




































 Roessingh 22 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

Theoretical Analysis, Classroom Practice, Opinion Essays 

 

Unmasking the Early Language and Literacy Needs of ELLs:  

What K–3 Practitioners Need to Know and Do 

 

Hetty Roessingh 

University of Calgary 

 

Abstract 

 

The key underlying developmental concepts and skills requisite for early literacy learning appear 

to be easily achieved among most young English language learners (ELLs). These strengths, 

however, may merely mask the need for enhanced vocabulary development, the key variable in 

successful transitioning from early to academic literacy development in Grades 3–4 and in the 

longitudinal academic outcomes to Grade 12 that is over-looked by many elementary 

practitioners. Using illustrative samples of vocabulary profiles generated from children’s early 

written literacy development, this article highlights the need for elementary practitioners to 

continue to place a strong instructional focus on developing academic vocabulary, starting in the 

early grades and sustaining this focus through elementary school. At the same time, young 

learners need to continue to work on printing and spelling: the keys to unlocking vocabulary 

knowledge. Ideas for high impact teaching strategies are included.  

 

Introduction 

 

Large urban school boards in British Columbia report a rapidly shifting demographic landscape 

comprised of students who do not speak English as their first language (Skelton, 2014). The 

Vancouver School Board (2017), for example, records 60% of its enrolment as English language 

learners (ELLs). These increases reflect Canada’s immigration patterns and policies in recruiting 

and selecting its human resource needs for the future. British Columbia currently records 

Mandarin, Cantonese, and Chinese (not otherwise specified) as among the top languages spoken 

at home (Statistics Canada, 2017). Many of these young students are the Canadian born children 

of immigrants who arrive in kindergarten with little developed English language proficiency. 

These demographic data have profound implications for early language and literacy teaching and 

learning among young ELLs.  

 

 Lesaux and Siegel (2003) report that early literacy achievement is within ready reach of 

most young ELLs by the end of grade 2. Roessingh and Elgie’s study (2009) in Alberta 

corroborates these findings, noting that phonemic awareness, phonics understandings, and word 

recognition—all associated with early decoding skills that underpin the ability to make meaning 

from text—are areas of distinct strength for ELLs. Early written literacy, which depends heavily 

on control over the fine motor skills requisite for gripping and pushing a pencil, likewise 

represent areas of strength for young ELLs. Further, young ELLs can acquire basic interpersonal 

communication skills (BICS) (Cummins, 1981) through immersion in the classroom, interaction 

with their native English speaking (NS) peers through play, and from various TV programs 

geared to young children. These strengths, however, may mask the vocabulary learning needs of 

young ELLs in the early schooling years. A robust vocabulary knowledge is the decisive factor 



 Roessingh 23 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

in successful transitioning from early to academic literacy in the grade 3–4 years (Biemiller, 

2003; Chall & Jacobs, 2003; Senechal, Ouellette, & Rodney, 2006), and in longitudinal academic 

success through the educational trajectory to Grade 12 (Pavlov, 2015; Roessingh & Douglas, 

2012).  

 

 The goal of this article is to highlight the strengths and areas of instructional need in 

young ELLs’ language and literacy learning that will position them to make the transition from 

learning to read to reading to learn; and from learning to write/print to writing to learn associated 

with academic literacy. Illustrative samples of ELLs’ writing are provided to shed light on this 

pivotal point in children’s literacy development, and further, to provide ideas for the high impact 

teaching strategies that will address the language learning needs of these young students that are 

currently too easily overlooked. Failure of our educational systems to look beyond the surface 

features of literacy and the apparent focused, determined work habits and skill development of 

young learners of Asian-Canadian background perpetuates the myth of the model minority 

(Costigan, Hua, & Su, 2010; Kobsa, 2014; Yoo, 2010), only exacerbating, over time, their core 

instructional needs related to academic literacy learning.  

 

Early Literacy and the Strengths of ELLs 

 

Early literacy involves the ability to decode print associated with reading, and to represent 

thoughts and ideas via written mode associated with printing and spelling. Both processes draw 

on analogous underlying concepts and skills: phonemic awareness, phonics, and word 

recognition. Written literacy makes additional demands on young learners: they must develop 

sufficient neuro-motor control required for printing, and they must master the basic patterns and 

conventions for spelling. There is consensus in the research literature that children can 

demonstrate control over printing and produce a text on a familiar topic of approximately 115 

words, with spelling accuracy of 85% correct by the end of Grade 2 (Medwell, Strand, & Wray, 

2006; Olinghouse & Leaird, 2009; Olinghouse & Wilson, 2013; Roessingh, 2013; Roessingh & 

Elgie, 2015). Topics that lend themselves to marshalling the multiple and maximal demands of 

early written literacy involve expository discourse (Roessingh, 2012) and include describing 

objects in space (e.g. a playground, a zoo, the ideal school). Written production is enhanced 

when young writers are afforded the time and opportunity to draw, sketch and colour prior to 

writing and given sufficient time: 45–60 minutes. This process approach to the task lessens the 

cognitive load and provides a concrete touchstone for the task of putting pencil to paper.  

