Fall 2018, Volume 12, Issue 1
Features:
Everything from Research to Practice to Advocacy Regular Sections: K-16 Technology 2018 SSTESOL Conference Proceedings
Sunshine State TESOLL Journal
FLORIDA
Editor Tony Erben, Ph.D. University of Tampa Assistant-Editor Keya Mukherjee, Ph.D. Saint Leo University Editorial Review Board Laura Ballard, Ph.D. Florida State University Maria R. Coady, Ph.D. University of Florida Ester de Jong, Ph.D. University of Florida Katya Goussakova, Ph.D. Seminole State College Xuan Jiang, Ph.D. St. Thomas University Michelle Kroskey University of Central Florida John I. Liontas, Ph.D. University of South Florida Terri Mossgrove WIDA Sergei Paromchik, Ph.D. Hillsborough County Public Schools Robyn Percy-Socha, Ph.D. Full Sail University Cheryl A. Shamon, Ph.D. Saint Leo University Lindsay Vecchio,Ph.D. Alachua Public Schools Caroline Webb Broward College
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.3
Florida Sunshine State TESOL Journal 2018
Manuscript Guidelines The manuscript should appeal to the instructional, administrative, or research interests of educators at various levels, such as adult education, K-12 issues, or teacher education issues. • The manuscript should be substantive and present new ideas or new applications of information related to current trends in the field. • The manuscript should be well written, clearly organized, and carefully proofed. • A complete reference list should be supplied at the end of the manuscript, and the entire manuscript should be formatted according to guidelines in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th Ed. (2001) or later. • Manuscripts should generally be no longer than 15-20 double-spaced pages. • An abstract of 150 words or less should accompany each manuscript. • A biographical statement of 50 words or less should be included for each author. Information should include current job or title, institution, degrees held, professional experience, and any other relevant information. • Please include a cover letter with the name, postal and e-mail address, and phone number of the first author (or other contact person) clearly noted. • Manuscripts must be submitted in electronic format as an e-mail attachment. Manuscripts must be submitted in Microsoft Word). Camera-ready figures and tables are requested. • Manuscripts are accepted throughout the year and sent out for review. Reviews may take up to three months. Revisions are usually expected within one month (30 days) after receiving the initial review. Book Review Guidelines • Materials reviewed must have been published within the last three years. • Reviews should be a maximum of three pages. (double spaced). • Each review must provide complete bibliographic information, a description of the book/material, the audience for whom it is designed and how well it accomplshes its purpose. • A cover letter should provide the author's name, email address, telephone number and a brief (25 word) bibliographic statement. • Reviews should be sent as an email attachment.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.2
Manuscripts Manuscripts may be submitted via the Sunshine State TESOL www site: http://sstesol.org/?p=971 or send to Tony Erben at terben@ut.edu Manuscript Reviewer Interested in being a manuscript reviewer? Please contact Keya Mukherjee at keya.mukherjee@saintleo.edu and detail your area(s) of expertise, a brief bibliography, and if relevant, select publications from the past five years. Advertising Interested in advertising? Submit an inquiry through the Sunshine State TESOL www site or email Katya Goussakova at katyagoussakova@gmail.com Affiliation Florida Sunshine State TESOL Association is an affiliate of TESOL International Association. Sunshine State TESOL 4801 Riverside Dr. Yankeetown, FL, 34496
About Sunshine State TESOL Journal The Sunshine State TESOL Journal is a refereed journal published annually by the Sunshine State Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. The main purpose of the Journal is to provide a forum for TESOL professionals to share ideas and research on second language teaching and learning. The Journal welcomes submissions of manuscripts based on research projects, classroom practices, conference presentations, and other professional activities of substance and interest to the general membership. A double-blind review process is used in which submitted manuscripts are distributed by the editor to two-three reviewers with expertise in the areas addressed in each manuscript. Written comments by reviewers and a recommendation on acceptance are returned to the editor, who then communicates the comments and decision on acceptance to the authors.
President’s Corner 7 Editor’s Commentary 8 Topical Katya Goussakova 40 years of SSTESOL Conferences; Looking Back 9 Research Monica González Smith An ESL Video Reflection Practice for ESL Teacher Preparation 14 Yong-Jik Lee, Hyunjin, Becoming a Teacher of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse 29 Jinna Kim, Ester De Jong Students: Elementary Pre-service Teachers' ESL Field Experiences Working with English Language Learners Loren Jones, Deconstructing Texts in English Language Arts: A Pedagogical 41 Sharon L. Smith, Approach Using Systemic Functional Linguistics Luciana C. de Oliveira Praxis Alice Jo Ahyea, If I Don’t Speak My Students’ Language, How Should I Help? 49 Jo Kozuma Newcomer Tips for Teachers of English Language Learners (ELLs) in Mainstream Classrooms Tony Erben, Deconstructing Text & Fore-fronting a Language Design Collaborative 54 Keya Mukherjee, with ELLs in Mind Kate Wittrock Ho-Ryong Park, Significant Lessons Learned from Developing and Managing a 64 Soonhyang Kim, Graduate TESOL Program Mary Sue Sroda Contents (contin.) Mariah Schuemann, Making the Medium Match the Message for Millennials: Using 72 Matt Kaeiser, Screencasts for Feedback Clarissa Moorhead, Samantha Parkes Advocacy Brief Arlene Costello Advancing Equity and Excellence in Public Education for ELLs 76 2018 Conference Proceedings Highlights Chane Eplin FLDOE: Quality Education for ELLs K12 and Beyond 2018 82 Alejandra Rondon UNIDOS: The Power of Collective Advocacy: The TESOL Community 82 Kim Hardiman Experiential Learning About the Community Outside the Classroom 85 Victoria Shelly Perspectives from International Student Services Informing Practices 86 for Intensive English Programs Hilary Davis, Tracey Partin Don’t Open the Book Yet: Creative Starts to Grammar Lessons 87 Steven Mercier Conversation Analysis for Student-Focused Instruction 88 Terri Mossgrove Preparing Pre-Service Teachers in a WIDA Consortium Member State 88 + Lesson Planning for Els with WIDA Resources Sahar Alyahya Looking at Augmented Reality in ESL Classrooms Through the 89 Students’ Lens Amy Trujillo Virtual Reality Field Trips with Google Expedition 90 Cindy Fisher, Infuse Excitement into Formerly Colorless Vocabulary Instruction 91 Stephanie Bumm Leslie Mendez Davis, MELTS: Micro-Credentialing of EL Teaching Skills 92 Joyce Nutta, Florin Mihai Kerry Purmensky, Abrar Hassan Alsofyani ESL and EFL Blended Learning Classroom: Combining Face- to-Face 93 Instruction with Online Digital Technology Contents (contin.) Maegan Baker A Community of ESOL Support Team Spells SUCCESS! 94 Carla Huck, Matthew Miller Establishing an International Center to Serve the Needs of Adolescent 95 Newcomers Robyn Socha, Instructional Design and the 21st Century ESL Classroom 96 Danielle Hamill Michelle Snider, Using Folklore to Teach Culture and the Four Language Skills 97 Kimberly Calvin Imelda Bangun, Siying Li Technology in Education: Engaging Adult English Learners with 98 Limited Literacy Stephanie Ilich, Exploring the World Around Us and Beyond! 99 Kazuki Kanai, Jennifer Tuttle Kelly Fykes Increase Engagement and Interaction with Google Slides 100 Carla Huck, Tara Tomlinson Increasing Oral Language Opportunities for ELLs Across Content Areas 101 Krista Royal, David Braasch Mindfulness Practices for English Language Teachers and Students 102 Aliona Buresh Kaleidoscope of Grammar: Best Practices 103 Lara Lavery, Teaching and Fishing 104 Boglarka Macsai, Dana Al-Zaid, Katherine Leiva Alia Hada Music: A Universal Language 104 Book Review Sonia Velazquez, Fairbairn and Jones-Vo (2010) Differentiating instruction and 105 Laura Miller, assessment for English language learners: A guide for K/12 teachers Soonhyang Kim
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.5
Florida Sunshine State TESOL Journal 2018 Contents Contents
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.4
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.6
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p7
President's Corner On behalf of the Sunshine State TESOL (SSTESOL) board, welcome to the relaunch of the SSTESOL journal and to our organization. Whether you are new to SSETSOL or a long-time member, we are pleased that you are perusing these pages and learning things that will enhance your professional practice. The revival of our journal is just one of the many ways we provide professional development to our membership. We also sponsor an annual conference every May, except for when we host the Southeast Regional TESOL (SETESOL) conference and invite our colleagues from neighboring states and beyond to join us for learning and networking. Southeast Regional TESOL will be convening in Orlando, FL in November 2019. During these meetings, we also provide advocacy skills training, which is so critical to our mission to educate English language learners. As I write this message, I am en route to the Sunshine State from sunny South Africa where I have had the opportunity to see how activism arising from language policy issues changed the course of not only education, but society at large. After many years of struggle, the official policy here advocates for students to develop high levels of proficiency in English and a native African tongue. The history leading up to this policy made a deep impression on me, and I was reminded time and again throughout my visit of the importance of SSTESOL’s advocacy work on behalf of English learners back home in Florida. Most recently, SSTESOL’s efforts in this regard have centered on petitioning Secretary of Education DeVos to reject Florida’s Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Plan because it fails to ensure equitable educational opportunities to English Learners. Despite Secretary DeVos’ decision to accept the plan, SSTESOL will continue to educate members of the Florida legislature on the importance of revising Florida’s accountability plan to ensure equity and quality schools for all learners. Of course, the key to educating our elected officials starts with our arming our membership with knowledge and information so that we can speak in a collective voice with thought leaders around the state about what our students need and deserve. This point brings us back to the journal and you. Thank you, dear readers, for being here. Your desire to grow is evidenced by your decision to read the journal. We are grateful for your commitment to your students and hope that you feel at home among our community of practitioners. We look forward to learning and growing together. See you in November 2019! Sunny salutations, Michelle Ploetz, Ph.D. SSTESOL President 2018-2020
Introduction Sunshine State Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) of Florida, Inc. is the official registered name of our organization, and this year, SSTESOL, an affiliate of TESOL International Association, has celebrated its 40th anniversary during its annual conference in Orlando, Florida on May 10-12, 2018. SSTESOL is only 12 years younger than its parent organization, which is an amazing testament to the dedication of the board members who have kept this organization going over the past decades and continue doing so today. With the return to publication of SSTESOL Journal, a little retrospective look at SSTESOL conferences was in order. How many people attend SSTESOL annual conferences? Where do they come from professionally and geographically? Where have the conferences been held for the past ten years? How have fees, revenue, and expenditures changed over the years? It would have been great to look even further back, but we are limited to the ten years of historical data kept in our conference registration system, RegOnline. In 2010, SSTESOL hosted a South East Regional Conference in Miami, data from which is excluded from this analysis due to the larger scope of that conference. SSTESOL will host another SE Regional conference in Orlando, Florida from November 4-9, 2019, so please join us for that event. Also, the registration form for the 2009 conference was significantly different from those used in the more recent years, so the detailed analysis that follows includes the years 2011-2018. Conference Attendance Over the years, SSTESOL annual conferences have been held Thursday through Saturday of the week prior to Mothers’ Day. As shown in Figure 1, the number of SSTESOL conference attendees has been fluctuating. One could attribute such changes to the budget cuts in professional development funds around the state and nationwide, scheduling of the SSTESOL conferences alongside other state conferences such Florida Literacy Conference, for example, and the geographic location of the event. A few years ago, the SSTESOL board made the decision to host conferences in the same city two years in a row to secure better contracts with the hotels. In 2016 and 2017, conferences took place in West Palm Beach, while two years prior to that they were in St. Petersburg, FL. In 2011, the conference with the smallest attendance was held in Jacksonville to offset the earnings of the South East Regional Conference in Miami in 2010. The most well-attended conference in 2013 was in Doubletree by Hilton Hotel at the Entrance to Universal Orlando, Florida, where SSTESOL returned for 2018, and where SE Regional in 2019 will be hosted as well. Figure 1: SSTESOL Conference Attendance SSTESOL always encourages those interested in attending its annual conferences to register early to take advantage of the earlier bird savings. As shown in Figure 2, the majority of attendees in the years 2011-2018 did just that. It is also clear that the percentage of full conference registrations remained relatively stable with its lowest at 12% and its highest at 23%, whereas the percentage of the early full conference registrations fluctuated over the years from 18 to 45. Regrettably, early registrations are not always possible due to the lengthy paperwork processing procedures within some school districts and/or higher education institutions. Figure 2: Percentage of Early Versus Full conference Registrations Conference Days Another interesting statistic is related to one day registration. Historically, Thursday and Saturday attendance has been relatively similar (see Figure 3), while Friday has been the most popular SSTESOL conference day. Figure 3: Percentage of One Day Registrations On Fridays, all attendees are welcome to attend the luncheon and the business meeting. During that meeting, awardees, exhibitors, and publishers are recognized. Also, the budget and pressing advocacy issues are shared with the membership. Anywhere from 55 to 67% of attendees have been coming to the Thursday night Welcome Reception, whereas Friday luncheon has historically remained the most popular general assembly event with 62 to 81% of all attendees present in the years 2012 to 2018. The outlier was the year 2011, when only 28% of attendees signed up to attend the Friday luncheon. Areas of Employment Not only the exhibitors but also conference participants often inquire about the areas of employment of those who attend SSTESOL conferences. During the conference registration process, prospective attendees are asked to identify their primary work area. Most of these areas correspond to the strands to which conference proposals are submitted. A stacked area chart in Figure 4 displays the relationship of the work areas to whole conference attendance over the past eight years. Clearly, administration (three to eight percent), students (three to ten percent), and publishers / exhibitors (three to 16%) make up the smallest segments. A known misconception about SSTESOL conference is that it is mostly for K-12 teachers. While K-12 teachers do attend annual SSTESOL conference in large numbers (from 23 to 45% in years 2011-2018), Figure 4 also demonstrates a well-balanced nature of the conference between adult education ESOL, teacher education, and higher education (i.e., EAP, IEP) participants. Figure 4: Percentages of Areas of Employment Figure 5 provides another interesting way to look at the data when four most well-attended strands are isolated. K-12 attendance peaked in 2013 and 2016, and one might speculate that it is related to the legislative decisions in the state and availability of funding. Teacher Education attendance seems the most stable through the years, while Adult Education/ESL attendance is on the rise. One hopes that this trend will continue since in May of 2018, the SSTESOL Board decided to create an Adult Education/ ESL Interest Group, the second after the EAP Consortium that has been meeting on the sidelines of the SSTESOL conference for almost twenty years. Figure 5 also demonstrates a steady decline in EAP/IEP attendance, which may be partially explained by the current political climate, immigration uncertainties, declining unemployment rate, and closing of some programs in the state. Figure 5: Percentage of Adult Ed/ESL, K-12, EAP/IEP, and Teacher Ed Attendance Geography of Attendees At the time of publishing this volume of the SSTESOL Journal, SSTESOL has six regional affiliates, which are Bay Area Regional TESOL, Central Florida TESOL, Emerald Coast TESOL, Northeast Florida TESOL, ESOLPalm Beach T, and Miami-Dade TESOL. One more region has applied to become an affiliate: Lee County. Some of these chapters are larger and more active. Just as TESOL International Association would not be as thriving as it is without its affiliates, SSTESOL would not be able to offer its attendees quality conferences without its local chapters and volunteers that come out annually all around the state to ensure that SSTESOL conferences run as smoothly as possible. Even though it would be interesting to look at the aggregate numbers of people attending SSTESOL over the years, RegOnline does not provide such information, and sifting through 3,154 completed registrations from the past nine years is beyond the scope of this retrospective analysis. Nevertheless, a look at the geography of SSTESOL 2018 Conference attendees was undertaken. The State of Florida is divided into 67 counties, and attendees came from 32 of them as shown in Figure 6. The counties, listed in alphabetical order, included Alachua, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Collier, DeSoto, Duval, Escambia, Hernando, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lake, Lee, Leon, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Miami-Dade, Okaloosa, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Seminole, St. John’s, and Volusia. Figure 6: Florida Counties Represented by SSTESOL 2018 Attendees Also, the U.S. geography of those who came to Florida for the 2018 conference is impressive. SSTESOL welcomed fellow TESOL professionals from 17 states such as Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin as well as the District of Columbia. SSTESOL conferences would not be as successful as they were in the past without publishers and exhibitors, many of whom travel from other states and have been supporting the organization for decades. From large publishing companies to local artists and craftsmen, we are fortunate to have you every year. Perhaps more impressively, some of those who registered to attend SSTESOL 2018 conference came from Australia, Canada, Mexico, Spain, and Sweden. There is no doubt that if SSTESOL collected the country of origin information, the geography would be much wider. Rising Costs SSTESOL is a non-profit, and currently, its annual conference is the only source of revenue for the organization. From 2011 until 2017, full conference registration fee kept steady at $230, while the early bird special was $210 for seven years in a row. In 2018, the price went up by ten dollars for each of the above stated categories, whereas student and Saturday registration fees went down significantly in 2016 from $120 each to $70 and $60 respectively and remained as such for three years now. In the past nine years, conference registration earnings fluctuated between the lowest of $39,622.86 in 2011 to the highest $64,300.08 in 