Essay 1: English Language Proficiency Assessment

After observing the ESL (English as a Second Language) program three times this

semester at Gettysburg Area Middle School, I had the opportunity to assess the English language

proficiency level of student A. This student is in the seventh grade, is the oldest child of three

siblings, and is raised in a native Spanish-speaking family originally from Mexico. Student A

moved to the United States a few years ago and has many relatives currently living in Mexico.

The parents of student A only speak Spanish at home and do not communicate, nor understand

very little English. Although student A speaks Spanish comfortably outside of the school

environment, they struggle to speak grammatically correct and they cannot read in Spanish.

Student A’s favorite past-time is playing basketball, and they are very inquisitive and engaged in

the classroom setting. Based on these outside environmental factors as well as their in-class

immersion and learning, the levels of student A’s English language proficiency at a beginning

level of a 2 on the WIDA speaking rubric and a 2 on the WIDA writing rubric.

At the beginning of ESL class, students blindly choose a speaking prompt to read aloud

and answer verbally. These questions include topics such as favorite foods, weekend activities,

and theoretical questions like where do they want to travel and why? The teacher encourages the

students to actively participate in casual conversation, and student A is usually first to volunteer

and ambitiously answer their questions. The pacing, pronunciation, fluidity, and expansion of

student A’s conversations in English are reflected in their strong verbal reading and

communicative skills. In response to the question, “what are you going to do this weekend?”

student A replies, “Visit my great uncle again, watch Dr. Phil, play with my sister, I might go to

movie theater.” Even though this is a long sentence, it does not demonstrate expanding cohesion

of thoughts and therefore the short phrases represent a beginning linguistical complexity.
 Another example of student A’s BICS competency is when clarifying idioms in the

English language. One student discussed baking from scratch, and student A asks, “What do you

mean by scratch?” and physically scratches the table. This demonstrates the lack of some BICS

vocabulary and how they cannot differentiate between simple terms that have multiple meanings.

Because student A does not have this prior knowledge, their BICS is evolving. Since student A

regularly uses informal language in school and understands context clues, their BICS is between

a basic and intermediate level. Student A is slowly developing their CALP throughout their

studies by attempting to use key words such as ‘narrative’ or ‘fiction’ in their verbal explanations

after first hearing and learning the word. Therefore, their CALP is at a basic level and will

continue to expand and grow over time.

When assessing their communicative competence, the discourse and grammatical

competence of student A is underrepresented within their writing (see Appendix A). As the

student continues to write about their dream job, their discourse becomes illogically organized

and combines contrasting ideas within the same sentence. There are many grammatical errors,

including spelling, punctuation, and even a word written in Spanish that lowers their level of

sentence construction. Student A mostly writes and speaks in one general tone and does not

utilize strategic competence to express their ideas. Their sociolinguistic competence is at a basic

level because they do not switch their language expression when talking to the teacher in

comparison to their peers in English (“I don’t know the word ‘pa,’” talking to another student for

clarification). While their vocabulary usage is general through speaking, they do use some

specific language in certain written content areas, like ‘unlock their imagination’ (see Appendix

A). This also affects their language control because their speaking is slightly more complex than

their writing, therefore they are more comprehensible and accurate when speaking.
 Specific goals for the student to achieve during the semester include increasing spelling

and punctuation accuracy through writing as well as increasing vocabulary knowledge. The

grammatical competency could be guided by the teacher using scavenger-hunt-type or charades

grammar activities, which would tie in drama-based learning. For increasing vocabulary

knowledge, the teacher could ask students to create flashcards and/or create a short scene using

multiple, newly learned vocabulary words, again utilizing drama-based learning. Since the

students are sitting in their desks for the entire duration of the class, it is important to engage

them in numerous interactive forms.

Sample Writing (using 1-18-19 journal)

My fieldwork site, Gettysburg Area Middle School, adopts an English as a Second

Language (ESL) program that diverts from the standard practices of pulling students out of their

primary classes. The students receive ESL instruction every other day in the rotational schedule

and alternatively flip with gym class. The ESL program is considered a regular class period and

therefore, the students do not get pulled out and miss instruction in their other regularly

scheduled classes. The teacher structures and implements the four categories from the WIDA

Resource Guide into all classroom teaching, focusing on listening, speaking, reading and writing.