 

 Early literacy can be achieved with a limited vocabulary of the 220 high frequency words 

identified in the Dolch (1948) list that represent 75% coverage of children’s text used to teach 

early literacy (reading) skills. These 220 words must be encountered hundreds of times for 

youngsters to notice, understand, segment, and manipulate the sounds to form words, and then to 

make the systematic connection between phonemes in spoken words and the letters used to 

represent them in print. With the addition of perhaps another 750 high interest words needed to 

express their ideas and thoughts in written form (e.g. pterodactyl), the vast majority of children 

can achieve the expected early literacy benchmarks by the end of Grade 2 with a literate lexical 

repertoire of perhaps 1,000 word families. Roessingh and Elgie (2015) recognize this pivotal 

threshold in the vocabulary profiles of Grade 2 children’s writing samples. Access to low 

frequency, sophisticated vocabulary can be noted as early as Grade 2, however, and practitioners 



 Roessingh 24 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

need to be alert to the signs of young learners who need instructional support in developing their 

vocabulary knowledge.  

 

 Children raised in a bilingual context are thought to have heightened sensitivity to 

phonemic features of language because of their exposure to different sounds. Within a relatively 

short period of time, they can acquire native-like pronunciation and fluency in English with a 

basic vocabulary (Krashen, Long, & Scarcella,1979). The ability to discriminate sounds and to 

segment words, phonemic skills, are key to decoding print. The ability to map sounds to their 

alphabetic representations, phonics, follows readily. Canadian studies (Chiappe & Siegel, 1999; 

Roessingh & Elgie, 2009) indicate ELLs have closed this early literacy gap by the end of Grade 

2, often out-performing their NS peers on these predictive measures of early literacy learning 

(Lesaux & Siegel, 2003).  

 

 Children of Chinese cultural background may also have an advantage in the development 

of fine motor skills that are key to early literacy learning (Tsang & Hung, 2006). A strong pincer 

grip and the power and precision to push a pencil are foundational to producing legible print. 

Using chopsticks as eating utensils is common among these youngsters, beginning at an early 

age—as early as age 3 or 4. Control and mastery in the use of chopsticks is an important feature 

of social life and a sign of respect and good manners. The use of chopsticks develops physical 

literacy or proprioception (Dinehart & Manfra, 2013): the awareness of the body in space, and 

the use of tools as an extension to the hands to perform everyday tasks.  

 

 In addition, many young ELLs attend weekend heritage language programs. In the case 

of Chinese Canadian youngsters, this might include the expectation of basic written literacy 

learning, which places enormous demands on working memory and orthographic control in 

producing the Chinese characters with exacting precision in stroke direction and sequence 

(Guan, Ye, Wagner, & Meng, 2013). Disciplined practice to perfection and patience are also part 

of Chinese cultural traditions in child rearing. This, too, will transfer to English written literacy 

development.  

 

 A perusal of the winners in an annual performing arts festival (Performing Arts B.C., 

2017) suggests that young Chinese Canadian artists in piano overwhelmingly win this category, 

beginning at the youngest ages. Surnames of Wang, Li, Yang, Zhang, Yu, Xia, Liu, and Xi, for 

example, are revealing. Musical performance automatizes the constructs of structure, pattern, 

rhythm, relationships and sequence in young fingers and hands—all of which underlie 

foundational numeracy and literacy learning.  

 

 The Christmas card produced by my young friend, Ivy1, at age 6, demonstrates skills and 

understandings relevant to early literacy mentioned above. Shape, size, positions of objects in 

space, and the “between the lines” details all reflect exquisite control over the fine motor skills 

and the mental construction of internalized stable models requisite for printing and spelling (i.e. 

space, shape, size, slant).  

 

                                                           
1 Ivy’s handmade Christmas card is used with her (and her mother’s) permission. She is excited to “be published.” 



 Roessingh 25 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

 
Figure 1. Ivy’s Christmas card at age 6 

 

 It becomes clear that young immigrant and Canadian born children of immigrants of 

Chinese background arrive at school with many skills, predispositions, and understandings 

relevant to numeracy and literacy learning and are already well prepared for this aspect of their 

schooling experiences. In the section that follows, language learning among youngsters is 

reviewed.  

