Donna Tangen a & Rebecca Spooner-Lane a a Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Published online: 10 Nov 2008.

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology] On: 04 May 2015, At: 14:34 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Avoiding the deficit model of teaching: Students who have EAL/EAL and learning difficulties Donna Tangen a & Rebecca Spooner-Lane a a Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia Published online: 10 Nov To cite this article: Donna Tangen & Rebecca Spooner-Lane (2008) Avoiding the deficit model of teaching: Students who have EAL/EAL and learning difficulties, Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 13:2, To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

2 Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties Vol. 13, No. 2, November 2008, Avoiding the deficit model of teaching: Students who have EAL/EAL and learning difficulties Donna Tangen* and Rebecca Spooner-Lane Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia Without a carefully designed plan for the provision of students with English as an additional language (EAL), educators may feel overwhelmed by the complexities of teaching such students. Educators may attribute poorer academic outcomes of some students with EAL to learning difficulties without first considering how they might adapt their teaching to better support these students needs. This paper provides insight into the challenges teachers confront in differentiating between the educational needs of students who have EAL and potentially those students who have EAL and also a learning difficulty. A range of strategies are proposed that may assist educators in establishing an environment in which students who have EAL are given opportunities for achieving successful academic outcomes. Students who have EAL in the educational context There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that some students who have English as an additional language (EAL) are being misidentified by teachers as having learning difficulties when, in fact, some of these students may not have a learning difficulty at all (Artiles & Klingner, 2006; Brown, 2004; Gersten & Baker, 2003). Since students who have EAL may present similar behaviours to those students who have a learning difficulty, such as inattention in class, difficulty keeping up with their peers and incomplete work, teachers may attribute a student s behaviour to a learning difficulty rather than to the student s limited English language proficiency. It is important, then, that teachers are able to identify behaviours that are associated with second language acquisition for students in order to understand where the differences may lie. There is no simple term to describe students who have EAL. Learners who fall into this category have been variously described as language minority (LM) students (Byrnes, Kiger, & Manning, 1997), limited-english-proficient (LEP) students (Lee, 1996), English language learners (ELL) (Cummins, 1997) and the more widely used students with English as a second language (ESL) (Education Queensland, 2006). More appropriately, English is an additional language to these students home language; one they must learn as part of their everyday discourse and in order to participate as members of their schooling environment thus, EAL. Students who have EAL come from a variety of backgrounds, languages and cultures so there is no single identifier of this group other than the fact that they are learning English as an additional language to progress through their education in *Corresponding author. d.tangen@qut.edu.au ISSN print/issn online Ó 2008 Learning Difficulties Australia DOI: /

3 64 D. Tangen and R. Spooner-Lane school. Learning English for these students involves learning a new culture and inherent idiosyncrasies of that culture that are different to their first language and culture (Araujo, 2007; Meyer, 2000). It is important, then, that educators are able to identify the differences between the process of learning a new language/culture and having a learning difficulty in order to offer students the most effective support for learning. Connor and Boskin (2001) found that teachers who lacked understanding of the process of learning a new language were most likely to be in danger of identifying students as having a learning difficulty rather than recognising that these students may be having difficulty in learning. Additional to learning a new language and adjusting to a new culture, students who have EAL are expected to learn the same academic content as their peers. However, learning academic English is different to learning the everyday, conversational English in which students engage with peers in the schoolyard (Cummins, 1980, 1991). Cummins suggested that it may take up to seven years for students to become proficient in academic English. Students who speak English fairly fluently may appear to be competent in the language to such an extent that they are expected by teachers to complete school work at the same level of English proficiency as their peers when, in fact, they do not have the language to do so. The struggle to keep up with peers may be interpreted as the student having a learning difficulty and so inappropriate or inadequate learning support may be given, potentially exacerbating the problem and resulting in a lose-lose learning situation for all. This paper explores the complexities of teaching students who have EAL in relation to examining factors that assist in determining whether or not a student who has EAL also has a learning difficulty or if the problem is that the student has a difficulty with learning because of a lack of English language/culture proficiency. The characteristic attributes of EAL students are addressed before outlining a range of effective teaching strategies to assist teachers in supporting students who have EAL achieve successful academic outcomes. Teacher attitudes towards students