MTTC English as a Second Language (126) cheat sheet

Krashen's five hypotheses: acquisition-learning distinction, natural order, monitor, input (i+1), and affective filter; comprehensible input drives acquisition, not conscious rule study.

Cummins' BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills) emerges in roughly 1-3 years; CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) takes roughly 5-7 years and is the target of academic ESL instruction.

Stages of second-language development: pre-production (silent period), early production, speech emergence, intermediate fluency, advanced fluency; expectations for output differ by stage.

Interlanguage is the learner's rule-governed interim system; errors often reflect L1 transfer or overgeneralization, not carelessness, so error analysis precedes correction.

Contrastive analysis predicts difficulty from L1-L2 differences; the contrastive analysis hypothesis is weakened because many predicted errors never occur (positive transfer).

Fossilization is persistent stabilization of non-target forms despite exposure and instruction; comprehensibility-focused feedback and pushed output target it.

Sheltered instruction (SIOP) integrates content and language objectives; comprehensible input, scaffolding, and explicit language objectives are core features.

Language proficiency levels (WIDA-style): Entering, Emerging, Developing, Expanding, Bridging; instruction and assessment are differentiated by level, not by native language.

Phonology contrasts for ELLs: English /θ/ /ð/ (think, this), /r/-/l/, /ɪ/-/iː/ (ship/sheep), and final consonant clusters are frequent transfer-driven trouble spots.

Morphology sequence in English: plural -s, progressive -ing, and copula appear early; third-person -s, irregular past, and article use are late-acquired and persist as errors.

Syntax development order (PTONI-style): negation, questions, and relative clauses emerge in predictable stages; overgeneralized forms ("goed," "mouses") signal rule learning.

Vocabulary tiers: Tier 1 everyday words, Tier 2 cross-content academic words (analyze, contrast), Tier 3 domain-specific terms; Tier 2 words yield the highest academic payoff.

Pragmatics and register: ELLs must learn politeness formulas, turn-taking, and academic vs. social registers; pragmatic transfer can cause unintended rudeness.

Reading: L2 decoding and comprehension depend on L1 literacy, oral proficiency, and background knowledge; cognate awareness aids Spanish-speaking learners.

Writing development moves from copying and formulaic patterns to controlled and then free academic prose; error correction should target high-frequency, meaning-affecting errors first.

Legal framework: Lau v. Nichols (1974) requires meaningful access to instruction; Castañeda v. Pickard sets a three-prong test (sound theory, effective implementation, results).

Federal law: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) prohibit denying students instruction because of language; ESSA requires annual English proficiency testing.

Program models: ESL pull-out, push-in, sheltered/structured immersion, transitional bilingual, dual-language/two-way immersion, and newcomer programs; each has distinct goals and exit criteria.

Assessment: WIDA ACCESS and ELPAC are annual English language proficiency tests; reclassification typically requires proficiency score plus academic and teacher evidence.

Accommodations for ELLs on content tests: extended time, bilingual glossaries, simplified directions, and native-language versions where permitted; testing English proficiency is not a valid substitute.

Parental rights: schools must communicate in a language parents understand, obtain informed consent for EL services where required, and avoid unnecessary segregation of ELs.

Instructional planning: content and language objectives, scaffolding, cooperative learning, and culturally responsive materials; monitor progress with formative language samples.

Culture: Hofstede-style dimensions (individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance) help interpret classroom behavior; avoid treating them as fixed traits of individuals.

Acculturation models (Berry): integration, assimilation, separation, marginalization; integration is associated with the best academic and psychological outcomes.

Culture shock stages: honeymoon, frustration/hostility, recovery, adjustment; behavior changes may reflect transition, not disability.

Culturally responsive teaching: use students' funds of knowledge, vary participation structures, and examine curriculum for bias and omission.

Distinguishing language difference from disability: gather data in L1 and L2, review developmental and educational history, and rule out interrupted schooling before referral.

Special education: ELs may be dually identified; IEP and language services must be coordinated, and assessment must be nondiscriminatory and in the student's language.

Family engagement: interpreters, translated materials, flexible meeting times, and respect for differing expectations about parent-teacher roles increase participation.