2014, while registration fees charged by RegOnline, our earlier conference management platform, ranged from $2,467.14 in 2011 to $4,224.92 in 2014, which was directly related to the revenue. RegOnline charged the organization a $3.55 registration fee for each registrant plus a 3.99% transaction fee based on the amount due. Figure 7 shows registration earnings versus conference costs in thousands of dollars for the past three years. Figure 7: Conference Costs Versus Registration Income Ideally, earnings offset the expenses. However, SSTESOL expenditures in 2015-2016 fiscal year were greater than earnings by $15,460.05, while the gap widened in 2016-2017 reaching $36,268.82. In the 2017-2018 fiscal year, the deficit was $25,573.47. Conferences are by far the largest expense item on the SSTESOL budget, but it is not the only one. SSTESOL spends money on awards and grants, board meetings and travel, tax preparation, and operational costs (i.e., storage, postage, bank fees, office supplies, Figure 8: SSTESOL Expenses 2016-2018 TESOL affiliate fee, website, Sunbiz registration). A breakdown of expenses for the years 2016-2018 is given in Figure 8. As a non-profit, SSTESOL supports professionals and students in the field by awarding travel grants, teacher mini-grants, Badia Scholarship awards to the most deserving students, research grants, outstanding educator awards, and the recently added institutional excellence award. The awards in 2018 totaled $6,400, while $5,700 in awards was distributed annually in 2017 and in 2016. In addition, in the past nine years, SSTESOL offered $7,602 in discounts through group conference registration rates of five attendees and more from the same institution. Anyone who attends the conference becomes an SSTESOL member as the membership dues are built into the registration fees. Those who only want to become members pay $25 for a year, and the membership price has not gone up since 2011. Anywhere from four to 13 percent of attendees choose the membership only option to be eligible for the awards. It is impossible to put a dollar amount on the benefits that anyone attending the SSTESOL conference receives. During those three days, we forge professional relationships, reconnect with old colleagues, update our knowledge of research and best practices, get infected with new ideas and projects, and interact and learn from the leaders in the field. Nonetheless, the reality is such that SSTESOL charges registration fees to provide its annual conference. Annually, the Board members, who donate their time and expertise, work tirelessly to provide even better experiences for conference attendees. The costs of providing a quality professional development opportunity such as an annual SSTESOL conference have been on the rise. Hotels are charging more money for food and beverage services; room rates are going up as well. This year, SSTESOL has signed a four-year contract with Cvent, a company that purchased RegOnline to phase it out. The decision to sign the contract was made after nine months of internal discussions, searches, and negotiations. Even though the conference management fees that SSTESOL pays will almost double, the Board is certain that Cvent will provide a much better and more user-friendly registration experience to all those attending SSTESOL conferences. Therefore, it is highly likely that SSTESOL conference attendees will notice another minor increase in registration costs in 2019 when they are registering for the SE Regional. Conclusion Having looked at the SSTESOL conference data for the past nine years, a few conclusions may be drawn. SSTESOL conferences have been attended by a balanced representation of professionals in the field and across the state, and participation and interest in the conference remains steady. The costs of providing annual conferences have been on the rise, whereas the registration fees have remained largely unchanged for many years and were even reduced in the cases of student and Saturday registrations. To keep the books balanced, future increases in conference registration costs are, unfortunately, inevitable. A retrospective analysis of data provided in this article could serve multiple purposes. Those who regularly attend SSTESOL conferences now have a larger view of the past conferences, while other state affiliates can compare the scope and expenses of SSTESOL to theirs. Most importantly, perhaps, figures and statistics provided in this article could be used by future attendees to secure funding and convince the decision makers that attending SSTESOL conferences is beneficial to the field as a whole and every professional in particular. Biographical Statement Katya Goussakova, Ph.D., is a Professor of EAP at Seminole State College of Florida and SSTESOL Treasurer 2016-2019. For SSTESOL related matters, email at katyagoussakova@gmail.com
Editor's Commentary I am overjoyed to be able to publish this issue of the Sunshine TESOL Journal. During a four year interregnum, many SSTESOL members had asked when the journal was coming back....well, here it is; newer, more inclusive, and more cutting-edge than ever before! This newly formatted SSTESOL Journal will cater to the professional diversity of our membership and as such, this, and future issues shall always contain sections devoted to research, classroom practice, as well as advocacy position papers and book/resource/curriculum reviews. Whether you teach in the K-12 sphere, in adult education, in community colleges, and/or in universities, whether you are a teacher, teacher-educator, researcher or administrator, we always want to hear from you. Initially, the SSTESOL Journal will be published every Fall. If submission warrant it, there may be a Spring issue as well. One segment that I wish to draw attention to is our Conference proceedings section. Presenters at the 2018 Annual State SSTESOL conference were asked to submit their ppts, handouts as well as to describe how their presentation links to practice. From pp. 81-105, you can read about each presentation, download the handouts as well as see the ppts through an embedded youtube. I also want to thank the diligence of our SSTESOL Journal editorial board (see p.2). They worked throughout the summer to provide authors who had submitted research and pedagogical manuscripts relevant and actionable feedback. Our acceptance rate for this issue was 35%. I look forward to receiving all types of manuscripts from you, our SSTESOL professional community so that this journal will truely become representative of the fantastic work you all do for and on behalf of our English Language Learners. For more information on journal submission details click here. Sincerely, Tony Erben, Ph.D. SSTESOL Editor & 2017-2018 Past President
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.9
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.8
Topical SSTESOL Conferences, Looking Back Katya Goussakova Seminole State College of Florida
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.11
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.10
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.13
SSTESOL Chapter Affiliates • Our most recently approved chapter is in South West Florida comprising Lee, Charlotte, Hendry, and Collier counties • For more in formation on forming a chapter, email the SSTESOL President.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.12
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.15
Introduction English Language Learners (ELLs) include over 5 million students and are the fastest growing student population in United States’ (US) public schools (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2017). The dramatic increase in the ELL student population means that today’s teachers need to be prepared to teach to a student population that is linguistically diverse. Teacher preparation programs (TPPs) shoulder the responsibility of preparing teachers to meet this task, albeit little is known about the strategies that work best to prepare teachers for working with ELLs. As per the Consent Decree, teachers in the state of Florida are required to have an English as a Second Language (ESL)[1] teaching credential or endorsement add-on to their state issued teaching license (LULAC v. State Board of Education, 1990). Although the Consent Decree was passed in 1990, TPPs in the state of Florida did not begin to include mandatory ESL coursework for all teacher candidates until 2001 (Wheeler & Govoni, 2014). The Consent Decree requires that all teacher candidates complete 15 credits in ESL coursework while in teacher preparation. The 15 credit requirement may be done through stand-alone, infused or hybrid coursework (a combination of stand-alone and infusion), whereby candidates must complete a minimum of two ESL stand-alone courses and may cover other ESL standards through ESL infusion (de Jong, Naranjo, Li & Ouzia, 2018). ESL infusion means that each university faculty member must incorporate materials of relevance to ELLs into courses across the curriculum (Ballantyne, Sanderman & Levy, 2008). While the Consent Decree changed the state of ESL teacher education in the state of Florida, the 15-credit ESL coursework requirement comes with several limitations. First, research on ESL infusion is scant (de Jong et al., 2018). Although literature on ESL teacher education has become clearer about the content and curriculum prospective teachers need to complete while in teacher preparation (TESOL/CAEP 2010), little is known about the structures and procedures that best to prepare prospective teachers for language-focused ESL instruction in mainstream classroom settings (Lucas, 2011). Moreover, research has argued that two stand-alone ESL courses are not enough to prepare candidates with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions they need to work effectively with ELLs (Coady, Harper and de Jong, 2016). Reflection is a central component of teacher preparation (Zeichner & Liston, 2013). The reflective practices used for general teacher education contexts are frequently guided by the works of Dewey (1933) and Schön (1983;1987). Dewey, described reflection as one’s “ability to look back over what has been done so as to extract the net meanings which are capital stock for dealing with future experiences (p.10). Schön (1983;1986) described the reflective practitioner; an individual who reflects both “in” and “on” action. Reflection-in-action is thinking while in the midst of action, while reflection-on-action is thinking about events that have already taken place. While Dewey’s and Schön’s descriptions of reflection are used to conceptualize reflective practices for general education teacher preparation, it is unclear how these descriptions of reflection are used for ESL infusion coursework. Reflection for ESL teacher education is described as an evidence-based practice where teacher candidates are required to collect and analyze classroom data for instructional decision-making and professional development (Farrell & Richards, 2005). Video provides and easy cost-effective way for candidates to collect evidence on classroom instruction (Calandra & Rich, 2015). Video recordings provide candidates with an accurate account of what occurred during a particular lesson, In addition, candidates can watch recorded videos of lesson multiple times to notice critical incidents in teaching (Tripp, 2012). Critical incidents are unplanned unanticipated classroom events that seem typical at first sight, but are rendered critical through analysis. By examining critical incidents, candidates can link recorded practice to learned theory and can consider instructional improvements that are needed (Farrell & Baecher, 2017). To date, literature on video reflection for teacher preparation discusses how teachers can use video to reflect on instruction delivered to native English speakers (Calandra & Rich, 2015). The literature on video reflection for ESL teacher education is still in its infancy stages and more empirical research is needed to determine how candidates can use video to notice and reflect on ESL critical incidents. This study aims to fill the present gap in the literature and will investigate how four, final semester, undergraduate, teacher candidates in an ESL infused, elementary education TPP used video to reflect on their instruction for ELLs. Specifically, the research will investigate: the critical incidents that teacher candidates reflect on when discussing their lesson plans, personally recorded videos, and video analysis results with a university supervisor. To situate the present research, Farrell’s (2015) theory and practice stages of reflection, and critical incidents in teaching (Tripp, 2012) will be discussed as the conceptual frameworks guiding the study. Next, a review of literature on video reflection for ESL teacher education will be presented to discuss trends and present gaps in the literature. Then, the ESL video reflection practice used in this research will be shared to present the context, participants, data collection, data analysis, and research findings. The article will conclude with a discussion on the topics that should be covered in ESL infusion teacher education coursework along with recommendations for future research. Statement of the Problem When this research took place, I was a teacher educator for an ESL infused TPP at a large public research institution in the state of Florida. I had formerly worked for the largest district in the state as a public school, elementary ESL school teacher, where the majority of my students came from Spanish-speaking households. When I transitioned from classroom teaching to teacher education, I noticed that the candidates under my supervision did not have the same comfort levels and feelings of self-efficacy that I had when it came to working with ELLs. In an attempt to mitigate candidates’ lack of preparation for ESL instruction, I worked to create explicit ESL infusion practices that I could integrate into my own supervision work. In my research, I created an ESL-focused video reflection practice. I modified an existing field-experience supervision framework that the university used for general teacher preparation coursework. This framework included a preconference, formal observation, and post-conference. I modified the framework, creating an ESL-focused video reflection practice that required candidates to record then analyze segments of their ESL instruction for reflection. I also required candidates to engage in reflective dialogue with me (university supervisor) surrounding noticed ESL critical incidents. Conceptual Framework This research was guided by Farrell’s (2015) theory and practice stages of reflection. To illustrate the relationship between theory and practice reflection, Farrell described an iceberg, whereby, theory reflection includes invisible (mental) processes that cannot be seen and are below the surface, while practice reflection includes visible teaching actions and behaviors that can be seen by others and are ‘above the surface’ (Figure 1). Figure 1: The theory and practice stages of reflection in ESL teacher education. Theory reflection provides opportunities for candidates to reflect on their lesson plans with a knowledgeable other (Vygotsky, 1978) such as a university supervisor, to examine and discuss the different choices made about particular skills that are taught (or that they think should be taught) in a particular lesson. When planning instruction candidates refer to ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ theories (Farrell, 2015). Official theories are learned in coursework, books, or journals, while unofficial theories are the hunches or ideas candidates draw on when planning or engaged in teaching action (Argyris & Schön, 1974). In the present study, theory reflection was elicited in pre- conferences where candidates shared their ESL lesson plans with a university supervisor (author). Practice reflection allows candidates to reflect-in-on, and, for-action (Figure 1). Reflection-in-action is action-present thinking that gets us through the day (Schön, 1983), while reflection-on-action is retrospective reflection; “thinking back on what we have done in order to discover how our knowing-in-action may have contributed to an unexpected outcome” (Schön, 1987, p. 26). Reflection-for-action is proactive thinking done in an attempt to change the nature of a desired outcome (Farrell, 2015); that is, thinking about how to improve instruction in the future. In the present study, video recordings of ESL instruction were used to promote candidates’ reflections-in-on and for- ESL action. Critical Incidents in Teaching Critical incidents are unplanned, unanticipated “vividly remembered” (Brookfield, 1990, p.84) classroom events that occur anytime in a teacher’s career. Recorded classroom incidents only become ‘critical’ when they are subjected to a conscious reflective practice that includes analysis (Richards & Farrell 2005). When analyzing critical incidents candidates can (re)examine the beliefs and assumptions that underpin their routine actions (knowing-in-action). Conscious, analysis provides a way for candidates to examine how their enacted teaching actions run counter to or alongside personally held conceptualizations of what good ESL teaching should look like. In the present research, critical incident analysis was facilitated with a video annotation tool. Critical incident Analysis Video annotation tools are “online or offline programs that allow teacher candidates to mark portions of video and reflect on it by adding written, spoken, or visual comments selected sections of video” (Rich & Trip, 2011, p. 16). Research reports that video annotation tools have the potential to scaffold, structure and transform teacher reflection (Rich & Hannafin, 2009). Before candidates are provided with video annotation tools for reflection, they need explicit training on how to use the tool for video analysis (Prusak, Dye, Graham, & Graser, 2010), and should be provided with a coding framework, or instructional goal to direct the codes they assign to selected segments of video (Rich & Trip, 2011). While there has been a documented growth in the interest TPPs have in using video annotation tools for candidates’ reflective practices, no studies have reported on how candidates in ESL infused TPPs can use video annotation tools to reflect on personal recordings of ESL instruction. Research Question Using the theory and practice stages of Farrell’s (2015) reflection framework and descriptions of critical incidents in teaching (Tripp 2012), an ESL-focused video reflection practice was designed to investigate the following research question: 1. What critical incidents do final semester teacher candidates in an infused ESL, elementary TPP reflect on when discussing lesson plans, recorded videos, and video analysis results of their instruction for ELLs with a university supervisor? Video Reflection for ESL Teacher Preparation: What Does the Literature Say? Researchers who study video reflection for ESL teacher education have found that extensive viewing of personal recordings of ESL instruction may help novice teachers examine classroom incidents through an ELL’s perspective of the classroom. Estapa, Pinnow and Chval (2017) used video to examine two third grade novice teachers’ math instruction for ELLs. In their 12-week study, math lessons were filmed using a researcher-directed camera on a tripod as well as multiple head-mounted student cameras that were strategically placed on ELL and non-ELL students. The video from each camera worn by ELLs was reviewed after each lesson to create a map of the lesson that documented each student’s experiences and interactions during instruction. Researchers used the lesson maps to select specific video clips to play and discuss during lesson debrief (post-conference) sessions with teachers. Estapa et al. found that video reflection allowed teachers to notice features beyond behavioral aspects so they could hone in on aspects of ESL instruction that needed to be changed or improved on, but did not explain how teachers should analyze and discusses video recordings of their ESL instruction for reflection. Other researchers note that video reflection induces teachers’ professional development, Mercado and Baecher (2016) explored how candidates’ in a TPP in Peru used video for self-observation. Their candidates in their research used a self-evaluation framework to analyze their video; with the goal of having more instances of student talk time and less instances of teacher talk time. The self-evaluation video analysis framework included that following components: instructional practices, critical incidents, key decisions, and an action plan. Survey responses revealed that most candidates believed that video allowed them to better reflect on their teaching to identify areas of instructional strength and weakness. Candidates also reported that sharing instructional videos with others promoted personal reflections on teaching. Mercado’s and Beachers’ research offered insight on how video reflection frameworks can be used to engage teacher candidates in collaborative discussions on recorded ESL practices, but did not discuss how reflective dialogue should occur in an ESL-focused video reflection practice. The literature also discusses the affordances and challenges university supervisors (UnSs) face when using video tools to evaluate candidates ESL instructional performances. Beacher, McCormack and Kung (2014) examined how UnSs used video for supervision practices. Questionnaire responses and written vignettes were analyzed to examine the perceived affordances and challenges UnSs face when using video for supervision. Listed affordances revealed that video promoted specificity in candidates’ reflections; provided a greater focus on the lesson at hand, and motivated candidates’ autonomy in reflection. Reported challenges discussed the abbreviated nature of video clips, inability for UnSs to see the whole classroom, and UnSs’ uncertainties about how to use video evidence to move teacher candidate reflection forward. Beacher and Kung’(2014) concluded their research with the following suggestions for ESL teacher education programs: 1. Teacher candidates and UnSs should mutually agree on the types of student activities they want to see enacted in recorded instruction. 