with EAL who have difficulty learning Garcia and Ortiz (1988) suggested that one reason why students who have EAL may experience difficulties learning is because they are often taught solely in English. Teachers who expect that these students should be keeping up with their peers may become frustrated teaching students who are EAL because they are not maintaining a similar learning pace (Byrnes et al., 1997). Teachers need to take into account that students who have EAL must learn new concepts in a new language within a new cultural reference. Teachers, therefore, must make accommodations in their teaching. Without adequate groundwork in developing learning activities to support their learning, students who have EAL may be missing out on important English language instruction due to limited teacher preparation and/or limited resources (Iredale, 1998). Lo Bianco and Freebody (1997) described this deficit mode of teaching as a sink or swim approach. Students who have EAL are placed in an English speaking classroom and are expected to learn in English while still learning the English language. While some students adapt and quickly learn the classroom protocol (swim), others struggle until the point of giving up (sink). Some teachers embrace the opportunity to work with students who have EAL, others may feel a cultural distance between themselves and their students (Gersten, 1999). Teachers who feel such a gulf may retreat into safe teaching practices that involve little risk-taking for themselves and their students and that may mask what Wheatley (2002) describes as teacher doubt. Teacher doubt may occur when a teacher feels that they are

4 Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 65 unable to differentiate between a learning difficulty and a difficulty in learning due to limited English language proficiency. Such teacher doubt may be debilitating, preventing the teacher from looking beyond the fact that the student is having trouble learning. On the other hand, doubt can be positive in that it can lead teachers to be uncertain about the cause of the child s learning difficulty. This uncertainty spurs them on to adjust their thinking to come up with ideas on how to understand the student s difficulty and so adjust the learning/teaching relationship. In reality, however, it is difficult to reliably ascertain whether students with EAL also have a learning difficulty without taking into consideration a range of factors. To test or not to test for learning difficulties? Educators have been reluctant to diagnose learners who have EAL for learning difficulties (Geva, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Schuster, 2000; Rhine, 1995). Testing individual students can be expensive and time consuming (Fielding-Barnsley & Murray, 2002) and the cultural bias of traditional IQ tests has long been recognised (Gardner, 1983, 1999; Gunderson & Siegel, 2001). Researchers have found that standardised testing for learning difficulties alone is inadequate and inappropriate to use with students who have EAL (Brown, 2004; Gunderson & Siegel, 2001; Limbos & Geva, 2001). As successful completion of such tests requires sufficient English language proficiency, it stands to reason that students who lack such proficiency will score poorly. In spite of the difficulties involved with testing, Vaughn, Bos and Schumm (2006) reported that there continues to be a disproportionately higher classification of learning difficulties/disabilities and emotional/behavioural problems for students who have EAL than for those of the majority population group. In the area of reading difficulties, Limbos and Geva (2001) found that when teachers did refer students as potentially at-risk, their predictions were highly accurate. However, they found that there was also a probability that teachers were reluctant to refer students for learning support for a variety of reasons, which included teachers perceptions that because students were receiving support for English language development that support would also include identification of reading difficulties. Alternatively teachers may be waiting for students to gain in maturity before being formally tested and/or teachers are not confident that they are able to determine if a student who is EAL has a reading difficulty or whether that student is struggling due to a lack of English language proficiency. Klingner and Harry (2006) suggest that reliance on test scores may have teachers lowering expectations of student achievement in everyday classroom learning and/or have students tracked into lowability groupings, which results in limiting their learning opportunities. Traditional tests measure what students already know and if they do not already know English such testing forms part of a systematic discrimination against them. Testing procedures are not without their problems. Anthony et al. (2006) found that early studies involving testing of phonological awareness, phonological memory and phonological access to lexical storage were too demanding on students memory load to be accurate. In their study they reduced the memory load and found that phonological awareness was distinguishable for general cognitive abilities and suggested that phonological awareness may play a significant role in literacy development. Australian schooling is language- and literacy-rich so it is important that educators understand connections between literacy development when learning in a second language so as to not incorrectly identify the student s problems in learning. Having difficulties with learning can also be influenced by extrinsic factors such as cultural differences, insufficient or inappropriate prior education, level of parents

