Transcript Building collaborative partnerships between novice ESL and

Preparing Noyce Scholars for Effective
Instruction of English Language Learners
in STEM Classrooms
Orlando Alonso & Margo DelliCarpini
Lehman College, The City University of New York
2012 NSF Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program
Conference
May 24, 2012
Washington, D.C., USA.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Rational for program changes/course development




ELLs as a growing population.
English as a second language teacher preparation
to engage in Content Based Instruction (CBI).
Content teacher preparation and English language
learners (ELLs).
Challenges ELLs face in secondary level
mathematics/science and the language of the
discipline.
Population growth




Approximately 5,346,673 ELLs were enrolled in
public schools at the preK-12 grade level during the
2008-2009 school-year (OELA, 2011).
ELLs represent 11% of total public school student
enrollment (OELA, 2011).
ELL population in U.S. schools is almost equal to
the special needs population.
It is estimated that 40% of students in U.S. schools
will be ELLs by the year 2030 (U.S. Census
Bureau).
ESL teacher preparation /CBI





Content Based Instruction is pedagogical approach to using
relevant subjects (content) as a vehicle for language learning
and in the prevalent method in the U.S. and abroad for
teaching language.
The role of the ESL teacher has shifted from building social
language skills to developing academic language that is
connected to the content curriculum (Harper & de Jong, 2009)
Requirements per program vary: many ESL teacher
education programs require only a Liberal Arts and Science
core since the CONTENT of TESOL is TESOL.
ESL teachers may have little actual knowledge or skills with
the CONTENT of CBI.
Focus in the ESL class may be driven by other interests
rather than actual content needs.
Content teacher preparation and ELLs





Only one-sixth of institutions of higher education require explicit
coursework with respect to the education of ELLs (Antunez &
Menken, 2001).
As of 2011, only five states (Arizona, California, Florida, New York,
and Pennsylvania) have some requirement related to effective
instruction of ELLs for teacher certification.
77% of content area teachers have had no course-work or
professional development addressing ELLs (NCES, 2002).
ELLs generally spend about 80% of their school day in mainstream
classrooms (Dong, 2002).
Content teachers may feel that the education of ELLs is not their
responsibility (de Jong & Harper, 2005).
Academic Achievement for ELLs





Achievement gap: 51% of 8th grade ELLs are behind [NS students] in
reading and math, meaning that the scores for one out of every two will
have to improve for the group to achieve parity.” (Fry, 2007, ¶ 1).
The pass rates of ELLs on mathematics high school exit exams are
30–40% lower compared to those of mainstream students (Xiong &
Zhou, 2006).
NAEP (2011) data show that of the eight-graders who scored below the
25th percentile on the math assessment,15 percent were identified as
ELLs and of those students who scored above the 75th percentile, only
one percent were identified as ELLs.
20% of all high school level and 12% of all middle school level ELLs
have missed two or more years of formal education since the age of six
(Ruiz de Velasco & Fix, 2000).
More than one third of new ELLs from Latino backgrounds are placed
below grade level in school (Jamieson, Curry & Martinez, 2001).
Language challenges in the content classroom.



Scientific inquiry, mathematical problem solving and the texts of
these disciplines are linguistically dense, filled with words, symbolic
notations, graphical information which embed concepts within
structure and require talk: questioning, describing, explaining,
hypothesizing, debating, clarifying, elaborating, and verifying and
sharing results.
Some mathematical symbols used in other countries differ from how
they are used in the U.S. (Dale & Cuevas, 1992). Similarly,
conceptualization approaches may differ from culture to culture as
well as within the discipline’s different contexts.
It is necessary to understand how students think and communicate
mathematics and science, which involves not only communicative
language skills, but also an understanding of the appropriate
language of the discipline, according to students’ developmental
level.
Addressing the Issues through Teacher
Collaboration & Two-way CBI