Second-language listening: top-down (schema, prediction) and bottom-up (phoneme, word segmentation) processes interact; reduced forms and connected speech impede bottom-up processing.

Speaking assessment: rate fluency and accuracy separately; use rubrics with analytic traits (comprehensibility, vocabulary, grammar, discourse) rather than a single holistic score.

Reading strategies: previewing, skimming/scanning, guessing meaning from context, and graphic organizers; teach text structure (compare-contrast, cause-effect) explicitly.

Writing process: prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, publishing; conferencing and peer response support revision, while isolated grammar drills rarely transfer.

Formative assessment tools: running records, oral reading fluency, writing samples scored with rubrics, portfolios, and language objective exit tickets.

Feedback: focused, selective correction on target features beats comprehensive correction; recasts and prompts support uptake, and explicit correction suits late-acquired forms.

Technology: corpus tools, speech-to-text, and adaptive vocabulary apps support practice; digital literacy and academic language remain teacher-scaffolded.

Historical methods: Grammar-Translation (rules and translation), Direct Method (target language only), Audiolingualism (drill and habit formation), and Communicative Language Teaching (meaningful interaction).

CLT principles: communicative competence (grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse, strategic), task-based learning, and authentic language use over form drills.

Sheltered instruction features: content objectives, language objectives, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice/application, lesson delivery, review/assessment.

Scaffolding: modeling, think-alouds, sentence frames, word banks, visuals, and gradual release (I do, we do, you do); remove supports as proficiency grows.

Cooperative learning: structured group roles, positive interdependence, and individual accountability; unstructured group work does not reliably produce language gains.

Differentiation by proficiency level: adjust text complexity, output demands, and time; tiered tasks target the same content objective with varied language demands.

Reflective practice: lesson study, peer observation, and analysis of student work inform instruction; professional learning communities sustain program coherence.

Language transfer: positive transfer speeds learning; negative transfer/interference produces L1-influenced errors in phonology, syntax, and lexicon.

Affective factors: anxiety, motivation, and self-confidence affect the affective filter; a low-anxiety environment increases available input intake.

Learning strategies (Oxford): metacognitive (planning, monitoring), cognitive (summarizing, inferencing), and socioaffective (cooperating, asking questions); explicit strategy training improves outcomes.

Individual differences: age of onset, aptitude, working memory, L1 literacy, and motivation predict rate of acquisition; younger is not universally faster in instructed settings.

Output hypothesis (Swain): producing language forces syntactic processing and noticing gaps; pushed output and negotiation of meaning promote accuracy.

Interaction hypothesis (Long): modified interaction and negotiation of meaning make input comprehensible; pair and small-group tasks create these conditions.

Motivation: integrative and instrumental orientations; intrinsic interest and perceived relevance sustain long-term persistence better than extrinsic rewards alone.

Program evaluation: monitor EL reclassification rates, exit-monitoring (former ELs' academic performance for at least 2 years), and disproportionality in special education.

Data sources: annual ELP assessment, content assessment disaggregated by EL status, attendance, course placement, and graduation rates.

Compliance essentials: identify ELs with a home language survey, screen with a valid English proficiency test, and provide services until reclassification criteria are met.

Instructional time: EL services must be scheduled so students are not removed from core content disproportionately; monitor access to advanced courses.

Teacher qualifications: EL instruction requires appropriate certification/endorsement; paraprofessionals must work under qualified teacher supervision.

Communication: notify parents of program placement and exit in a language they understand, and document consent and progress reports.

Continuous improvement: use formative and summative data to adjust grouping, materials, and pacing; share results with staff and families transparently.

Academic language functions: compare/contrast, cause/effect, sequence, describe, persuade, and hypothesize; teach the language function alongside the content.

Sentence frames and word walls make academic language visible; target Tier 2 words and cognates (e.g., analyze/analizar) to accelerate vocabulary.

Text complexity: quantitative (readability), qualitative (structure, knowledge demands), and reader/task factors; ELLs need scaffolds across all three.

Disciplinary literacy: each content area has distinct text structures and vocabulary (e.g., lab reports, historical argument); generic reading strategies are insufficient alone.

