The Clearing House, 87: 197–203, 2014
Copyright !
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0009-8655 print; 1939-912X online
DOI: 10.1080/00098655.2014.918531
What’s on the “LO” Menu?
Supporting Academic Language
Objective Development
KRISTEN LINDAHL and NAOMI M. WATKINS
Abstract: To effectively serve culturally and linguistically
diverse students in public schools, many pedagogical
models call for the integration of content and language
instruction. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
also present increased attention to how language is conceptualized for all students. One technique to heighten
both teacher and student focus on academic language
is via the use of language objectives in tandem with
content objectives. In this article, the authors offer a
language objective (LO) menu from which teachers can
identify the language demands of their lessons, recognize student needs relative to those demands, and select
appropriate instructional strategies to meet language
objectives. Sample language demands, objectives, and
strategies are provided for elementary, middle, and high
school academic language development.
means to foster simultaneous development of subjectarea and academic language learning. The Common
Core State Standards (CCSS) also support such instruction for ELLs, stating that “these students may require
additional time, appropriate instructional support, and
aligned assessments as they acquire both English language proficiency and content area knowledge” (National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices
and Council of Chief State School Officers 2010, para.
1). Despite best intentions, many teachers may find
it difficult to craft effective language objectives due to
the extensive nature of academic language (Kim 2007),
and most resort to identifying only vocabulary objectives while ignoring other aspects of academic language
(Regalla 2012). The CCSS effectively discourage this
oversimplification of language, and instead focus on using language to participate in academic discourse communities (Hakuta and Santos 2012). To help teachers
more strategically plan their language objectives, we
present a menu consisting of academic language areas common across all content disciplines, as well as
instructional strategies that teachers can implement to
ensure ELLs achieve the identified language goal.
Keywords: minority students, lesson plans, diversity,
effective schools, language
T
he robust presence of English language learners
(ELLs) in U.S. public schools and abroad has engendered changes not only in the classroom strategies used to teach culturally and linguistically diverse
(CLD) learners but also in the way that teachers conceptualize language in the classroom. To best serve ELLs
in content-heavy environments like secondary schools,
popular models of instruction, such as the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP; Echevarrı́a, Vogt,
and Short 2012), the Cognitive Academic Language
Learning Approach (CALLA; Chamot 2005), and the
European-based Content-Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL; Maljers, Marsh, and Wolff 2007), call for the inclusion of both content and language learning goals as
What Is “Academic Language”?
Academic language, or the “language of school,” differs greatly from the conversational or social language
used outside of the classroom in that it is often decontextualized, more complex, more abstract, and places
higher demands on student cognition (Schleppegrell
2004). In addition to using more morphologically complex words and a higher proportion of nouns, adjectives, and prepositions, the sheer density of information
in academic language is higher (Nagy and Townsend
Kristen Lindahl is in the Department of Bicultural-Bilingual Studies, University of
Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX. Naomi M. Watkins is in the Department of
Education and Teacher Development, University of La Verne, La Verne, CA.
197
198
The Clearing House
2012). Academic language also places different cultural
and experiential demands on learners as they attempt to
relate to both the content information and their peers
and teachers who may be from diverse backgrounds.
Increased attention is being paid to academic language
in K–12 schools; for example, the CCSS in grades K–6
have increased academic language demands due to a
larger focus on informational text in the primary grades
(Roberts 2012), while in the secondary grades, each content area has its own sophisticated disciplinary register,
which makes academic language at this level increasingly complex (Schleppegrell and O’Hallaron 2011).