5 66 D. Tangen and R. Spooner-Lane education, the literacy environment at home and at school, the student s level of first language proficiency and the student s group identification (Kagitcibasi, 1996). The literature suggests that many students in minority groups are also living in poverty and that these students are more likely to be over-identified as having behavioural problems while student in the majority culture are more likely to be identified as having learning difficulties (Boscardin, Brown-Chidsey, & Gonzalez-Martinez, 2003). This misdiagnosis of students leads to inappropriate placements and inappropriate educational plans. On the other hand, students with special learning needs may be under-identified due to fears of charges of discrimination for misidentification as well as the level of understanding by teachers that the assessment procedures proscribed may not be valid for students who have EAL or that test results are not passed on to teachers in a timely manner (Limbos & Geva, 2001). Other factors that can contribute to a misidentification of students include: teachers willingness or unwillingness to accommodate students difficulties with learning in a second language; students own self-handicapping behaviours (such as excessive absences from school) (Fielding-Barnsley & Murray, 2002; Garcia & Ortiz, 1988); and the teacher s sensitivity (or insensitivity) to the child s family dynamics and how these factors may affect learning (Huss-Keeler, 1997). Identifying learning problems for students who are EAL, then, is multi-layered and therefore, complex. Teachers must first understand the fundamental characteristics of learning for these students in order to determine whether the learning difficulties in the class are due to the process of second language development, to an actual learning difficulty or due to a combination of the two. It is important, then, that teachers learn as much as possible about students cultural and linguistic backgrounds and their history of schooling and than seek consultation with a Special Education Consultant before a determination as to whether or not a learning difficulty exists. Characteristic attributes of students having difficulty learning While there are a range of students included in the group of EAL (students who are refugees, students who have migrated to Australia with their families, students who are born in Australia but do not learn English until they go to school), there are some overarching features that teachers may encounter in relation as to why members of this group may experience difficulties in learning although it must be stated that not all these characteristics can be associated with all students who have EAL. For example, Fielding- Barnsley (2007) suggested that the student may have attended many schools upon arrival in Australia and so may have missed vital aspects of learning. It happens that students who are refugees do shift from one place to another upon arrival while undergoing government processing. Children who are being continually uprooted from all that is familiar must make constant adjustments in new situations and may develop a sense of mistrust as they come to believe that nothing in life is permanent (Campey, 2002; Kirova- Petrova, 2000). Moving from one environment to another creates gaps in schooling that may be difficult to overcome; the challenge of constant change has a negative impact on students ability to learn effectively. Students who have EAL very often experience an initial quiet period (Igoa, 1995) as they come to grips with their new situation. There is no set time frame for these quiet periods but it has been observed that the younger the child, the longer the quiet period lasts. During this time, students may exhibit resistance to learning and being included in class activities. Teachers may interpret this reticence to engage in classroom activities as students being uncooperative and misbehaving. It is important for teachers to remember that students who have EAL experience incongruity in their home customs and practices

6 Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 67 while trying to adjust to their new culture (Sing Ghuman, 1994) and are often bewildered by their new circumstances. Teachers who are unaware of students underlying difficulties for learning may become focused on the product of students work (correct spelling, grammar, reading pronunciation) rather than the process of learning (Nunan, 1999). Pransky and Bailey (2002) argued that the teaching and learning practices of teachers greatly improves when teachers critically analyse their own culturally-laden values and beliefs, the social and cultural values of their students and the school s values about education and use these insights to establish culturally sensitive classrooms. For instance, Pransky and Bailey analysed specific dialogue that occurred with students who have EAL and discovered that these students connected listening with good behaviour rather than associating listening with learning. Such cultural differences can be misinterpreted. In some cultures, children are taught by observing what their elders do without engaging in verbal input/confirmation through questions and answers. Children are then expected to imitate the task until they have acquired the skill demonstrated (Kagitcibasi, 1996). This approach to teaching is in contrast to that utilised in most Australian classrooms. In Australian schools, children are taught, and are expected to use, language in all its forms to demonstrate learning. Children who have been taught to quietly watch how to perform a task before they attempt it themselves can become overwhelmed by the amount of verbal and written content and/or instructions that they are given in a school day. Their unfamiliarity with school language and classroom procedures may play a part in causing their shyness to more fully participate in class activities. Furthermore, teachers who force children to participate before they are ready may cause more harm than good. It is therefore essential for teachers to embrace the practices of inclusion: that is, providing appropriate instruction for all students in the class. Such practices include developing strong communication ties