Assessment of academic language: score use of target vocabulary, cohesive devices, and sentence variety in content tasks, not just content accuracy.

Collaboration: ESL and content teachers co-plan language objectives and share assessment data; co-teaching models include one-teach/one-assist and station teaching.

Equity: ensure ELs have access to grade-level content with scaffolds rather than watered-down curriculum; language support is additive, not a replacement.

Formative assessment cycle: set clear language objectives, gather evidence (observations, exit tickets, oral interviews), give feedback, and adjust instruction.

Rubric design: analytic traits with 3-4 performance levels and descriptors tied to proficiency expectations; calibrate with anchor papers.

Oral language assessment: use structured interviews, picture prompts, and role-play tasks; score comprehensibility, fluency, vocabulary, grammar, and discourse.

Writing assessment: use genre-specific rubrics; weigh organization, development, language use, and mechanics according to the task's purpose.

Standardized ELP tests (WIDA ACCESS, ELPAC) measure listening, speaking, reading, writing; scores inform placement and reclassification but not grades alone.

Test bias: review items for cultural loading, unfamiliar contexts, and linguistic complexity unrelated to the construct; provide accommodations matched to need.

Data use: disaggregate by proficiency level and subgroup, set measurable goals, and monitor progress each grading period.

Standards alignment: WIDA English Language Development Standards (social/instructional, language arts, math, science, social studies) and state ELD standards guide objectives.

Lesson planning: write a content objective and a language objective (function + form + vocabulary), then select scaffolds and assessment evidence.

Backward design: identify desired results, determine acceptable evidence, then plan learning experiences; align tasks to standards and proficiency levels.

Assessment literacy: distinguish formative (feedback, no grade) from summative (evaluation); use multiple measures for high-stakes decisions.

Collaboration and co-teaching: shared planning time, defined roles, and joint assessment increase coherence between ESL and content classes.

Professional growth: observe peers, analyze student work, and use coaching cycles; reflect on cultural assumptions and instructional bias.

Program coherence: align curriculum vertically across grade levels and horizontally across content areas so language expectations build progressively.

Vocabulary instruction: provide multiple exposures, rich contexts, and opportunities to use words; depth (semantic networks) matters more than list memorization.

Comprehension instruction: teach before/during/after reading strategies, text structure, and questioning; build background knowledge to support inference.

Writing instruction: model the genre, provide mentor texts, teach sentence combining and cohesive devices, and conference on drafts.

Oral language: structured academic conversations, accountable talk, and sentence starters increase student talk and negotiation of meaning.

Listening: pre-teach vocabulary, use visuals and advance organizers, and check comprehension with tasks rather than yes/no questions.

Grammar: teach in context and connect form to meaning and use; explicit instruction helps when it is brief, focused, and followed by communicative practice.

Feedback loops: use rubrics, exemplars, and revision opportunities; self- and peer-assessment build metacognitive control over language.

Identification: home language survey triggers screening; parent notification and program placement follow within required timelines.

Reclassification criteria: ELP test score, content assessment, teacher recommendation, and parent input; monitor former ELs for at least two years after exit.

Program models: ESL-only, bilingual transitional, dual-language, and newcomer programs; each has distinct goals and exit criteria.

Compliance: Lau/Castañeda and EEOA require sound programs, effective implementation, and demonstrated results; document services and progress.

Parent rights: translated communication, informed consent, and access to interpretation at meetings; parents may decline services where law permits.

Data and equity: track EL achievement, course access, and special education referral rates; address disproportionality and opportunity gaps.

Professional learning: sustained, job-embedded training in sheltered instruction and assessment improves teacher practice and student outcomes.

Language acquisition theories: behaviorist (habit formation), innatist (universal grammar), cognitive (information processing), and sociocultural (Vygotsky, ZPD) explain different aspects of learning.

ZPD and scaffolding: tasks slightly beyond independent level with support from a more capable peer or teacher promote development.

Comprehensible input: i+1 means input just beyond current level; visuals, gestures, and repetition support understanding.

Output and interaction: negotiation of meaning, recasts, and clarification requests push learners to notice and modify language.

