative and superlative adjectives and adverbs, and choose between them depending on what is to be modified. L.3.1.

What’s Bad about the Common Core State Standards Language Strand?

Many Language Standards Lack Specificity or Details

Examples of Vague or General Language Standards

• Spell correctly L.6.2-L.12.2.
• Use correct capitalization. L.4.2.

Some Common Core Language Standards Lack Rigor

Examples of Language Standards De-emphasizing Rigor

• Explain the function of phrases and clauses in general and their function in specific sentences. L7.1 (Clauses are not introduced until seventh grade.)
• Explain the function of verbals (gerunds, participles, infinitives) in general and their function in particular sentences. L8.1 (Verbals are not introduced until eighth grade.)
• Parallel structures are not introduced until ninth grade.

Too Much of the Instructional Burden of the Common Core Language Strand is Placed Upon Elementary Teachers

Without getting lost in the specificity, the language strand clearly places the largest burden of grammar, mechanics, and spelling instruction on primary (first, second, and third) grade teachers. At the macro level (after deleting the vocabulary components from the language strand): first, second, and third has three pages of language standards; fourth and fifth has one page; sixth, seventh, and eighth has one page; and ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth has only half of a page.

The Common Core Language Strand De-emphasizes Spelling Instruction

Most notably, spelling gets short shrift in the Common Core State Standards language strand.

After third grade, here are the spelling standards:

• Spell grade-appropriate words correctly, consulting references as needed. L.4.2. and L.5.2.
• Spell correctly L.6.2.-L.12.2

It’s great to know that all American school children will require no spelling standards after third grade. Just wave the magic wand, I guess.

*****

Pennington Publishing Grammar Programs

Teaching Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics (Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and High School) are full-year, traditional, grade-level grammar, usage, and mechanics programs with plenty of remedial practice to help students catch up while they keep up with grade-level standards. Twice-per-week, 30-minute, no prep lessons in print or interactive Google slides with a fun secret agent theme. Simple sentence diagrams, mentor texts, video lessons, sentence dictations. Plenty of practice in the writing context. Includes biweekly tests and a final exam.

Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics Interactive Notebook (Grades 4‒8) is a full-year, no prep interactive notebook without all the mess. Twice-per-week, 30-minute, no prep grammar, usage, and mechanics lessons, formatted in Cornell Notes with cartoon response, writing application, 3D graphic organizers (easy cut and paste foldables), and great resource links. No need to create a teacher INB for student make-up work—it’s done for you! Plus, get remedial worksheets, biweekly tests, and a final exam.

Syntax in Reading and Writing is a function-based, sentence-level syntax program, designed to build reading comprehension and increase writing sophistication. The 18 parts of speech, phrases, and clauses lessons are each leveled from basic (elementary) to advanced (middle and high school) and feature 5 lesson components (10–15 minutes each): 1. Learn It!  2. Identify It!  3. Explain It! (analysis of challenging sentences) 4. Revise It! (kernel sentences, sentence expansion, syntactic manipulation) 5. Create It! (Short writing application with the syntactic focus in different genre).

Get the Diagnostic Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics Assessments, Matrix, and Final Exam FREE Resource:

Get the Grammar and Mechanics Grades 4-8 Instructional Scope and Sequence FREE Resource:

Get the “To Be” Verbs Posters FREE Resource:

Grammar/Mechanics, Literacy Centers, Study Skills, Writing Common Core, Common Core Grammar, Common Core Language, common core language skills, Common Core State Standards, differentiated instruction, EL, English language learners, ESL, Language Strand, Mark Pennington, response to intervention

Common Core Common Sense

Anyone familiar with how the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were written and who the authors were would readily admit that the Standards did not come down from Mt. Sinai. And, as an aside, the authors themselves would certainly agree. Yet, many educators have come to interpret the Standards in a wooden literal sense (see my article on Common Core Literalism) to the exclusion of common sense. Since the CCSS adoption, I’ve seen a noticeable trend in this misunderstanding and misapplication of the authors’ collective intent. Of course, this malady extends beyond the CCSS to state standards, as well.

Three examples of this trend should suffice:

I teach the grade-level Standards with fidelity. If students missed out on a previous grade-level Standard, they missed out. We can’t constantly go back and re-teach what they should have already mastered. If something is not listed specifically as a grade-level Standard, we don’t learn it. In fact, our principal says, “If you can’t list the Standard on the board below your behavioral objective, don’t teach it.”

Our fifth-grade team could not buy a spelling workbook, because each of the lessons has to have the Standard listed at the top of the page. We couldn’t find any workbooks for sale that listed this Standard (the only fifth-grade Standard) on each of their lessons: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.5.2. Spell grade-appropriate words correctly, consulting references as needed.