2. Teacher candidates should receive video viewing frameworks that guide their analysis of ESL video recordings. 3. Teacher candidates should complete a set of prompts prior to engaging in reflective dialogue. 4. Teacher candidates and UnSs should independently view candidates’ recorded instruction and mark instances that they want to discusses before engaging in video-mediated dialogue. Baecher’s and Kung’s research shed light on the ways UnSs can use video to promote candidates’ reflections on ESL instruction, however findings from their research centered on UnSs and did not examine how teacher candidates use video for reflections on ESL instruction. Video-Elicited Dialogue Video-elicited reflective dialogue provides a way for teacher candidates to listen to alternative interpretations of recorded classroom events with others. As Farrell (2007) notes, when language teachers come together in a group they can foster more of a sharing attitude with each other and can help each other articulate their thoughts about their work so that they can grow professionally together (p.130). To date, ESL video-elicited reflective dialogue has only been studied by a handful of scholars. Eröz-Tuǧa (2013) examined the video feedback sessions she had with 11 teacher candidates who were enrolled in an undergraduate English language teaching program in Turkey. The 11 participants in her research were videotaped twice throughout the semester. After each recording, participants met with Eröz-Tuǧa to engage in a feedback session that involved simultaneous video viewing. Participants used a feedback form to guide their viewing; this form concentrated on three general focuses: (1) classroom procedures and lesson planning; (2) self-presentation and classroom persona; and, (3) classroom management. Eröz-Tuǧa found that participants seemed more reflective after their second feedback session, nothing that candidates’ dependence on their UnS for feedback decreased throughout the semester as they became more comfortable with watching videotaped recordings of their ESL instruction. While Eröz-Tuǧa’s findings imply that a video reflection practice should include a minimum of two instances of video elicited dialogue to minimize candidates’ feelings of anxiety when viewing themselves on screen. However, it is important to note that candidates in Eröz-Tuǧa’s research were given a video feedback form that focused on teaching actions (classroom procedures, management and teacher persona), and this video viewing framework did not allow candidates to develop a better understanding of language instruction. Baecher, Rorimer, and Smith (2012) examined the video conversations that seven high school teachers had as they engaged in ESL-focused video group discussions after school. The research took place over a four-month period and included data gathered from audio-recordings of video sessions, field notes, pre- and post- video observation tasks, lesson plans, and student work samples. Similar to Eröz-Tuǧa’s research (2013), Beacher et al. noted that teachers initially felt anxious about sharing personal recordings of their classroom instruction with others, but as sessions progressed teachers began to “see the value of video analysis as a means to investigate their own local practice” (p.55) and soon developed inquiries for improving ESL instruction at their school. Baecher et al. noted that trust in the collaborative process must be created before teachers are asked to share videos of their instruction with others, They also suggested that video-elicited reflective dialogue be guided by a set or ESL learning objectives that are decided upon collaboratively beforehand. Methods This qualitative, hermeneutic (Lincoln & Guba, 2013) multiple case study (Stake, 2006) spanned a four-month period. In the first month, candidates participated in an initial training where they learned how to use the video annotation tool V- Note (version 2.2.3, 2014). In moths two, three and four, candidates were asked to record three separate instances of their ESL instruction (one lesson per month) to complete three iterations of an ESL video reflection practice. Initial Training The candidates included in this study analyzed recorded videos of their ESL instruction using V-Note. Prior to engaging in independent video analysis tasks, candidates were given a 60-minute individual training on how to use the video annotation tool. Candidates scheduled their independent V-Note training with the author. In the training, candidates used V-Note to analyze a 10-minute practice video segment of an ESL teacher delivering math instruction for ELLs. To guide video analysis, each candidate was provided with an ESL Video Analysis Framework. The framework listed the following prompts: 1. Select and write down a personal ESL instructional goal to use for video analysis. 2. Watch the entire recorded video of instruction. 3. Select a 10-15- minute segment for analysis. 4. Watch the selected segment again; writing down words or phrases that relate to the personal ESL instructional goal (that was written in step one). 5. Review the words and phrases written to create code buttons for V-Note analysis. 6. Use the code buttons to analyze the 10-15-minute video segment. The ESL Video Analysis Framework was adapted from Tripp’s and Rich’s (2012) review of the literature on teacher video reflection where repeated viewing, guided focused analysis, and video annotation tools were described as being integral components of a video reflection methodology. ESL Video Reflection Practice The ESL video reflection practice designed to conduct this research included five steps: (a) preconference; (b) record ESL instruction: (c) analyze ESL instruction; (d) post-conference; and, (e) reflection (Figure 2). Figure 2: ESL Video Reflection Practice Pre-conference. Open-ended pre-conferences were conducted monthly to allow candidates to share their ESL lesson plans, to discuss the strategies they wanted to use for ESL instruction. Pre-conferences were 30-45 minutes in length, took place after school in teacher candidates’ field experience classrooms As candidates shared their lesson plan the UnS (author) took notes in her researcher’s journal, asking clarifying questions, or providing suggestions when needed. After discussing their lesson ESL plan, candidates decided on the instructional goal they wanted to use as ‘lens’ for their analysis (e.g., I want to use visuals to support ELLs comprehension of math vocabulary) and explained how they would record instruction to capture their ‘ESL instructional goal-in-action’. Record ESL instruction. Candidates were required to record 20-minutes of uninterrupted instruction that focused on ELLs. To record instruction, candidates used personal cell phones that were mounted to spider-leg adjustable tripods; these tripods allowed candidates to place their cameras in optimal locations throughout the classroom. (Spider-leg tripods were provided by the author and were also available for loan through the university’s technology department). Video analysis. After recording ESL instruction, candidates were required to analyze their video-recording independently using V-Note and the ESL Video Analysis Framework that was provided to them in the initial training. This framework guided candidates’ analysis of ESL critical incidents that would be shared in post-conference dialogue with the UnS. Post-conference. Post-conferences took place one-week after candidates delivered their ESL instruction and took 60-minutes to complete. All post-conferences occurred after school in teacher candidates’ field experience classrooms in private to promote and maintain candidates’ trust and openness with the UnS. Teacher candidates facilitated the post-conference; playing segments of recorded video to present V-Note analysis findings and noticed critical incidents. As candidates spoke, the UnS actively listened and took notes in her researcher’s journal. At times, the UnS would note that candidates missed a critical incident and therefore had had to stop, rewind, and replay specific video segments for discussion. This was done in an attempt to create dialogic tension that would induce considerations for instructional change. Written reflection. Candidates were asked to complete a written reflection about their ESL instructional experience V-Note analysis and post-conference conversation one week following the post-conference. To do so, candidates were given a modification of the Critical Incident Form (Bruster & Peterson, 2013: Griffin, 2003) The form asked teacher candidates to: (1) describe any ESL critical incidents that occurred on video; (2) discuss the meaning of the critical incidents; and, (3) describe the ideas they had for future ESL instruction. Once complete, candidates submitted their reflections to the author electronically. Context The research took place at a TPP at a large, public research university in the southeast part of the country. Candidates entered the TPP in their junior year of college and completed four semesters of coursework, online ESL coursework, and field experiences. Semesters one, two and three included two days of field-experience and semester four (final semester full-time, student teaching) included five days of field-experience. In their final semester participants were responsible for planning and teaching four formal observations that would be observed by their UnS (author). Formal observations needed to include instruction for all students (including ELLs) and could occur during any one of the four content areas: (ELA, math, science, or social studies). It was recommended that candidates video record their instruction for reflection, however this practice was not enforced the same way by all UnSs. Participants Four final semester teacher candidates who were enrolled in the ESL infused, elementary education TPP volunteered to participate in this research and were given informed consent. The four participants were females who were between the ages of 21-24 and had completed 15 credits in infused ESL coursework for the state required ESL endorsement add-on to their professional teaching license. When this research occurred, the participants were completing final semester field-experiences in mainstream (first or second grade) elementary, English-only classrooms that were located across three different schools within the same county. Participants’ field-experience classrooms included a minimum of two ELLs and were located in low-incidence ELL public schools where classrooms averaged two ELLs per class. Two participants identified as being Latina but did not speak Spanish, therefore, all participants were native English speakers. Participants were assigned to one mentor teacher who supported their instruction; mentor teachers were ESL endorsed, and all three schools had one ESL resource teacher who supported ELLs using pull-out instruction. Data Collection Data were collected over a three-month period and included video recordings of pre- and post-conferences, and written reflections. A researcher’s journal (Janesick, 2015) was also used throughout the course of this study. Since each participant completed three iterations of the ESL video reflection practice, the total data corpus included 12 pre-lesson conferences, 12 post-lesson conferences, 12 written reflections, and one researcher’s journal. Data Analysis Data were analyzed to examine the critical incidents that final semester teacher candidates in an ESL infused, elementary education, TPP reflect on when discussing their lesson plans, recorded videos and video analysis results of their instruction for ELLs with a university supervisor. To initiate data analysis, I used HyperResearch, employing structural coding (Saldaña, 2016) to triangulate pre and post-conference transcripts and participants’ written reflections. Structural coding allowed me to apply “a content based or conceptual phrase representing a topic of inquiry to a segment of data to both code and categorize the data corpus” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 72) into smaller chunks. To chunk the larger data corpus, I read through participants’ pre-and post-conference transcripts and written reflections separating sections of dialogue where candidates discussed a critical incident they noticed on video or referred to when planning instruction. I then categorized each data chunk according to speaker, this allowed me to study each critical incident as a story being told (Stake, 1995) and also allowed me to see how each participant developed as an ESL teacher throughout the video reflection practice. Next, I read through each chunk moving from pre-conferences to post-conference, then written reflections as a single cases analysis (Stake, 1995). As I read data on a case-by-case basis, I applied topic codes to describe each critical incident being discussed; this methodology was similar to the one employed by Farrell (2008) in his study of critical incident reflections of teacher trainees in Singapore. Table 1: Critical Incidences After, I had assigned topic codes to all data chunks, I reviewed my coding using a multiple case study analysis (Stake, 2006), to look for topic codes that were dominant across all participants; this process allowed me to group similar topic codes together and led to two critical incident categories: ‘Instructional’ and ‘Perceived Challenges’. I then chunked dominant topic codes into a separate group on HyperResearch to aggregate similar topics together as they represented each critical incident category (instructional or perceived challenge). After doing so, I read through the data, defining each topic as it related to each associated category. I then used this codebook (Table 1) to recode the data on HyperResearch. After doing so, I ran a “frequency builder” report on HyperResearch, where I noted the number of times each critical incident topic occurred in the data corpus. Once complete, I provided each participant with a copy of the codebook (Table 1) to initiate a member checking process (Lincoln & Guba,1987) where I asked each participant (candidate) to verify the critical incidents categories, topic codes, and definitions I had listed. What critical incidents do final semester candidates in an elementary education, ESL infused TPP reflect on when discussing their lesson plans, recorded videos and video analysis results of their instruction for ELLs with a university supervisor? Instructional Critical Incidents Instructional critical incidents totaled 91 occurrences and included mention of the language accommodations candidates used for ESL instruction; discussions surrounding the whole class activities they used where ELLs were taught the same as all students in the class; or, critical incidents that mentioned instructional considerations as they related to ELLs’ English language proficiency levels. Language accommodations . Candidates mentioned critical incidents that centered on the language accommodations they used to support ELLs during a particular lesson. Critical incidents that mentioned language accommodations incurred a total of 47 times. When candidates reflected on the language accommodations they used, they shared that a strategy enacted to support ELLs’ language needs did not work according to plans. My goal was to use ‘acting out’, so using movement to support ELLs’, but I don’t think they [ELLs] knew what acting out meant. I said “Ok, everyone I want you to ‘act out’ the vocabulary words. But you’ll see that he [ELL] didn’t do anything, he just stood at his desk. I need to unpack the words used in my directions (P3, post-conference 3). I wanted to conduct one-on-one writing conference with the ELLs , but noticed I didn’t prep them with what a writing conference was for so it was a waste of time P1, post reflection 1). I wanted him to use sentence frames but, in the video, I can see he isn’t even using them, his partner is and she isn’t even an ELL. (P4, post-conference 1). They were working in small groups, the math problem read “Sheila took 12 pictures Dan took 9 how many more pictures does Sheila have than Dan”. She [ELL] told me subtraction, so I asked her how she knew it was subtraction. Then, she said it was because they ‘took pictures’. I didn’t even think about the phrase ‘took pictures’ until now. She was thinking the literal meaning of ‘took’. I need to plan better for math language from here on out (P2, pre-conference 2). These instances revealed that when engaged in reflection-in-action (thinking in the midst of action) candidates were unable to resolve an instructional dilemma to work effectively with ELLs. Although candidates had planned to use specific language accommodations for ELLS, they neglected to plan for how they would deliver and scaffold these accommodations so ELLs would know how to use them for language support. For example, participant four (P4) gave an ELL sentence frames and noticed (in her video) that the ELL did not use the sentence frames as she had anticipated. This suggests that candidates need to not only plan for language objective and the accommodations they will use to support language, but also need to opportunities to practice how they will ‘show’ ELLs how to use specific language accommodations being provided during a given lesson. Whole-class instruction. Candidates reflected on whole class activities a total of 31 times. When discussing whole-class critical incidents, candidates shared or reflected on a segment of video where teaching actions were delivered to all students in the class the same way. When reflecting on whole class critical incidents, candidates realized that non-differentiated instructional practices were ineffective at instructing ELLs: I asked these questions to the whole class, but I’m seeing that none of the ELLs participated or attempted to answer my questions. I just don’t think this discussion worked well” (P4, post-conference 2). I gave all students the same sentence starters, I didn’t think about modeling how to use them, or including different amounts of blanks and words for ELLs who vary in their proficiency (P1, written reflection, 2). The handout I gave the class didn’t work well, the students had different reading needs and I didn’t consider the ELLs being different in their reading need either (P3, pre-conference 2). As candidates viewed video recordings of their instruction, they noticed that whole group teaching actions (questions, sentence frames and handouts) were ineffective at addressing ELLs’ individual linguistic needs. When reflecting on whole-class critical incidents candidates also shared the judgements they had about their video analysis results: I’m seeing that I need to differentiate for the ELLs instead of using the same thing for everyone. I had a ton of red codes meaning they [ELLs] were off task. I want to have less red next time around and more green ‘on-task’ codes. (P1, post-conference 2). When I look at my code buttons I can see that they [ELL] have different language needs, so I need to instruct them differently. She had more speaking codes while he had more reading codes (P3, written reflection, 2). Using a video annotation tool to analyze personal video recordings of ESL instruction provided a way for candidates to see patterns in their instruction (off task versus on task and speaking versus reading codes). By conducting a pattern analysis of their video coding, candidates were able to make evidence-based future-oriented professional development goals about their own ESL practices: “I want to have less red next time”, and ; “I need to instruct them differently”. Video analysis promoted candidates’ professional development and autonomy because candidates were able to use video-evidence to justify why they chose a professional development goal or practice that they wanted to implement in the future to improve ELL academic outcomes. Moreover, video analysis provided a way for candidates to track their professional development progress over time “ I want to have less red [codes] next time around” as a way to demonstrate growth by comparing previous lessons to current lessons. Language proficiency. Candidates reflected on critical incidents surrounding ELLs’ language proficiency levels a total of 13 times. When discussing critical incidents surrounding language proficiency, candidates expressed that video evidence proved that ELLs who were in the same English language proficiency level needed different language supports: They’re both classified as being in the same proficiency level, but they’re two different students. She [ELL] needs more speaking support, while he [ELL] needs more reading and comprehension support” (P1, post-conference 2). It's like teaching two different students, they are not the same, I didn’t understand this before and I’m really starting to plan for these differences now (P3, written reflection). He is labeled as being as the same level of English proficiency as her, but he needs more reading support while she needs more speaking support (P4, pre-conference 2). Video evidence showed candidates that ELLs who were labeled as being in the same English language proficiency level performed differently. Although ELLs’ varying linguistic needs were addressed in candidates’ university ESL coursework, candidates did not truly grasp what ‘varying language needs’ meant until they saw it in practice and recorded on video. Video evidence showed candidates that ELLs who are in the same English language proficiency level have varying language learning needs in reading, speaking, listening, and writing. This suggests that ‘seeing believing’ when it comes to learned ESL theory and field-experience practices. Perceived Challenges Candidates also reflected on critical incidents where they discussed the instructional challenges they faced when working with ELLs in mainstream classroom settings. For example, 24 instances focused on classroom events where ELLs struggled with comprehension or accuracy; 14 instances focused on candidates’ misconceptions about ELLs who were dual-labeled as being SPED; 6 instances focused on candidates’ wanting more assistance from their schools’ ESL resources teacher; and 4 instances focused on behavior and time management issues (Table 1). Comprehension and accuracy. Candidates reflected on ELLs who had issues with comprehension and accuracy saying: One of them [ELL] is not understanding directions. I’ll ask does everyone understand and I’ll get “yes”, but then when I walk over to his desk I notice that something is clearly missing he seems lost, but the other ELL get it. (P4, post-conference 2). He’ll [ELL] raise his hand all the time but when I call on him he doesn’t know the answer, or if he just likes to raise his hand to play around because he has a learning issue. (P2, post-conference 2). I think they [ELLs] understand the lesson, but then when I walk around and look at their [ELLs] answers they clearly didn’t get it, it’s blank or incorrect (P1, written reflection 2). I’ll tell him [ELL] to repeat what I just said and he can’t even do that, I’m starting to think he is SPED too (P4, pre-conference 2). In the above excerpts, candidates shared critical incidents where ELLs struggled with comprehension of verbal directions. Candidates felt frustration, unable to explain why the critical incident occurred. This frustration led candidates to place blame on the ELL student as a student who had a learning disability rather a language need. Another candidate compared ELLS noticing that one ELL comprehended her directions while other ELL did not. In all cases, candidates neglected to explore the effects that their own teaching actions had on ELLs’ language needs and academic outcomes. For example, participant two (P2) stated, “I’m thinking he [ELL] just likes to raise his hand to play around”. These instances reveal that candidates who are unable to explain why a critical incident occurred may begin to place to blame on the ELL student instead of critically examining how their own teaching actions failed to support ELLs’ language needs. ELL as SPED. Candidates who were unable to explain why a ‘problematic’ critical incidents occurred began to use deficit language to describe ELLs; reasoning that ELLs who had compression issues needed to be placed in special education (SPED). Candidate: “I’m starting to think he’s SPED UnS: Why? Candidate: Simple things, like when I’ll ask him a question; like today I said did you bring your jacket? He said “yes” but he didn’t really have one, so I asked him again, “Did you bring your jacket today?” He said “No”. He’s just really wishy-washy. UnS: ¿Trajiste tu chaqueta hoy? Candidate: Ha! What did you say? UnS: I just asked you if you brought your jacket today in Spanish. If you said “Yes” and then I asked you the same question again you’d know the answer must be “No” right? Candidate: Yeah, I guess. UnS: So, would you say this is an example of a language or a learning issue? Candidate: It’s definitely language, but I’m still not sure, I mean there are other examples I just can’t think of them right now. In the above excerpt, the UnS used Spanish to show the candidate what the ELL must feel like in class. This was done intentionally to create dialogic a tension, that would prompt the candidate to reconsider the deficit perception she had about the ELL needing SPED services based on one interaction alone. While dialogue did not change the candidate’s beliefs instantly, it did create cognitive disequilibrium that jarred complacency. The candidate stated “It’s definitely language” showing that her initial perception of the critical incident being proof of the ELL needing SPED services was challenged by conversation with the UnS. However, it is unclear if this conversation was enough to maintain long-term change about the candidate’s misconception about the ELL’s learning needs. Assistance and support. In other instances, candidates reflected on the support SPED students receive and lack of support the ELL students in their classrooms received. Critical incidents that centered on support from outside staff or other teachers occurred a total of six times in the data corpus and included discussions where candidates reflected on the confusion they had between ESL support on SPED support: The SPED students get support daily but the ESL Resource Teacher comes in once a week. Why is that? Then I have two students who are ELL and SPED… I guess I don’t really understand how I should support them [ELLs] when they are labeled as being both ELL and SPED. I know I need to learn more to feel ready (P4, written reflection 3). I have one ELL who is SPED and one who is just labeled ELL, but I’m not really understanding the difference between the labels when it comes to the ESL resource teacher support and what my instruction should look like for these students [ELLs who are SPED] (P1, written reflection 3). I see a difference between the ELLs and the ones who are ELL and SPED. What I want to know more about is how to support the ELLs who are also SPED when it comes to language (P3, written reflection 3). It’s really sporadic, sometimes she [ESL Resource Teacher] comes in, other times she doesn’t so it’s really up in the air. I’m not sure if I should plan for her support or not. It seems like she mostly does our testing. And when it comes to the ones [ELLs] who are both ELL and SPED I’m just really not sure what to do with them; their SPED support seems more consistent than the ESL support (P2, pre-conference 2). All four participants reflected on the discomfort they felt when teaching to ELLs who were also labeled SPED as well as the lack of or inconsistent support they received from their schools’ ESL resource teacher. The lack of support for language but continuous support for learning (SPED) seemed to create a confusion between ELLs’ language and learning needs. Candidates wondered what type of instruction took precedence: SPED or ESL instruction, and were not sure why SPED students received daily support while ESL students did not. This made candidates unsure about their instructional role differed or remained the same when instructing to ELLs and students who were both ELL and SPED. As P1 stated, “what [should] my instruction look like for these students?” As candidates continued to discuss the challenges they felt teaching to students who were dual labeled as ELL and SPED, they shared the difficulties they had with lesson planning: I know he has a language need but also has leaning issues so that’s why he is also in the SPED program. I see the difference, but don’t necessarily know how I should teach to these differences. The dual-label is confusing when I plan (P2, pre-conference 3). If I’m planning and language objective, so I also plan a SPED objective? I guess I don’t understand the difference aren’t some of the language accommodations I’m planning for also SPED support? (P1, pre-conference 2). These utterances revealed that candidates needed a deeper understanding of dual-labeling and language versus learning accommodations hen planning instruction as the difference between SPED and ESL was a gray area for the candidates included in this research.. Behavior. Participants played segments of video where ELLs were not following directions. These ‘behavior’ critical incidents occurred a total of four times and included discussions on whole-class instructional events where ELLs were not following candidates’ expectations of what good student behavior looked like: He’s [ELL] always goofing off in class. I’m not sure if he does it for attention or to cover that he is clueless (P3, post-conference 1). I’ll tell the class to turn to the next page and she’s [ELL] is still on the wrong page (P2, pre-conference, 1). Participants who reflected on ELLs’ classroom behaviors felt that ELLs were not behaving well in class. However, none of the candidates stated that they had collected information about ELLS ‘ former schooling experiences or backgrounds. When candidates were asked about this data they did not know how to find it (researcher’s journal); explaining that they did not see their mentor teacher or ESL resource teacher collecting it. Time. In addition to behavior issues, candidates reflected on the time constraints entailed in “keeping up with the curriculum pacing guide” (P1, post-conference 2); “grade level expectations” (P4, post-conference 3); and, the “need to move on” (P2, pre-conference 2) even though they knew that ELLS were “falling behind” (P3, post-conference 1) or did not fully grasp a lesson. Candidates shared the pressures they felt to keep up with the school’s pacing guide saying, I had to move on to the next chapter, even though I knew they [ELLs] didn’t understand the last concept. We’re [class] already behind the pacing guide” (P3,written reflection 2). We have a 90-minute block for ELA. I see the value of meeting with ELLs for one-on-one writing conferences, but I have three [students] in my class who are ELL then three others [students] who are ELL and SPED, I just don’t have enough time to meet with all six of them independently, it’s hard (P1, pre-conference1). I noticed he [ELL] was confused the entire lesson but my mentor teacher said we have to move on to the next chapter because we are already behind schedule (P2, pre-conference2). Sometimes language instruction can be challenging. I plan accommodations in my lesson plan, but then there isn’t enough time for them [ELLs] to work in the small pull-out with me to go over their reading and compression with the tools [accommodations] I wanted to them to use (P4, written reflection). All four study candidates discussed time constraints as being a factor that affected their ability to work effectively with ELLs, sharing that they needed to “move on” even though they knew that an ELL didn’t fully grasp a concept and would benefit from more one-on-one instruction time or a lesson reteach. One participant even shared that she knew an ELL needed more help, she was urged to move on by her mentor teacher: “my mentor teacher said we have to move on to the next chapter because we are already behind schedule” (P2). Language accommodations take time management skills that teacher candidates need explicit practice with while in teacher preparation in order to learn how to negotiate the challenges they will face when in the field and presented with grade level pacing guides and curriculum maps. Discussion Findings from this research revealed that an ESL video reflection practice promoted teacher candidates’ reflections on critical incidents that centered on instruction and the perceived challenges candidates they faced when working with ELLs in mainstream classroom settings. The top three critical incidents that were reflected on were: discussion on language accommodations that were used to support ELLs’ language needs (47); whole-class activities that did not work to support ELLS’ language needs (31); and, ELLs’ struggles with language comprehension and accuracy (24). Findings from this research support other studies (Baecher & Kung, 2011; Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen and Terpstra, 2009) that found that critical incidents do not need to be negative to initiate teacher change, they may be positive in nature, and just need to jar teacher complacency. When reflecting on instructional critical incidents, candidates noticed that their teaching actions needed to be changed to better support ELLs’ individual language needs. In the instances candidates perceived that noticed instructional issues (that were recorded and watched on tape) were the result of inadequate planning on their part. As candidates used the video annotation tool to scrutinize their whole class activities, they noticed that ELLs who had similar English language proficiency levels needed different language ‘domain’ accommodations (reading, speaking, listening, writing), and were able to reflect on unfavorable classroom events to consider future-oriented instructional actions they needed to take for ELL academic improvement. Video analysis induced reflection-for-action as candidates began to consider future ESL practices they needed to implement to better support ELLs linguistic needs. When video evidence showed candidates that ESL improvements were needed and provided candidates with autonomy in deciding what they needed to work on next. This model differs from traditional supervision cycles where the UnS uses their own observation data as evidence on what that candidate needs to work on or improve for subsequent instruction. As Eröz-Tuǧa (2013) explains, “showing instead of telling enables the trainee to see their own classroom presentations” (p.183). When the candidates analyze their own ESL instructional video recordings they are able to ‘see’ where instructional change is needed. Video reflection facilitates professional development that uses showing rather than telling Farrell & Baecher (2017) explain that critical incidents create a bridge between theory and practice. However, I would argue that the ‘bridge’ between theory and practice needs to be supported by dialogue; especially for notice teachers who are developing in their own ESL instruction. Novice teachers are unable to make theoretical connections on their own without some form of guidance or probing. We must therefore ask ourselves, who will be proving guidance to candidates to move their reflection forward, and are these individuals credentialed in the content areas candidates are reflecting on? Tripp (2012) notes that a critical incident framework should allow teacher candidates to describe an incident, suggest an explanation for the incident, then find a more general meaning and classification for the significance of the incident. Tripp’s conceptualization of critical incident reflection does not consider the scaffolding teacher candidates need to arrive at the significance of a noticed classroom event. The significance candidates associate to a noticed ESL critical incident may not always be correct and video-elicited dialogue is needed to scaffold candidates’ reflections on teaching and learning. Golombek (2011) suggests that an expert teachers’ way of thinking can help orient a novice teachers’ way of thinking to assist their ESL development and expertise. Findings from this research support Golombek’s research. Reflective dialogue with a UnS (who is credentialed in ESL instruction) may help candidates make sense of problematic situations that they are unable to resolve through independent reflection alone. Still, it is unclear if it is the “expertise” of the UnS or the dialogue that promotes candidates’ reflections-for- ESL action. More research is needed to determine if reflection-for ESL action arises in other dialogue contexts, such as: peer groups, critical friendships, or teacher candidate video club groups where an ESL “expert” is not present or simply works to facilitate the video reflection process. Traditional field-experience observation cycles use the UnSs’ observation notes to guide the topics that are addressed in post-conferences with a teacher candidate. The ESL video reflection practice presented in this research provided an opportunity for teacher candidates to facilitate the post-lesson conferences they had with their UnS by using their video-recordings as a lesson artifact to guide the conversation. Sewall (2009) explains that video reflection works better than supervisor observation notes as a guide for post-conference discussions because teacher candidates are more apt to changing their practices when they own the artifact being used to guide discussion. For this reason, it is recommended that ESL infusion programs include assignments where candidates have opportunities to plans, enact, record, and analyze ESL language strategies as a way to reflect on ESL theories leaner din coursework. To explicitly connect to theory ESL infused TPPS should teach theory in scaffolded manner where candidates learn one theory at a time then plan, enact, record and analyze instruction to reflect on a given theory before they are required learn about another. This process will allow teacher candidates to actualize and reflect on that they have learned in coursework as a way to develop ESL teaching practices. When reflecting on perceived challenges, the candidates in this research discussed the confusion they had between ELLs who were dual-labeled as being ELL and SPED and often thought ELLS should be in the SPED program without collecting sufficient data. Hamayan, Marler, Sanchez-Lopez, and Damico (2013) explain that teachers often make general statements about ELLs’ classroom performances (e.g. they can’t read), but such statements do not help us specifically understand the challenges the ELL student is experiencing. Hayman et al., explain teachers “should answer the questions “What?” before attempting to answer the question “Why”? (p.37). For example, rather than saying an ELL cannot read (general observation), a specific observation would be that the ELL is unable read the academic terms presented to him/her in the Science text. To answer “Why?” the teacher candidate can critically examine the text to notice that he/she did not support ELLs’ comprehension of the Science academic vocabulary words presented in the textbook. By producing specific “What” observations and “Why” explanations teacher candidates can minimize the misidentification of ELLS in SPED programs. Future research is needed to examine how teacher candidates perceive, plan for and enact instruction to students who are dual labeled as ELL and SPED. This research would have potential benefits on how TPPs can ameliorate the difficulties candidates face