I consider my literacy narrative to have two major sections: loving to read and learning to read. Perhaps counterintuitively, I consider my “loving to read” stage to come first, and my “learning to read” stage to come second.

Loving to Read

I don’t remember a time when I didn’t know how to read. I don’t remember learning to read. I remember getting better at reading, but I don’t remember the struggle or frustration from grappling with reading that I know well from teaching kindergarten and first grade. My memory is that I entered kindergarten already having learned to read a bit, and I picked it up and ran with it. I have memories from kindergarten of reading picture books that I pulled off the classroom library shelf or checked out of the school library. I remember the early feeling of enjoyment and complete absorption I got from reading a book.

First grade was the first time I really noticed that there was a spectrum of reading levels within my class. I was fairly obsessed with The Boxcar Children books in first grade, both because I loved the stories and because I felt proud of reading chapter books. A classmate of mine loved the book Yo! Yes? by Chris Raschka, and my little first grade self felt a mixture of pity, confusion, and disdain that he adored the book with a single large word on each page. This was almost certainly the beginning of self-identifying as smart, feeling pride at being smart, and avoiding tasks that threatened my self-identity of “a smart kid.”

All throughout elementary school, middle school, and high school, books were a safe haven for me. I read anything and everything I could get my hands on. I read books more than once if I liked them, but I was not picky about what I picked up. I was a bit of a weird kid – I had friends, but I didn’t quite fit in. When I was reading, I could fit in anywhere. I loved reading, and I did a lot of it. I didn’t think too much about it, and I didn’t have to, because I always read above grade level. I just got to enjoy it, and to use my surface level understanding of what I read to engage with academics. 

Learning to Read

My college experience was a shock to the system and a crash course in reading. I attended a small and rigorous college, and gravitated towards text-heavy courses – English literature, Spanish literature, political science, philosophy. However, I quickly discovered that although I had always read a lot, read fast, and read above grade level, I had never learned how to read well. I had never learned how to go back and re-read to make sure I understood something, to think about what I was reading and make connections, to take notes and ask questions and draw conclusions about what I was reading. I had never learned how to struggle with reading.

I learned all of that in college. In doing so, I also learned how to change my fixed mindset into a growth mindset. I learned that it was okay to not fully understand a text the first, second, or third time that I read it; that this didn’t make me a bad student or a dumb person, but could – if I stuck with it – make me a good learner.

As an educator, I now try to teach my students to read before they get to college. That is to say, I try to teach them to be willing to take their time, go back, ask questions, think about their connections, dig in, and suck the marrows of the text to get the most out of it. I try to teach them that I am not just saying it for their benefit when I say, “Good readers do…” I am on a constant mission to show them and to make them believe that reading easily and quickly isn’t, ultimately, what will make them read well; that if they stick with a text long enough to read carefully, think deeply, and be willing to have ideas that are wrong or incomplete, they, too, can be good learners.

What About Writing?

Yes, I know that writing is also part of literacy. To be perfectly honest, writing has always come second to reading for me. That is not to say that I don’t enjoy it. In elementary school I loved writing stories that a parent volunteer would sew up with wallpaper scraps to make bound books. In middle school I took up journaling and also kept notebooks with elaborate notes and stories I shared with my friends. In high school I learned how to write an essay with a strong thesis statement, and took creative writing and poetry writing electives. In college I became a comparative literature major and rarely took a test; everything was essays and papers. In the years since, I’ve written realistic fiction stories and how-to books for my students, endless emails and progress reports for parents, and the odd piece for the local online newspaper. 

Reading, for me, is a way to explore and learn about worlds, both real and imagined. I love learning. Really, really love it. Writing is a way to synthesize and reflect on what I’ve learned, and for me that is both more difficult and less interesting. It’s possible I still have a bit of a fixed mindset left, after all.

Reflection

For the purpose of this reflection, I read Jelica, Janelle, and Shiva’s literacy narratives. There were some interesting themes across our narratives as well as some clear distinctions. One thing that Jelica and Janelle both described was a fascination with writing all around them around the time they were learning to read. They described reading signs, cartons, and products, fueled by an intrinsic desire to be able to read and to use that reading to access more of the world. I shared that intrinsic desire to be able to read, and early on learned the joy of getting lost in a book. To this day I feel confused any time I hear someone say, “I don’t really like reading fiction.” I truly cannot comprehend not ever experiencing that immersion while reading.

Another commonality was the theme of reading to learn, as well as learning how to (and finding enjoyment in) picking texts apart. Both Jelica and Shiva discussed a moment when they learned how to analyze a text, seeking symbolism, themes, and deep meaning. I talked about something similar during the college years in my own literacy narrative.

In terms of the process of learning to read, one commonality was going through a continuous process of learning to read; we all reflected a sense that there wasn’t ever a point that we “knew how to read,” but rather learned new and different approaches and strategies at different points in our lives. For each of us there was, at least somewhat, a moment when everything kind of fell into place – either prompting a deeper understanding, appreciation, or interest in reading.

There were also many differences in our experiences of learning to read. Jelica and Shiva both first learned to read outside of the US, while Janelle and I learned to read in English as our native language. Jelica describes the great difference between the alphabet and phonic system in Serbian and in English. Another major difference across our stories was that Jelica, Janelle, and I all experienced an innate desire to learn to read and, once we knew how to read, to continue reading. Shiva’s journey, on the other hand, was more of a roller coaster, with his interest moving towards and away from reading at various points in his school life. He also described benefitting from external motivation such as reading competitions.

When I think about how all of this might influence my teaching of reading to multilingual learners, the first thing that stands out to me is the need to embrace the diversity of reading experiences students have. Some students will have an intrinsic motivation to read, but might not really hit their stride until they learn some techniques for truly getting the most out of a text. Others might be best motivated by integrating reading with another interest or offering incentives to meet certain goals. Approaching these different experiences without judgment is important so that we, as educators, can truthfully meet each of our students where they are.