Teacher Collaboration: A continuum of
activities from informal discussions about
students (weak form) to co-teaching (strong
form).
Language-driven CBI/Content-driven CBI
(Met, 1999).
Interdisciplinary course to develop twoway CBI skills and collaborative practice
between ESL and STEM subject teachers.
The Course: Development



Co-developed and co-taught by a Mathematics
Teacher Education Professor and TESOL
Professor during the summer of 2011with the
goal of supporting:
Novice secondary-level mathematics/science
teachers in teaching ELLs in the mainstream
content classroom.
Novice ESL teachers in their ability to understand
and effectively engage in CBI.
Collaborative partnerships between secondarylevel ESL and content teachers.
Course Structure





Ongoing development of a framework
identifying and assessing ELLs’ challenges
Weekly readings related to the topic and guided
reflections on the readings, course discussions,
and experiences in the candidates’ field
placement.
Lecture, discussion, and a related group activity.
Field observations reflections (Reflecting on
reflections).
Assignments (in detail, to follow).
Assignments





Collaboratively developed content /ESL units of study
explicitly addressing the needs identified, using the
knowledge and skills gained during the course.
Position paper: Participants, through individual and
collaborative inquiry, reading/reflecting, analysis of classroom
observations, and reflective discussions and writing
problematize the identified needs, re-conceptualizing and reframing their initial needs/solutions within a theoretical and
socio-cultural context.
Teaching experiment/Action research paper/Discursive
approach to educational research.
Field observations.
Guided reflections.
Lecture & Discussion Topics















Who are our ELLs?
Second language acquisition/L2 teaching & learning
BICS & CALP/ Language of the discipline/Cummins Quadrants
Approaches to instruction for ELLs, challenges, & promising practices
Teacher Collaboration
Two-way CBI/language-driven & content-driven CBI
Reflective practices (Dr. Thomas Farrell)
Teaching Experiment/Action Research
Common Core State Standards & ELLs
Schema theory/Content reading & ELLs
Lexical acquisition/Developing academic vocabulary for ELLs
Cooperative learning/Oral language development
Text structure/materials/text adaptation/differentiation/writing
Technology/Enhancing CALP through CALL
Assessment of ELLs/The language factor
Example reading/reflection prompt


Reading: de Jong & Harper, 2005: Is being a good
teacher good enough?
Reflective prompt: How can ‘just good teaching
practices’ apply to ELLs in mainstream
classrooms? Are the challenges de Jong and
Harper discuss present in your own settings? How
are the needs of ELLs in the mainstream content
classroom being met? How can teachers develop
practice that addresses the issues identified?
What can you do to enhance your own practice
based on the issues raised by the authors?
Small Group Activity Example
Topic: Two-way CBI/language-driven & content-driven CBI

In small groups (ESL & Content) identify a content concept
and collaboratively develop a complementary set of
language and content objectives so that the content
teachers are developing content-driven CBI learning
experiences and the ESL teachers are developing
language-driven CBI learning experiences. Then, develop
two lesson outlines, one for the content classroom and one
for the ESL classroom. Finally, be prepared to discuss
HOW these lessons work collaboratively to enhance BOTH
content AND academic language learning in BOTH
settings.
Research Questions: Pilot Semester



What are mainstream math and science (MMS)
teachers’ attitudes and current practices related
to the inclusion of ELLs in the secondary level
content classroom?
What are MMS teachers’ perceptions of ESL
teachers and their current level of knowledge
and skills in collaborative practice?
What is the effect of explicit coursework on MMS
teachers’ beliefs and practices about working
with ELLs in the mainstream content classroom?
General findings

7 participants: In-service and pre-service.

Mixed-method: Reflective writing, interviews, focus group; Pre-post
course survey data.
Mainstream TCs generally held a deficit view of ELLs at the start of the
class.
Mainstream TCs had low levels of understanding regarding the needs
of ELLs and desired more knowledge of these students in general.
Lack of knowledge regarding the role of language in the mainstream,
content classroom.
ESL teacher unsure of how much content to focus on and found the
balance between the language and content focus challenging to meet.
Integration of language and content was a challenge.
A declarative knowledge of collaboration was present in all participants,
but this did not translate to a procedural knowledge of ESL/mainstream
teacher collaboration. Generally, all participants saw collaboration as a
positive practice, but knowledge of HOW to accomplish this lacked.