when teaching to ELLs who are dual-labeled or can shed light on the perceptions candidates have about ESL and SPED practices in mainstream classrooms. Limitations While this research showed that the ESL Video Reflection Practice used in this study was beneficial for candidates’ reflections on instruction for ELLs, these findings do not come without several limitations. First, the UnS (author) included in this research had a background in elementary ESL education and was completing an advanced graduate degree in ESL teacher education. Other TPPs may not have enough faculty who are credentialed in ESL instruction to work with candidates in their field-experiences as ESL ‘experts’. Secondly, the participants included in this study volunteered to be study participants in this research because they wanted to improve their ESL instruction. Therefore, it cannot be guaranteed that findings from this research will be similar in nature if the same research is conducted on a group of candidates who do not have the same ESL professional development goals. Thirdly, this research occurred in a state where ESL endorsement is required for all teacher candidates, making it easy to add and/or infuse an ESL video reflection practice to an existing field experience supervision cycle (pre-conference, observation, post-conference). Universities who do not have requirements in place for ESL credentials or licenses may experience difficulty integrating the ESL video reflection practice discussed in this research in a general education teacher TPP setting. Lastly, this research highlighted the critical incident reflections of four final semester teacher candidates and do not represent the critical incidents that all candidates will have about ESL instruction. Conclusion Digital video is an affordable reflection tool and its used widespread across TPPs. This study suggests that ESL video reflection should be incorporated into ESL infusion models and that ESL video reflection practices should include video annotation tools for video analysis, and video-elicited reflective dialogue with others. Rather than leaving candidates alone to engage in reflective practices independently, video analysis provides an innovative way for candidates to share the perceptions they have about noticed ESL critical incidents with others. Providing more opportunities for candidates to reflect on recorded ESL critical incidents through verbal dialogue serves to actualize learned theory. Candidates can apply what they have learned in ESL coursework to design and enact ELL instruction that is recorded for reflective purposes. ESL video reflection not only supports candidates’ reflections in-on-and for-action but may also result in stronger ESL teaching capabilities. Biographical Statement Monica González Smith, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor at the Institute for Teacher Education at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. She teaches courses to prepare elementary teacher candidates for instruction to multilingual learners. Her research focuses on video reflection for teacher preparation and content and integrated language learning References Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Baecher, L., Kung, S. C., Jewkes, A. M., & Rosalia, C. (2013). The role of video for self-evaluation in early field experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 189-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.08.001 Baecher, L., & Kung, S. C. (2011). Jumpstarting novice teachers’ ability to analyze classroom video: Affordances of an online workshop. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(1), 16-26. Baecher, L., McCormack, B., & Kung, S. C. (2014). Supervisor use of video as a tool in teacher reflection. Tesl-Ej, 18(3). Baecher, L., Rorimer, S., & Smith, L. (2012). Video-mediated teacher collaborative inquiry: Focus on English language learners. The High School Journal, 95(3), 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2012.0007 Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating english language learners: Building teacher capacity. Roundtable Report. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs. Brookfield, S. (1990) Using critical incidents to explore learner’s assumptions. In J. Merziow (Ed.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: a guide to transformative and Emancipatory learning (pages are missing here!). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bruster, B. G., & Peterson, B. R. (2013). Using critical incidents in teaching to promote reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 14(2), 170-182. Calandra, B., & Rich, P. J. (Eds.). (2014). Digital video for teacher education: Research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Coady, M. R., Harper, C., & De Jong, E. J. (2016). Aiming for equity: Preparing mainstream teachers for inclusion or inclusive classrooms?. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 340-368. de Jong, E. J., Naranjo, C., Li, S., & Ouzia, A. (2018, April). Beyond compliance: ESL faculty's perspectives on preparing general education faculty for esl infusion. The Educational Forum, 82(2),174-190. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. New York, Mineola: Dover. Eröz-Tuğa, B. (2012). Reflective feedback sessions using video recordings. ELT Journal, 67(2),175-183. Estapa, A., Pinnow, R. J., & Chval, K. B. (2016). Video as a professional development tool to support novice teachers as they learn to teach English language learners. The New Educator, 12(1), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2015.1113350 Farrell, T. S. (2008). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. New York: NY. Continuum. Farrell, T. S. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for TESOL professionals. New York, NY: Routledge. Farrell, T.S. & Baecher, L. (2017). Reflecting on critical incidents in language education: 40 dilemmas for novice tesol professionals. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Golombek, P.R. (2011). Dynamic assessment in teacher education. In Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development. (pp. 121-135). New York, NY: Routledge Griffin, M. L. (2003). Using critical incidents to promote and assess reflective thinking in preservice teachers. Reflective Practice, 4(2), 207-220. Hamayan, E., Marler, B., Sánchez-López, C., & Damico, J. (2013). Special considerations for englsih language learners; Delivering a continuum of services. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. Janesick, V. J. (2015). “Stretching” exercises for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2013). The constructivist credo. New York, NY: Routledge. Lucas, T. (2011). Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms; A resource for teacher educators. New York, NY: Routledge League of United Latin American Citizen (LULAC) v. Florida State Board of Education, Florida Consent Decree, 1990. National Center for Educational Statistics[NCES]. (2017, March). English language learners in public schools. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp Mercado, L. A., & Baecher, L. (2014). Video-based self-observation as a component of developmental teacher evaluation. Global Education Review, 1(3), 63-77. Prusak, K., Dye, B., Graham, C., & Graser, S. (2010). Reliability of pre-service physical education teachers' coding of teaching videos using studiocode analysis software. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 131-159. Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools: Technologies to scaffold, structure, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52-67. Rich, P. J., & Trip, T. (2011). Ten essential questions educators should ask when using video annotation tools. TechTrends, 55(6), 16-24. Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for teacher learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing noticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences?. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347-360. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sewall, M. (2009). Transforming supervision: using video elicitation to support preservice teacher-directed reflective conversations. Issues in Teacher Education, (Fall),11-30. Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stake, R.E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY; Guilford Press. Tripp, D. (2012). Critical incidents in teaching (classic edition): Developing professional judgement. New York, NY: Routledge. Tripp, T. R., & Rich, P. J. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 728-739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01234.x V-Note. [Computer Software] (2015). Retrieved from https://v-note.org/ Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wheeler, D. L., & Govoni, J. M. (2014). An ESOL curricular model: Infuse ESOL standards in teacher education. Tapestry, 6(2),10-35. Zeichner, K. & Liston, D.P. (2014). Reflective teaching: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge
Research An ESL Video Reflection Practice for ESL Infused Teacher Preparation Monica González Smith University of Hawai'i at Mānoa ABSTRACT Guided by descriptions of theory and practice reflection (Farrell, 2015) and critical incidents in teaching (Tripp, 2012), this research examined how four, final semester, undergraduate, teacher candidates in an English for Second Language (ESL) infused, elementary education, teacher preparation program used video to reflect on the instruction delivered to English Language Learners. (ELLs). Specifically, the research sought to investigate: the critical incidents that teacher candidates reflect on when discussing their lesson plans, personally recorded videos, and video analysis results with a university supervisor. Data include 12 pre and post lesson conferences, 12 written reflections, and a researcher’s journal. A hermeneutic multiple case study approach involving member checking was used to analyze the data. The research will present a video reflection methodology that ESL infusion programs can use to prepare undergraduate teacher candidates for working with ELLs in mainstream classroom settings. Finding share that candidates’ critical incidents focused on instruction and the challenges they faced when working with ELLs. The article concludes with a discussion on the topics that should be covered in ESL infusion teacher education coursework along with recommendations for future research.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.14
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.17
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.16
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.18
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.19
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.20
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.21
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.22
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.23
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.25
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.24
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.27
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.26
Introduction It is estimated that about 4.6 million English Language Learners (ELLs) are currently enrolled in public K-12 schools (Kena et al., 2016). About 80% of ELLs attend elementary schools, many of whom are thought to be placed in mainstream classrooms rather than in specialized English as a second language (ESL) or bilingual classes (Menken & Kleyn, 2010). Unfortunately, many ELLs continue to perform at academically lower levels than their non-ELL peers (Samson, & Collins, 2012). The most recent results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that in 2017 and in all previous assessment years since 1998, reading scale scores for non-ELL fourth and eighth graders were higher than their ELL peers’ scores. In 2017, the achievement gap between non-ELL and ELL students was 37 points at the fourth grade level and 43 points at the 8th-grade level. These continued patterns of underachievement have led to an urgent call to better prepare elementary preservice teachers to work with ELLs (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). Several scholars have acknowledged this need and have proposed frameworks that describe the necessary ESL knowledge and skills to teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms (e.g., Athanases & de Oliveira, 2011; de Jong & Harper, 2005; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008). Despite the recognition of the need for mainstream teacher preparation for ELLs, there continues to be a shortage of well-prepared mainstream teachers. Previous studies indicate that most mainstream teachers do not feel prepared to teach ELLs (O'Neal, Ringler, & Rodriguez, 2008; Reeves, 2006). Moreover, in the absence of strong state policy frameworks, adequate preparation of mainstream teacher preparation through preservice programs continues to be a challenge (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008; Samson & Collins, 2012). Despite these challenges, there is a growing set of studies that examine mainstream teacher preparation and the impact of carefully scaffolded field experiences on teacher attitudes and beliefs and on enhancing preservice teachers’ knowledge and skill base (Capella-Santana, 2003; Kayi-Aydar, 2015; Kolano & King, 2015; Markos, 2012). The purpose of this study is to contribute to this emerging scholarship in the context of a clinical experience in one elementary teacher preparation program. After a review of the literature on the impact of field experiences on ELL teachers, we present the study and its main findings. We conclude by drawing implications for mainstream teacher preparation programs and further directions for research. Clinical field experience and mainstream teacher preparation for ELLs The inclusion of field-based experiences in teacher education programs is considered a pillar of effective teacher preparation (NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel, 2010). School-embedded practica should align closely with coursework, link theory to practice, and allow teacher-candidates to apply practices to experiences with diverse groups of students (NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel, 2010). These experiences offer preservice teachers (PSTs) the opportunity to directly impact student learning and reflect on their practices (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Most studies have explored the relationship between multicultural education in general, field experiences, and working with diverse students (e.g., Bodur, 2012; Markos, 2012). To date, few studies have focused on the role of clinical experiences on mainstream PSTs’ ability to work with ELLs (Heineke & Davin, 2014). Studies that have been conducted focus on three dimensions: beliefs/attitudes, knowledge, and skill development. Studies that have explored the impact on field experiences on PSTs’ beliefs or attitudes toward ELLs have found that ESL field experience provides an opportunity for PSTs to uncover their own biases and stereotypes against ELLs. For example, Capella-Santana (2003) investigated PSTs’ attitudes and perceptions while working with ELLs in a teacher education program. Based on the two questionnaires and interview data, the changes in teacher candidates’ attitudes and perceptions regarding ELLs were found to be statistically significant. The author concludes that before fieldwork, PSTs might have certain negative attitudes and stereotypes towards ELLs. However, fieldwork experience provided PSTs a chance to recognize that cultural deficit was a biased concern and it should be abandoned. Bodur (2012) and Markos (2012) also found differences between PSTs’ beliefs and attitudes toward ELLs after their field experiences. Bodur (2012) states that PSTs who received multicultural preparation with field experience displayed more positive beliefs and attitudes towards CLD (culturally and linguistically diverse) students because they were provided a more in-depth understanding on how to support CLD students. Markos (2012) also describes how many PSTs had deficit views and limited understanding of ELLs in the beginning of the semester; however, this gradually changed over time and PSTs “became aware of how their original understandings of ELLs had developed (p. 51).” Both studies indicate that field experience with ELLs provided PSTs deeper understanding and more positive attitudes toward diverse student populations. A few studies have examined how working with ELLs in the context of a teacher preparation program affects PSTs’ knowledge about ELLs and second language acquisition (SLA) theories. These studies note that ESL field experience can positively enhance PSTs’ SLA knowledge, by exposing them to differences between a first and second language as well as the difference between social and academic language. For instance, Ariza (2003) states that PSTs benefitted from an ESL tutoring project. The author concludes that the ESL tutoring project helped PSTs gain knowledge about SLA and language principles for ELLs. In the same vein, Kolano and King (2015) argue that ESL coursework and field experience helped PSTs gain more knowledge about ELLs. Specifically, PSTs reported that their case studies through clinical field experiences were highly influential. PSTs also reported that hands-on experiences helped them to better understand the linguistic and cultural backgrounds of ELLs. Worthy and Patterson (2001) also examined 71 PSTs’ reflective journals regarding their field experience in a school-based literacy program where PSTs critically reflected on their tutoring experience. The authors state that PSTs developed knowledge about ELLs through one-on-one tutoring and they gained self-confidence in their teaching. These studies illustrate how one-on-one interaction with ELLs in ESL field experiences enhances PSTs’ knowledge about English language learning and SLA theories. In addition to increasing PSTs’ knowledge about second language acquisition, studies have also found positive impacts of ELL-specific field placements on ESL practice (e.g., Salerno & Kibler, 2013; Uzum, Petrón& Berg, 2014). Uzum et al. (2014) explored a group of 28 PSTs by using a qualitative case study design. PSTs were involved in a service learning project as part of their ESL methods course where they taught a content area lesson for ELLs. Study findings indicate that PSTs recognized the importance of accommodating their lesson for ELLs, such as incorporating vocabulary instruction and scaffolding strategies as a language supports. Salerno and Kibler (2013) explored how PSTs describe ELLs and make recommendations for improving their own teaching through a case study project in a teacher preparation program. Findings revealed PSTs’ considered various strategies, such as peer interaction, vocabulary building, culturally relevant texts, and visuals; however, PSTs generally did not consider ELLs’ funds of knowledge as an instructional resource. As such, while ESL field experience facilitates PSTs’ understanding and self-confidence of ESL instructional practices and accommodation strategies, there are limitations in terms of the strategies PSTs learn in their teacher preparation programs. Current research that explores mainstream teacher preparations to work with ELLs states the potential impact of clinical experiences on PSTs’ beliefs, knowledge, and skills. One challenge that seems to emerge from these studies is to encourage mainstream teachers to pay attention to the linguistic dimension of working with ELLs. Previous studies suggest that it is easier for mainstream teachers to embrace ELLs’ culture in class while language is often overlooked (de Jong & Harper, 2008). Moreover, studies on mainstream teacher identity and beliefs reveal that most teachers continue to respond negatively to teaching ELLs with minimum English proficiency (Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008), and believe that applying ELL-specific methods and strategies is enough to support ELLs (de Jong & Harper, 2008). Thus, PSTs’ attitudes and beliefs toward ELLs and ELL-specific instruction are preventing them from becoming linguistically responsive teachers (Garmon, 2005). Due to these reasons, it is difficult for mainstream teachers to see themselves as language teachers (de Jong & Barko-Alva, 2015; Kayi-Aydar, 2015; Reeves, 2009). The purpose of this study is to examine this challenge more closely in the context of ELL field experience in a teacher preparation program in Florida. We use Lucas and Villegas’ (2013) framework for linguistically responsive teaching (LRT) as our lens to better understand what PSTs learned about ELLs and teaching ELLs through their clinical experiences. Specifically, this study explores the following research question: What contributions do ELL field experiences make in developing PSTs’LRTknowledge and perceptions? The Study: Theoretical Framework Grounded in Feiman-Nemser’s (2001) conceptual framework of central tasks for preparing PSTs, Lucas and Villegas (2013) suggest tasks for preparing linguistically responsive PSTs. This framework details four major elements with 14 accompanying tasks. The four elements of tasks for learning to teach ELLs include: (a) identifying classroom language demand; (b) scaffolding instruction; (c) learn and develop understanding of second language acquisition (SLA) and ELLs’ background; and (d) sociolinguistic consciousness, value of diversity, and inclination to advocacy (see Table 1). Table 1: Tasks for learning to teach English language learners (Lucas & Villegas, 2013) In the first element, identifying classroom language demand, a strong emphasis is on linguistic forms and functions and a teacher’s knowledge to identify such language demands in a mainstream classroom. According to Lucas and Villegas (2013), it is imperative for teachers to analyze and determine the linguistic features of discourse in their disciplines that might be challenging to ELLs. The first element focuses on supporting ELLs’ learning of the content by preventing language-related issues interfere students’ learning (Lucas & Villegas, 2011). In the second element, scaffolding instruction, Lucas and Villegas (2013) emphasizes that it is a teacher’s responsibility to make the curriculum accessible to ELLs. Ideally, PSTs will familiarize themselves with practices and tools to scaffold their instruction through an observation of a mentor teacher’s model, and this mentor teacher can also scaffold the PST’s effort to learn such instruction. Through the process of familiarization, a linguistically responsive teacher will develop strategies and learn how to scaffold instruction in order to make the curriculum accessible for ELLs (Lucas & Villegas, 2013) In the third element, learn and develop understanding of SLA and ELLs’ background, a teacher’s understanding of ELLs’ diverse linguistic and academic backgrounds is crucial. In other words, a linguistically responsive teacher is cognizant of ELLs’ varying levels of literacy and language proficiency instead of perceiving ELLs as a homogenous group of students (Lucas & Villegas, 2011). Considering this, Lucas and Villegas (2011) states that a linguistic responsive teacher can recognize ELLs’ rich linguistic and academic resources to successfully incorporate and “(re)present school knowledge” while educating students. Lastly, in the element of sociolinguistic consciousness, value of diversity, and inclination to advocacy, Lucas and Villegas (2013) describe the sociolinguistic power structure of language and the importance of preparing teachers to understand such dynamics. Lucas and Villegas (2013) emphasize a teacher’s sensitivity toward language and identity, and how these are interconnected. In addition, a linguistically responsive teacher examines his/her perceptions of advocating for ELLs and explores ELLs’ needs (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). Research Context The current study was conducted in a large, public university located in the state of Florida. Because Florida has one of the largest ELL populations in the U.S., an agreement was negotiated requiring all teachers of ELLs to complete professional development in terms of second language teaching and learning. The Florida Consent Decree requires all teachers to receive a set of ESL teacher performance standards that are organized in regards to five curricular areas: applied linguistics, cross-cultural communication, ESL methods, ESL curriculum and materials development, and ESL assessment (Coady, Harper, & de Jong, 2016). As such, elementary teachers are required to complete a minimum of 300 hours of professional development in ESL. Secondary content teachers must complete 60 hours of ESL professional development under the state requirements (Coady et al., 2016). The teacher preparation program in the current study implemented two ESL practicain order for PSTs to receive their ESL endorsement. The first practicum required PSTs to observe mainstream math and reading classrooms one full day per week in a rural district. By the end of the course, PSTs submitted ELL field reports that presented their field experiences.The second practicum asked PSTs to work with ELLs through individual tutoring and small group discussions for a minimum of 10 hours during the 16-week semester. PSTs posted weekly field experience reflection on an online discussion forum based on targeted questions and submitted a final reflection essay by the end of the semester regarding their field experience teaching ELLs. The biggest difference between each practicum was the hands-on experience with ELLs.In Practicum 1, students primarily observed ELLs in mainstream classrooms, while in Practicum 2, students both observed and directly worked with ELLs in ESL classrooms. Table 2 presents an ESL-infused model with two ESL field practica in an elementary PST preparation program. Table 2: Field Experiences infused in two ESL courses Study Participants PSTs in the current study were undergraduate students (n=160) in their first or second semesters of their senior year, consisting of 80 % of white females. About 25% of participants indicated that they could speak a language other than English (mostly Spanish). In addition, about 30% of them reported they had extended interactions with people from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Data Sources Data were derived from two groups of PSTs’ surveys and reflection papers from both ESL practica. The survey was distributed to two groups of PSTs and course artifacts were collected. The survey consisted of rating scale questions and open-ended questions. The data were collected in Spring 2016 (initial survey and ESL field reflective journals) and in Fall 2016 (modified survey and ESL field reflective journals; see Appendix A). In the first practicum, PSTs were required to reflect several topics: (a) background information of ELLs, such as L2 (second language) knowledge and literacy;(b) general knowledge of ELLs’ home culture;(c) assessment data, using WIDA (World-class Instructional Design and Assessment) and SOLOM (Student Oral Language Observation Matrix); and (d) ELLs’ personality trait and habit. Sample prompt questions for their reflection included: (a) how would you assess this student, and what are his/her language ability level?; (b)what are the language strengths and weakness of the ELLs in the classroom?; and (c) how does the classroom teacher accommodate ELLs who have a low oral language proficiency of English? In the second practicum, reflective journals included the following topics: (a) teaching and working experience with ELLs,(b) the role of language and culture for ELLs, and (c) teaching content materials while incorporating language skills, such as teaching reading, writing, and vocabulary instruction for ELLs. Some guiding questions for the reflective journals included: (a) what makes the classroom an effective second language learning environment?; (b) what surprised you the most about your experience and why was it surprising to you?; (c) how do ELLs participate in class with their peers, with the teacher, or individuallyandwhat does this tell you about the ELL?; and (d) what would be your suggestions to increase the participation of ELLs in the classroom? Data Analysis Thematic analysis was used to analyze data (Riessman, 2008). Following Creswell’s (2005) multi-step design analysis, the researchers first read PSTs’ written narratives and convened to discuss general codes for responses encountered in the data. After the initial coding, major categories were identified based on research questions. In order to increase reliability of the current study, the research team conducted peer-debriefing during data analysis. In addition, the research team collected multiple data sources throughout the academic semesters to conduct data triangulation. Through thematic analysis, the current study uses Lucas and Villegas’ (2013) framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers to examine PSTs’ conceptualization and preparedness to work with ELLs. Limitations of the Study This study has several limitations that affect the outcomes. First, the study focuses on one teacher preparation program within a specific geographical and political context. Findings are not necessarily generalizable to other contexts. Second. although the participants’ written responses from reflective journals were central to the topic of the study, these reflective journals were prompted by guiding questions that may have not captured PSTs’ entire experience with the practica. Third, the limited number of hours in an ESL classroom working directly with ELLs may have affected the results. Lastly, the current study did not consider changes in PSTs’ understandings over time and/or within a semester. Other data sources, such as interviews, would be necessary to capture individual PST’s trajectories and responses. Findings This section presents major findings using the four elements of Lucas and Villegas’ (2013) framework. Under these four elements, Lucas and Villegas suggested 14 tasks. Six tasks emerged in our data analysis with two additional tasks: language assessment and the language teacher self. The results are described below in using four major themes: (a) developing knowledge for language, (b) scaffolding instruction, (c) developing understandings of English language learners, and (d) PSTs’ attitudes and perceptions for the future. Developing Knowledge and Awareness of Language It is crucial for a teacher to understand how the language used in a particular academic discipline functions differently compared to the language used in everyday communication (Lucas, de Oliveira, & Villegas, 2014). In order to raise such awareness, a teacher needs to be cognizant of detailed descriptions of the school genres and discourse (e.g., the specific linguistic forms, functions, and vocabulary; Lucas, de Oliveira, & Villegas, 2014). A linguistically responsive teacher understands the influence of primary language experiences and prior educational experiences to a student’s current learning (Lucas & Villegas, 2011). The ESL field experiences provided PSTs valuable opportunities to focus on the language used in the classroom. Cummins’ distinction between social language and academic language was frequently mentioned in their reflection journals. When observing Kyle’s use of vocabulary, he occasionally uses inappropriate terms and/or must rephrase ideas because of lexical inadequacies. These lapses in fluency and vocabulary occur more frequently during classroom lessons and are not as prevalent during Kyle’s social interactions. This indicates that Kyle’s BICS are far more advanced than his CALP (Prac1 Reflection C3, pp. 3-4). As mentioned in this excerpt, PSTs started paying attention to classroom and academic language and began paying attention to certain linguistic forms, such as the ELL’s use of vocabulary and lexical items. A theme that emerged but that was not elaborated on as a task in Lucas and Villegas’ (2013) framework was the impact of assessment. Participants reported on their assignment of assessing and describing ELLs’ language proficiency using World-class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) indicators and the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) assessment tools. Using the WIDA evaluation scale, PSTs were able to focus on ELLs’ language use and describe ELLs’ language proficiency levels in linguistic terms: “Ben can speak in phrases or short sentences, but prefers not to mostly. In terms of the second observation, Ben could easily illustrate their information, but taking information from the text and grouping it was much more challenging”(Prac2 Reflection T29, p. 3). Using the SOLOM helped PSTs pay attention to ELLs’ informal oral language use as shown in the following reflection: “In regards to grammar, Kyle occasionally makes grammatical and/or word-order errors which do not obscure meaning. My continual observations and work with Kyle indicate a level four rating of the SOLOM based on the specifications discussed”(Prac1 Reflection C3, p. 4) Opportunities to use language assessment tools such as WIDA and SOLOM allowed PSTs to analyze individual students’ language use in terms of specific linguistic features such as sentence structure, coherence, and word-order. PSTs analyzed ELLs’ language use and displayed their ability to place ELLs’ language proficiency on scales provided in each assessment tool. Also, the use of language assessment tools helped PSTs to see how understanding ELLs’ proficiency levels guides instructional planning. As the following reflection journal entry shows, PSTs noted how language assessment can be used to modify instruction. Ben was called on, a student who (…) has a proficiency WIDA level of 2: Beginning. Rather than focusing on the student to verbally explain his findings, the teacher allowed him to approach the board and work the problem out. (…) he did fully show his work and provide the correct answer. The student was able to show his understanding of the material (…). I found this application very successful for Ben, especially for his proficiency level(Prac2 Reflection T26, pp. 1-2). Scaffolding Instruction Scaffolding instruction refers to providing instructional support in the school context for ELLs’ learning of content as well as the English language (Lucas, de Oliveira, and Villegas, 2014).This includes: (a) using extra-linguistic supports, (b) supplement and modify written text, (c) supplement and modify oral language, and (d) provide clear and explicit instructions (Lucas & Villegas, 2011). Through observations of a mentor teacher’s modeling and scaffolding of instruction, PSTs can develop their own strategies to make content accessible for ELLs. The PSTs in our study were able to observe how various methods and instructional strategies, including providing bilingual texts, affected student learning, as illustrated in the following reflection: “Based on my observation in class and knowledge about my student’s background, it was evident that when he was exposed to culturally relevant literature his self-confidence and motivation sharply increased” (Prac1 Reflection X4, p. 5).In addition, PSTs reported visual aids as one of the effective practices to support ELLs’ learning. Based on my observations in the classroom and working with an ELL, there are a couple of important lessons that I have learned. (…) visually showing an ELL what you are talking about is valuable. Visuals are helpful for (…) especially ELLs because the academic language is the hardest to pick up in schooling. (…)It is very important that you explain the same piece of information in different ways (Prac1 Reflection C3, p. 7). Recognizing ELLs’ difficulties understanding the teacher’s instruction and explanation, this pre-service teacher acknowledged the importance of using visuals to supplement oral instruction. PSTs learned the importance of modifying language in different ways to scaffold ELLs’ learning and understanding of classroom instruction.PSTs also noticed how ELLs’ first languages (L1) could facilitate learning. Some of the reading that they did included some words of the (…) students’ native language of Spanish (…) The text included a Spanish-English glossary for the Spanish words used to help the students (…) The Spanish speaking students enjoyed hearing their own language being used in the text they were reading and seemed to be more engaged. Using primary language support increased their motivation and engagement while lowering their affective filter (Prac2 Reflection T17, p. 2). The PSTs realized that using ELLs’ L1 could create a more engaging lesson and motivate ELLs’ learning. As illustrated by these journal entries, PSTs realized that when they tried to include ELLs’ linguistic funds of knowledge, such as their L1, ELLs were more engaged and motivated to participate in the classroom. Understanding English Language Learners For PSTs, it is essential to understand ELLs’ variation in terms of their linguistic and academic backgrounds (Lucas & Villegas, 2013) as well as their cultural backgrounds. A linguistically responsive teacher acknowledges and responds to a student’s linguistic identity and values ELLs’ home language as a resource (Lucas & Villegas, 2011; Lucas & Villegas, 2013; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalaz, 2008). The PSTs realized the importance of understanding their ELLs’ background and how using ELLs’ cultural funds of knowledge contribute to their learning. The excerpt below from one PST’s reflection emphasizes the importance of culture. The importance of home culture is also an evident factor in students’ lives, and I will use this knowledge of Ariel’s culture(…) in my classroom when giving instruction. Getting to know a student’s culture is important, so that one can understand students better. I will use this knowledge (…) to make sure that (…) they are all explained and celebrated in my class. Ariel became very excited to explain her culture, and I saw how it influenced her behavior and her personality(Prac1 Reflection C15, p. 8). PSTs paid attention to how various cultures were represented in the classroom. One PST described how she observed that culture was missing in the classroom. What I found disheartening (…) was the lack of cultures being represented in the books (…). The student from Guatemala couldn’t see himself in the books and the students whose families are from Haiti could not see themselves in the books either. (…) Culture is very important to highlight in the classroom(Prac2 Reflection T3, p. 4). PSTs recognized the importance of providing multicultural materials in their classroom in order toshow how the ELLs’ cultural identity and backgrounds are valued in the school. PSTs also had the opportunity to learn more about students and their families. Countering the misconception that immigrant parents are not involved in their children’s schooling, one PST notes, “Education is valued in Antonio’s household. Although he struggles with English, he puts forth his best effort on homework and his mother often helps when possible”(Prac1 Reflection C12, p. 3) The PST begins to realize that parental involvement can take on different forms. Attitudes and Perceptions for the Future A linguistically responsive teacher explores his/her perceptions in order to consciously explore ELLs’ needs. Instead of making assumptions of ELLs’ needs based on the teacher’s cultural framework, a linguistically responsive teacher believes ELLs’ learning is the teacher’s responsibility by actively addressing students’ needs (Lucas, de Oliveira, & Villegas, 2014; Lucas & Villegas, 2011; Lucas & Villegas, 2013). In addition to PSTs’ attitudes toward ELLs, our study also identified theiremerging understandings about their future selves as ELL teachers an important theme. Cultivating Positive Attitudes In their field experience paper, the PSTs were asked to describe and reflect on what they found out about ELLs’ background. PSTs noted that ELLs are high-performing and intelligent. Some things that stuck out to me were that the ELLs are very intelligent individuals, they just need some help with language sometimes and they should be given the chance to show what they can do (…) When given the support that they need, these students can perform greatly in the academic setting (Prac2 Reflection T6, pp. 2-3). PSTs often expressed surprise at this reality and acknowledged that ELLs are able to achieve academic success with the appropriate support and help. Participants also became more aware of the needs of ELLs within a positive learning frame. In the example below, a PST learned that ELLs needed to feel safe in the classroom and how this impacted learning. The ESOL teacher also provided some insight into the stress and anxiety that some of these students can feel around the issue of deportation. She explained that the students will come into her class and tell her that the police are coming and that they are sleeping at someone else’s house for a while (…) I will try to provide a safe environment for students to share what they are going through and be able to feel supported(Prac2 Reflection T25, p.4). As described in