This literature review references existing research from 2006 to present which addresses the question: Does a student with ADHD have a harder time learning English in school? It includes research that does not specifically relate to English learning, but language learning in general. The findings are mixed, with some studies identifying differences between the learning ability and proficiency of ADHD learners and their peers. That said, there appears to be a tentative consensus that ADHD on its own does not inhibit one’s ability to learn new languages. Due to the high rates of comorbidity with additional disorders and disabilities, such as anxiety, dyslexia, and language impairment, there may be a range of learning experiences for individuals with ADHD who are learning an additional language.

Introduction

Oftentimes teachers and parents begin to see possible signs of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder at an early age. The DSM-V defines ADHD as, “a persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with functioning or development, as characterized by [inattention] and/or [hyperactivity and impulsivity]” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Many in the school system advise waiting until third grade for an evaluation, to give children a chance to mature, but in some cases children undergo an evaluation and diagnosis process at a younger age. As a third and fourth grade teacher, I often receive students who have recently been diagnosed with ADHD, or who will go on to be diagnosed with ADHD during their two years with me. As such, I was interested to learn more about the intersection of ADHD and language learners or emerging multilingual students. Specifically, I set out to answer the following questions: Does a student with ADHD have a harder time learning English in school? Conversely, does an English language learner have a harder time managing their ADHD? 

In examining the existing research, I was surprised to find a lack of abundance. Indeed, I found no recent, peer-reviewed articles at all that addressed my second question: does an English language learner have a harder time managing their ADHD? Regarding whether or not a student with ADHD has a harder time learning English in school, I found that the research was somewhat inconclusive, and tended to rely more on inference than scientific evidence. In sharing my findings, I have broken my initial research question into three related questions: 

• Does ADHD impact language learning success? 
• Does ADHD impact language learning experiences?
• What additional factors impact language learning for individuals with ADHD?

Does ADHD Impact Language Learning Success?

Current research suggests that the presence of ADHD does not inhibit one’s ability to learn a new language. That is, there are not conclusive, replicated findings that ADHD on its own impedes the chances that someone can learn a new language. Sparks, Humbach, and Javorsky (2008) concluded, based on their study of 156 students, that although there were some differences in language learning aptitude and proficiency between students with ADHD and students without, “the students classified as ADHD enrolled in L2 courses did not exhibit deficits in language and literacy skills and did not experience difficulty passing L2 courses and fulfilling the L2 requirement despite their disability classification” (p. 32). 

Kaldonek-Crnjakovic (2018) reiterated these findings stating, “ADHD has a great impact on developing all language skills in [an additional language (AL)]” (p. 221). For example, Kaldonek-Crnjakovic (2018) noted that language learners with ADHD have “diverse cognitive and linguistic profiles” (p. 221), and may struggle with certain types of tasks or information that is not taught in a multi-sensory way. Kaldonek-Crnjakovic (2018) also notes that some tasks may take greater effort on the part of a student with ADHD The author found, that “Since writing in AL is less automatic than in the first language, there will be a greater load on the working memory,” (p. 222). Individuals with ADHD tend to have weaker working memory than their neurotypical peers, so it is logical to conclude that any task requiring increased working memory will likely be more challenging for someone with ADHD. Nevertheless, “given the…research findings, it is inconclusive whether individuals with ADHD have specific difficulties in AL learning” (Kaldonek-Crnjakovic, 2018, p. 221). In other words, although there may be additional challenges for language learners with ADHD, they are challenges these individuals are capable of overcoming. 

Most recently, Paling (2020) conducted a study with 86 adult participants to compare the language learning experiences of adult language learners diagnosed with ADHD, as well as adult language learners with no diagnosis of ADHD. In this study, Paling (2020) found that there was no statistically significant difference in the two groups’ ability to understand grammar in or speak the target language. Likewise, she found no statistically significant difference in their ability to listen, read, or write in their target language. 

Does ADHD Impact Language Learning Experiences?

As previously mentioned, Sparks, Humbach, and Javorsky (2008) found that college students with ADHD were able to pass second language courses and exhibited adequate language and literacy skills. Many of the measures they studied showed no notable difference between students without the presence of ADHD, particularly those they classified as “high-achieving” (HA), and students with ADHD. These included L2 proficiency, class tests and quizzes, and decoding and spelling measures. That said, they did find some difference between the HA group and the ADHD group. Their studies found that “the HA group outperformed the ADHD group on three measures” (Sparks, Humbach, and Javorsky, 2008, p. 37) out of a total of eight measures for reading and writing. Additionally, “although the HA and ADHD learners exhibited significant differences on only two measures of L1 literacy and did not differ on the L2 aptitude and L2 proficiency measures, nonetheless, the HA learners achieved higher L2 grades” (Sparks, Humbach, & Javorsky, 2008, p. 40). 

This difference may be explained, at least in part, by Marashi and Dolatdoost (2016) of nearly 600 individuals.This study, which surveyed individuals aged 10-14, measured speaking ability, including oral complexity and fluency. They found that, “there is a significantly negative correlation…between the students’ complexity of speaking and ADHD” (Marashi and Dolatdoost, 2016, p. 112) and, “there is a significantly negative correlation…between the students’ accuracy of speaking and ADHD” (Marashi and Dolatdoost, 2016, p. 113). On the other hand, “there is a significantly positive correlation…between the students’ fluency of speaking and ADHD” (Marashi and Dolatdoost, 2016, p. 113). In other words, they found that students with ADHD spoke with lower complexity and accuracy than their peers, but with greater fluency. 

While Marashi and Dolatdoost do not have data to support causality, they surmise that students with ADHD may “try to use the simplest way to convey their messages so…they [can] focus more on the meaning of the utterances [as opposed to structure] for their working memory is much more limited than that of non-ADHD individuals” (2016, p. 116). Similarly, they suggest that a lack of planning their speaking may lead to increased errors in their oral speech. Because ADHD individuals are spending less time and effort planning their speech, logic follows, they can speak with greater ease and speed. 