Themes from reflective writing &
discussions: Beginning

Deficit view of ELLs: Representative
example: “I believe that many factors are responsible for the
poor achievements by ELL students in the urban school settings in
the United States. For example, many of the student’s parents are
non English speaker and if they are; they are not academic literates
which makes it a big problem for students at home because they
speak their parent’s language rather than mainstream English.
Some students have intrinsic behaviors and they learn because they
want more for their lives, others like myself are extrinsic because we
use motivation by others to achieve good results but some of the
students are simply lazy.” (Initial position on ELLs in mainstream
classrooms. Michael, HS Science).
Themes from reflective writing &
discussions: Beginning

Knowledge of the needs of ELLs is
lacking: “Mainstream teachers need to know
more about their students then [sic] their
name; though their names can tell you a lot- it
doesn’t help you understand the cultural
difference, language difference, and perhaps
even the environmental language compared
to content language.” (Emma, Secondary
level math; reflective journal entry).
Themes from reflective writing &
discussions: Beginning

Role of language in the content classroom:
“Mainstream teachers tend to remain unaware of
the role of language plays in the classroom, in
fact, when I consider this myself I begin to
realize how perhaps some of the words I use
may have double meaning. Perhaps a class or
working with ELL teachers, can better give the
teachers-us [content teachers], the skills we
need to not leave them behind.” (Emma,
secondary level math, reflective journal).
Themes from reflective writing &
discussions: Beginning

Balance between language and content in CBI: “It is difficult
to incorporate vocabulary, expressions, and other aspects of the
language to the Mathematics classes, but I believe if this is done
correctly it can greatly help students. Every class I teach, I have
to introduce at least two new words and I have to review many of
them as I explain a concept or procedure. I have a hard time
deciding when to focus on content and when to focus on
language. I know that we are aiming for a totally integrated
approach, but this is not easy for me to accomplish. I feel like I
have to switch between language and content lessons in the
same class and I know that the students don’t get enough of both
when this happens. This is an area that needs improvement in
my own teaching.” (Paloma, bilingual /ESL Math; reflective
journal).
Themes from reflective writing &
discussions: Beginning


Collaborative practice between ESL/Content
teachers: “The ESL teachers are a vital resource,
because they bridge the language gap between the
teacher and the student. They can properly assess the
student’s education and language and help you adjust
your lesson plans to meet the needs of that student”
(Kayleen, secondary level Biology, reflective journal).
“ I’m not exactly sure how I could work with the ESL
teacher in my school since she doesn’t know science.”
(Michael, high school Biology, Needs of ELLs paper).
Pre-course Survey Data:
Representative findings






Having ELLs in content class = positive.
However, ELLs SHOULD have a minimum level of
English Proficiency prior to being placed there.
Most felt that simplifying coursework for ELLs was good
practice and most assigned less work to ELLs.
Many found that modifications made for ELLs would be
difficult to justify to others.
Most did not incorporate Ss NL or NL materials into the
class.
Most felt that they did NOT have adequate training to
work with ELLs.
Change in beliefs: Evidence from
qualitative data at the end of the course.

Deficit view of ELLs changes to an understanding of the
shared responsibility and role of educators in their
success:
“All teachers are responsible for assisting ELLs with the
acquisition of oral language and academic language” (Sofia,
secondary Biology, final position paper).
“Teaching Mathematics to ELL’s is about a commitment to set
and maintain high standards based on sound pedagogical
principles using data based research, state of the art technology,
and effective collaboration techniques. When all of these
techniques are combined it becomes a formula for student
success.” (Oliver, secondary level Math, final position paper).
Change in beliefs: Evidence from qualitative
data at the end of the course.