 

Language Development and Assessment 

 

Vocabulary development is the key feature of language development over time that can readily 

be measured and taught. There is consensus in the research community that vocabulary 

knowledge is the key predictor of reading comprehension and academic achievement over time. 

The significance of vocabulary knowledge in the early years, however, has been under-estimated 

perhaps because it is not central to early literacy learning, as the above section makes clear. Only 

more recently has the scholarly community turned its attention to early language learning, 

specifically vocabulary learning (August, Carlo, Dressler & Snow, 2005; Biemiller, 2003; Geva 

& Verhoeven, 2000; Uccelli & Paez, 2007). .  

 

 Murphy’s (1957) seminal study of young children’s vocabulary knowledge generated 

from a corpus of over 1 million words of tape recorded speech distilled a list of 5,000 words in 

the oral repertoire of children aged 5–7. This finding has remained stable over the years, though 

others have conflated these words into approximately 2,500 word families (i.e. run, runs, running 

constitutes one word family). Various studies have corroborated this figure (Biemiller & Slonim, 

2001; Moe, Hopkins, & Rush, 1982), though there is sizable difference in the vocabulary 

knowledge of high socio-economic status youngsters and those who are raised in disadvantaged 

circumstances (Hart & Risley, 2003; Hoff, 2013). Data suggest vocabulary knowledge increases 

by approximately 1,000 word families a year among average, typically developing children in a 

strikingly stable sequence over time. It is estimated that a critical mass of 8,000–9,000 word 

families is needed to make the transition in Grade 4 from learning to read, to reading to learn 



 Roessingh 26 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

(Chall & Jacobs, 2003); 15,000 word families (50,000 words) in Grade 9 to transition to 

academic literacy learning that requires more abstract uses of vocabulary such as metaphor, 

figurative uses of words, technical vocabulary, and specialized uses of common vocabulary 

(Graves, 2007); and 18,000 word families in Grade 12 to engage with the demands of advanced 

academic studies in post-secondary settings (Hazenberg & Hulstijn, 1996).  

 

 Research has also afforded insights into the contexts and conditions that support the 

development of first and second language learning, and simultaneous bilingual development. 

Exposure, salience (“noticing”), explicit instruction, modified input (e.g. repetitions, recasts, 

simplified vocabulary use, redundancy), opportunities for practice through elaborative and 

collaborative talk, corrective feedback, and academic challenge, for example, have all been 

identified as key features of rich language learning environments. Storybook reading, meal time 

talk, and structured and open ended play provide important contexts for these types of language 

learning opportunities for children. These features are aligned with a socio-cultural theory of 

learning (Vygotsky, 1978): the critical need for scaffolds, challenge, i.e. comprehensible input or 

i+1 (Krashen, 1989), and the support of an adult or more competent peer in orchestrating 

learning settings that permits negotiation of meaning, and the manipulation, transformation, and 

practice of language across modalities: hear it, say it, read it, write it → own it.  

 

 Elementary school practitioners are increasingly required to address the English language 

learning needs of the linguistically diverse classroom at the same time they must address 

curricular mandates. Research tells us that many youngsters of language minority backgrounds 

fall well behind their NS peers in their English academic language development (Hoff, 2013; 

Roessingh & Elgie, 2009), and in the longitudinal data to Grade 12, may not fully close the gap 

(Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013; Pavlov, 2015). It is crucial, therefore, to glean early 

insights into children’s vocabulary knowledge and use those insights in order to intervene at an 

early stage for those who demonstrate this need. Various studies reported by Bowne, Yoshikawa, 

and Snow (2017) suggest that teachers do not implement techniques and strategies, such as 

leading academic discussions and conversations, or have an explicit focus on vocabulary 

teaching that can enhance the academic vocabulary knowledge of young students in their classes.  

 

 While early vocabulary assessment tools are available to work with pre-literate 

youngsters, for example the Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (Academic Therapy 

Publications, 2000), these instruments are often time consuming, inconvenient, and costly for 

classroom practitioners to administer in a one-on-one setting. The end of Grade 2, noted above, 

is an early point where vocabulary knowledge can be assessed through the use of vocabulary 

profiling tools, available in the public domain at no cost: www.lextutor.ca/vp/kids.  