Perhaps because of this difficulty with speaking in a second or additional language with accuracy and complexity, students with ADHD report much lower confidence in their speaking ability and lower perceptions of success than their peers (Paling, 2020). Paling’s (2020) study included a survey regarding the language learning experience as well as an assessment of language level. This study found that there were not statistically significant differences in the two groups’ abilities to understand grammar, speak in the target language, or listen, write, and read. Nevertheless, “67% of the ADHD group did not feel confident or had only some confidence in relation to speaking compared to 19% of the control group not feeling confident or with some confidence” (Paling, 2020, p. 5), and 70% of the ADHD group reported that they “experienced silent moments [‘all the time’ or ‘frequently’] when using the language learned…compared to only 47% of the control group” (p. 5). Additionally, “when asked to describe their present level of language knowledge…56% [of the ADHD group responded] either the need for some improvement, for a lot of improvement, or the need to start again, compared with only 7% of the control group” (p. 5). This would seem to suggest that, although the evidence for ADHD significantly negatively impacting an individuals’ ability to learn a new language is inconsistent or inconclusive, the presence of ADHD deeply impacts an individual’s experience of learning a new language

What Additional Factors Impact Language Learning for Individuals with ADHD?

One challenge in attempting to answer the question “Does an English language learner have a harder time managing their ADHD?” was distinguishing between ADHD and other factors in the language learning process. ADHD is a disorder with a high occurrence of comorbidity; “comorbidity of ADHD and other learning difficulties is slightly above 45%; with dyslexia, as the most common specific learning difficulty, the comorbidity is estimated between 15 and 40%” (Kaldonek Crnjakovic, 2018, p. 216). There are multiple studies that focus on language learners who fall within this dual diagnosis, including Tan and Chua’s (2020) small sample size study which focused on using educational software games to aid in English language learning for students with both ADHD and dyslexia. A study with a broader view is Akbasli, Sahin, and Gürel’s (2017) Model to Manage EFL Learners with ADHD and Dyslexia, which indicates a number of approaches to effectively teaching this learner population and explains the research that suggests these approaches are likely to be successful. 

Helland, Posserud, et al. (2012) looked more broadly at language impairment (LI) and reading disorder (RD) in children with ADHD. This study of over 5,500 children, ages 7 to 9 years old, found that “a total of 80.7% of the children in the ADHD + RD group were identified with LI, whereas this was true for 46.0% of the RD group, 42.6% of the ADHD group, and 5.7% of the control group” (Helland, Posserud, et al., 2012, p. 4). As we know, “students with stronger L1 skills achieve higher levels of L2 proficiency and achievement than students with weaker L1 skills” (Sparks, Humbach, Javorsky, 2008, p. 30), so we can safely infer that students with co-occurring ADHD and language impairment will have greater difficulties learning a second language than neurotypical students.

Conclusion

Reading this literature was quite interesting, and gave me a much deeper insight into the language learning experience of individuals with ADHD. I was gratified to learn that it would seem students with ADHD, particularly those who do not have comorbidity with another disorder or disability, are capable of developing proficiency in new languages. That said, I was struck by the deep gap between the actual and perceived achievement of language learners identified by Paling (2020). To me, this suggests that it is more important than normal for teachers of language learners with ADHD to make both their learning and their success explicitly visible. Additional challenges in managing attention and developing a new language do not necessarily mean that an individual will not achieve success, although it may feel that way to them. As educators it may be up to us to help our students believe that this is true.

Learning Objective(s): Students will be able to explain the meaning of the terms “supply” and “demand” and use them in context.

Target Learner Population: Mixed grade class of 3rd and 4th grade students.

There are a handful of learning differences in the class to be mindful of. Two students have been diagnosed with ADHD. One student has diagnosed autism as well as dyslexia. One student is in the process of getting a neuro-psych evaluation done, with a suspected processing disorder and/or ADHD. There are three additional students who have never had an evaluation, but who show many indicators of ADHD. (Total of 6 students with diagnosed or suspected learning differences.)

In the class we have students reading at F&P levels ranging from K to V. Most students have fairly good literal comprehension, but have more difficulty making inferences. A handful of students (including students in the speech emergent stage as well as my dyslexic student) are still building their reading fluency, and benefit from time to read a text multiple times, or to read with a partner.

Lesson/Activity: Reteaching the terms “supply” and “demand”

• Distribute two index cards to each student, and show them how to draw a vertical and a horizontal line to divide the index cards into four sections. Ask them to write “supply” in the upper right corner of one card and set the other card to the side. 

• Tell a short story that illustrates the concept of supply, such as a story that describes someone who has an abundant supply of something. Say: “This story describes having a high supply of something.” Ask students to turn and tell their neighbor what they think “supply” means. Listen in and share out with the group a couple of good student-created definitions.
• Give students 1 minute to draw a drawing that illustrates “supply” in the upper left corner. Give 1-2 minutes to write at least one synonym for “supply” in the upper right corner. Give 2-3 minutes to write a sentence that includes the word “supply” in the lower left. Then finally project the dictionary definition and have students copy it in the lower right.
• Repeat the process for the word “demand.”
• Then have students find a partner and distribute themselves around the room. Give prompts and have them role play or act out that scenario. For example, say something like “You’re selling at the market and you have a high supply of oranges,” or “you’re at the grocery store and there is a low supply of toilet paper.” Alternative if that seems like too much to manage on a given day: Have students come to the front of the class in groups of 2-3 and act out the scenario in front of the class.
• Exit ticket: Without looking at their index cards, have students write a scenario that demonstrates low supply, and a scenario that demonstrates low demand.

Means of Assessment: Exit ticket to check if students have integrated the meaning of the terms “supply” and “demand.”

Mini Lesson 2: Standard Algorithm

Learning Objective(s): Students will create their own definition of the term “standard algorithm.”

→ Connected to the larger objective: Students will be able to explain the mathematics behind the US standard algorithm for subtraction and apply the steps with accuracy.

Target Learner Population: 4th grade students

My 4th grade math class consists of 9 students. One student has suspected ADHD, which presents  in math as difficulty interpreting story problems, lack of consistency following steps of a given mathematical strategy/benefitting from frequent prompting about next steps in a process, difficulty reviewing and reflecting on their work, difficulty sustaining attention during whole group lessons, and frequent distractions by nearby people and objects. Of the nine students, a total of four are new to the school this year, and they represent a variety of pandemic learning experiences including exclusively online all year, switching to in-person last spring, learning in school (in person) all year, and learning in a small “learning pod” with a privately hired tutor.