These different sophisticated registers are part of the
reason that disciplinary literacy has become a focus of
literacy instruction in content-area classrooms. Disciplinary literacy instruction emphasizes the uniqueness
of each discipline, focusing on teaching students how
to read, write, and think according to the specialized
knowledge, discourses, and routines of each respective
discipline (Draper et al. 2010; Moje 2008; Shanahan
and Shanahan 2008). However, Fagella-Luby and his
colleagues (2012) and Hynd-Shanahan (2013) note
that disciplinary literacy should not replace contentarea literacy instruction. Content-area literacy instruction focuses on teaching students generic strategies that
can be used across all disciplines; disciplinary literacy
emphasizes the differences. “In disciplinary literacy, the
discipline itself and the ways of thinking in that discipline determine the kinds of strategies to use in order to
understand texts. This differs from content area literacy,
in which the strategies one knows determine how reading ensues” (Hynd-Shanahan 2013, 94). For example,
a content-area strategy would have students make predictions and draw conclusions when reading all types
of texts. Reciprocal teaching, What I Know-What I Want
to Know-What I Learned (KWL), and Survey-QuestionPredict-Read-Respond-Summarize (SQP2RS) are other
examples of popular content-area literacy strategies that
could be applied to narrative or informational text as
well as differing content areas, such as social studies,
math, or language arts. An example of a disciplinespecific strategy would be to have students in a science
setting generating hypotheses and justifying their conclusions, using specific terminology to do so. English
language learners benefit from both types of literacy instruction as they develop academic language, but are in
particular need of general literacy skills—skills that fall
under the content-area literacy umbrella.
Given the pivotal role that academic language and literacy development play in school success, it becomes
imperative that K–12 teachers recognize the academic
language demands of school settings. They must formulate objectives that address those demands, and ultimately implement teaching strategies and assessments
that match the academic language demands identified at
the outset. With this iterative process in mind, we have
87(5) 2014
created a menu for language objectives that supports
teachers through the cognitive process of identifying a
language demand, composing a language objective relevant to the content objective, and selecting an appropriate classroom strategy. The language objective (LO)
menu includes six potential areas of academic language
demands, a brief explanation of each area, possible ELL
student needs that may arise in each area, and suggested
instructional strategies to address these needs. The academic language demands we present align well with
the CCSS, because they represent the foundational skills
called for in the standards, such as being able to comprehend both literary and informational text, developing
persuasive writing skills, and being aware of appropriate
grammar, conventions, and functions to achieve communicative purposes (Hakuta and Santos 2012). The
LO menu focuses on more general content-area strategies, many of which can be adapted to discipline-specific
purposes and settings. In addition, the strategies we include are in no way an exhaustive list, and one strategy
may be used to address multiple academic language demands. Following, we describe the six potential areas of
academic language demands in terms of the LO menu
(see Table 1), and model a step-by-step progression for
its use.
Academic Language Demands
Vocabulary
Vocabulary includes the variety of content words
students need in order to comprehend and express
academic knowledge and information. Vocabulary development may include the processes of acquiring
new words that represent known concepts, acquiring new words that represent new concepts, clarifying
and enriching the meanings of known words, learning idioms, learning abstract high-frequency words,
or using context clues to decipher meaning (Beck,
McKeown, and Kucan 2013). Explicit vocabulary instruction is preferred for ELLs because it can help target
the context or linguistic cues used to decipher and/or
define unfamiliar words (August et al. 2005). Teachers must also attend to the types of vocabulary terms
they are teaching ELLs, as key terms may be contentobligatory words—those words so closely associated with
the lesson’s content that the content cannot be understood without knowledge of these terms—or contentcompatible words—those words that are academic in nature and are frequently used across curricula and content
areas (Genesee 1994). Examples of content-obligatory
terms in a social studies lesson about the U.S. Constitution could include, “legislative,” “executive,” “judicial,” and “amendment.” Content-compatible terms
from this same lesson might be “independent,” “compromise,” or “exploration,” terms that are still academic
in nature and apply to the social studies context but
What’s on the “LO” Menu?
can be found in other contexts as well. Distinguishing
between these two bodies of words is important, because most teachers tend to focus on content-obligatory
terms when identifying language demands and composing language objectives (Lindahl, Baecher, and Tomaš
2013; Regalla 2012). However, knowledge of contentcompatible vocabulary may be more useful to ELLs
in the long term, because these words are used more
frequently across content areas and academic contexts
(Coxhead 2011). Therefore, ELLs can take the knowledge of these words that they acquire in one content
area and utilize it in another. In addition, the repeated
exposure to content-compatible words in various contexts may provide the repetition that ELLs need to acquire a word, as well as deepen their semantic understanding of the way the word functions in different
settings.
