Article Review #2: ESL and Content Teacher Collaboration

In ‘Collaboration Between ESL and Content Teachers’, Chris Davidson explores the process of collaboration in an elementary school between English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers and content area teachers. He states that there has been research in the past on classroom methodology and linguistic demand on ‘mainstream’ classes, but that much less attention has been paid to “researching the process of co-planning and co-teaching and to supporting the evolution of the partnership between ESL and content teachers” (Davidson, 2006). Davidson draws his research from questionnaire and interview data he collected from an English-language medium school in Asia during their professional development initiatives.

     Davidson begins by referring to the Partnership Teaching model, developed by Jill Bourne and Joanna McPake (1991). Further description of this model is discussed by Angela Creese (University of Birmingham) in her book ‘Teacher Collaboration and Talk in Multilingual Classrooms’. She writes that the Partnership Teaching model is more than ‘co-operative teaching’ in that “it allows for the teachers to develop the curriculum while also developing themselves” (Creese, 2005). Davidson uses the Partnership Model as the base to describe the different partnership projects that are operating in schools internationally, quoting different school programs, including in Canada and Australia.

     Davidson clarifies that there are key assumptions and difficulties that should be overcome about effective classroom collaboration. These are often historical viewpoints that have slowly become adopted into teaching culture. He particularly focuses on one area of collaboration, which is the imbalance of the role of the ESL teacher in curriculum development partnerships. Referring to a course called ‘ESL in the Mainstream’ run in some Australian schools, he writes that “…the course projects an image of ESL expertise as residing in methodology or strategies, rather than in curriculum content” (Davidson, 2006). Davidson quotes the research of Andy Hargreaves (Boston College), who found that there were concerns about “expertise interwoven with issues of ownership and control, with personality clashes and resistance to advice common” (Hargreaves, 2001).  

     The model that Davidson proposes as a result of his research describes an integrated approach to collaboration between ESL and content area teachers. It presumes there are at least two curricula, which are an ESL description of language development stages linked to schooling and age, and the content area curriculum (Davidson, 2006). Although he acknowledges this can be problematic, this model is designed to bridge the gap between content area specialists who might not consider language needs, and ESL teachers who struggle to meet some of the content requirements. He writes that it is important to establish “clear relationships for teachers and the wider school community…(and also) to support and shape such partnerships as they develop” (Davidson, 2006). He then delineates the stages of development in partnership teaching as the following: 1. pseudocompliance/passive resistance; 2. compliance; 3. accommodation; 4. convergence and some co-option; 5. creative co-construction (Davidson, 2006). This focus is to define an emerging framework for describing collaboration.

     Davidson summarizes the article by stating that “partnership between ESL and classroom teachers is neither easy or unproblematic” (Davidson, 2006). There is a lot to be taken into consideration when creating collaborative partnerships. Angela Honigsfeld (Molloy College) and Maria G. Dove (Molloy College) have written quite extensively about the topic. They state the importance of teaching partnerships in English Language Learners (ELLs) becoming both academically and socially successful (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010). Davidson also focuses on these concerns in creating well-developed and sustainable teaching partnerships.

     Hargreaves criticized the process of teacher collaboration as a “contrived collegiality” and “implementation rather than development-orientated”  (Hargreaves, 2001). In my teaching experience, I have observed that any attempts to establish professional teaching partnerships that are imposed from above (hard-line administrative policies) are very often resented, unsustainable, and unsuccessful. Large workloads, increasing responsibilities and little recompense means that collaboration could be seen, as aforementioned, as another imposition in an already demanding career path. Sustainability is incredibly important, as the article did mention that “the literature suggests…that effective collaboration between teachers is not only rare, but extremely difficult to sustain” (Davidson, 2006).