 

Understanding Vocabulary Profiling: A Look at Children’s Writing Samples 

 

 In essence, vocabulary profiling allows for the comparison of a sample of writing to a 

corpus of vocabulary that would typically be present in the lexical repertoire of a learner of 

approximately the same age. The vocabulary profiling tool generates data on various indices of 

vocabulary variability: the total number of words in the sample (TNW), the number of different 

words in the sample (NDW), and the vocabulary coverage for frequency of vocabulary organized 

in ten levels of 250 word families: from high frequency to low. Let’s consider various features of 

http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/kids


 Roessingh 27 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

early literacy development as well as vocabulary profiles taken from the writing samples of 

Grade 2 learners, one a NS learner and the other a second language learner (born in Canada). 

These samples are taken from a pool of approximately 250 writing samples on an expository 

prompt designed to elicit a full range of vocabulary. The findings have been published elsewhere 

(Roessingh & Elgie, 2015).  

 

 On the surface, there are many similarities between the two samples: both achieved a 

rating of “excellent” from their Grade 2 teacher, both demonstrate good control over “language 

by hand” (i.e. printing), and both show spelling accuracy at over of 99%. There is a bi-directional 

relationship between spelling and printing in early literacy: that is, good spellers tend to be good 

printers, and good printers tend to be good spellers (Roessingh & Elgie, 2015). Figures 2 and 3 

illustrate this information.  

 

 
Figure 2. Language by hand. NS. Spring, Grade 2. 2 spelling errors. Controlled printing.  

 

 
Figure 3. Language by hand. ELL. Spring, Grade 2. 3 spelling errors. Controlled printing.   



 Roessingh 28 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

 Note the consistency and control in shape, size, space, and slant in the printing of both 

students. Further, both students had a lot to say about their ideas for constructing the ideal zoo 

for their city: 253 and 295 words respectively for the NS and ELL students.  

 

 Controlled for the number of words in the sample (i.e. 253 words), let’s consider the 

indices of vocabulary variability that can provide insights into the lexical repertoire of each 

student. Figures 4 and 5 display the lexical profiles for the two samples.  

 

 
Figure 4. Vocabulary profile of NS student 

 

 
Figure 5. Vocabulary profile of ELL student  



 Roessingh 29 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

 The number of different words in the samples is comparable (118 vs. 113). The 

cumulative percent coverage of vocabulary at level 4, representing the first 1,000 words of oral 

vocabulary of young children, is 85.37% (NS) vs. 88.93% (ELL). This is the first indicator of 

difference worth noting. Even this 3.56% discrepancy signals an over dependence on high 

frequency words on the part of the ELL student, suggesting that access to low frequency, 

sophisticated vocabulary may be limited. This warrants further investigation. Level 6 represents 

the low frequency threshold for the NS student: the level at which there are two successive levels 

containing either one or no word families represented in the vocabulary profile. This student has 

realized 88.53% coverage at this point. At level 6 the ELL student has already depleted 94.47% 

of the total cumulative vocabulary in the sample, even though the low frequency threshold 

stretches to level 7. Most telling in the profiles is the access to the Off-list words: words that are 

not present in the reference corpus for children. The NS sample reflects 19 word families vs only 

6 in the ELL sample. Table 1 below summarizes these data.  

 

Table 1 

Some Comparisons Between NS and ELL Writing at Grade 2 (Spring). 

Vocabulary Features NS ELL 

TNW 253 253 

NDW 118 113 

Level 4 Coverage 85.37% 88.93% 

Low Frequency Threshold 6 7 

Coverage at Level 6 88.53% 94.47% 

% Off-List Words 9.5% 4% 

# OLW Families 19 6 

Examples of OLW actually, area, barrier, breeds, 

cans, clicking, climates, 

entertainment, habitat, 

improvement, komodo, litter, 

problems, proper, species, 

temperature, threaten, types, 

veterinarian 

member, obstacle, 

pterodactyl, scale, seesaw, 

suggest 

 

 It is access to the Off-list words, particularly those words that are considered high utility 

generalizable academic words (Roessingh, 2016) that is most striking. Many young NS writers 

already have control over a sizable and rapidly accelerating pool of these words, which they 

learned largely at home through interactions with their parents, especially mothers. ELLs must 

be taught these words in a variety of contexts and ways in order to add them to their lexical 

knowledge. Canadian studies (Duke, 2000; Scott, Jamieson-Noel, & Asselin, 2003) suggest this 

instructional need is not being addressed in elementary classrooms. The next section suggests 

high impact strategies for vocabulary learning that will be useful to a Grade 2 audience. 