199
Functional Language
English language learners also need to know words
and grammatical forms that meet various functional or
communication needs. For example, teachers often use
phrases that perform a regulatory function, such as “take
out your notebook,” “talk to a partner,” or “line up
for lunch.” Other functional classroom language might
be informational or heuristic, such as checking for understanding, summarizing, defining, or asking for information. Additional functional language categories include
personal and instrumental (Halliday 1994). Some specific examples of functional terms that are more academic in nature are transitions such as “first,” “second,”
“third,” “last”; phrasal language for sharing an opinion, such as “I believe, I think”; or terms used to compare concepts, such as “alike,” “similar,” “dissimilar,”
“different,” “distinct,” and so on. The Academic Word
TABLE 1. The Language Objective Menu
Language
Demand
Reading Comprehension
Vocabulary
Word Study
Definition
The process of constructing
meaning from written text
Bodies of words students need
in order to comprehend and
express content knowledge
and information
Instruction about word structure
and components
Possible ELL
Needs
• Activating prior knowledge
• Building background
knowledge
• Context Clues
• Figurative Language
• Identify main idea
• Predicting/Inferring
• Questioning
• Summarizing
• Text Structure
• Text Features
• Visualizing
• Abstract high-frequency
words
• Basic oral vocabulary
• Clarifying and enriching the
meanings of known words
• Content-compatible terms
• Content-obligatory terms
• Idioms
• New words representing
known concepts
• New words representing new
concepts
• Cognates
• Compound words
• Homophones
• Prefixes, roots, and suffixes
• Semantic (meaning)
relationships to structures
• Sound patterns
• Visual (orthographic) patterns
Means of
Instruction
• Anticipation guide
• Concept mapping
• Insert Method
• KWL varieties
• List-group-label
• Note-taking
• Paragraph draw
• Predict-Revisit
• Problematic situation
• Question-Answer
Relationship (QAR)
• Re-tell
• Skim and scan
• Story mapping
• Text/Plot structure graphic
organizers
• Think-alouds
• Analogies
• Categorizing words by
meanings or concept
• Cloze activities
• Concept definition maps
• Dictionary activities
• Pantomime/Charades
• Picture dictionaries
• Picture/word sorts
• Semantic feature analysis
(Mind/word mapping)
• Synonym/Antonym webs
• Vocabulary notebooks
(self-collected or
teacher-directed)
• Vocabulary word squares
• Word walls
• “Detective” looking for
certain word parts in
connected text
• Categorization activities
based on orthographic,
semantic, or sound patterns
• Flip books of word parts
• Graphic organizers or word
mapping
• Prefix-suffix-root memory or
matching games
• Word searches
(Continued on the next page)
200
The Clearing House
87(5) 2014
TABLE 1. The Language Objective Menu (Continued)
Language Demand
Functional Language
Grammar
Writing and Conventions
Definition
Terms that are not contentspecific but perform a
certain language function
The rules that govern the use
of a language
Using written language to
respond to typically
recurring situations
Possible Student
Needs
• Asking for information
• Comparing/Contrasting
• Describing things
• Discussing probability
• Determining steps necessary
to complete a task
• Explaining
• Requesting services
• Interrupting
• Making suggestions
• Being humorous
• Talking about events
• Talking about self
• Articles
• Capitalization
• Complete sentences
• Complex sentences
• Contractions
• Paragraphing
• Parts of Speech
• Proper vs. common nouns
• Question Formation
• Singular vs. plural
• Subject-verb agreement
• Word Order
• Context (cultural, social,
political, etc.) awareness
• Genre awareness
• Organization
• Punctuation
• Sentence Variation
• Spelling
• Topic knowledge
• Use of Media/Design
• Word choice
Means of
Instruction
• Interviews Conversations
(Scripted, Guided,
Independent)
• Classroom routines
• Debate
• Group work (pair,
collaborative, and
cooperative structures)
• Role play
• Sentence stems
• Show-and Tell variations
• Use pictures/wordless books