     Collaboration can be both informal and formal, perhaps starting with informal conversations that create a culture of sharing. This can be anything from sharing emails, school e-boards, blogs, and wikis (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010). There is also formal collaboration which then provides the structure and support needed to maintain high functioning, strong collaborations once a culture encouraging this has been established. Allowing teachers to see collaboration as a chance for development will assist teachers to reach greater stages of “intuition, fluidity, and knowing-in-action” (Davidson, 2006). In this article, Davidson describes the school he studied as having administration-sponsored professional days for the teachers, in which the ESL and content area teachers developed an agreement on their respective roles and responsibilities which both explored the expertise each teacher could offer and was designed to be flexible and adapted over time (Davidson, 2006). I think this could be a good starting point for implementing collaboration.

Bibliography

Creese, A. (2005). Teacher Collaboration and Talk in Multilingual Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Davidson, C. M. (2006). Collaboration Between ESL and Content Teachers: How Do We Know When We Are Doing It Right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 454-475.

Dove, M. G., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). Collaboration and Co-Teaching: Strategies for English Learners. London: SAGE.

Hargreaves, A. (2001). Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers' Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. New York: Continuum.

:: Article Review #1 :: 'ESL Parents and Teachers: Towards Dialogue?' ::

Article Review #1

In ‘ESL Parents and Teachers: Towards Dialogue?’, authors Yan Guo (University of Calgary) and Bernard Mohan (University of British Columbia) investigate “conflict and miscommunication between English as a Second Language (ESL) parents and teachers” (Guo & Mohan, 2008).  Guo and Mohan use an ESL Parents Night (PN) held at a Canadian high school as the focus of their research, considering the differences in communication between the Canadian teachers and the parents of the ESL students, largely from Taiwan and China.

Yan Guo, University of Calgary

Bernard Mohan, University of British Columbia

The authors begin by stating different studies that show that the “limited communication between ESL parents and teachers is a serious problem” (Guo & Mohan, 2008). The authors then go on to use the PN as a framework to consider three possible methodologies (or ‘views’, the term the authors use) for practical improvement of positive ESL parent-teacher communication. The three views are intercultural communication, Taylor’s ‘dialogue across differences’, and system functional linguistics.

The authors quote Lustig and Koester’s definition of intercultural communication as occurring when “large and important cultural differences create dissimilar interpretations and expectations about how to communicate competently” (Guo & Mohan, 2008). ‘Dialogue across differences’ is based on the philosopher Charles Taylor’s proposition that “‘practical reason’ offers the possibility of a rational arbitration of differences between conflicting views in culture, ethics and other areas…” (Guo & Mohan, 2008). ‘Dialogue across differences’ is developed to find points of similarity between two parties, and building a relationship which allows for mutual understanding and consultation. The final view, system functional linguistics, is about ‘text in context’; this requires the contextualization of events, following Halliday’s proposition that “language is understood in relation to its environment” (Guo & Mohan, 2008). The research here serves as a building block for Yan Gao’s future studies of the use of PNs as the focus of home-school communication and relationships, drawing particularly on the “communication processes between recent Chinese immigrants and Canadian teachers” (Guo, 2010).

Historically there have been several elements in ESL culture and linguistic theory that has impacted on home-school communication, including lack of motivation to understand different cultural backgrounds, lack of importance placed on ESL education, and ESL theories that weren’t student-centered and contextual.

The PN that Gao and Mohan describe is organized by parents and school administration in an attempt to counter the historical lack of understanding between different cultural backgrounds. This can also be seen as a push-back against the ‘submersion’ theory, where ESL students were expected to interact only in English and adapt entirely to the US (or in this case, Canadian) culture without any respect being offered to their own backgrounds. Bilingual and sheltered instruction programs are gaining increasing recognition and offering greater respect to students’ first language (L1), acknowledging that it is often the only language spoken at home and carries with it “the history, the culture, the traditions, the very life of a people” (Crawford, 2004). Further to this, Jim Cummins’ work on bilingual education has had a resounding effect on the ESL education system, including his research on the importance of “working with communities, face-to-face” (Cummins, 2001).