Knowledge of the needs of ELLs is lacking: Rather than
discuss that knowledge is necessary, participants
described HOW they could gain that knowledge (became
agentive): “Introduce yourself to the ELL teacher, the math
coach, the IEP counselor, and the counselor and get all of
their insight and thought on the student and their progress. If
the language is what eludes you, introduce yourself to
Administrator of the Foreign Language Department if it’s a
high school, if in a middle school I suggest finding a translator
tool that you and the student will always have quick access to.
If the Language is Spanish, as in my single experience as a
teacher, find someone willing to translate. The IEP teacher
actually provided me with Spanish Text for the ELL student.”
(Emma, secondary level math, final reflection).
Change in beliefs: Evidence from qualitative
data at the end of the course.
Balance between language and content in CBI: In mathematics,
you cannot teach content if the students do not have the
appropriate vocabulary. As one of the articles stated:
“Mathematics has more concepts per word, per sentence, and
per paragraph.” There is a solid interconnection between the
content and the vocabulary, and this is where I need to help my
students. If the students already have the knowledge in Spanish
it is only a matter of transferring the content into the L2, but if the
students do not have the previous knowledge, there is where the
challenge lies. I have to start teaching to them the basic
vocabulary in Spanish and then transfer the knowledge to
English after they have understood the concept. By teaching this
way I can balance language and content when I do CBI.
(Paloma, bilingual /ESL Math; reflective journal, November).
Change in beliefs: Evidence from qualitative
data at the end of the course

Role of language in the content classroom:
“Content teachers play a key role in helping
ELLs develop essential strategies for
deciphering words in English. I will provide
ample opportunities for discussions,
presentations, reading and writing tasks. Various
exposure and methods for practicing vocabulary,
will strengthen ELLs reading and language skills
as well as science skills.” (Sofia, secondary level
science, reflection, November).
Change in beliefs: Evidence from qualitative
data at the end of the course.
Collaborative practice between ESL/Content teachers
“ These partnerships that are formed with the different
content area specialists will play an important role in
both content area knowledge and literacy acquisition.
The communication between Mathematics, ELA,
TESOL, and other subject teachers can provide
success stories that will guide your students to both L2
and mathematics content success.” (Oliver, secondary
level math, final position paper).
Changes in beliefs: Collaboration
“ Collaboration with ESL teachers can improve a student’s
success. With my lessons prepared in advance, I will
give a vocabulary list of science content words to the
ESL teachers. As a team, both teachers can help ELLs
feel comfortable with vocabulary. Having the same
vocabulary list instructed by two distinct teachers, will
further enhance students’ comprehension. If ELLs are
previously exposed to new vocabulary, they may feel
more comfortable in reading and interpreting a text.”
(Sofia, secondary level science, final reflection).
And finally……

“I have learned in this course to better
understand issues of English Learners which up
to now I had held as an exclusively foreign
phenomenon. I was mistaken. I can conclude
unequivocally that I am a better teacher now
than I was 3 months ago. I consider myself able
to use different approaches regarding ELL to
teach them my content area.” (Peter, HS Math,
final position paper).
Representative findings from postsurvey