Remediation or scaffolded instruction is only permitted within Special Education at our school. Students have to have an I.E.P. past third grade to learn their multiplication tables or phonics. All of our instruction has to be rigorous and at grade-level, according to the Standards.

Despite what is common practice in some schools and districts, these examples of implementation are nothing like the expectations and advice found within the CCSS. All-too-often educators have looked only at the Anchor Standards or grade-level Standards and not at the introduction and appendices. The introduction and appendices provide the hermeneutics (the principles of interpretation) to understand and implement the Standards themselves.

For example, the writers of the new Common Core State Standards have clearly gone out of their way to assure educators that the Standards establish the what, but not the how of instruction.

From the Common Core State Standards introduction:

“The Standards are not a curriculum. They are a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed. Local teachers, principals, superintendents and others will decide how the standards are to be met. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms.”

And more:

“By emphasizing required achievements, the Standards leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and states to determine how those goals should be reached and what additional topics should be addressed. Thus, the Standards do not mandate such things as a particular writing process or the full range of metacognitive strategies that students may need to monitor and direct their thinking and learning. Teachers are thus free to provide students with whatever tools and knowledge their professional judgment and experience identify as most helpful for meeting the goals set out in the Standards.”

And still more:

“Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms.” http://www.corestandards.org

In other words, despite the fact that the Standards put all of us on the same page, in terms of grade-level expectations, teachers retain the autonomy to teach how they see fit.

Cyclical Instruction

The Common Core State Standards validate the need for review, as well as the cyclical nature of instruction by identifying the skills needed to scaffold higher level instruction and practice. These directions appear throughout the document:

“The following skills, marked with an asterisk (*) are particularly likely to require continued attention in higher grades as they are applied to increasingly sophisticated writing and speaking.”

Teachers advised to skip review of previous grade-level standards and concentrate on the grade-level standards that will be tested, now have firm legs to stand upon when they say “No” to administrators demanding grade-level only instruction.

Common Core RtI (Response to Intervention)

Again, from the Common Core State Standards introduction:

“The Standards set grade-specific standards but do not define the intervention methods or materials necessary to support students who are well below or well above grade-level expectations. No set of grade-specific standards can fully reflect the great variety in abilities, needs, learning rates, and achievement levels of students in any given classroom. However, the Standards do provide clear signposts alongthe way to the goal of college and career readiness for all students.”

http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

Common Core ELL, ESL, and ELD (English Language Development)

“It is also beyond the scope of the Standards to define the full range of supports appropriate for English language learners and for students with special needs. At the same time, all students must have the opportunity to learn and meet the same high standards if they are to access the knowledge and skills necessary in their post–high school lives.”

http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

Common Core Differentiated or Individualized Instruction

Implicit in the mandated review is the need for effective diagnostic assessments to determine what and how much requires re-teaching to establish a solid foundation for grade-level instruction. Using data to impact instructional decisions will help teachers decide which content and skills are best reviewed whole-class and which content and skills are best addressed via small group or individualized instruction.

For example, if initial diagnostic assessments indicate that the whole class needs review of subjects and predicates, whole class instruction and guided practice will certainly be the most efficient means of review; thereafter, if the formative assessment on subjects and predicates shows that half a dozen students have not yet mastered these concepts, small group instruction or targeted individual practice makes sense. However, if initial diagnostic assessments indicate that only half a dozen students have not yet mastered subjects and predicates, it would certainly be advisable to begin with differentiated instruction, rather than waste the time of students who have already mastered these concepts.

*****

The Science of Reading Intervention Program

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Word Recognition includes explicit, scripted, sounds to print instruction and practice with the 5 Daily Google Slide Activities every grades 4-adult reading intervention student needs: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Morphology 2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling 3. Sounds and Spellings (including handwriting) 4. Heart Words Practice 5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (decodables). Plus, digital and printable sound wall cards, speech articulation songs, sounds to print games, and morphology walls. Print versions are available for all activities. First Half of the Year Program (55 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Language Comprehension resources are designed for students who have completed the word recognition program or have demonstrated basic mastery of the alphabetic code and can read with some degree of fluency. The program features the 5 Weekly Language Comprehension Activities: 1. Background Knowledge Mentor Texts 2. Academic Language, Greek and Latin Morphology, Figures of Speech, Connotations, Multiple Meaning Words 3. Syntax in Reading 4. Reading Comprehension Strategies 5. Literacy Knowledge (Narrative and Expository). Second Half of the Year Program (30 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Assessment-based Instruction provides diagnostically-based “second chance” instructional resources. The program includes 13 comprehensive assessments and matching instructional resources to fill in the yet-to-be-mastered gaps in phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness, phonics, fluency (with YouTube modeled readings), Heart Words and Phonics Games, spelling patterns, grammar, usage, and mechanics, syllabication and morphology, executive function shills. Second Half of the Year Program (25 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program BUNDLE  includes all 3 program components for the comprehensive, state-of-the-art (and science) grades 4-adult full-year program. Scripted, easy-to-teach, no prep, no need for time-consuming (albeit valuable) LETRS training or O-G certification… Learn as you teach and get results NOW for your students. Print to speech with plenty of speech to print instructional components.