 

Making a Difference in Grade 2 Students’ Early Literacy and Language Learning 

 

This section provides details on four high impact strategies for promoting early literacy and 

language learning among young learners in grades K–4. First and foremost, Graham (2010) 

reminds us that continued instruction in the lower level developmental skills of printing and 



 Roessingh 30 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

spelling are needed. While the two illustrative samples used for the purposes of this article 

scored at the standard of excellence for writing quality outcome, the key to this result was the 

quality of the language by hand (i.e. printing) and accuracy in spelling, that in turn, unlocks 

vocabulary at the student’s disposal. Most students need continued instruction and opportunities 

for practice throughout the school day. The development of a fluent “hand” is a gradual, 

protracted process that takes the duration of the elementary years and into the junior high years 

to perfect to the level of sufficient fluency to get into “flow” of writing (Csíkszentmihályi, 2008; 

Graham, 2010). Once automatized to this level, linguistic and cognitive processes may be further 

unleashed and mobilized by the writer. By the end of Grade 2, the vast majority of typically 

developing young students can be expected to produce legible to controlled printing, keeping in 

mind that in a single class setting there is the likelihood of an age difference of as much as 16 

months. Further, children’s development across neuro-motor, cognitive, and linguistic domains 

may be asynchronous, that is, uneven patterns of development are common. Figure 6 below 

provides a framework that classroom practitioners may find useful in making holistic evaluations 

of young children’s language by hand.  

 
 Shape Size Spacing Slant 

1. Laboured: very difficult to decipher/read 

 

    

2. Legible: readable without effort 

 

    

3. Controlled: uniform and consistent 

 

    

4. Fluent: gives an impression of “push behind the pencil” 

speed + accuracy + endurance 

    

Figure 6. A holistic framework for assessing children’s language by hand—adapted by the 

author from Alston (1985) 

 

 Grade 2 or 3 is a good time to help students learn to connect letter combinations that 

naturally work together such as “th,” “fi,” “ts,” and “tn.” This will promote fluency using a 

clean, uncluttered italic style described by Graham (2010) as mixed mostly manuscript. Teachers 

should work together as grade level teams across the K–3 years to choose a printing program that 

is developmentally progressive and engaging for young learners. It is important to offer 

instruction consistently for short periods of time, perhaps 20 minutes, daily. Commercially 

available printing programs such as Handwriting Without Tears (Olsen, 2003) or The Writing 

Road to Reading (Spalding, 2003) have been implemented in the Canadian context with positive 

outcomes (Roberts, Derkach-Ferguson, Siever, & Rose, 2014; Roessingh & Bence, 2017); 

however, resources available in the public domain such as printing sheets, may be equally 

beneficial.  

 

 Secondly, colouring, sketching, and drawing are some of the most important activities in 

the writing process. Whether initiated by the students themselves, or sourced online or from 

commercially prepared materials, colouring and drawing prime a host of thought and neuro-

processing mechanisms. Ekuni, Vaz, and Bueno (2011) observe that visual input creates the 

strongest recall value of all the senses including words, especially when physical details are to be 

remembered: the picture superiority effect. Paired with colouring, memory traces are developed 

in the neuro-circuitry for key words involved in the execution of the colouring task such as 



 Roessingh 31 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

camouflage. Such deep processing can offer a concrete touchstone and a scaffold for the writing 

task to follow, and together enhances the quality of the writing.  

 

 Figure 7 displays a colouring sheet that holds rich potential to elicit and teach 

vocabulary. Depending on the age/grade placement of students, consider the following words as 

targets for instruction (Marzano & Marzano, 1988):  

 

GRADE 3: protect, enemy, disappear, danger, faraway, distant, fear, enormous, silent 

GRADE 4: newborn, still, scent, alert, doze, watchful, cautious, area, territory,   

  position, wilderness, habit, shelter, prowl, roots 

GRADE 5: orphan, survive, fawn, risk, neglect, abandon, vision, foothills, threat,  

  injure 

GRADE 6: instinct, fragile, dependent, starve, overlook, absent, environment, habitat,  

  locate, victim, undergrowth, vegetation, carcass, shrub  

Not Listed: camouflage, prey, predator, vulnerable  

 

 
Figure 7. Colouring sheet for young learners2  

                                                           
2 Every effort has been made to trace the original copyright of the colouring sheet, which was taken from a 

children’s colouring book, decades old. However, the original source has been lost. 



 Roessingh 32 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

 Third, a cluster approach is recommended (Marzano & Marzano, 1988). Teaching words 

in semantic fields, or thematically, promotes making connections and remembering, hence the 

potential for incidental acquisition of new vocabulary. In the example above, words such as 

protect, danger, enemy, threat, victim, survive might represent a cluster; fawn, orphan, abandon, 

dependent might represent another; environment, habitat, vegetation, undergrowth, shrub, 

another. Note that words within the same cluster can be drawn from more or less difficult levels 

in keeping with the comprehensible input +1 needed for challenging students (Krashen, 1989).  