Lesson/Activity: Reviewing the US standard algorithm for subtraction

• Write the words “Standard Algorithm for Subtraction” on the white board. Underline “standard” and “algorithm.”
• Ask: What do you know about these words? Invite volunteers to share what they know about each word in turn, and record their ideas.
• Read the dictionary definition of “standard” and “algorithm” aloud, and jot brief notes from these definitions on the board as well. (Definitions sourced from Oxford Languages)
  • Standard: “used or accepted as normal or average”
  • Algorithm: “a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations”
• Ask: Given what we’ve learned about the meaning of the words “standard” and “algorithm,” what does it mean when we say “Standard Algorithm for Subtraction?” Have students write it on their white board, then share by holding it up so everyone can compare definitions.
• Invite students to tell what they know about the process or set of rules we must follow when we use the standard algorithm for subtraction and record their tips on the board. 
  • Make sure the differentiate between the steps we must take (e.g. start in the ones place, subtract the bottom number from the top number) and the steps where we have some choice (e.g. crossing out the number in the ones place vs just adding the new ten next to the existing number in the ones place).

Means of Assessment: Check students definitions written on their white board. (Note: Follow up with students who seem confused or uncertain about the term during independent work time later in the lesson.)

Grade Level and Course: 4th Grade Writing

Learner Profile:

This 4th grade class consists of 18 students. A little less than half of them are native English speakers (although three of those students have a second language in the home as well). About one-third of the class are in the intermediate fluency stage, and there are also a few students in the beginning fluency stage as well as the speech emergent stage. 

There are a handful of learning differences in the class to be mindful of. Two students have been diagnosed with ADHD. One student has diagnosed autism as well as dyslexia. One student is in the process of getting a neuro-psych evaluation done, with a suspected processing disorder and/or ADHD. There are three additional students who have never had an evaluation, but who show many indicators of ADHD. (Total of 6 students with diagnosed or suspected learning differences.)

In the class we have students reading at F&P levels ranging from K to V. Most students have fairly good literal comprehension, but have more difficulty making inferences. A handful of students (including students in the speech emergent stage as well as my dyslexic student) are still building their reading fluency, and benefit from time to read a text multiple times, or read with a partner.

Time Segment of Lesson: 40-45 minutes

Standard(s) Addressed in Lesson: 

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.3 Use knowledge of language and its conventions when writing, speaking, reading, or listening.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.3.C Differentiate between contexts that call for formal English (e.g., presenting ideas) and situations where informal discourse is appropriate (e.g., small-group discussion).

Objective(s) of the Lesson:  Students will be able to use contractions correctly when the occasion is appropriate for informal writing.

Content Learning Target: I can determine appropriate contexts for formal and informal writing.

Language Learning Target: I can use apostrophes correctly to form contractions.

Series and Sequence of Lesson

Teach (I do) – 15 min

• Activate prior knowledge by asking students to explain the difference between “tu” and “usted.” I expect they will say something about formal vs. informal, or usted showing greater respect.
• Connect this with formal and informal writing. Just like we use “tu” and “usted” in different contexts/with different people, we need to adjust the way we write for different people or different contexts.
• Write “can’t” on the board, ask students to give thumbs up/thumbs down to tell me if they’ve seen this word. Write “cannot” on the board, have students turn and talk about what is similar and different between “can’t” and “cannot.”
• Explain that “can’t” is a contraction of “cannot.” Explain what a contraction is, and how the apostrophe works. Write a few more examples on the board (e.g. “I am,” “we are,”) and ask students to tell me out loud what the contraction is. Give them think time, then have them say the contraction on the count of three. Model writing the contraction for each.
• Ask: How does this connect with formal and informal writing? Which is more formal/informal, “can’t” or “cannot”? Students turn and talk.
• Present a scenario to the board (e.g. texting a friend about weekend plans). Model thinking aloud about whether it’s a formal or informal setting. Think aloud about if it would be ok to use a contraction or if I should use the expanded word.

Guided Practice (We do) – 5-7 min

• Present a second scenario to the board (e.g. writing a thank you letter to my grandmother)
• Have students come to agreement with partner about if this is a formal or informal writing context
• Tell them they need to work together to write a sentence that is either formal or informal based on their agreement. It should include at least one word/phrase from word bank. (Post word bank: I am, I’m, cannot, can’t, I’ve, I have)
• Have students raise hands if they thought this was an informal context; have one partnership read their sentence. Have students raise hands if they thought this was a formal context; have one partnership read their sentence.

Independent Practice (You do) – 15 min

• Distribute a sheet with a few scenarios (e.g. writing an essay for a contest, sending an email to my sister, writing an apology note to my parent, writing a note to a friend).
• The tasks will get progressively more challenging/less scaffolded. The first task will be a fill-in-the-blank with two options (e.g. “we’ve”/“we have”). The second task will include a blank and a small word bank. The third task will include a suggestion of what you’re trying to say and a word bank. The fourth task will include the scenario and a prompt to write 1-3 sentences that would be appropriate for that sentence; must include at least two contractions/expanded phrases as appropriate.
• Students will work independently while I circulate to check in and answer questions.

Share – 5 min

• Students share with the same partner as earlier; they should pick a task they both completed and compare what they wrote. Did they agree on whether it was a formal or informal context? Did they write the same thing?

Differentiation

• My students in the speech emergent stage will be strategically paired with supportive partners.
• Students in the speech emergent stage will receive a modified worksheet with two tasks where they fill in the blank from two options, and two tasks where they fill in the blank from a word bank. I will be on hand to read and check comprehension of the scenarios.
• Extension for students who finish early and demonstrate mastery: turn in worksheet, and on a plain piece of lined paper write a short story that incorporates contractions and/or expanded form of possible contractions without the use of a word bank.

Assessment

• Collect student work as a formative assessment. Check for:
  • Can students appropriately assess whether a context is formal or informal?
  • Do they place apostrophes correctly in the contraction?

Materials Needed

• Slides with sample scenarios for mini-lesson
• Two variations of the worksheet with sample scenarios for students to respond to
• Lined paper

Subject and Grade Level: Reading, 4th Grade

Learner Population:

This 4th grade class consists of 18 students. A little less than half of them are native English speakers (although three of those students have a second language in the home as well). About one-third of the class are in the intermediate fluency stage, and there are also a few students in the beginning fluency stage as well as the speech emergent stage. 