Click the SCIENCE OF READING INTERVENTION PROGRAM RESOURCES for detailed program description, sample lessons, and video overviews. Click the links to get these ready-to-use resources, developed by a teacher (Mark Pennington, MA reading specialist) for teachers and their students.

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Cues FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

*****

Grammar/Mechanics, Literacy Centers, Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary, Writing Common Core, Common Core and Response to Intervention, Common Core State Standards, differentiated instruction, EL, English language learners, ESL, Mark Pennington, response to intervention

English language learners certainly have unique needs and talents. Creative and sensitive teachers learn how to address the former and celebrate the latter. However, most EL and ESL students share the same mix of mastered and unmastered English-language arts and reading skills with their primary English speaking peers.

Following are articles, free resources (including reading assessments), and teaching tips regarding English language learners from the Pennington Publishing Blog. Also, check out the quality instructional programs and resources offered by Pennington Publishing.

ELD/ESL

Free Whole Class Diagnostic ELA/Reading Assessments

https://penningtonpublishing.com/

Download free phonemic awareness, vowel sound phonics, consonant sound phonics, sight word, rimes, sight syllables, fluency, grammar, mechanics, and spelling assessments. All with answers and recording matrices. A true gold mine for the teacher committed to differentiated instruction!

How Oral Language Proficiency Impacts Writing

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/grammar_mechanics/how-oral-language-proficiency-impacts-writing/

Oral language proficiency most significantly impacts expository writing ability. The language of the playground is conducive to the narrative form, not the informative and argumentative essays that constitute the bulk of academic writing.

ESL Reading Assessments

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/esl-reading-assessments/

How to Teach ESL Writing

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/grammar_mechanics/how-to-teach-el-writing/

Glossing over the specific needs of developing EL writers and hoping that they will “catch up” in their writing when their oral language and reading abilities in English “catch up” is simply akin to medical malpractice. Having diagnosed and treated a wide spectrum of EL writing over the years, my most useful two triage tips are 1) effective diagnosis and 2) prioritization of patient needs into two types of treatments: emergency and long-term care. I list specific symptoms, i.e. examples of student writing problems, to keep things simple.

English Can Be So Confusing

https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/english-can-be-so-confusing/

Some of the most commonly confused words, especially for English language learners are homographs. The word part homo means same and graphs means writing, so a homograph is a word that is spelled just like another word, but it means something quite different. Some of the homographs can make very strange bedfellows.

More Articles, Free Resources, and Teaching Tips from the Pennington Publishing Blog

English-Language Arts and Reading Intervention Articles and Resources 

Bookmark and check back often for new articles and free ELA/reading resources from Pennington Publishing.

• Free Teaching Reading Resources
• Grammar and Mechanics
• Vocabulary
• English-language Arts Standards
• English-language Arts Instruction
• Essay Resources and Lessons
• The Writing Process/Writers Workshop
• Writing Style
• Spelling
• Structural Analysis/Syllabication/Oral Language
• ELA/Reading Assessments
• Independent Reading
• Reading Intervention (RtI Resources)
• EL/ESL/ELD
• Assessment-based Individualized Instruction/Differentiated Instruction
• Critical Thinking
• Study Skills
• Test Preparation
• Developmental Characteristics
• Professional Development
• Literacy Centers
• Close Reading
• Reading Comprehension

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Science of Reading Intervention Program