to tell stories or recall events
• Tell jokes
• Change sentences into
various questions
• Create and label unique
sentences using parts of
speech
• Edit sample, peer, or own
writing for specific grammar
errors
• Identify/highlight parts of
speech in text
• Mad-Libs
• Re-order mixed up sentences
• Structure discussion topics to
elicit certain grammar
structures
• Brainstorming
• Free recall
• Free writes
• Manipulate or re-organize
pieces of a text into the
correct order
• Outlining
• Modeled writing
• Paragraph or essay advance
organizers
• Interactive writing
• Sentence strips
• Shared writing
• “Show, Not Tell” sentences
• Process journals
• Process writing
• Sentence combining
• or shortening
List (Coxhead 2011) includes many functional, contentcompatible terms as well.
Grammar
Grammar is the structure of a language. More specifically, grammar consists of rules that govern a language
and its use. These rules both describe how speakers of a
language use various structures to convey meaning and
enable speakers and learners of that language to create
new, unique utterances that make sense to other speakers of that language (Birch 2014; Finegan 2012). Particularly in school settings, teachers may feel a need to
instill the rules of “correct” grammar in their ELLs and
other students. English language learners will require
explicit instruction in English grammar so that they can
learn the system and begin to generalize it for themselves; however, instead of focusing entirely on prescriptive grammar rules for memorization, teachers can
demonstrate how words behave differently in sentences
and the systematic ways that words combine to form
phrases, clauses, and sentences (Murray and Christison
2011). Teachers may also want to consider that different
academic disciplines use grammar in different ways to
construct their specific discourses (Schleppegrell 2004).
For example, the passive verb tense is often used in scientific disciplines to promote the idea of objectivity: A
science text might say, “an experiment was conducted. .
.” rather than “she conducted an experiment.” Content
areas that often deal with issues of agency and “who did
what to whom,” such as social studies, might use fewer
passive constructions and more active ones.
Word Study
Word study is instruction about the structure of words
and how word parts contribute to word meaning. Some
common word study practices include instruction on
What’s on the “LO” Menu?
prefixes, suffixes, and affixes; compound words; or word
pronunciation, showing students how word parts generalize across words and providing clues as to their meaning, as can be seen with the prefix “photo” and its relationship to light: photograph, photosynthesis, photogenic,
photocopy, and so on (August et al. 2005). Word study
also includes instruction on word patterns, homophones, or cognates (August and Shanahan 2008). This
word awareness can help with academic vocabulary acquisition (Snow, Met, and Genesee 1989), and specific
focus on the way a word is pronounced and/or its structures can also help ELLs develop oral language proficiency (Au et al. 2002; August and Shanahan 2008).
Reading Comprehension
Research on comprehension strategy instruction
shows that teaching students reading strategies, such
as making predictions and inferences or asking questions, can improve their comprehension (Dole et al.
1991; Duke and Pearson 2002; Goldenberg 2011; National Reading Panel 2000). English language learners
can benefit from instruction in the same components
of English literacy as native English speakers. However,
because ELLs who are learning to read in English must
simultaneously learn English literacy and oral language
skills, instructional supports are necessary (Goldenberg
2011). Some ELLs will have reading strategies that they
use in their first language, which they will try to transfer
to reading in their new language. Others may need to
learn a whole new set of strategies for reading in English
(Hughes 2011). Teachers, then, will need to provide
additional support—particularly language support—to
help ELLs learn the thinking processes behind comprehension strategies.