The article also discusses the lack of importance placed on ESL education. Like many areas of the United States, high school ESL learners are highly likely to fail to graduate. Guo and Mohan quote a longitudinal study from Calgary that claims an overall failure rate for ESL students of 74%, with those entering Grade 9 with little English failing at a rate of 90% (Guo & Mohan, 2008). These statistics create a particularly tense and anxious atmosphere for parents. At the PN, many parents who had been in Canada for more than six months were aware of these statistics, and desperately wanted their children out of the ESL program and into ‘mainstream’ classes (Guo & Mohan, 2008). Historically the education system has failed to acknowledge the role of ESL classes, and this has affected the educational achievement of ESL students.

The article also brings up important practical elements for ESL educators to consider, most importantly, creating a strong home-school relationship and communication patterns. Natasha Agrawal, an ESL teacher at an elementary school in Trenton, NJ, has held culture nights for parents to attend, which allows them to exhibit their cultural heritage and enter into discussions not only with teachers, but also with other parents, creating a stronger community and greater support network for their children to achieve (Agrawal, 2014).

KaHlaw Meh, a participant in Natasha Agrawal's culture fairs

In my personal experience of ESL education, I have seen profound positive implications for ESL students when the teachers have good communication and relationships with the parents. By creating a strong home-school relationship, ESL students are much more likely to feel supported and not conflicted in their language use, and have a more coherent, holistic view of their academic goals. Communicating with parents empowers them to be more active in their child’s education, and empowers parents to help their children achieve.

As Guo and Mohan stated in their article, PNs are just a start; they are an appropriate forum for discussing the different elements and aims of a school’s ESL program with new parents, but not to “negotiate conflict” with “experienced” parents who want their children to exit ESL and move into mainstream (Guo & Mohan, 2008). It is important to establish relationships early, and maintain them, in order that PNs do not become the only platform for parent-teacher communication.

Bibliography

Agrawal, N. (2014, January). But I Can't Speak English. Retrieved from NJ TESOL/BE: http://www.njtesol-njbe.org/voices/vcsv43n1/Features.html

Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English Learners: Language Diversity in the Classroom, 5th Ed. New Jersey: Bilingual Educational Services.

Cummins, J. (2001). An Introductory Reader to the Writings of Jim Cummins. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Gao, Y. (2010). Meetings Without Dialogue: A Study of ESL Parent-Teacher Interactions at Secondary School Parents' Night. School Community Journal, 121-140.

Guo, Y., & Mohan, B. (2008). ESL Parents and Teachers: Towards Dialogue? Language and Education: An International Journal, 17-33.

Radio Lab

I’m sure everyone had the same reaction upon hearing Susan Schaller’s story in 'Words that Changed the World' about the man she met in her signing class, but I just have to say – wow. Wow, wow, wow…I was completely blown away by this. I’ve heard stories about language deprivation experiments and the cases of “feral children” (that horrific, heartbreaking story about Genie, though there are many more) - but I never thought about the fact that there really could be individuals living in "mainstream" society who just never learned to communicate, for various reasons.

Some of my earliest memories center around events, and though I never specifically considered it in this way, I suppose it is because I could attach words to them. Growing up in rural Australia, my earliest memories actually center on fear-based situations; the first was seeing my father tend to my mother after she was bitten by a fire ant on the thumb, and the second was learning not to walk in the cotton fields that surrounded us because there were snakes. 

I think the former sticks with me because it was an emotional connection - my mother was injured, and I could recognize her facial expressions. That has less to do with a language and more to do with what I consider to be a very basic human reaction of viewing another person in pain. The latter memory I think does stick with me because of language. I have a very clear memory of my grandmother telling me that snakes could bite and kill you (a bit intense for a young child to be hearing!). She told me they lived in the fields, and after that I kept a wide berth of the area!

So, I spent over an hour writing the second half of that entry, and for some reason Blogger didn't save it. I'm starting over and feeling incredibly frustrated, but actually it lead me to reflect on this question: do words mean more than experience? Being able to tell someone, or tell myself, “darn, that’s very frustrating!” does not begin to go through the thought process and experience as you realize all your work is lost, you begin to lose your cool, you consider throwing your computer against the wall and then eat half a packet of chips as you drown your anger against technology. “Techno-rage” is what I call it (a regular occurrence for me) but really it’s more than that.