There are a handful of learning differences in the class to be mindful of. Two students have been diagnosed with ADHD. One student has diagnosed autism as well as dyslexia. One student is in the process of getting a neuro-psych evaluation done, with a suspected processing disorder and/or ADHD. There are three additional students who have never had an evaluation, but who show many indicators of ADHD. (Total of 6 students with diagnosed or suspected learning differences.)

This thematic unit comes after a unit on economics, so students will have a baseline understanding of concepts such as goods and services, bartering, money, and natural resources, human resources, and capital resources. These vocabulary charts will remain up during our Community in Poetry unit.

In the class we have students reading at F&P levels ranging from K to V. Most students have fairly good literal comprehension, but I foresee the skill of making inferences as a likely challenge for several students as they practice interpreting poetry and identifying the theme of a poem. A handful of students (including students in the speech emergent stage as well as my dyslexic student) are still building their reading fluency, and will need to be able to read a poem several times to take time to decode new words and practice reading with increasing fluency. Most of my students with either diagnosed or suspected ADHD find it challenging to consistently recall details from their texts, and will benefit from specific note-taking strategies to build this skill.

Standards: 

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.4.4.B Read grade-level poetry orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.4.2 Determine a theme of a poem from details in the text; summarize the text.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.4.5 Explain major differences between poems, drama, and prose, and refer to the structural elements of poems (e.g., verse, rhythm, meter) when writing or speaking about a text.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.5.A Explain the meaning of simple similes and metaphors (e.g., as pretty as a picture) in context.

Overarching Goals: 

• By the end of this unit, students will be able to explain (orally or in writing) what a poem is mostly about (i.e. identify the theme).
• By the end of this unit, students will be able to read poetry out loud in a way that reflects the emotion and/or theme of the poem.

Objectives:

• Students will compare and contrast poetry and prose.
• Students will be able to identify and name a theme of a poem and provide evidence for their findings.
• Students will explain, orally or in writing, what a simple and familiar simile or metaphor is trying to convey.
• Students will, after practice and feedback, read short poems orally with fluency and appropriate expression.
• Students will record themselves reading their own poetry fluently and with expression.

21st Century Skills addressed: Literacy Skills, Critical Thinking, Thinking Skills, Communication, Perseverance, Technology Skills and Digital Literacy

Prerequisite Skills: 

This thematic unit will include reading, writing, and social studies components. It comes after a unit on economics, so students will have a baseline understanding of concepts such as goods and services, bartering, money, and natural resources, human resources, and capital resources. These vocabulary charts will remain up during our Community in Poetry unit.

Students will need a baseline of broad exposure to and familiarity with various types of prose, such as narrative writing, procedural writing, and informational writing.

This unit will come after a unit on nonfiction texts, so students will have an understanding of terms such as “main idea,” “supporting detail,” and “text evidence.”

Summative Assessment:

• Teacher prepares a set of poems students can choose from. These poems are chosen strategically because they include the necessary literary elements (e.g. figurative language), as well as accessible vocabulary and themes.
• Students, with the help of their parents, select a culturally relevant poem to analyze. In this analysis they fill in a word web (speech emergent, beginning fluency stage) or write complete sentences (intermediate fluency, native English speakers) to explain the theme of the poem and what details (word choice, punctuation, rhythm, etc) makes them think that is the theme of the poem. They will also explain the meaning of a simile or metaphor from the poem. Finally, they will record themselves reading the poem out loud to demonstrate their understanding of the poem by reading with fluency and appropriate expression. By recording themselves (and having the opportunity to do more than one take), they can be sure they are submitting their best work.

Formative Assessment: 

• Writing characteristics of poetry on sticky notes to add to class chart
• Exit ticket to briefly compare and contrast poetry and prose (using texts read in class)
• Partner work to create a word web identifying the theme (main idea) and supporting details from the poem
• Exit ticket to name the theme of a poem and give one piece of supporting evidence
• Exit ticket to explain a sample simile
• Exit ticket to explain a sample metaphor

Note: the exit tickets would be differentiated for students in the speech emergent stage by offering a word bank or yes/no questions. They could also be completed in a small group so that I could read the questions out loud and, if necessary, guide  students to write their answers. For all students, exit tickets would include a sample response to scaffold language use. 

Lessons:

Note: For this assignment I have selected one lesson from each week of my Community In Poetry curriculum map. These lessons are not intended to reflect the full scope of the unit, nor would they be done sequentially. Each lesson represents or is indicative of the topic of a particular week from the fuller unit.

Lesson 1: What Is a Poem?

Skills: Reading, speaking, listening, writing

This lesson will come at the end of our first week, during which time students will have been exposed to print and audio of many styles of poems, such as haiku, limericks, free verse, acrostic poems, etc. Poems will be placed around the room, and students will have a small guide to styles of poetry they have constructed over the course of the week. Students will work with a partner, and will visit the poems around the room. They will take turns to read the poem out loud, then tell their partner what style of poetry they believe the poem demonstrates, and why. Their partner will say if they agree/disagree, and why. In the end students will write a brief journal entry about one poem that was harder to identify (or that the two partners disagreed on) and what made that poem’s style challenging to identify.

Lesson 2: Finding the Theme of a Poem 1.0

Skills: Speaking, reading, writing, listening

This will be the introductory lesson on finding the theme of a poem. First students will turn and talk to share what they remember about finding the main idea of a nonfiction text. Sentence frames will be posted to guide the conversation. Then I will make a link between the main idea of a nonfiction text and the theme of a poem. I will present a short poem, and show students how we can look for keywords in the poem (supporting details) and use them to make an inference about the theme of the poem. Then students will work (in pairs if necessary to scaffold language) to read a poem, underline/highlight key words that they find, and fill in a word web with key words around the outside and their suggested theme in the middle.