this excerpt, the PST was not aware that an ELL’s immigration status could affect their learning and academic achievement. Working more closely with the teacher and the ELLs, they were able to recognize the importance of ensuring ELLs to feel safe in the classroom. Stated by another participant: I have learned that it is important to make my ELLs feel comfortable in the classroom. It dismayed me when Sabrina knew the answers to problems but chose not to contribute her thoughts because she doubted her English-speaking ability. (…) I would like to provide my ELLs with greater opportunities to verbalize their thoughts (Prac1 Reflection C11, p. 9) As illustrated in this journal entry, the PST observed and recognized the importance of providing a comfortable classroom environment for ELLs. Moreover, this PST planned to become more proactive in terms of meeting ELLs’ needs in the classroom. Emerging Future Self as a Teacher of ELLs PSTs recognized that what they learned about teaching ELLs in their course work did not always align with what they observed in their field placement. This “implementation gap” prompted critical reflections on current realities and future actions. One PST, for instance, expressed concerns about a pull-out ESL intervention and how the program is organized. There were about 20 computers lined around the room and all the walls were blank, including the chalkboard (…)This mono-linguistic focused program does not even support the English language learners’ Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) in the ESL classroom (Prac2 Reflection K12, p. 2). PSTs noticed a problem and expressed concern about the use of English learning software as they know that an ideal learning environment for ELLs would look different. Concerns that educational technology was misused and did not provide meaningful scaffolding strategies or effective ESL pedagogies to promote ELLs’ second language development were noted by other students as well. This discrepancy challengedPSTsto consider implications for their future practices as a teacher of ELLs. In reflecting on their future practices, PSTs mentioned embracing cultural/linguistic diversity and creating welcoming environments. An excerpt from one of the PSTs’ reflection journal follows: In my classroom, I will strive to create a safe, supportive environment where not only ELLs but all students will feel comfortable to take risks with language, social risks, and take on academic challenges. Creating a sense of community (…) will not only help many social aspects of language, (…) will spill over into academic success and building vocabulary(Prac1 Reflection X13, p. 6). As observed in this excerpt, ESL field experience not only extended PSTs' awareness of ESL pedagogy and strategies but also motivated PSTs to envision how they would use these strategies in the future. Discussion This study explored the contributions of ESL field experience to the development of PSTs’knowledge and perceptions as linguistically responsive teachers.Using Lucas & Villegas’s (2013) framework for preparing a linguistically responsive teacher, the analysis of survey data and PSTs’ reflection and field experience journals point to key findings related to knowledge and skills and identities as teachers of ELLs. Our findings show, first, that the ELL-specific field experience raised PSTs’ awareness of language and helped them see and practice appropriate pedagogies for ELLs as they put second language acquisition theory into practice. A linguistically responsive teacher analyzes and recognizes classroom language demands and develops strategies to make the curriculum accessible for ELLs (Villegas, Saizde LaMora, Martin, & Mills, 2018). Awareness of ELLs’ proficiency and how different proficiency levels affect lesson planning was particularly facilitated by PST’s use of assessment tools. The WIDA standards and SOLOM drew PSTs’ attention to language and assisted in more precise ways of describing what ELLs could and could not yet do in English. As indicated by previous literature, assessments have the potential of transforming instruction, including differentiated instruction for ELLs (Lenski, Ehlers-Zavala, Daniel, & Sun-Irminger, 2006; Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2010). In terms of practices for ELLs, PSTsreported on the value of comprehensible input and reported the importance of incorporating ELLs’ cultural backgrounds in mainstream classroom teaching. They noticed the importance of providing welcoming and safe environments, the use of multicultural materials as well as learning about ELLs’ cultural backgrounds for teaching.Thesaliency of culture and comprehensible input for PSTs when approaching teaching ELLs has been noted before (de Jong & Harper, 2008; de Jong, Harper, &Coady 2013). Thus, although the PSTs were more aware of language proficiency and student language use, this awareness did not yet translate into a focus on specific aspects of language development. The actual interactions with ELLs allowed PSTs to move beyondwhat they observed in the teachers. For example, although PSTs did not always observe classroom teachers’ modeling of home language support, interaction with ELLs allowed PSTs to understand the value of incorporating ELLs’ home language in their lessons and content materials. Second,the field experiences personalized ELLs and who they were. PSTs displayed care toward ELLs and began to examine assumptions about them and their families (e.g., parent involvement). They identified knowledge conflicts between what they learned in their course work and actual realities, including the limitations of resources or inappropriate pedagogical approaches. This discrepancy prompted students’ reflection on how they would approach the teaching of ELLs in the future and address the dilemmas they observed. Kubanyiova (2007; 2009)argues that teachers often negotiate tensions between an ideal self (based on personal and professional experiences) and feared self (being confronted by policies or practices that counter the ideal self). She argues that it is through this negotiation that a new possible self is constructed. In the case of our PSTs, they drew from their own interactions with ELLs and their course work to build an ideal “ELL teacher” self that included being responsive to ELL’s needs through scaffolding and meaningful instruction. In being confronted with the contrary (e.g., the use of software to replace ESL strategies), the PSTs were confronted with, in Kubanyiova’s terms, a feared self(i.e., someone they did not wish to be or being asked to engage in practices that don’t align with their ideal self). In this instance, the PSTs had to negotiate their ideal and feared selves, and through this process, what Kubanyiova (2009) coined as a possible self could emerge. Working with ELLs and negotiating discrepancies in their field placements have encouraged ownership of ELLs in PSTs’ perceptions. Furthermore, PSTs are developing a mainstream teacher identity that is more inclusive of linguistically and culturally diverse students. As part of their possible language teacher identity, PSTs began to recognize ELLs as students that they are responsible for rather than assuming that ELLs are ESL specialists’ responsibility. This emerging teacher identity is important. If PSTs do not position themselves as ELL teachers it is likely that future teachers of ELLs will not meet ELLs’ unique learning needs and interests in K-12 classrooms (Kayi-Aydar, 2015; Reeves, 2009). Finally, it must be noted that the present study did not find evidence of PSTs analyzing the sociopolitical dimension of language learning and no critical interrogation of PSTs’ own preconceptions of ELLs. One factor may have been the absence of explicit and tailored prompts for their ideas and critical analyses (Whipp, 2003).This raises an important question of how such analyses can best be scaffolded in the context of field experiences. Allowing opportunities for PSTs to critically examine their beliefs about linguistic diversity throughout teacher preparation programs is in need and it will strongly relate to ELLs’ academic success in the classroom (Villegas, 2018). Conclusion and Implications This study confirms the importance of ELL-specific field placements to support mainstream teacher preparation. Practica that include direct interactions with ELLs and are carefully scaffolded for PSTs to reflect on their experiences can raise awareness of the role of language and culture in the classroom and build essential teaching skills.Our study also suggests that, with proper guidance, mainstream PSTs can be encouraged to develop a teacher identity that is inclusive of ELLs.Based on this exploratory study, and recognizing its limitations, we would suggest the following for mainstream teacher preparation programs to consider: · Include ELL-specific placements and practica · Identify central tasks related to linguistically and culturally diverse students throughout a teacher preparation program (Feiman-Nemser, 2001) · Nurture a language teacher identity in addition to emphasizing issues of culture · Provide specific knowledge and skills related to the role of language in schools and opportunities to practice strategies that support specific aspects of linguistic development. Clearly, more work is needed in this area of mainstream teacher preparation practices in terms of understanding how mainstream teacher candidates can be encouraged to take ownership of ELLs and the implications for teaching and learning. Appendix Biographical Statements Yong-Jik Lee received his PhD from the University of Florida in summer 2018 focusing on ESOL/Bilingual Education. His research interests include pre-service teachers’ ESOL teacher education, preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs to teach English language learners, and preservice teachers’ ESL field experience while working with ELLs. Hyunjin Jinna Kim received her MA in TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language) from the Pennsylvania State University and is pursuing her PhD in Curriculum and Instruction with a specialization in ESOL/Bilingual Education at the University of Florida. Her research interests include teacher education, preparation, and profession development. Ester J. de Jong, Ph.D., is a Professor in ESOL/bilingual education and Director of the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida. She teaches courses in bilingual and bicultural education and in curriculum, methods, and assessment for English speakers of other languages. Her research interests include two-way bilingual education and teacher preparation for bilingual students. References Ariza, E. N. (2003). TESOL tutor time homework center: A collaboration of volunteer preservice teachers in the public elementary schools. Urban Education, 38(6), 708-724. Athanases, S. Z., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2011). Toward program-wide coherence in preparing teachers to teach and advocate for English language learners. In T. Lucas (Ed.) Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 195-215). New York, NY: Routledge. Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English language learners: Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Retrieved from: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/practice/mainstream _teachers.htm. Bodur, Y. (2012). Impact of course and fieldwork on multicultural beliefs and attitudes. The Educational Forum, 76(1), 41-56. Capella-Santana, N. (2003). Voices of teacher candidates: Positive changes in multicultural attitudes and knowledge. Journal of Educational Research, 96(3), 182-190. Coady, M. R., Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2016). Aiming for equity: Preparing mainstream teachers for inclusion or inclusive classrooms? TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 340-368. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. de Jong, E. J., & Barko-Alva, K. (2015). Mainstream teachers in two-way immersion programs: Becoming content and language Teachers. In Y. S. Freeman & D. E. Freeman (Eds.) Research on preparing inservice teachers to work effectively with emergent bilinguals (pp. 107-126). Bingley, WA: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101-124. de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2008). ESL is good teaching “plus”: Preparing standard curriculum teachers for all learners. In M. E. Brisk (Ed.) Language, culture, and community in teacher education (pp. 127-148). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. de Jong, E. J., Harper, C. A., & Coady, M. R. (2013). Enhanced knowledge and skills for elementary mainstream teachers of English language learners. Theory Into Practice, 52, 89-97. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055. Garmon, M. A. (2005). Six key factors for changing preservice teachers' attitudes/beliefs about diversity. Educational Studies, 38(3), 275-286. Heineke, A. J., & Davin, K. (2014). Situating practice in schools and communities: Case studies of teacher candidates in diverse clinical experiences with English language learners. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 5(2014), 1-44. Kayi-Aydar, H. (2015). Teacher agency, positioning, and English language learners: Voices of pre-service classroom teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 94-103. Kena, G., Hussar, W., McFarland, J., de Brey, C., Musu-Gillette, L., Wang, X., ... & Barmer, A. (2016). The Condition of Education 2016 (NCES 2016-144). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. Kolano, L. Q., & King, E. T. (2015). Preservice teachers' perceived beliefs towards English language learners: Can a single course change attitudes? Issues in Teacher Education, 24(2), 3-21. Kubanyiova, M. (2007). Teacher development in action: An empirically-based model of promoting conceptual change in in-service language teachers in Slovakia. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nottingham, UK. Kubanyiova, M. (2009). Possible selves in language teacher development. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.) Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 314-332). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lenski, S. D., Ehlers-Zavala, F., Daniel, M. C., & Sun-Irminger, X. (2006). Assessing English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 60(1), 24-34. DOI: 10.1598/RT.60.1.3 Lucas, T., de Oliveira, L. C., & Villegas, A. M. (2014). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers in multilingual contexts. In A. Mahboob & L. Barratt (Eds.) Englishes in multilingual contexts (pp. 219-230). New York, NY: Springer. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2011). A framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In T. Lucas (Ed.) Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A Resource for teacher educators (pp. 55-72). New York: Routledge. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 98-109. Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361-373. Markos, A. M. (2012). Mandated to learn, guided to reflect: Pre-service teachers' evolving understanding of English language learners. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(1), 39-57. Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2010). The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational experiences of secondary English language learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(4), 399-417. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the Educational Success of Children and Youth Learning English: Promising Futures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17226/24677 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (2017). National student group scores and score gaps. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2017 /#?grade=4. National Council of Accreditation for Teacher Education (NCATE) Blue Ribbon Panel (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education: Washington, D.C. O'Neal, D. D., Ringler, M., & Rodriguez, D. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of their preparation for teaching linguistically and culturally diverse learners in rural eastern North Carolina. The Rural Educator, 30(1), 5-13. Reeves, J. (2009). Teacher investment in learner identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 34-41. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Risko, V. J., & Walker-Dalhouse, D. (2010). Making the most of assessments to inform instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(5), 420-422. DOI: 10.1598/RT.63.5.7 Salerno, A. S., & Kibler, A. K. (2013). Before they teach: How pre-service teachers plan for linguistically diverse students. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(4), 5-26. Samson, J. F., & Collins, B. A. (2012, April 30). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language learners: Applying research to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org Uzum, B., Petrón, M., & Berg, H. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ first foray into the ESL classroom: Reflective practice in a service learning project. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 18(3). 1-15. Villegas, A. M. (2018). Introduction to “preparation and development of mainstream teachers for today’s linguistically diverse classrooms”. The Educational Forum. 82(2), 131-137. Villegas, A. M., SaizdeLaMora, K., Martin, A. D., & Mills, T. (2018). Preparing future mainstream teachers to teach English language learners: A review of the empirical literature. The Educational Forum, 82(2), 138-155. Whipp, J. L. (2003). Scaffolding critical reflection in online discussions: Helping prospective teachers think deeply about field experiences in urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 321-333. Worthy, J., & Patterson, E. (2001). "I can't wait to see Carlos!": Preservice teachers, situated learning, and personal relationships with students. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(2), 303-344.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.28
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.29
Research Becoming a Teacher of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: Elementary Preservice Teachers' ESL Field Experiences Working with English Language Learners Yong-Jik Lee, Hyunjin Jinna Kim, Ester J. de Jong University of Florida ABSTRACT A practice-based approach to teacher education program is fundamental to preparing teachers. While some studies have explored the impact of field experience on preservice teachers’ (PSTs) perceptions of diverse students in terms of culture, few have examined PSTs’ ESL knowledge and skill development as part of their practicum. To address this gap, this study explored how clinical ESL field experience shaped elementary preservice teachers’ dispositions and knowledge of being and becoming linguistically responsive teachers of ELLs. Using the framework of preparing mainstream preservice teachers to work with ELLs (Lucas & Villegas, 2013), the study used survey data to examine what elementary pre-service teachers report they learned about ELLs and teaching ELLs in their ESL field experience. Findings of this study reveal how preservice teachers position themselves as future teachers of ELLs and what it means to become a linguistically responsive teacher.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.30
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.31
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.33
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.32
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.34
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.35
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.36
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.37
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.39
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.38
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.40
Research Deconstructing Texts in English Language Arts: A Pedagogical Approach Using Systemic Functional Linguistics Loren Jones, Sharon L. Smith, Luciana C. de Oliveira University of Maryland & University of Miami ABSTRACT This article provides an analysis of the elementary level text “A Song for Makaio” using three angles for examining grammar from a systemic functional linguistic perspective: presenting ideas, enacting a relationship, and constructing a cohesive message. Drawing on the analysis, the authors discuss three strategies to implement this approach in the classroom, across grade levels and content areas, to provide English language learners (ELLs) with the support they need for literacy development.