Affective filter: low anxiety, high motivation, and self-confidence increase intake; high anxiety blocks acquisition.

Learning strategies: teach planning, monitoring, and evaluating; strategy use correlates with proficiency gains.

Individual differences: age, aptitude, L1 literacy, and motivation shape rate; instruction should target both accuracy and fluency.

Content-area language demands: math (word problems, comparatives), science (process language, hypotheses), social studies (cause/effect, chronology), and language arts (narrative, argument).

Sheltered instruction: pair content and language objectives; use visuals, demonstrations, and hands-on tasks to make input comprehensible.

Academic vocabulary: prioritize Tier 2 words and cognates; use word walls, semantic maps, and repeated exposure in context.

Text scaffolds: graphic organizers, glossaries, chunked texts, and audio versions reduce linguistic load while preserving content rigor.

Assessment: allow multiple ways to demonstrate learning (oral explanations, diagrams, projects) while still assessing content mastery.

Collaboration: co-planning and co-teaching with content teachers align language and content goals and share accountability.

Equity: maintain grade-level content expectations with scaffolds; avoid tracking ELs into low-level courses that limit future options.

Assessment purposes: placement, diagnostic, formative, and summative; match the tool to the purpose and proficiency level.

ELP tests: WIDA ACCESS and ELPAC measure listening, speaking, reading, and writing; scores inform placement, reclassification, and instruction.

Accommodations: extended time, bilingual glossaries, simplified directions, and separate setting; accommodations must not alter the construct being tested.

Rubrics: analytic traits with clear descriptors and anchor examples; calibrate scorers to ensure reliability.

Bias review: examine items for cultural loading and unnecessary linguistic complexity; ensure fairness across subgroups.

Data use: disaggregate results by proficiency level and monitor growth; use multiple measures for high-stakes decisions like reclassification.

Feedback: timely, specific, and focused on target features; combine with opportunities to revise and reattempt.

Lesson design: write content and language objectives; select scaffolds, interaction structures, and assessment evidence aligned to standards.

Backward design: identify desired results, determine acceptable evidence, then plan learning experiences.

Scaffolding: modeling, think-alouds, sentence frames, word banks, and gradual release; remove supports as proficiency grows.

Cooperative learning: structured roles, positive interdependence, and individual accountability maximize language use.

Differentiation: tier tasks by text complexity, output demands, and time while keeping the same content objective.

Reflection: analyze student work and observation data to adjust instruction; use coaching and peer observation for growth.

Program coherence: align curriculum vertically and horizontally so language expectations build progressively across grades and content areas.

Vocabulary depth: teach multiple meanings, collocations, and word families; rich contexts and repeated exposure build depth beyond definitions.

Reading comprehension: teach before/during/after strategies, text structure, and questioning; build background knowledge to support inference.

Writing: use mentor texts, model the genre, teach sentence combining and cohesive devices, and conference on drafts.

Oral language: structured academic conversations, accountable talk, and sentence starters increase student talk and negotiation of meaning.

Listening: pre-teach vocabulary, use visuals and advance organizers, and check comprehension with tasks rather than yes/no questions.

Grammar in context: connect form to meaning and use; brief explicit instruction followed by communicative practice supports accuracy.

Feedback: use rubrics, exemplars, and revision opportunities; self- and peer-assessment build metacognitive control.

Identification and placement: home language survey, screening test, parent notification, and program placement within required timelines.

Reclassification: ELP test score, content assessment, teacher recommendation, and parent input; monitor former ELs for at least two years.

Program models: ESL-only, transitional bilingual, dual-language, and newcomer programs; each has distinct goals and exit criteria.

Legal framework: Lau v. Nichols, Castañeda v. Pickard (three-prong test), Title VI, EEOA, and ESSA ELP testing requirements.

Parent rights: translated communication, informed consent, and interpretation at meetings; parents may decline services where law permits.

Data and equity: track achievement, course access, and special education referral rates; address disproportionality and opportunity gaps.

Professional learning: sustained, job-embedded training in sheltered instruction and assessment improves practice and outcomes.