The class is evenly distributed between the application of the four language competencies, but

only focuses on mainly English subjects and does not include other courses such as mathematics,

science, etc. According to Herrera, “through scaffolding teacher restructures instruction to a level

that encourages student success until the learner is ready for increasingly higher levels of

understanding” (Herrera, 116). The teacher uses this method and mainly employs sensory

supports such as illustrations through picture books, physical activities such as a scavenger hunt,

and other items within the category of Language Arts. With only four students per ESL class, the

instruction is delivered in a more personable and interactive way. However, students mostly

work individually and therefore have fewer interactive supports. Nonetheless, the students are

actively engaged and conscientious throughout their instruction.

Although there are ways for the program to improve and reach the idealistic classroom

setting and instruction, based on academic, cognitive, literacy development and language

acquisition studies, this program does provide a strong learning environment for students. Last

year, the ESL class met every day, however, ESL students were pulled out of Unified Arts

classes, including music, art, family and computer science, library, etc. Even though continuous
instruction in ESL classes throughout the week provided a framework to advance in knowledge

content at a faster rate, students did not get this equal chance in their UA classes. By making

ESL a regular class period and meeting every other day, students miss out on more ESL

opportunities, but share equal instruction in their UA classes. This provides a more all-

encompassing environment and meaningful work outside the ESL class. Both systems have

positives and negative, however, with the implementation of this new system in combination

with WIDA ACCESS testing, it is harder to sustain formalized instruction in L2 given less

classroom time and reach the same content goals as last year’s schedule.

Using Rothenberg and Fischer’s ‘Four Principles of Language Acquisition,’ the students

feel comfortable communicating and acquiring L2 in this low anxiety environment through the

genial and cheerful nature of the classroom dynamic. Furthermore, the teacher employs lots of

informal discussion (using BICS) to discuss topics that pertain to the students, and therefore, the

instruction becomes personalized, and meaningfully engaging. The teacher uses many context

clues and contextualizes L2 language for students to gain experience through interactions and

knowledge and verify the students’ comprehensibility. For example, the teacher uses lots of

Socratic Questioning, embedded assessment, and movements when speaking to communicate

and assess effectively. Some students enjoy volunteering, however, for others who are quieter

and/or shy, the teacher chooses students and speaks in an encouraging manner to assist them in

their verbal communication confidence.

Educators need to provide additional support in the students’ L2 and academic

development to enhance and bridge the gap between their L1 comprehensibility as well as

connect to their sociocultural perspective. Through “working at the intersection of two or more

languages or literacies, as in the case of code-switching and interliteracy, [this] opens up new
linguistic realities that enrich rather than subtract from the dialogue of two individuals” (Reyes

and Moll, 56). Teachers could implement more multi-cultural readings, stories, and connections

to their students’ heritages and cultures to create a greater sense of appreciation for their

communities and digress from the support of the dominant L2 language. Following Thomas and

Collier’s (1997) Prism Model for Language Acquisition for School, Carlos Julio Ovando writes,

“to assure cognitive and academic success in a second language, a student’s first language

system, oral and written, must be developed to a high cognitive level at least through the

elementary school years” (Julio, 125). The students entering the ESL program do not have a high

cognitive level of L1 since they received little formal instruction in this language. Therefore, it is

automatically more difficult for them to try and achieve high cognitive and academic success

through vocabulary, syntax, phonological, morphological, and discourse processes in L2.

Additionally, the ESL students lack an “interdependence” of L1 and L2 because they are

constantly code-switching, both inside and outside of the classroom environment to contextualize

the two languages and try to create linguistic comprehensibility. In this way, ESL students are

utilizing both sociolinguistic competence and discourse competence when translating at home for

their families who do not speak English. Overall, this ESL program delivers concise and formal

instruction through a productive and sustainable learning environment, building and retaining the

students’ L2 language acquisition to propel them towards academic and linguistic success.
References

Herrera, S. G., Perez, D. R., & Escamilla, K. (2005). Teaching reading to English language
learners: Differentiated literacies. Boston: Pearson.

Ovando, C. J., & Combs, M. C. (2005). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in
multicultural contexts. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.

Reyes, I., & Moll, L. C. (2008). Bilingual and Biliterate Practice at Home and School. In
Spolsky B. & Holt F.M. (Eds.). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics: Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.

Rothenberg, C., & Fisher, D. (2007). Teaching English language learners: A differentiated
approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

“I affirm that I have upheld the highest principles of honesty and integrity in my academic work

and have not witnessed a violation of the Honor Code.” – Brooke Maskin