MTTC English as a Second Language (126) common mistakes
MTTC English as a Second Language (126) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the English-language-learner construct as a single profile, so questions about a newcomer with strong L1 literacy and a long-term EL with fluent oral skills but weak academic writing get answered with the same generic strategy.
Candidates prepare from general 'ELL strategies' lists and never build a mental model of how proficiency level, prior schooling, L1 literacy, and age interact, so the distinct needs of SLIFE, LTELs, and literate newcomers collapse into one category.
What to do instead
Before answering any scenario item, write down two or three facts about the learner (L1 literacy level, years of US schooling, oral vs. academic English gap) and predict which instructional response those facts point to. Build a comparison chart for the four main profiles (newcomer with strong L1 literacy, SLIFE, LTEL, recently arrived with interrupted but present schooling) listing typical strengths, typical gaps, and the instructional emphasis each requires.
Choosing an answer that sounds supportive or culturally responsive but does not actually advance language or content learning, such as 'let the student work with a bilingual buddy and be graded only on effort.'
Distractor options are written to feel humane and inclusive, and candidates under time pressure select on tone rather than on whether the option produces evidence of language development or access to grade-level content.
What to do instead
Apply a two-part filter to every option: does it maintain grade-level content expectations, and does it include explicit language support or a mechanism for the student to produce English? Eliminate options that lower the cognitive demand, exempt the student from content, or provide support with no accountability for language output.
Confusing BICS and CALP when judging a student's readiness, for example concluding that a student who converses fluently at lunch needs no language support, or that a quiet student with weak conversation cannot handle academic content.
Conversational fluency is highly salient and easy to observe, while academic language proficiency is invisible in casual interaction, so candidates over-rely on the surface impression the scenario describes.
What to do instead
Memorize the distinction operationally: BICS is context-embedded and cognitively undemanding; CALP is context-reduced and cognitively demanding. On any item, ask what the task demands (essay, textbook chapter, lab report, debate) rather than how the student sounds socially, and treat several years of continued academic-language support as the norm even for orally fluent students.
Mixing up the major second-language acquisition hypotheses and applying the wrong one, such as answering a question about error correction with the affective filter or a question about silent periods with comprehensible output.
The theories share vocabulary (input, output, filter, acquisition vs. learning) and candidates study them as a memorized list of names rather than as competing claims that predict different classroom decisions.
What to do instead
For each major framework, record three things: the core claim in one sentence, one classroom practice it directly justifies, and one practice it would argue against. Then, for practice items, identify the decision being made (when to correct, how much to shelter language, when to push production) and match the framework whose claim addresses that decision.
Treating an error as a transfer problem when it is actually a developmental overgeneralization, or vice versa, and then prescribing the wrong intervention.
Candidates see an L1-influenced accent or word order and assume all errors trace to the first language, missing that many errors (regularized past tense, overapplied plurals) are normal stages of interlanguage development that respond to different treatment.
What to do instead
Classify the error first: does it mirror a pattern from the student's L1, or does it follow a rule the student has overextended within English, or is it a random performance slip? Match the response accordingly - contrastive explanation and targeted practice for transfer, meaningful exposure and recasts for developmental errors, and no heavy correction for slips that the student self-corrects.
Selecting a sheltered-instruction or scaffolding option that only simplifies the text or slows the speech, rather than one that supplies comprehensible input while keeping the content intact.
Candidates equate 'making it comprehensible' with 'making it easier,' so they pick options that water down the material instead of adding visuals, gestures, graphic organizers, and contextual support around grade-level content.
What to do instead
Distinguish modification of the language of delivery from reduction of the content objective. When evaluating an option, ask whether the content standard is unchanged and whether the support is sensory, structural, or interactive (visuals, sentence frames, previewed vocabulary, cooperative tasks). Reject options that replace the academic task with a lower-level one.
Answering assessment items by judging whether a test 'seems fair' instead of identifying the specific validity or reliability threat, such as a math word problem that measures reading proficiency rather than math.
Candidates lack fluency with assessment terminology and reason from intuition about fairness, so they cannot name construct-irrelevant variance, bias, or lack of reliability when the item requires it.
What to do instead
Learn to name the threat precisely: construct underrepresentation, construct-irrelevant difficulty, cultural bias in item context, rater inconsistency, or lack of alignment between the test and the standard taught. For each scenario, state which construct the test claims to measure and then check whether the task's demands are limited to that construct.
Confusing the purpose and appropriate use of language proficiency screening and placement instruments with accountability or summative content assessments, for example using an annual English proficiency test to decide day-to-day instructional grouping.
Candidates memorize test names without attaching each to its decision purpose, so they cannot distinguish initial identification, placement, progress monitoring, reclassification, and content mastery.
What to do instead
Build a table mapping each major instrument type to the decision it supports and the person who uses the result (teacher for formative grouping, program for placement, state for accountability, team for exit decisions). When an item asks which measure to use, identify the decision first, then choose the instrument designed for that decision.
Overlooking the legal and programmatic requirements in scenarios, such as whether a parent must be notified, whether services can be delayed pending assessment, or whether an EL with a suspected disability can be evaluated.
Candidates treat these as classroom-pedagogy questions and pick the instructionally kindest answer, missing that federal requirements (identification timelines, parental notification and consent, nondiscrimination, appropriate evaluation) constrain the correct response.
What to do instead
Review the core obligations: timely identification and placement, parent notification of program placement and the right to decline, annual English proficiency assessment, provision of language services and access to grade-level content, and evaluation for special education in the student's language when needed. In scenario items, check whether the option satisfies the procedural obligation before judging its instructional merit.
Reading a scenario about culture or family engagement and choosing an option that asks the family to change to fit the school, rather than one that builds on the family's language and cultural resources.
School-default assumptions feel neutral and efficient to candidates, so options like 'send a note in English and require a reply' or 'ask parents to speak English at home' look reasonable even though they ignore the linguistic and cultural assets the field emphasizes.
What to do instead
Apply an asset-orientation test to each option: does it use the family's language, knowledge, or community networks as a resource, and does it provide communication in a language the family understands? Eliminate options that pathologize the home language or place the burden of adaptation solely on the family.