Lesson 3: Investigating Figurative Language

Skills: Reading, speaking, listening, (writing – for note-takers only)

In this lesson students will be placed in groups of 3 (6 groups in all). Each group will be given a sheet with 6 similes and metaphors on it. In a group, they will discuss what they think each simile/metaphor means until they come to agreement as a group. The note-taker for each group will briefly record the group’s interpretation. Groups that finish early can take turns creating similes/metaphors for their group members to interpret. Once all groups are done, we will go around the room. Group 1 will share out their interpretation of simile/metaphor 1, Group 2 will share out on simile/metaphor 2, and so on. Other groups will have the opportunity to respond, and sentence frames will be posted to guide the discussion (e.g. “I agree because _____,” “I disagree because _____,” etc).

Lesson 4: Finding the Theme of a Poem 2.0

Skills: Reading, writing, speaking

This lesson will build upon the previous two weeks. Students will read and listen (online with headphones) to a poem with figurative language. Poems will be differentiated in difficulty. They will then need to interpret the figurative language in order to understand what the poem is talking about. Students in the beginning fluency stage will have the option to work with a partner, and students in the speech emergent stage will work in a small group with the teaching assistant. After they have interpreted the figurative language, they will need to name what they think the theme is and provide at least two pieces of supporting evidence to back up their inference. Students who read the same poem will share out together by reading their written response to each other.

Lesson 5: Reading Poetry Out Loud

Skills: Reading, speaking, listening

This will be a culminating lesson, and one component of a summative assessment on a poem students chose from a curated set. In this lesson, students will already have a plan for how they would like to read their chosen poem. They will share their plan with a partner, who will give them one glow (compliment) and one grow (idea for how to make it better). Then, in staggered groups over the course of two academic periods (maximum of 4 students recording at one time), students will use their Chromebooks to record themselves reading their poem with fluency and expression on Flipgrid. They can record themselves reading as many times as they want until they feel satisfied with their recording, then they will submit it for their teacher to review. Students who run out of time to record during their designated time slot can have the option to complete their recording at home. Students who finish should read quietly (with the option of headphones) to minimize the total noise in the room.

Learner Population*

• 18 students
• Language Proficiency:
  • 8 students are native English speakers (3 of these students have a second language in the home as well)
  • 5 ELL students in intermediate fluency stage
  • 3 ELL students in beginning fluency stage
  • 2 ELL students in the speech emergent stage
• Learning differences in the class:
  • 2 students with diagnosed ADHD
  • 1 student with diagnosed autism
  • 1 student with diagnosed dyslexia
  • 1 student undergoing neuro-pysch evaluation with suspected processing disorder and/or ADHD; 3 additional students with suspected ADHD

Learner Profile Information

This thematic unit comes after a unit on economics, so students will have a baseline understanding of concepts such as goods and services, bartering, money, and natural resources, human resources, and capital resources. These vocabulary charts will remain up during our Community in Poetry unit.

In the class we have students reading at F&P levels ranging from K to V. Most students have fairly good literal comprehension, but I foresee the skill of making inferences as a likely challenge for several students as they practice interpreting poetry and identifying the theme of a poem. A handful of students (including my students in the speech emergent stage as well as my dyslexic student) are still building their reading fluency, and will need to be able to read a poem several times to take time to decode new words and practice reading with increasing fluency. Most of my students with either diagnosed or suspected ADHD find it challenging to consistently recall details from their texts, and will benefit from specific note-taking strategies to build this skill.

In writing, some students benefit from a lot of scaffolding to organize their thinking and structure their sentences, while other students can adeptly write grammatically correct complex sentences that integrate new and prior information. About half of the class continues to benefit from visual reminders to use beginning capitalization and end punctuation, and will likely appreciate the flexibility that poetry offers in this area! In order to adapt the expectations for the varied levels of writing (and English) proficiency, students will have the ability to choose what style of poetry to use for their final product. I will confer with students to come to an agreement about what expectation for their total production makes sense (e.g. if they choose to write haiku, will they need to write more than one haiku?).
*In reality my class consists of 18 students, all native English speakers, who are a mix of 3rd and 4th grade. For this learner population description I have fictionalized just a bit.

Enduring Understandings

• Poetry is different from prose
• Poets get ideas from their lives, identities, experiences, and the world around them
• Poetry can be used to reflect something you have seen or experienced or to imagine something you would like to see or experience
• Poets make intentional decisions about white space, line breaks, rhythms/rhymes, language, and punctuation

Guiding Questions

• What makes a sustainable (and sustaining) community?
• What is a poem?
• How do poets show their ideas about what makes a sustainable (and sustaining) community?

Standards to Assess

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.4.4.B Read grade-level poetry orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.4.2 Determine a theme of a poem from details in the text; summarize the text.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.4.5 Explain major differences between poems, drama, and prose, and refer to the structural elements of poems (e.g., verse, rhythm, meter) when writing or speaking about a text.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.4.5 With guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, and editing. 
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.4.6 With some guidance and support from adults, use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing as well as to interact and collaborate with others.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.3.B Choose punctuation for effect.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.4.5.A Explain the meaning of simple similes and metaphors (e.g., as pretty as a picture) in context.
• Maryland Social Studies Standard 4.0: Students shall inquire about decisions made by individuals and groups using economic reasoning in order to understand the historical development and current status of economic principles, institutions, and processes needed to be effective citizens, consumers, and workers participating in local communities, the nation, and the world.

Mentor Texts/Mentor Authors (initial list)

• Joy Harjo (Remember)
• Elizabeth Alexander (Praise Song for the Day)
• Minnie Bruce Pratt (Walking Back Up Depot Street)
• Langston Hughes (Daybreak in Alabama, Dream Variations)
• Nikki Giovanni (Knowville, Tennessee)

Technology Resources & Tools

• YouTube, Poetry Foundation, Poetry Out Loud, Library of Congress, Poets.org, Poets.org Incredible Bridges
• Epic
• Flipgrid
• Smart Board
• Book Creator

How the Use of Classroom Technology, Online Learning Tools, and Resources Will Support Student Learning

• YouTube, Poetry Foundation, Poetry Out Loud, Library of Congress, Poets.org
• Epic
• Flipgrid
• Smart Board
• Book Creator

In this unit one of the most important uses of technology will be making use of a variety of online resources so students can listen to poetry. Websites such as YouTube, Poetry Foundation, Poetry Out Loud, Library of Congress, and Poets.org will be of great use during this unit. Rhythm, syllables, speed, pauses, and more play such an important role in making meaning of poetry, and children who don’t have much experience reading poetry may not have a sense of the many ways poetry can sound. Particularly for language learners, listening to poetry can offer a different access point to understanding. If resources allow, this unit would be well-served by a listening station which students can use during reading time to listen to poems we have read as a class as well as new poems. They could even use this listening station to practice reading poetry with the recording before trying to read the poem (or a new poem) on their own. 