Theories: behaviorist (habit formation), innatist (universal grammar), cognitive (information processing), and sociocultural (Vygotsky, ZPD) explain different aspects of learning.

ZPD and scaffolding: tasks slightly beyond independent level with support from a more capable peer or teacher promote development.

Comprehensible input: i+1 means input just beyond current level; visuals, gestures, and repetition support understanding.

Output and interaction: negotiation of meaning, recasts, and clarification requests push learners to notice and modify language.

Affective filter: low anxiety, high motivation, and self-confidence increase intake; high anxiety blocks acquisition.

Learning strategies: teach planning, monitoring, and evaluating; strategy use correlates with proficiency gains.

Individual differences: age, aptitude, L1 literacy, and motivation shape rate; instruction should target both accuracy and fluency.

Content-area language demands: math (word problems, comparatives), science (process language, hypotheses), social studies (cause/effect, chronology), and language arts (narrative, argument).

Sheltered instruction: pair content and language objectives; use visuals, demonstrations, and hands-on tasks to make input comprehensible.

Academic vocabulary: prioritize Tier 2 words and cognates; use word walls, semantic maps, and repeated exposure in context.

Text scaffolds: graphic organizers, glossaries, chunked texts, and audio versions reduce linguistic load while preserving content rigor.

Assessment: allow multiple ways to demonstrate learning (oral explanations, diagrams, projects) while still assessing content mastery.

Collaboration: co-planning and co-teaching with content teachers align language and content goals and share accountability.

Equity: maintain grade-level content expectations with scaffolds; avoid tracking ELs into low-level courses that limit future options.

Assessment purposes: placement, diagnostic, formative, and summative; match the tool to the purpose and proficiency level.

ELP tests: WIDA ACCESS and ELPAC measure listening, speaking, reading, and writing; scores inform placement, reclassification, and instruction.

Accommodations: extended time, bilingual glossaries, simplified directions, and separate setting; accommodations must not alter the construct being tested.

Rubrics: analytic traits with clear descriptors and anchor examples; calibrate scorers to ensure reliability.

Bias review: examine items for cultural loading and unnecessary linguistic complexity; ensure fairness across subgroups.

Data use: disaggregate results by proficiency level and monitor growth; use multiple measures for high-stakes decisions like reclassification.

Feedback: timely, specific, and focused on target features; combine with opportunities to revise and reattempt.

Lesson design: write content and language objectives; select scaffolds, interaction structures, and assessment evidence aligned to standards.

Backward design: identify desired results, determine acceptable evidence, then plan learning experiences.

Scaffolding: modeling, think-alouds, sentence frames, word banks, and gradual release; remove supports as proficiency grows.

Cooperative learning: structured roles, positive interdependence, and individual accountability maximize language use.

Differentiation: tier tasks by text complexity, output demands, and time while keeping the same content objective.

Reflection: analyze student work and observation data to adjust instruction; use coaching and peer observation for growth.

Program coherence: align curriculum vertically and horizontally so language expectations build progressively across grades and content areas.

Vocabulary depth: teach multiple meanings, collocations, and word families; rich contexts and repeated exposure build depth beyond definitions.

Reading comprehension: teach before/during/after strategies, text structure, and questioning; build background knowledge to support inference.

Writing: use mentor texts, model the genre, teach sentence combining and cohesive devices, and conference on drafts.

Oral language: structured academic conversations, accountable talk, and sentence starters increase student talk and negotiation of meaning.

Listening: pre-teach vocabulary, use visuals and advance organizers, and check comprehension with tasks rather than yes/no questions.

Grammar in context: connect form to meaning and use; brief explicit instruction followed by communicative practice supports accuracy.

Feedback: use rubrics, exemplars, and revision opportunities; self- and peer-assessment build metacognitive control.

Identification and placement: home language survey, screening test, parent notification, and program placement within required timelines.

Reclassification: ELP test score, content assessment, teacher recommendation, and parent input; monitor former ELs for at least two years.

Program models: ESL-only, transitional bilingual, dual-language, and newcomer programs; each has distinct goals and exit criteria.

Legal framework: Lau v. Nichols, Castañeda v. Pickard (three-prong test), Title VI, EEOA, and ESSA ELP testing requirements.