with support personnel, accepting responsibility for including all students, partnering with parents, knowing when and who to ask for help and getting the most effective resources to do the job. Possible misconceptions and misunderstandings arise when teachers assume that students already know and understand the unspoken rules of learning. Teachers need to be cognisant of the cultural views they hold that are implicit in their teaching and work with students to ensure that inherent understandings are made explicit. Enhancing learning opportunities for students who have EAL As has been suggested earlier in this paper, students who have EAL may be susceptible to attaining poor academic learning outcomes because the social and cultural fabric of their classroom learning interactions are foreign, uncomfortable or confusing for them (Pransky & Bailey, 2002, p. 382). Rather than focusing on students deficits (e.g. school absence, perceived parental indifference to education, lack of motivation, perceived lack of intelligence) teachers must examine the cultural assumptions underpinning their classroom lessons and interactions to determine how to bridge the gap between EAL students home and school culture. Without appropriate scaffolding, EAL students find it difficult to participate in classroom activities which often involve complex uses of language and draw upon an array of cultural assumptions (Bloome & Bailey, 1992; Cazden, 1988; Michaels, 1981). Teachers may set academic tasks with little understanding of how the knowledge and experiences of EAL students differ from students of the mainstream culture. For example, a teacher may set a task asking students to conduct research in order to create their ideal theme-park. Most children living in urban Australia would understand what they were being asked to do. However, a child who arrives in Australia as a refugee from

7 68 D. Tangen and R. Spooner-Lane the Sudan or Burma is likely to have little conceptual understanding of what a theme park is and so is unlikely to understand how to proceed with the task. Students who have EAL need assistance to see how their personal experiences may be transferable to academic contexts and teachers must take the time to understand how they can enrich the life experiences of their students. In a recent study, Tangen and Fielding- Barnsley (2006) evaluated learning in the context of a school garden for a Grade 2 class in which half the class were students who had EAL (refugees from the Sudan). The researchers found that the students displayed richer language use in the context of the garden (in correctly identifying plants and processes of gardening) than they displayed in the classroom. The outdoor environment provided real world learning for appropriate language development. Students who have EAL have individual learning styles and so teachers need to consider using a range of teaching strategies to support student learning preferences. Working with students who have EAL requires flexibility in instructional formats and processes. Solomon, Lalas and Franklin (2006) propose a range of adaptation strategies that may be used for EAL students who are struggling to keep up with the demands of mainstream schooling. These strategies include pairing students who have EAL with another student with bilingual proficiency or offering one-on-one tutoring with a bilingual aide (for example, someone from the community who speaks the same language). A bilingual tutor can play an important role in reducing cognitive demands facing students by providing them with relevant interpersonal and contextual clues for learning. Visual aids such as pictures, charts, graphs and semantic mapping help students negotiate meaning and make connections between lesson content and their prior knowledge. Modelled instruction helps students visualise how learning tasks may be accomplished. Adaptations in curriculum delivery include making learning goals specific, using translated materials, using alternative assessments to check comprehension by focusing on content and meaning instead of grammar and spelling in written work. Solomon et al. (2006) suggest that whilst these adaptation strategies will help enhance student engagement and opportunities for academic success, to date there is no conclusive evidence to suggest how successful these adaptations are in assisting EAL students master academic content. However, Twyman, Ketterlin-Geller, McCoy and Trindal (2003) found that concept-based learning, where curriculum and instructions were intentionally aligned with assessment, encouraged students to take responsibility for their own learning and produced excellent learning results. Rather than being given work from a textbook or worksheets, students were encouraged to explore their own topics and gather their own information. Twyman et al. suggest that allowing students who have EAL to work at their own pace eliminates the stress that can be caused by having to learn the same content as the rest of the class, in the same way, at the same time. It is generally believed that in order for students to achieve targeted language and content learning, teachers must demonstrate high expectations for students who have EAL and develop a strong understanding of language learning and pedagogy. One advantage of inquiring into the learning process from a cultural perspective is that it does not necessarily add quantitatively to teachers workloads but, instead, qualitatively transforms what teachers already do (Pransky & Bailey, 2002). Reflecting on culturally informed beliefs, values and assumptions will ultimately make teaching easier as strategies are put in place to engage students who may have been previously excluded so that they become active participants in their own learning. Furthermore, the strategies used to enhance students learning will also benefit native English speaking students as the process of teaching is made clearer and more comprehensible (Brown & Ford, 2007).