 

 Finally, Biemiller (2001) advocates for a direct, explicit approach to vocabulary teaching. 

Providing synonyms, antonyms, definitions, explanations, and examples connected to visual 

information and displaying these new words by way of word webs and word walls, as well as 

using individualized flash cards for word play and developing word recognition skills in the early 

years, all promote vocabulary learning. Recycling, revisiting, and regular opportunities for 

reviewing and using new vocabulary by way of crossword puzzles and games further deepens the 

lexical knowledge of young learners. They must associate meaning, accurate use of these words 

in context, and control over spontaneous retrieval when needed in order to “own” the words.  

 

Conclusion 

 

 Young ELLs have unique early language and literacy learning needs. Teachers must look 

beyond the surface features of the “presentation effect” visible in early written efforts that may 

mask a vocabulary learning need. Teachers must also be mindful of the stereotypic image of the 

young Asian Canadian learner associated with the myth of the model minority. Many of these 

young learners are not able to bootstrap their way independently by dint of hard work and 

determined study habits: many will benefit from the types of supports and interventions 

presented here.  

 

 It is important to recognize that these young learners do not fit a particular mold: within 

this demographic, a wide diversity exists. Pavlov (2015) observes that ELLs are represented at 

all levels of achievement by the end of Grade 12, as reflected in standardized achievement tests. 

However, while there are those who excel academically over time and reach the standard of 

excellence, by and large ELLs demonstrate an ongoing need for support in developing requisite 

levels of academic literacy to fulfil the demands of post-secondary schooling—a goal that the 

vast majority of them aspire to in their future (Costigan, Hua, & Su, 2010).  

 

 Early identification and early intervention can reset the slope of the educational trajectory 

if elementary practitioners have the insights, tools, and techniques at their avail. This article has 

presented the theoretical underpinnings and relevant research, rubrics, and benchmark 

information, data, lexical profiling tools and teaching strategies that together can make a 

difference in the literacy outcomes of young ELLs as they transition from early to academic 

literacy.  

  



 Roessingh 33 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

Acknowledgements 

 

The author would like to acknowledge the generous and supportive feedback provided by the 

reviewers who took the time to read the draft of the manuscript. This was most useful in making 

the revisions, and in tracking down additional references to strengthen the paper. Many thanks. 

 

References 

 

Academic Therapy Publications (2000). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. Novato, 

CA.  

Alston, J. (1985). The handwriting of seven to nine year olds. British Journal of Special 

Educational Needs, 12(2), 68–72.  

August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C. & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary 

development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 

20(1), 50–57. 

Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and 

advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 498–520. 

Biemiller, A. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct and sequential. American Educator, 

Spring, 2001. Retrieved from 

http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2001/biemiller.cfm  

Biemiller, A. (2003). Oral comprehension sets the ceiling for reading comprehension. American 

Educator, spring, 2003. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/periodical/american-

educator/spring-2003/oral-comprehension-sets-ceiling-reading  

Bowne, J.B., Yoshikawa, H., & Snow, C. (2017). Relationships of teachers’ language and 

explicit vocabulary instruction to students’ vocabulary growth in kindergarten. Reading 

Research Quarterly, 52(1), 7–19.  

Chall, J., & Jacobs, V. (2003). The classic study on poor children’s fourth grade slump. 

American Educator, spring, 2003. Retrieved from 

http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2003/hirschsbclassic.cfm  

Chiappe, P., & Siegel, L. S. (1999). Phonological awareness and reading acquisition in English- 

and Punjabi-speaking Canadian children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 20–28. 

Costigan, C.L., Hua, J.M., & Su, T.F. (2010). Living up to expectations: The strengths and 

challenges experienced by Chinese Canadian students. Canadian Journal of School 

Psychology, 25(3), 223–245.  

Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A 

reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 132–149.  

Csíkszentmihályi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY:  

D'Anguilli, A., Siegel, L., & S. Maggi (2004). Literacy instruction, SES, and word-reading 

achievement in English-language learners and children with English as a first language: 

A longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(4), 202–213. 

Dinehart L., & Manfra, L. (2013). Association between early fine motor development and later 

math and reading achievement in early elementary school. Early Education and 

Development, 24(2), 138–161. 

Dolch, E. (1948). Problems in reading. Champaign, IL; Garrard Press. 

http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2001/biemiller.cfm
http://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/spring-2003/oral-comprehension-sets-ceiling-reading
http://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/spring-2003/oral-comprehension-sets-ceiling-reading
http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2003/hirschsbclassic.cfm


 Roessingh 34 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

Duke, N.K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. 

Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (202-24). Retrieved from 

http://www.ciera.org/library/reports/inquiry-1/1-007/Report%201-007.html  

Ekuni, R., Vaz, L., & Bueno, O. (2011). Levels of processing: The evolution of a framework. 

Psychology and Neuroscience, 4(3), 333–339. Retrieved from 

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/pn/v4n3/a06v4n3.pdf  

Graham, S. (2010). Want to improve children’s writing? Don’t neglect their handwriting. 

American Educator, Winter 2009 – 2010, 20–27. Retrieved from 

http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/graham.pdf  

Graves, M. (2007). Teaching 50,000 words and erasing the 30 million word deficit. IRA 

Conference presentation. Toronto, ON. May, 2007  

Guan, C., Ye, F., Wagner, R. & Meng, W. (2013). Developmental and individual differences in 

Chinese writing. Reading and Writing, 26(6), 1031–1056.  

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (2003). The early catastrophe. American Educator, Spring 2003. Retrieved 

from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/TheEarlyCatastrophe.pdf  

Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J.H. ,(1996). Defining a minimum receptive second language 

vocabulary for non-native university students: An empirical investigation. Applied 

Linguistics 17(2), 145–163.  

Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low SES and 

language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental 

Psychology, 49(1), 4–14. Retrieved from 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4061698/  

Kobsa, S. (2014). Behind the model minority: Investigating the social and human capital effects 

upon immigrant Chinese students. Integrated Studies paper. Athabasca University. 

Retrieved from 

http://dtpr.lib.athabascau.ca/action/download.php?filename=mais/SarahAshleighKobsaPr

oject.pdf  

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the 

input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440–464. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x  

Krashen, S., Long, M., Scarcella, R. (1979). Age, rate and eventual attainment in second 

language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13(4), 573–582. 

Lesaux, N., & Siegel, L. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a 

second language. Developmental Psychology, 39(6), 1005–1019. Retrieved from 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b0c7/38401bc23cba8f6958dd9a16ad1fc2a76ead.pdf  

Li-Tsang, C., Lee, H., & Hung, L. (2006). Validation of a chopsticks manipulation test for 

screening Chinese children with fine motor dysfunction. Hong Kong Journal of 

Pediatrics, 11, 106–109. Retrieved from http://www.hkjpaed.org/pdf/2006;11;103-

109.pdf  

Marzano, R., & Marzano, J. (1988). A cluster approach to elementary vocabulary instruction. 

Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ED293116. Retrieved from 

http://www.scsk12.org/schools/klondike.es/site/documents/MarzonoVocabulary.pdf  

Medwell, J., Strand, S., & Wray, D. (2007). The role of handwriting in composing for Y2 

children. Journal of Reading, Writing and Literacy, 2(1), 11–21. Retrieved from 

http://www.academia.edu/2629891/The_role_of_handwriting_in_composing_for_Y2_chi

ldren  

http://www.ciera.org/library/reports/inquiry-1/1-007/Report%201-007.html
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/pn/v4n3/a06v4n3.pdf
http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/graham.pdf
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/TheEarlyCatastrophe.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4061698/
http://dtpr.lib.athabascau.ca/action/download.php?filename=mais/SarahAshleighKobsaProject.pdf
http://dtpr.lib.athabascau.ca/action/download.php?filename=mais/SarahAshleighKobsaProject.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b0c7/38401bc23cba8f6958dd9a16ad1fc2a76ead.pdf
http://www.hkjpaed.org/pdf/2006;11;103-109.pdf
http://www.hkjpaed.org/pdf/2006;11;103-109.pdf
http://www.scsk12.org/schools/klondike.es/site/documents/MarzonoVocabulary.pdf
http://www.academia.edu/2629891/The_role_of_handwriting_in_composing_for_Y2_children
http://www.academia.edu/2629891/The_role_of_handwriting_in_composing_for_Y2_children


 Roessingh 35 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

Moe, A. J., Hopkins, C., & R. T. Rush (1982). Vocabulary of first grade children. Springfield, 

Ill: Charles C Thomas.  

Murphy, H. (1957). The spontaneous speaking vocabulary of children in primary grades. The 

Journal of Education (Boston University), 140(2), 1–105. 

Olinghouse, N., & Leaird, T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary and 

narrative writing quality in second and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 22 

(5), 545–565. 

Olinghouse, N., & Wilson, J. (2012). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in 

three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45–65. 