Relatedly, Epic online library will also be quite useful for this unit. It has a number of books of poems, and is a great resource for finding books of different reading levels. It also has books on how to write poetry, which can be quite helpful for the Writing portion of this unit. 

Flipgrid can be used both in class and for homework as a tool for students to practice reading/performing poetry in a low-stress environment. Students can try as many times as they like to get their reading right. For language learners, having the opportunity to record themselves reading poetry out loud may feel less stressful than having to read on the spot in front of someone else. I intend to use Flipgrid for the peer review process, but it could also be used for regular homework throughout the unit to give students more chances to practice reading poetry out loud.

There are a few instances, particularly in the Social Studies portion of the unit, where the class will create a shared list of characteristics or needs. A Smart Board can be used in these cases both to make this shared list easily visible, as well as to save the collaborative lists for future reference. Allowing students to add contributions in writing, instead of only orally, integrates more language skills into a single lesson.

Book Creator will be used for the final product for reading and writing. Students will create their own ebooks of their poetry. Because Book Creator has an audio recording feature, students can not only type their poems up and format them according to their artistic preference, but they can also apply their practice reading poetry orally and an audio book feature to their books.

In the paper titled On Educating Culturally Sustaining Teachers, Paris (2016) suggests that “humanizing relationships of dignity and care are fundamental to student and teacher learning.” One important way teachers can humanize their students, and build relationships of dignity and care, is to implement culturally responsive practice in their classrooms that honor their students’ home languages and home cultures. “The goal…is to connect students’ lived experiences and backgrounds to the content, positively reflect students’ cultures within the curriculum, and expand their linguistic repertoire” (Hyung, 2020). This can help students feel more supported and validated, which can improve their academic outcomes. In the words of Gloria Ladson-Billings, “All instruction is culturally responsive. The question is: to which culture is it culturally oriented?” (as cited in Gibson, 2020). Effective language instructors will work to ensure their classroom is oriented at least in part to their students’ culture(s).

2. Uncover and seek to move past implicit bias

A teacher has a responsibility to educate each of their students in the best, most affirming way possible. A classroom full of language learners is, in all likelihood, a classroom in which multiple races, cultures, languages, and socioeconomic backgrounds are represented. Unfortunately, even taking steps to reflect their students’ cultures and backgrounds in the classroom and curriculum does not guarantee that a classroom will be an affirming space for all students; “You can have a multicultural curriculum and still not have an anti-racist classroom” (Michael, 2015, p. 2). Teachers must also do the work of examining and their own biases and unlearn or move beyond them.

3. Meet learners where they are in their language acquisition journey

A teacher may have students in any of the six stages of language acquisition, and should be prepared to support their growth and development no matter where they are in their language learning journey. Fortunately, there are instructional strategies a teacher can use to aid in receptive and expressive language development that are tailored to specific language levels. For example, a teacher might focus on developing receptive language with a student in the pre-production stage “by using read-alouds and music,” but in contrast, help a student in the early production stage begin to develop independence by “[modeling] a phrase and [having] the student repeat it and add modifications” (Robertson & Ford, n.d.)

4. Make standard content accessible with texts and resources tailored to language acquisition levels of students

This principle is borrowed from Li (2012). Although some mistakenly believe that individuals who are not yet fluent in a language have a reduced capacity to learn because of their perceived language deficits, with appropriate scaffolding and challenges, language learners are as capable of achieving academic success as any other students. Rather than altering the content standards for language learners, language instructors should instead make the existing standards more accessible while maintaining high expectations for their performance and growth.

5. Provide multiple ways for students to access new concepts

All students can benefit from instruction that incorporates multiple modalities, and none more so than language learners. This is especially true for students who may have background knowledge of a topic in their home language, and need access points to integrate the information into their target language. Regardless of whether a student has background knowledge in a topic, however, they will be well-served by having a number of ways to understand new topics, especially content topics, as they develop the language associated with the topic.

6. Integrate reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills in a balanced way

Li (2012) said it best: “Teachers should not focus only on one of the four language skills at the sacrifice of the others. Instead, they should integrate the four skills in their instruction and they should do so from the very start.” Successful language users have access to all four language skills, and so it behooves instructors to integrate each of these skills consistently and with equal weight. 

7. Provide many authentic contexts for practicing new language forms and vocabulary

If our goal is for individuals to be able to communicate effectively through speaking and writing, as well as understand communication they receive orally and in writing, we need our learners to be flexible in their language use. The best way to foster this flexibility and generalization of new language forms and vocabulary is for students to gain experience using them in multiple contexts that relate to real life. As Himmel (2012) says, “research allows us to state with a fair degree of confidence that English learners best acquire English when language forms are explicitly taught and when they have many opportunities to use the language in meaningful contexts.” This can improve student motivation as well as better prepare them to use their target language in authentic contexts, having practiced it in similar contexts.

8. Make metacognition visible and explicit

Having an understanding of metacognitive strategies, or strategies to help oneself learn, benefit all learners, and is absolutely essential for language learners. Teachers should model a variety of strategies, work with students to break them apart and name them, and provide opportunities for students to “select, evaluate, and adjust strategies” (Li, 2012). Teachers should not assume that students will pick these strategies up naturally, but teach them deliberately and explicitly.

9. Provide differentiated ways for students to demonstrate mastery of new concepts

This relates to Principle 3: “Meet learners where they are in their language acquisition journey.” It would not be fair to ask students at different levels of language development to produce the same work to demonstrate their growth and understanding. However, a skilled language instructor can focus on similar concepts while differentiating how students demonstrate their understanding. For example, a student in the Early Production stage could be asked yes/no questions, while a student in the Beginning Fluency stage can be asked questions that require a fuller response (Robertson & Ford, n.d.).