Parent rights: translated communication, informed consent, and interpretation at meetings; parents may decline services where law permits.

Data and equity: track achievement, course access, and special education referral rates; address disproportionality and opportunity gaps.

Professional learning: sustained, job-embedded training in sheltered instruction and assessment improves practice and outcomes.

Theories: behaviorist (habit formation), innatist (universal grammar), cognitive (information processing), and sociocultural (Vygotsky, ZPD) explain different aspects of learning.

ZPD and scaffolding: tasks slightly beyond independent level with support from a more capable peer or teacher promote development.

Comprehensible input: i+1 means input just beyond current level; visuals, gestures, and repetition support understanding.

Output and interaction: negotiation of meaning, recasts, and clarification requests push learners to notice and modify language.

Affective filter: low anxiety, high motivation, and self-confidence increase intake; high anxiety blocks acquisition.

Learning strategies: teach planning, monitoring, and evaluating; strategy use correlates with proficiency gains.

Individual differences: age, aptitude, L1 literacy, and motivation shape rate; instruction should target both accuracy and fluency.

Content-area language demands: math (word problems, comparatives), science (process language, hypotheses), social studies (cause/effect, chronology), and language arts (narrative, argument).

Sheltered instruction: pair content and language objectives; use visuals, demonstrations, and hands-on tasks to make input comprehensible.

Academic vocabulary: prioritize Tier 2 words and cognates; use word walls, semantic maps, and repeated exposure in context.

Text scaffolds: graphic organizers, glossaries, chunked texts, and audio versions reduce linguistic load while preserving content rigor.

Assessment: allow multiple ways to demonstrate learning (oral explanations, diagrams, projects) while still assessing content mastery.

Collaboration: co-planning and co-teaching with content teachers align language and content goals and share accountability.

Equity: maintain grade-level content expectations with scaffolds; avoid tracking ELs into low-level courses that limit future options.

Assessment purposes: placement, diagnostic, formative, and summative; match the tool to the purpose and proficiency level.

ELP tests: WIDA ACCESS and ELPAC measure listening, speaking, reading, and writing; scores inform placement, reclassification, and instruction.

Accommodations: extended time, bilingual glossaries, simplified directions, and separate setting; accommodations must not alter the construct being tested.

Rubrics: analytic traits with clear descriptors and anchor examples; calibrate scorers to ensure reliability.

Bias review: examine items for cultural loading and unnecessary linguistic complexity; ensure fairness across subgroups.

Data use: disaggregate results by proficiency level and monitor growth; use multiple measures for high-stakes decisions like reclassification.

Feedback: timely, specific, and focused on target features; combine with opportunities to revise and reattempt.

Lesson design: write content and language objectives; select scaffolds, interaction structures, and assessment evidence aligned to standards.

Backward design: identify desired results, determine acceptable evidence, then plan learning experiences.

Scaffolding: modeling, think-alouds, sentence frames, word banks, and gradual release; remove supports as proficiency grows.

Cooperative learning: structured roles, positive interdependence, and individual accountability maximize language use.

Differentiation: tier tasks by text complexity, output demands, and time while keeping the same content objective.

Reflection: analyze student work and observation data to adjust instruction; use coaching and peer observation for growth.

Program coherence: align curriculum vertically and horizontally so language expectations build progressively across grades and content areas.

Vocabulary depth: teach multiple meanings, collocations, and word families; rich contexts and repeated exposure build depth beyond definitions.

Reading comprehension: teach before/during/after strategies, text structure, and questioning; build background knowledge to support inference.

Writing: use mentor texts, model the genre, teach sentence combining and cohesive devices, and conference on drafts.

Oral language: structured academic conversations, accountable talk, and sentence starters increase student talk and negotiation of meaning.

Listening: pre-teach vocabulary, use visuals and advance organizers, and check comprehension with tasks rather than yes/no questions.

Grammar in context: connect form to meaning and use; brief explicit instruction followed by communicative practice supports accuracy.

Feedback: use rubrics, exemplars, and revision opportunities; self- and peer-assessment build metacognitive control.