MMS teachers had even more positive beliefs about ELLs in the
mainstream content classroom.
TCs changed their view on the necessity of certain minimal level of English
language required prior to being placed in the content classroom.
MMS teachers positively change their views on practical issues related to
the simplification (watering down) of coursework for ELLs (to lessen and
simplify).
While they generally felt that coursework modification for ELLs slows the
progress of the entire class, it is now less difficult for the TCs to justify to
other students. Additionally, they are more flexible about the usage of ELLs’
L1 language in the classroom.
While there was still a feeling of less than adequate training to work with
ELLs, the content teachers sought help from ESL staff when working with
ELLs and enhanced their views on the importance of the role of the ESL
teacher.
Comparison of Pre & Post Survey 1
Responses, t-test (significant changes)
Options\ Likert response 1-4 scale
1. Including ELLs = positive educational
atmosphere
Presurvey
mean
SD
Post
survey
mean
SD
Mean
diff.
p value
2.9
0.38 3.29
0.49
0.43
p < 0.1
2. ELL inclusion in mainstream benefits all
2.43
0.54
3
0.58
0.57
p < 0.1
3. Should not be in general education until
they attain a minimum level of English
2.71
0.76
2
0.58
- 0.71
p < 0.1
6. It is a good practice to simplify
coursework for ESL students
2.86
1.07 2.57
0.98
- 0.88
p < 0.1
8. It is a good practice to allow ELLs more
time to complete coursework
3.29
0.49 2.86
0.69
- 0.43
p < 0.1
11. Coursework modification for ELLs is
difficult to justify to other students
1.86
0.38 2.14
0.38
0.29
p < 0.1
Comparison of Pre & Post Survey 2
Responses, t-test (significant changes)
Opinions\ Likert response 1-4 scale
Presurvey
mean
SD
Post
survey
mean
SD
Mean
diff.
p value
0.54
- 0.43
p < 0.1
2.57
0.98
0.57
p < 0.1
2. I give ELLs less coursework than
other students
2
3. I allow an ELL student to use her/his
native language in my class
2
7. The inclusion of ELLs in my class
slows the progress of the entire class
2
0.58 2.43
0.98
0.43
p < 0.1
9. I receive adequate support from the
ESL staff when working with ELLs
2
1.16 2.57
0.79
0.57
p < 0.1
0.58 1.57
1
Conclusions




While small, the research conducted identified areas of need
for our teacher education programs.
Content teachers showed positive change in beliefs and
knowledge related to working with ELLs in the mainstream
classroom.
The ESL teacher who participated was better able to
understand her role vis a vis integrating language and content
effectively.
A deeper understanding of how collaborative partnerships
between ESL and content teachers was developed.
Next steps




Semester two: expanded the numbers of TCs enrolled in
this course (currently 25 TCs, math/science/TESOL).
Submitted NSF proposal to **institutionalize** the course
and the model of teacher preparation for which we are
advocating .
Developing a pilot interdisciplinary practicum (we are
currently visiting three TCs 2 math teaching all ELLs and
one ESL teaching sheltered science..
Pending grant funding for visiting TCs (enrolled in the
course) in their school setting to add a “practicum”
component into the system so we can fully analyze the
effects of the course.
Feedback, comments, questions
Selected references

Batalova, J. (2006). Spotlight on Limited English Proficient Students in the United States. Migration Information
Source. Washington DC. Migration Policy Institute.

Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography of America’s
schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, D.C: The Urban Institute.
Echevarría, J., Vogt, M. E, & Short, D. J. (2000). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP
model. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Fry, R. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Pew Hispanic Center Report.
Washington DC. Pew Hispanic Center.
Jamieson, A., Curry, A., & Martinez, G. (2001). School enrollment in the United States—Social and economic
characteristics of students. Current Population Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Menken, K. & Atunez, B. (2001). An overview of the preparation and certification of teachers working with limited
English proficient students. Washington, D.C., National Clearinghouse of Bilingual Education.
Office of English Language Acquisition (2011). The growing number of English learner students 1998/992008/09. United States Department of Education, Washington D.C. Author.
Ruiz deVelasco, J & Fix, M. (2000). A Profile of the Immigrant Population. In Overlooked and Underserved:
Immigrant Students in U.S. Schools. Clewell, B., Ruiz de-Velasco, J., & Fix, M. (Eds.). Washington, D.C.: The
Urban Institute Press. Stoller, F. (2004) Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, pp. 261–283.
Stoller, F. (2004) Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24, pp. 261–283.
Van Ek J.A., & Alexander, L.G. (1975). Threshold Level English. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Xiong, Y. S., & Zhou, M. (2006). Structuring inequality: How California selectively tests, classifies, and tracks
language minority students. California Policy Options (Paper 4). Los Angeles: University of California–Los
Angeles, School of Public Affairs.