Writing and Conventions
Writing is the act of using written language to respond
to typically recurring situations (Hyland 2008). Older
ELLs who enter the public school system after the early
elementary grades may not be familiar with the English
alphabet (or any alphabetic system), and/or may have
less ability to express themselves in writing depending on their level of oral English proficiency and their
level of prior knowledge—both about academic topics
and writing itself (Wright 2010). Regardless, students
should be taught specific writing strategies for planning,
revising, and editing, and about various forms, genres,
styles, and tones (Graham and Perin 2007). Frequent
process writing activities help ELLs transition from invented spelling to conventional spelling. English language learners also need to be made aware of how conventions govern acceptable writing practices within a
language and convey clues about the meaning of words
and the organization of ideas (Peregoy and Boyle 2008).
Conventions are included here with writing instead of
with grammar, because conventions primarily govern
201
written text, whereas all languages—those with writing
systems and those without—have a grammar.
How to Use the LO Menu
To show how the LO menu can be used when creating language objectives, we provide step-by-step instructions with examples from various grade levels.
Step 1: After Creating Your Content Objective(s), Identify
the Language Demand(s) of Your Current Content-area
Lesson
• A 5th-grade teacher conducting a science unit creates the following content objective: Students will be
able to classify rocks by observing, note taking, and gathering evidence by participating in a “rock walk” outside.
She considers the language demands of this activity and decides that students will need to: (1) use
a variety of words to describe the rocks they find,
such as the content-obligatory terms “sedimentary,”
“igneous,” and “crystals,” and content-compatible
adjectives such as “hard,” “scratchy,” “smooth,” and
“gritty” (vocabulary); (2) take notes about what they
see and feel (writing process); or (3) know words
such as “similar/different” for purposes of comparison (functional language).
• A 7th-grade English teacher creates the following content objective: Students will be able to describe the mood,
style, and theme in Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Tell Tale
Heart” by writing a descriptive paragraph. He identifies the following language demands of this objective.
Students will need to know how to: (1) identify and
use figurative language (reading comprehension), (2)
make inferences (reading comprehension), (3) know
content-obligatory words (vocabulary), or (4) understand the functional language used for description.
• An 11th-grade history teacher creates a sample content objective for tomorrow’s lesson: Students will be
able to defend the importance of three key events that occurred during the civil rights movement by writing a short
essay independently. She recognizes that this objective
creates several different language demands for her students. They will need to know how to: (1) skim and
scan texts for information (reading comprehension),
(2) summarize key events in writing (writing and/or
reading comprehension), (3) use opinion or argument language (functional language), or (4) structure
an argumentative essay (writing).
Step 2: Prioritize the Language Demand(s)
Due to time constraints, not all language demands can
be addressed simultaneously and adequately. Teachers
should consider which language demand takes the highest priority for their students—which demand best addresses their most immediate needs?
202
The Clearing House
• The 5th-grade science teacher feels fairly comfortable
with her students’ ability to take notes in their science
journals about the rocks, so she elects to focus on
promoting students’ use of more academic vocabulary terms.
• The 7th-grade English teacher realizes that his students really need help making inferences, particularly with a challenging text like “The Tell Tale Heart.”
However, he notices that in order to make these inferences, his students need more modeling and scaffolding.
• The 11th-grade history teacher knows that the
majority of her students already know how to skim
and scan, but rarely use more sophisticated opinion or argument language in their writing. Thus, this
teacher might focus on addressing that need.
Step 3: Select a Corresponding Instructional Strategy
from the Menu
Teachers then check the menu to find a corresponding
instructional strategy within the appropriate language
demand.
• The 5th-grade science teacher consults the LO menu
for vocabulary activity ideas. She opts to have students
complete vocabulary word squares on five of the key
terms before beginning their “rock walk,” wherein
they write the vocabulary word in one corner of their
paper, write the definition of the word in another,
draw a visual representation of the word, and use the
word in a sentence.