10. Clearly define content and language objectives, and offer time to reflect on growth and achievement

Finally, although this principle may be the first element visible in a lesson, is that of learning objectives. Ideally, teachers should provide distinct content and language objectives, and should “specifically outline the type of language that students will need to learn and use in order to accomplish the goals of the lesson” (Himmel, 2012) so that students know what is expected of them in each area and can measure their success.

The integrated-skills approach is what it sounds like; it integrates the four domains of language in one language class, typically in conjunction with content instruction or while students complete an interdisciplinary task. 

The primary argument in favor of an integrated-skills approach to teaching language is that it provides a more realistic experience which will foster global language development and allow students to develop effective communication skills. As Oxford (2001) put it, “The integrated-skill approach…exposes English language learners to authentic language and challenges them to interact naturally in the language.” Speaking, reading, writing, and listening are equally important in developing a new language; “to be a competent language user, the learners should develop receptive and productive skills in both spoken and written discourse” (Pardede, 2017). Because of this reality, the integrated-skills approach is the most efficient and effective way for students to develop their language skills through the practice of all four domains.

In contrast, Kehe (2020) argues that the integrated-skills approach does learners a disservice by making it impossible (or a the very least, highly improbable) for them to have their learning needs met across the four domains, because their language development is unlikely to be uniform across the domains. 

To be perfectly honest, I found this argument quite frustrating. Balancing the needs of learners across the spectrum of proficiency levels in a variety of skills is the baseline expectation for elementary classroom teachers. To suggest that an integrated approach is potentially detrimental to students who don’t fit neatly within a particular language acquisition level, to me, speaks more to the ineffectiveness of a teacher’s differentiation than it does to the weakness of the model. Perhaps Kehe was speaking explicitly to adult education, but as a classroom teacher I have certainly never been offered the option of only teaching students at a certain level, without also being expected to adjust my materials and teaching methods to support students at a lower level in particular skills as well as to extend the learning of students who have already achieved proficiency.

Discrete Approach

The discrete approach, in contrast to the integrated-skills approach, focuses on one skill at a time. A lesson or a course may focus exclusively on speaking, or reading, and so on. This approach can be very useful when a teacher observes that their students could benefit from reinforcement or review with a particular skill. Additionally it may be more realistic to design a task that focuses on a specific skill so that the teacher can focus their observation for the purpose of formative or summative assessment. Finally, as I discussed above, classrooms often have learners at different levels of proficiency in different skills. Just as the integrated-skills approach provides a more realistic learning experience, the discrete approach can be helpful at times to facilitate appropriate differentiation to learners with diverse stages of language acquisition.

I have, of course, implied the challenges of discrete learning as I discussed the benefits of integrated-skills learning. Some teachers (perhaps wrongly) understand “discrete” to be synonymous with “in isolation,” and seek to avoid any skill that is not the focus of a lesson or course altogether (Aponte-de-Hanna, 2015). As Oxford (2001) puts it, “This is contrary to the integrated way people use language skills in normal communication, and it clashes with the direction in which language teaching experts have been moving in recent years.” Discrete teaching should be done in moderation and with specific goals in mind.

In reading about effective classroom language instruction principles, there were a few ideas that stood out to me as particularly interesting or new. One idea that interested me was Li’s discussion of the importance of metacognitive strategies. Li (2012) clearly states that, “Teachers should make explicit metacognitive and specific learning strategies for ELLs” (p. 8). The argument here is that having a clear understanding of the metacognitive strategies at play is essential to second or foreign language learning, and that language teachers must make it a priority to make a variety of strategies visible, named, practiced, and examined for effectiveness in different scenarios. 

The other big piece that I found new and particularly helpful was the guidance from both Himmel and Medina (via Huynh’s blog) on specific steps one can take to write language objectives. Although the practice makes complete sense to me, when I previously taught at a dual immersion school we did not use language objectives in our lessons, and I have no prior experience writing them. 

Himmel’s guidance was more high-level, offering a series of questions to guide an educator’s thinking. Himmel (2012) encourages teachers to consider what specific vocabulary a student will need to achieve success with a given topic, what language functions directly relate to a given lesson, what language structures are commonly used in a focus area, what language usage is integral to a given task, and what strategies for language use fit naturally with a particular topic. 

On the other hand, the guidance that Medina offers is more immediately applicable. He offers three to four simple steps (depending on whether you intend to write a simplified or detailed language learning target) to create a language objective that is focused enough to be usable in a single lesson, but broad enough to allow for inclusion of the four language domains (as cited in Huynh, 2020).

I found these parameters extremely helpful both as a way to evaluate language objectives I read as well as to formulate new language objectives with a reasonable sense of certainty that they will be high quality.

What principles were presented in the readings and how did these principles relate to the ones developed by your small group?

Many of the principles detailed in our readings related to treating English language learners like complete people with unique backgrounds and experiences, the capacity to learn and succeed at high levels, and the desire for language learners to gain language skills that they can use in their personal and (if applicable) professional lives. For example, Li (2012) offers the principle, “Implement Challenging Curriculum with High Expectations.” As Alrubail (2016) notes, “ELLs are often overrepresented in special education classes due to a lack of training in helping teachers identify students’ needs and assessment when it comes [to] language skills.” This type of issue can easily be avoided by making content more accessible through differentiated texts and integrating students’ home culture and language into the classroom. 

Medina is another voice strongly advocating for offering a holistic education that takes into account language learner’s full selves. For example, he advocates for connecting content and a child’s lived experiences, such as by “asking students to think about how a content-specific topic shows up in their lives, families, communities, or cultures.”

My small group reflected many of these priorities as we discussed the ideas we found most compelling and relevant from our readings, particularly “Principles of Effective ELL Pedagogy” (Li, 2012). I am paraphrasing somewhat to polish some of our initial thoughts, but we came up the following principles for effective language teaching:

1. Seek to understand and be responsive to your students’ language levels and cultural backgrounds
2. Create authentic tasks for students to practice and apply their content knowledge and skills
3. Make metacognition explicit and visible
4. Introduce vocabulary authentically and in context
5. Tailor texts and other class resources to the language development levels of your students