8 Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 69 Conclusion This paper has highlighted the need for teachers to remain focused on providing appropriate support and resources to help students with EAL become better learners in an academic context. Such support is pivotal in identifying whether a student who has EAL also has a learning difficulty and is in need of additional specific support for learning. While acknowledging that there are some inherent difficulties in learning for these students, teachers play a crucial role in helping them to feel included and to experience success in the classroom and school environment. It is important that teachers take the time to learn about students backgrounds, including their education and cultural background in relation to any perceived learning problems before consulting with professionals to ascertain whether a student has a learning difficulty. This can be achieved in multiple ways such as talking with students, their parents and/or consulting with community members as well as finding further information in books and online. Students who have EAL need to feel that they are respected and valued in the classroom. Teachers must examine their classroom practices and adapt instructional materials to ensure that students cultural backgrounds are acknowledged. Learning resources should be designed to prompt students to call upon their prior knowledge and experiences so they are able to make connections with newly acquired information as they work towards achievable learning goals. Appropriate levels of scaffolding and mentoring from teachers, peers and teacher aides may assist students who have EAL to build their learning capabilities. Finally, creating a supportive classroom environment where teachers develop strong relationships with students whilst maintaining high expectations for student success are important steps in supporting students who have EAL and/or student who have EAL and a learning difficulty in the classroom. References Anthony, J.L., Williams, J.M., McDonald, R., Corbitt-Shindler, D., Carlson, C.D., & Francis, D.J. (2006). Phonological processing and emergent literacy in Spanish-speaking preschool children. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, Araujo, M. (2007). Modernising the comprehensive principle : Selection, setting and the institutionalisation of educational failure. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28, Artiles, A.J., & Klingner, J.K. (2006). Forging a knowledge base on English language learners with special needs: Theoretical, population, and technical issues. Teachers College Record, 108, Bloome, D., & Bailey, F. (1992). Studying language and literacy through events, particularity, intertextuality. In R. Beach, J.L. Green & M.L. Kamil (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research (pp. 5 22). New York: Knopf. Boscardin, M.L., Brown-Chidsey, R., & Gonzalez-Martinez, J.C. (2003). Counseling approaches to working with students with disabilities from diverse backgrounds. In P.B. Pedersen & J.C. Carey (Eds.), Multicultural counselling in schools. A practical handbook (pp ). Boston: Pearson Education. Brown, C.L. (2004). Reducing the over-referral of culturally and linguistically diverse students (CLD) for language disabilities. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2, Brown, D.S., & Ford, K. (2007). Communication strategies for all classrooms: Focusing on English language learners and students with learning disabilities. LD OnLine. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from Byrnes, D.A., Kiger, G., & Manning, M.L. (1997). Teachers attitudes about language diversity. Teacher and Teacher Education, 12, Campey, J. (2002). Immigrant children in our classrooms: Beyond ESL. Education Canada, 42. Retrieved February, 15, 2005 from ProQuest Educational Journals, ezp02.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index¼0&did¼ &srchmode¼2&sid¼3&fmt¼3&vinst¼ PROD&VType¼PQD&ROT¼309&VName¼PQD&TS¼ &clientID¼14394.