• The 7th-grade English teacher uses the LO menu to
find an appropriate instructional support to assist his
students to make appropriate inferences. He creates a
graphic organizer that requires students to write the
key phrases from the text, their background knowledge, and the inference they made based on this information.
• After deciding that her students need help using opinion language in their essays, the 11th-grade history
teacher consults the LO menu and sees that this need
falls within the functional language area. She decides
to provide sentence frames and stems that her students can use in their essays, such as “in my opinion,”
“the author asserts that,” or “from my point of view.”
Step 4: Formulate Your Language Objective
After deciding on a language need and corresponding instructional strategy, teachers then compose their
language objectives. Notice how the language objective
supports the completion of the content objective by
addressing a specific academic language demand; they
hinge together.
• Fifth-grade science: Students will be able to define five key
vocabulary terms by completing vocabulary word squares.
87(5) 2014
• Seventh-grade English: Students will be able to identify
the steps of their inferences by completing a graphic organizer.
• Eleventh-grade history: Students will be able to use opinion language in their essays by using sentence frames.
Step 5: Implement Your Strategy and Assess Student
Achievement of the Objective
Did the 5th-grade students correctly define five of
their key vocabulary terms, and did they then use
those terms accurately when describing and classifying the rocks they found on their “rock walk”? Did the
7th-grade students identify their inference-making steps
using the graphic organizer, and did they use these inferences when identifying the mood, style, and theme
of “The Tell Tale Heart”? Did the 11th-grade students
use sentence frames in order to incorporate opinion
language in their essays?
A Balanced “Meal” from the LO Menu
While content and language-learning goals are highlighted for ELLs, it is important for teachers to remember
that language itself “permeates all educational and pedagogical activity” (Van Lier and Walquı́ 2012, 49); thus,
today’s teachers are well served by paying increased
attention to developing academic language among all
of their students. As such, the LO menu presents six
areas of academic language demands that teachers
may consider when planning effective instruction that
integrates both content and language. It also includes
corresponding instructional strategies that teachers may
implement to ensure student attainment of academic
language objectives. As the LO menu demonstrates, academic language has multiple layers beyond simply the
vocabulary of any one content area, and we encourage
teachers to sample from all of the areas of the LO menu
to provide students with a “balanced meal” of academic
language that connects to their content-area learning.
We hope that use of the LO menu helps teachers
become more aware of the academic language present
in their content-area lessons, as well as assists them in
better aligning their objectives and classroom practices
to promote the most effective ELL instruction possible.
REFERENCES
Au, K., G. G. Garcia, C. Goldenberg, and M. E. Vogt. 2002. Handbook
for English language learners. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
August, D., and T. Shanahan, eds. 2008. Developing reading and writing
in second language learners: Lessons from the report of the National
Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
August, D., M. Carlo, C. Dressler, and C. Snow. 2005. The critical role
of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice 20 (1): 50–57.
Beck, I. L., M. G. McKeown, and L. Kucan. 2013. Bringing words to life:
Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
What’s on the “LO” Menu?
Birch, B. M. 2014. English grammar pedagogy: A global perspective. New
York: Routledge.
Chamot, A. U. 2005. CALLA: An update. In Academic success for English
language learners, ed. P. A. Richard-Amato and M. A. Snow, 87–101.
White Plains, NY: Pearson-Longman.
Coxhead, A. 2011. The academic word list 10 Years on: Research and
teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly 45 (2): 355–62.
Dole, J. A., G. Duffy, L. R. Roehler, and P. D. Pearson. 1991. Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension
instruction. Review of Educational Review 61: 239–64.
Draper, R. J., P. Broomhead, A. P. Jensen, J. D. Nokes, and D.