Olsen, J. (2013). Handwriting Without Tears. Retrieved from http://www.hwtears.com/hwt  

Ontario Ministry of Education (2013). Canadian-born English language learners. Capacity 

building series, 31. Retrieved from 

http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesLNS/Monographs/CapacityBuildingSeries/CBS_CdnB

ornELL.pdf  

Pavlov, V. (2015). Challenges Faced by English Language Learners on the Alberta English 

Language Arts 30-1 Reading Diploma Examination. PhD dissertation. University of 

Calgary. Retrieved from http://theses.ucalgary.ca/handle/11023/2660  

Performing Arts B.C. (2017). Association of Regional Festivals. BC Music Festival. Retrieved 

from http://www.bcprovincials.com/winners.aspx  

Roberts, G., Derkach-Ferguson, A., Siever, J., & Rose, M. (2014). An examination of the 

effectiveness of Handwriting Without Tears® instruction. Journal of Occupational 

Therapy, 81(2), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417414527065  

Roessingh, H., & Elgie, S. (2009). Early language and literacy development among young ELL: 

Preliminary insights from a longitudinal study. TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), 24-45. 

Retrieved from http://www.teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/view/413  

Roessingh, H. (2012). The importance of the prompt for eliciting language samples: Insights 

from research and considerations for practice. TexELT: Texas English Language 

Teaching, 1(1), 37–56. Retrieved from http://www.textesolv.org  

Roessingh, H. (2013). A look at Grade 2 Writing: Successes and challenges in early literacy 

development. Learning Landscapes, 7(1), 269–281. Retrieved from 

http://www.learninglandscapes.ca/images/documents/ll-no13/roessingh.pdf  

Roessingh, H., & Elgie, S. (2015). From thought, to words, to print: Early literacy development 

in Grade 2. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60 (3), 576–597. Retrieved from 

http://ajer.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/view/1508/pdf_16  

Roessingh, H., & Douglas, S.R. (2012). English Language Learners’ transitional needs from high 

school to university: An exploratory study. Journal of International Migration and 

Integration, 13(3), 285–301.  

Roessingh, H. (2016). Academic language in K - 12: What is it, how is it learned, and how can 

we measure it? BC TEAL Journal, 1(1), 67–81. Retrieved from 

http://ejournals.ok.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/235.6  

Roessingh, H., & Bence, M. (2017). Intervening in early written literacy development for gifted 

children in Grade 2: Insights from an action research project. Journal for the Education 

of the Gifted, 40(2), 168–196.  

Scott, J., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Asselin, M. (2003). Vocabulary instruction throughout the day in 

twenty-three Canadian upper-elementary classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 

269–286. 

http://www.hwtears.com/hwt
http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesLNS/Monographs/CapacityBuildingSeries/CBS_CdnBornELL.pdf
http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesLNS/Monographs/CapacityBuildingSeries/CBS_CdnBornELL.pdf
http://theses.ucalgary.ca/handle/11023/2660
http://www.bcprovincials.com/winners.aspx
https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417414527065
http://www.teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/view/413
http://www.textesolv.org/
http://www.learninglandscapes.ca/images/documents/ll-no13/roessingh.pdf
http://ajer.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/view/1508/pdf_16
http://ejournals.ok.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/235.6


 Roessingh 36 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 3 Number 1 (2018): 22–36 

Senechal, M., Ouellette, G. & D. Rodney (2006). The misunderstood giant: On the predictive 

role of early vocabulary to future reading. In D. Dickinson & S. Neuman (Eds.) 

Handbook of Early Literacy Research, Vol. 2, 173–182. New York, NY: Guildford Press 

Skelton, C. (2014). ESL students in the majority at more than 60 schools in metro Vancouver. 

Vancouver Sun, July 8, 2014. Retrieved from 

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/students+majority+more+than+schools+Metro+Va

ncouver/10005768/story.html  

Statistics Canada (2017). An increasingly diverse linguistic profile. Retrieved from 

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/170817/dq170817a-eng.pdf  

Uccelli, P., & Paez, M. (2007). Narrative and vocabulary development of bilingual children from 

kindergarten to first grade: Developmental changes and associations among English and 

Spanish skills. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(3), 225–236. 

Vancouver School Board (2017). Our district. Retrieved from https://www.vsb.bc.ca/about-vsb  

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Yoo, B. (2010). Unravelling the model minority myth of Asian-American students. Diversity in 

Education, October 10, 2010. Retrieved from 

https://www.education.com/reference/article/unraveling-minority-myth-asian-students/  

 

 

 
The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 
Copyright rests with the authors. 

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/students+majority+more+than+schools+Metro+Vancouver/10005768/story.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/students+majority+more+than+schools+Metro+Vancouver/10005768/story.html
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/170817/dq170817a-eng.pdf
https://www.vsb.bc.ca/about-vsb
https://www.education.com/reference/article/unraveling-minority-myth-asian-students/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