9 70 D. Tangen and R. Spooner-Lane Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Connor, M.H., & Boskin, J. (2001). Overrepresentation of bilingual and poor children in special education classes: A continuing problem. Journal of Children and Poverty, 7, Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, Cummins, J. (1991). The acquisition of English as a second language. In K. Sprangenberg Urbschat & R. Pritchard (Eds.), Kids come in all languages: Reading instruction for ESL students (pp ). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Cummins, J. (1997). Cultural and linguistic diversity in education. A mainstream issue? Educational Review, 49, Education Queensland (2006). Equity programs English as a second language (ESL). Retrieved November 13, 2006 from students/inclusi. Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2007). Literacy and learning difficulties: Successful outcomes for all students. In M. Keeffe & S. Carrington (Eds.), Schools and diversity (pp ). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Murray, S. (2002). ESL þ specific reading disability: Diagnosis and intervention. Special Education Perspectives, 11(3), Garcia, S.B., & Ortiz, A.A. (1988). Preventing inappropriate referrals of language minority students to special education. Retrieved December 6, 2006, from focus/05referral.htm. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. NY: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: MIs for the twenty-first century. New York: Basic Books. Gersten, R. (1999). Lost opportunities: Challenges confronting four teachers of English-language learners. Elementary School Journal, 100, Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2003). English-language learners with learning difficulties. In H.L. Swanson, K.R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp ). New York: New Guilford Press. Geva, E., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Schuster, B. (2000). Understanding individual differences in word recognition skills and ESL children. Annals of Dyslexia, 50, Gunderson, L., & Siegel, L.S. (2001). The evils of the use of IQ tests to define learning disabilities in first-and second-language learners. Reading Teacher, 55, Huss-Keeler, R.L. (1997). Teacher perceptions of ethnic and linguistic minority parental involvement and its relationships to children s language and literacy learning: A case study. Teaching & Teacher Education, 13, Igoa, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Iredale, R. (1998). The impact of immigration on school education in New South Wales, Australia. International Migration Review, 31, Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures. A view from the other side. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Klingner, J.K., & Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and decision making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and placement conferences. Teachers College Record, 108, Kirova-Petrova, A. (2000). Researching young children s lived experiences of loneliness: Pedagogical implications for linguistically diverse students. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 46, Lee, P. (1996). Cognitive development in bilingual children: A case for bilingual instruction in early childhood education. Bilingual Research Journal, 20, Limbos, M.M., & Geva, E. (2001). Accuracy of teacher assessments of second- language students at risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, Lo Bianco, J., & Freebody, P. (1997). Australian literacies. Informing national policy on literacy education. Melbourne: Language Australia. Meyer, L.M. (2000). Barriers to meaningful instruction for English learners. Theory into Practice, 39, Michaels, S. (1981). Sharing time : Children s narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10, Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Pransky, K., & Bailey, F. (2002). To meet your students where they are, first you have to find them: Working with culturally and linguistically diverse at-risk students. Reading Teacher, 56(4),

10 Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 71 Rhine, S. (1995). The challenge of effectively preparing teachers of limited-english-proficient students. Journal of Teacher Education, 46, Sing Ghuman, P.A. (1994). Coping with two cultures. British Asian and Indo-Canadian adolescents. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Solomon, M., Lalas, J., & Franklin, C. (2006). Making instructional adaptations for English learners in the mainstream classroom: Is it good enough? Multicultural Education, 13(3), Tangen, D., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2006). Environmental education in a culturally diverse school. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 23, Twyman, T., Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., McCoy, J.D., & Trindal, G. (2003). Effects of concept-based instruction on an English language learner in a rural school: A descriptive case study. Retrieved May 9, 2008, from Vaughn, S., Bos, C.S., & Schumm, J.S. (2006). Teaching exceptional, diverse and at risk students in the general education classroom (3rd ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education. Wheatley, K.F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 5 22.