In ‘Words that Changed the World’, Charles Fernyhough states that he thinks young children don’t think in the way we do – that is, that thinking is a series of internal dialogues or stream of words, and that children haven’t developed that capacity and therefore do not think. In the same episode, Elizabeth Spelke says she disagrees with that, and that when she reflects on thinking, so much of it is an experience beyond words. Though I think both have elements that could be correct, I’m more likely to agree with Spelke (as my techno-rage showed me).

In ‘Voices in Your Head’, it was interesting to see Fernyhough reach the conclusions he did via Vygotsky. I do agree with elements of Fernyhough’s theories, but again I just can’t believe that children do not “think” because they don’t yet have words. There are so many elements there that are beyond our current ability to research and understand, that making a statement like that can elicit interesting discussion – but no solid conclusions are going to be made? Or am I wrong on that? I’d love to hear other peoples’ thoughts here…in the comments section, though, rather than in my head!

I thought my favorite episode was probably ‘New Words, New Worlds’ – it was such a great insight into the organic nature of language. The complexity of language is shown in the development of this signing language. I loved the insight into ‘My Fair Lady’ – I’d never really thought about it in any depth and I thought this was a great discussion!

Language Learning History

I grew up in Aotearoa New Zealand, where there are two official languages; English and Te Reo Māori, the language of the first peoples of New Zealand. The New Zealand government has tried to incorporate Māori into the New Zealand culture as much as possible, and it is now compulsory to integrate Māori into lessons at the kindergarten and elementary school level. When I was at school, it was not compulsory but still used to a basic extent. I learned very basic elements of the language through casual use in the classroom, but was not able to apply this at home or really progress further as neither of my parents spoke Māori, none of my teachers were fluent in Māori, and there was no access to lessons or immersion techniques at the time.

For those who might be interested, here's a little glimpse into Te Reo Maori (I also LOVE to share this with my students as background to who I am):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbM3PwcGi0g



As my entire family speaks English, my first experience learning a new language was in high school as I learned Japanese. Our teacher relied heavily on rote learning, and I did not feel engaged with the language, or culture, because of that experience. I think a large part of that was also because I wasn't able to bring the learning home. It was very decontextualized, not related at all to my personal experiences and I had no way of assimilating that knowledge into my life, nor to bring personal prior learning into the Japanese classroom.

My first meaningful language learning experience occurred when I moved to Ethiopia in 2010. I lived in Addis Ababa doing curriculum development work for an international school there. I lived in Addis for a year, and lived in an area where there were basically no other foreigners residing. I was forced to speak Amharic (the national Semitic language), and I took informal lessons to develop an understanding of the Amharic alphabet, Fidel (ፊደል). 

Amharic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=512Y81UG71E

Nearby to where I lived.

The apartment buildings I lived in.

Some of the friends I made!

It took me nearly 12 months to really have any sense of control or ease with communicating in Amharic. I think what really pushed me to learn was being immersed (but not submerged!) in Amharic. I was forced to speak basic phrases and interact with Amharic speakers every day - to buy fruit at the markets, to get on the bus, to talk to some of the parents. Initially it was frustrating trying to communicate and not being able to express myself (hilarity ensues!), but I was dedicated to learning - mainly for survival. 

That dedication and motivation really pushed me to practice, practice, practice, and I see that in the classroom too. I feel that my ELL students that succeed (especially reflecting on my experience) have three things going for them:

a) support at home, 
b) the learning is contextualized and meaningful in their lives, and
c) they are motivated to learn

Stephen Krashen wrote that to acquire a language, you must have "meaningful interaction in the target language", which is focused on communicating content and understanding, rather than the form of what you're saying. Further to this, Anna Uhl-Chamot emphasizes the importance of contextualizing language learning, and this learning should be infused with meaningful contexts, like natural communication and applicable academic aspects. I believe both are absolutely essential to learning a language in the classroom. I didn't learn a lot of Japanese because I don't think the learning was meaningful or contextualized. On the other hand, I was able to learn the Amharic I did because the learning was meaningful and contextualized.