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Word Recognition includes explicit, scripted instruction and practice with the 5 Daily Google Slide Activities every reading intervention student needs: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Morphology 2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling 3. Sounds and Spellings (including handwriting) 4. Heart Words Practice 5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (decodables). Plus, digital and printable sound wall cards and speech articulation songs. Print versions are available for all activities. First Half of the Year Program (55 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Language Comprehension resources are designed for students who have completed the word recognition program or have demonstrated basic mastery of the alphabetic code and can read with some degree of fluency. The program features the 5 Weekly Language Comprehension Activities: 1. Background Knowledge Mentor Texts 2. Academic Language, Greek and Latin Morphology, Figures of Speech, Connotations, Multiple Meaning Words 3. Syntax in Reading 4. Reading Comprehension Strategies 5. Literacy Knowledge (Narrative and Expository). Second Half of the Year Program (30 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Assessment-based Instruction provides diagnostically-based “second chance” instructional resources. The program includes 13 comprehensive assessments and matching instructional resources to fill in the yet-to-be-mastered gaps in phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness, phonics, fluency (with YouTube modeled readings), Heart Words and Phonics Games, spelling patterns, grammar, usage, and mechanics, syllabication and morphology, executive function shills. Second Half of the Year Program (25 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program BUNDLE  includes all 3 program components for the comprehensive, state-of-the-art (and science) grades 4-adult full-year program. Scripted, easy-to-teach, no prep, no need for time-consuming (albeit valuable) LETRS training or O-G certification… Learn as you teach and get results NOW for your students. Print to speech with plenty of speech to print instructional components.

SCIENCE OF READING INTERVENTION PROGRAM RESOURCES HERE for detailed product description and sample lessons.

Grammar/Mechanics, Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary, Study Skills, Writing bilingual education, CLAD, compass ESL, cooperative learning, EL, ELA, ELL, English as a second language, English language, English language learners, English-language arts, ESL, ESOL, how to teach EL, how to teach ESL, immersion, Krashen, Mark Pennington, monitor model, SDAIE, SDAIE lesson plans, SDAIE strategies, Teaching Reading Strategies, TESOL, total physical response, TPR

I teach seventh grade English-language arts in Elk Grove, California. I have a wonderful mix of students, including Filipino, Mexican, Hmong, Mien, Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, Ukrainian, Cuban, Colombian, and Korean children, each with varying degrees of proficiencies in their primary languages. These are not “newcomers,” or L1 or L2 classified students, but are L3, L4, and L5 students. This means that they have more than just “playground” familiarity with English, but some will have significant struggles with the academic language of the classroom. Each language brings special challenges to the world of expository writing.

Reading impacts writing. The reading-writing connection is more important than many of us realize. The Mien and Chinese primarily use a logographic written language, based upon the Chinese characters. Some of my students can write some of the symbols; some can’t. Most can read some of the more common characters because their parents still use them. The Hmong developed an alphabetic system only in the last last fifty-five years. Many of my Hmong parents would be considered illiterate in English. Russians and Ukrainians use the Cyrillic alphabet. The symbols are significantly different than those of our alphabetic code. Students are particularly adept at code-switching between languages; however not everything regularly “translates.”

Oral language proficiency most significantly impacts expository writing ability. The language of the playground is conducive to the narrative form. Students are more likely to ask “What did you do at lunch, which requires a narrative response, rather than “Tell me two reasons why you like this school and explain,” which requires an expository (informational, here) response. Additionally, even though our school does mix friendships across ethnic lines more than some, the predominant groupings are by languages. A mix of English and primary languages constitutes “out of classroom” talk. Primary language is even more emphasized when “newcomers” or L1-L2 students are part of the groups. This fact is often ignored in language acquisition research, because even if students have demonstrated L5 or full English proficiency, they still “hang-out” with friends with less English proficiency.

Compounding the challenges or teaching students of mixed primary languages is the issue of dialect. My Spanish-speakers have significantly different dialects and idioms. Mexican, Colombian, and Cuban speakers share the mother tongue of Spanish, but their pronunciations and expressions are different. Add to this mix my African-American students with mixed dialects.

All of my developing writers bring different degrees of oral language proficiencies and dialectical influences that will impact their ability to appropriate English vocabulary, diction, grammar, syntax, and usage. For example, Asian students struggle with singulars and plurals and articles. African-Americans struggle with double negation and the misplaced “to-be” verbs. Spanish-speaking students struggle with adjective placement. Even punctuation differences affect writing abilities.

In the mixed salad bowls of our classrooms, each culture and language contribute a distinctive flavor to our learning environment. Teachers reading articles such as this one are taking important steps to meet the instructional challenges of this diversity. Being aware of how oral language proficiency impacts writing is the first step. Differentiating instruction, accordingly, is the next step.

Find essay strategy worksheets, on-demand writing fluencies, sentence revision andrhetorical stance “openers,” remedial writing lessons, posters, and editing resources to differentiate essay writing instruction in the comprehensive writing curriculum,TEACHING ESSAYS BUNDLE.

TEACHING ESSAYS BUNDLE

Grammar/Mechanics, Writing dialects, EL students, el writing strategies, ELD, English language learners, esl essay strategies, esl reading, ESL writing, esl writing skills, oral language, oral language proficiency