Siebert 2010. (Re)imagining content-area literacy instruction. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Duke, N. K., and P. D. Pearson. 2002. Effective practices for developing
reading comprehension. In What research has to say about reading instruction, 3rd ed., ed. A. E. Farstrup and S. Samuels, 205–42. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Echevarrı́a, J., M. Vogt, and D. J. Short. 2012. Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Fagella-Luby, M. N., P. S. Graner, D. D. Deschler, and S. V. Drew.
2012. Building a house on sand: Why disciplinary literacy is not
sufficient to replace general strategies for adolescent learners who
struggle. Topics in Language Disorders 32 (1): 69–84.
Finegan, E. 2012. Language: Its structure and use. Boston, MA:
Wadsworth.
Genesee, F. 1994. Educating second language children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldenberg, C. 2011. Reading instruction for English language learners. In Handbook of reading research, vol. 4, ed. M. L. Kamil, P. D.
Pearson, E. B. Moje, and P. P. Afflerbach, 684–710. New York: Routledge.
Graham, S., and D. Perin. 2007. Writing next: Effective strategies to
improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools—A report to
the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for
Excellent Education.
Hakuta, K., and M. Santos. 2012. Conference overview paper. In Understanding language: Language, literacy, and learning in the content
areas, ed. K. Hakuta and M. Santos, i–ix. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Halliday, M. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. London:
Edward Arnold.
Hughes, A. 2011. Teaching reading in English as a foreign language
to young learners: A global reflection. In What research has to say
about reading instruction, 4th ed., ed. S. J. Samuels and A. E. Farstrup,
315–58. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hyland, K. 2008. Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching 41 (4): 543–62.
Hynd-Shanahan, C. 2013. What does it take? The challenge of disciplinary literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 57 (2): 93–8.
Kim, S. S. 2007. Exploring the self-reported knowledge and value
of the implementation of content and language objectives of
203
high school content-area teachers. Unpublished diss., Kansas State
University.
Lindahl, K., L. Baecher, and Z. Tomaš 2013. Teacher language awareness in content-based activity design. Journal of Immersion and
Content-Based Language Education 1 (2): 198–225.
Maljers, A., D. Marsh, and D. Wolff, eds. 2007. Windows on CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in the European spotlight. Haarlem, The Netherlands: European Platform for Dutch Education.
Moje, E. B. 2008. Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy
teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy 52 (2): 96–107.
Murray, D. E., and M. A. Christison. 2011. What English language teachers need to know (Vol. I): Understanding learning. New York: Routledge.
Nagy, W., and D. Townsend. 2012. Words as tools: Learning academic
vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly 47
(1): 91–108.
National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. 2010. Application of Common
Core State Standards for English Language Learners. http://www.
corestandards.org/assets/application-for-english-learners.pdf.
National Reading Panel. 2000. Teaching children to read: An evidencebased assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of
Health.
Peregoy, S., and O. Boyle. 2008. Reading, writing and learning in ESL: A
resource book for teaching K–12 English learners (with MyEducationLab). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Regalla, M. 2012. Language objectives: More than just vocabulary.
TESOL Journal 3 (2): 210–30.
Roberts, K. L. 2012. The linguistic demands of the Common Core state
standards for reading and writing informational text in the primary
grades. Seminars in Speech and Language 33 (2): 146–59.
Schleppegrell, M. J. 2004. The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schleppegrell, M. J., and C. L. O’Hallaron. 2011. Teaching academic
language in L2 secondary settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 3–18.
Shanahan, T., and C. Shanahan. 2008. Teaching disciplinary literacy
to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational
Review 78 (1): 40–59.
Snow, M. A., M. Met, and F. Genesee. 1989. A conceptual framework
for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly 23 (2): 201–17.
Van Lier, L., and A. Walquı́. 2012. Language and the Common Core
State Standards. In Understanding language: Language, literacy, and
learning in the content areas, ed. K. Hakuta and M. Santos, 44–51.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Wright, W. 2010. Foundations for teaching English language learners:
Research, theory, policy, and practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.