Now that I'm living in New Jersey, my next goal is to learn Spanish. My husband speaks Spanish fluently, and he is my language learning role model. He learned Spanish in high school and college, and then put it into practice while teaching in Venezuela. He now teaches ESL at a high school with a large Hispanic population, and is able to continue to practice his Spanish through communication with parents and students.

Wish me luck!

Human Language Series

I was really struck by the opening statement: "What is language? Every one knows, thank Heavens". I continued to ask myself this while I watched these documentaries, and I realized something - as an aspiring ESL teacher, I had really not fully contemplated what language is, or why we all know what it is. As mentioned in the third video, it is the institution we don't share in any significant way with any other organism.

I can read Krashen until the cows come home, and debate endlessly with my husband (also an ESL teacher - education is in the blood, apparently!) about the role of feedback and correction in teaching or what communicative competence is. But language itself, this esoteric discussion about the human capacity to communicate, is stunning in its range. To consider the fact that we can empathize, argue, brings tears and laughter, discipline, encourage, dismay, and a myriad other things through this very human interaction is overwhelming, to say the least.

In the first video, Mark Aranoff (for a bit of light distraction, you can see him at Stony Brook's Dancing With The Stars here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFQrDgRoZqQ - smooth moves, Prof. Aranoff!) gave a very useful analogy to chemistry. Seeing it in a concrete way like that made approaching teaching a lot easier. Seeing each word as a building block made me think of very basic teaching practices which I sometimes don't give enough consideration to - pre-teaching vocabulary is one example that comes to mind. Did anyone have any teaching practices they have been using (maybe subconsciously) that were brought to light in these videos?

I also really liked when Aranoff and another guest were talking about sentences that have never been used before - the President McCarthy story was very funny. I think the point here was that yes, we can use language to make up sentences that have never been used before, but surely the whole point of language is to communicate to be understood. This highlighted the importance of ESL teaching being contextualized - making sure the text being taught to the students makes sense to them contextually. For example, normally when I choose a picture book for reading practice in my Grade 3 class, I would choose a book based in the city like 'Blackout' (because I teach inner city in Trenton) over something like 'Mrs Wishy-Washy's Farm'. Then there are more everyday-based context clues for students to work with. 

I love working with this book!

The language acquisition portion of this series was fascinating also. One statement in the second video explored the fact that, from a very young age, children are equipped with "an understanding of the basic structure of any human language". But how can this be? This is definitely a question I have been left with. I was always interested in, but never quite on board with, Noam Chomsky's argument for a Universal Grammar Device. This video changed my mind about that a little when this statement was made: "The brain is like every other system in the biological world...it's highly differentiated into subsystems of special design and structure, and one of these happens to have a special design for acquiring language." 

I TOTALLY geeked out on the section about the Siberian Yupik language on St. Lawrence Island. As soon as I started watching I jumped on Wikipedia and from there fell down a separate YouTube hole which took me here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvxMaz20kXk&list=PLC5FA6F1F7B8708D0 (if anyone's interested in knowing more about the people). It really highlighted for me the fact that every language has rules, and that learning those rules is integral to learning a language - but how much of that are we innately geared towards, and how much of it is consciously studied? Another question I have been left with!

I think, overall, the biggest implications these videos have had for me is that language is a very human, universal ability. As an ESL teacher, I want to be able to equip my students with the ability to communicate within their specific contexts to better themselves and their communities. In terms of practices, I think I will concentrate even more on contextualizing the language learning so that it specifically relates to their content area and everyday lives. What did everyone else think about the videos? Has it changed your thoughts on language learning or teaching?

P.S. The importance of being bilingual: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h42Vsea1rmU