Introduction Academic language is one of the most difficult constructs that students encounter throughout schooling. Today, academic language can be found in almost every register of English, most often those that are written rather than spoken (Halliday, 1993). It includes use of content-specific vocabulary, ranging from generalized terms to abstract or technical terms. Academic language also includes more formal and precise language with information packing and a higher lexical density in a variety of sentence types, from complex to compound-complex (Unsworth, 2006). It is easy to see that academic language differs greatly from the everyday language to which students are accustomed, so teachers must attend to helping students understand and use the language across content areas. In the United States, many national policies, state standards and local mandates focus almost exclusively on decoding skills and reading comprehension of print-based texts (Skinner & Hagood, 2008). Unfortunately, this type of instruction is often not sufficient for students to meet the rigorous standards of English language arts (ELA), especially when it comes to literary interpretation. In the area of reading and literature (RL), according to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English language arts (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), fifth-grade students are expected to be able to determine the meanings of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative language such as metaphors and similes (RL.5.4), explain how a series of chapters, scenes, or stanzas fits together to provide the overall structure of a particular story, drama, or poem (RL.5.5), and describe how a narrator's or speaker's point of view influences how events are described (RL.5.6). These expectations can be daunting for all young students and their teachers, but are especially challenging for English language learners (ELLs), as ELLs are often in the process of learning English while simultaneously attempting to engage in these complex academic tasks (Helman, 2016). Taking this into consideration, schools and educators must look to incorporate new approaches and strategies that will support the goals of ELA, providing students with the assistance they need to successfully interpret literature and write academic texts. One such approach is based on systemic functional linguistics (SFL), which provides a framework to analyze how meaning is presented through language. This approach recognizes grammar as a resource for meaning making which provides students and teachers alike the opportunity to explore new ways of using language in various contexts to accomplish particular academic and social purposes. When teachers directly instruct students in functional grammar or draw on the principles of functional grammar in their teaching, learners are able to recognize the options that language offers for presenting and organizing knowledge in various academic texts, which aids in interpreting literary texts. In addition, functional grammar instruction gives learners the opportunity to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to control academic language registers in order to show what they have learned through their own writing (Schleppegrell, 2007). In this article, we begin by providing a theoretical framework for our analysis and brief review of the surrounding literature. We then present our analysis of an elementary-level text using three angles for examining grammar (to present ideas, enact a relationship, and construct a cohesive message), as proposed by Author 3 and Colleague 2 (2015). In addition, we identify strategies that teachers may use as a guideline for implementing this approach in their classroom to provide their students with the support they need for literacy development across grade levels and content areas. Theoretical Framework This research was guided by the theory of systemic functional linguistics (SFL), which conceptualizes language as a meaning-making system and emphasizes the relationship between language and the social context (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). SFL is unique, and especially useful, in that it is both a theory of language and a practical tool that can be used for analysis and instruction. As a theory of language, SFL focuses explicitly on the organization of language into three areas of meaning, first identified as metafunctions by Halliday (e.g. 1974, 1978). These metafunctions, including ideational, interpersonal, and textual, are used to better understand how language functions for different purposes. Recently, these metafunctions have been categorized as three angles of grammar (Author 3 & Colleague 1, 2015). The first of these angles examines the different ways that language is used to present ideas. When looking at texts from this angle, we focus on the information that is presented through nouns, verbs, adverbs, and prepositional phrases (Author 3 & Colleague 1, 2015). The second of the three angles analyzes how language is used to enact a relationship between the text and its readers. When we examine texts from this perspective, we focus on the way specific language is used in processes or qualities that communicate different messages to its readers, often with varying levels of formality. The last of the three angles involves the use of language to construct a cohesive message (Author 3 & Colleague 1, 2015). When analyzing texts from this angle, we pay particular attention to the ways that different parts of the text work together through the different points of departure in clauses and reference ties. This type of analysis allows readers to identify important connections and assists them in following the storyline (Author 3 & Colleague 1, 2015). As a tool for analysis and instruction, SFL is used to scaffold reading and writing instruction through the widely accepted instructional technique, the teaching-learning cycle (TLC; Brisk, 2015; Author 3, 2017; Martin, 2009). The TLC is utilized to apprentice student reading comprehension and writing through four phases – deconstruction, joint construction, collaborative construction, and independent construction. Deconstruction provides teachers with an opportunity to emphasize the stages of the particular genre and the linguistic features that characterize those stages. These stages vary from one genre to the next; however, each genre tends to follow a similar construction to introduce, develop, and conclude a text. Joint construction is used as a whole-class activity in which the teacher leads the students in writing a new text in the same genre that they worked with during the deconstruction phase. During this activity, the teacher encourages students to contribute to the text, often by having them suggest words, phrases, and sentences that would be appropriate for the genre. During the collaborative construction phase students are tasked with working together to write a text of their own in pairs or small groups. They are reminded to refer back to the text they deconstructed and jointly constructed for guidance. Finally, in the independent construction phase, students write a text individually in the same genre they worked with in previous phases. Literature Review The TLC has been implemented in elementary and secondary schools across the U.S. with the aim of supporting ELLs in their literacy development (e.g. Author 3 & Colleague 2, 2014; Author 3 & Colleague 3, 2016; Harman, 2017). Scholars have advocated for this approach, as it seems to be especially effective in promoting the academic reading and writing development of ELLs. The approach offers teachers a way to explicitly focus on the language features and organization of texts from a variety of genres and content areas (e.g. Gebhard, Chen, & Britton, 2014; Kerfoot & Van Heerden, 2015; Pavlak, 2013). Many of the studies in current literature capture the implementation of one or more of the distinct phases of the TLC, while emphasizing the benefits of using such an approach with their linguistically and culturally diverse learners. In a fourth-grade science classroom, the teacher incorporated both the deconstruction and joint construction phases in an effort to shed light on the important language features of the procedural recount. After participating in these phases, an analysis of student writing revealed that the focal ELL student improved greatly, showing a greater control of naming experiment materials, using temporal connectors, and being more precise in the use of participants and processes (Author 3 & Colleague 4, 2014). Similarly, in a fifth-grade ELA classroom, the teacher guided students through the deconstruction of a complex text with the aim of introducing them to the stages and language features commonly found in the argument genre. The teacher chose to emphasize specific connector words, varied sentence structures, and linguistic choices used to form a connection with the readers. After the deconstruction, a review of student writing revealed that students were able to move away from a “cartoon-like register” to a more academic use of language in order to craft logical and coherent arguments regarding recess time (Gebhard, Harman, & Seger, 2007). Though the two exemplar cases cited above showcase the advantages of this approach through student writing, other studies have taken a different approach, measuring benefits in terms of standardized assessment scores (e.g., Colleague 1 & Author 3, 2006). Rather than capturing the implementation of the TLC in a particular classroom, this study highlights the use of SFL-inspired professional development to provide teachers with an opportunity to deconstruct history texts. In deconstructing these texts, the teachers were able to recognize what it is about the language of history that poses a challenge for students. Through language-focused strategies, the teachers were introduced to various language features, including complex nominal groups, time markers and connectors, and the use of reference. These language features were then used as tools in the deconstruction process, which guided teachers in scaffolding students’ understanding of the disciplinary language. Results from the state standardized assessments revealed that the students whose teachers participated in this professional development made significant gains, especially when compared to the students whose teachers had not participated in the workshops (Colleague 1 & Author 3, 2006). The brief review of literature suggests that SFL can and should be used to support students in their literacy development, particularly as it pertain to their academic language and content knowledge. In light of these studies, and in an effort to demonstrate more clearly how teachers can use SFL in their own classrooms, we chose to analyze a fifth-grade ELA text using the three aforementioned SFL angles of grammar. This analysis highlights the ways that the author incorporated specific language features characteristic of the narrative genre, and touches on those that may be especially difficult for ELLs. Our analysis is then used as a basis to provide concrete strategies for teachers to draw on when implementing this type of deconstruction in their own classrooms. A SFL Analysis of a Fifth-Grade Text: “A Song for Makaio” This article presents an SFL deconstruction of the ELA text, “A Song for Makaio” (Bear et al., 2009) using the three angles of grammar. This short story is found in a fifth-grade basal series (Bear et al., 2009) that is used in one the largest school districts in the United States. This text falls under the narrative genre in which it is typical to find an orientation, a subsequent problem or complication, evaluative response(s) to the complication, a resolution, and sometimes a coda (Christie, 1999). We selected this particular story for analysis because it is identified as a text that teachers should use to teach vocabulary and comprehension, and therefore contains numerous high-level vocabulary terms and various complex sentence structures (Bear et al., 2009). The text is a short story about a blind girl named Makaio. The story follows her life, describing her interactions with her “whale friends,” and her emotional reactions when they die. The story comes to an end with Makaio’s death and the lesson she left behind for her fellow islanders. As stated before, our analysis follows the three-angle approach, as proposed by Author 3 and Colleague 1 (2015). The first of the three angles is how language is used to present ideas. The focus for this angle is the content of the message, looking at what information is contributed by the participants, processes, and circumstances. The participants are typically realized in nouns and noun groups, the circumstances often take the form of prepositions and prepositional phrases, and the processes are made up of verbs and verb groups. The processes show what is going on in the text and can be classified as doing, being, thinking, or saying (Martin & Rose, 2007). In our text, the majority of the processes can be classified as doing and being, with only a few of the saying and thinking processes present. The doing processes deal with the actions of both the whales and Makaio, including the following: lived, emerged, walked, joined, singing, died, searched, found, etc. The being processes, on the other hand, are used to describe the participants and almost all of the verbs are some form of to be or to have, including is, was, were, has, and had. Something else to note about the type of verbs used throughout the text is that the great majority are used in the conditional past tense. This was a deliberate choice by the author, so one might conclude that the author wrote in this tense in an attempt to create visuals for students to imagine what was going on in the life of Makaio. Using this tense allowed the author to potentially paint a picture in the mind of the readers, so they could understand what Makaio felt and experienced as a young, blind girl living on the islands. The participants refer to the person(s) or thing(s) participating in the process. In our text, there are two main participants to track. The first participant, Makaio, is introduced in the first line of the text, “Long ago, near the islands now called Hawaii, lived a young girl named Makaio.” After this introduction, the main strategy for tracking her identity is with the pronouns she and her, as well as the pronouns I and my found in Makaio’s dialogue. The group of whales, the second main participant, is handled a bit differently. The whales are referred to as the whales, whale friends, the other males and then can be tracked using the pronoun they. In addition, one single whale (from the group) is referred to as one of my whale friends and later with the pronoun his. Martin & Rose (2007) tells us that, “The way in which participants are identified is an important aspect of how a text unfolds. Of all genres, stories make by far the greatest use of reference resources to introduce and track participants through a discourse.” (p. 173). It is no surprise, therefore, to see so many uses of pronouns to identify the main participants. The second of the three angles from Author 3 and Colleague 1 (2015) is how language is used to enact a relationship between the text and its readers. For this particular angle, we examine whether the relationship is formal or informal, close or distant, and what types of attitudes are involved. The attitudes found in the text have the potential to engage readers in characters’ feelings causing them to empathize and sympathize with characters as they take part in extraordinary events (Martin & Rose, 2007). In our text, the relationship between Makaio and her whale friends is a close one, which is made evident as the author describes the sadness Makaio felt when her whale friends died. The author employs many different types of attitude, including affect, judgment and appreciation, to encourage the reader to empathize with the characters, especially Makaio. Affect is used frequently to engage the reader in such a way that they develop a connection with Makaio. Appraisal is also used throughout the text and includes the quality sad used to describe the look in Makaio’s eyes when one of her whale friends died and the process miss which was used to express Makaio’s emotions about her whale friends. Both of these can be classified as affect, the type of attitude used to express emotions. In addition, modality was used in the text to emphasize the characters feelings. The word never expresses negative modality and it helped the reader understand how strongly Makaio felt about the loss of her whale friends and the fact that she was not open to long discussions about them. Overall, the author established a tone of sadness in which the reader is led to empathize with Makaio in a way that they can feel the loss that she felt when her whale friends died. This is accomplished not only through the attitude resources, but also through the engagement resources when the author used heterogloss (multiple voices) to show the response that Makaio gave to the islanders. The direct quote from Makaio in the text helps readers to feel a connection to her, which makes this text even more emotionally moving. The third of the three angles from Author 3 and Colleague 1 (2015) is how language is used to construct a cohesive message. Conjunctions and connectors are used to build relationships between parts of the text. While circumstances are often part of the first angle, in this narrative they function as time markers to help move the text along. As such, they are most relevant to this angle. In our text, all of the conjunctions are external, meaning they are concerned with logically organizing a text as sequences of activities (Martin & Rose, 2007). The majority of the external conjunctions found in our text are time conjunctions such as when, during her lifetime, whenever, etc. The other conjunctions in the text are addition (e.g. in fact, and) and consequence (e.g. but, though). The circumstances in our text, as stated before, function as time markers. Some examples include every day, long ago, one night, etc. Both the conjunctions and circumstances serve to construct a coherent storyline. Two excerpts of text from “A song for Makaio” are shown below with each of the three angles identified. Angle 1, present ideas, is shown in blue with participants in italics and processes in bold. Angle 2, enact a relationship, is designated with highlighted text and angle 3, construct a cohesive message, is displayed in green with circumstances in italics and conjunctions in bold. Long ago, near the islands now called Hawaii, lived a young girl named Makaio. She loved to swim and listen to the whales sing. The ocean could be dangerous, but Makaio did not mind the challenge. During the winter months, she bravely ventured into the water. Every day Makaio would float for hours, listening to the whale songs. She always looked wiser when she emerged from the waves and walked onto the beach. Makaio lived a long life. During her lifetime, many of her whale friends died. Each time this happened, Makaio would have a sad look in her eyes. The islanders would inquire about what had happened. Makaio would answer simply, “One of my whale friends has died. I miss his voice.” She never wanted to have long discussions about it. Implications for Practice: Teaching ELA and Developing Literacy The three-angle functional grammar approach to examining language can be used to support learners as they work to understand academic language and interpret literary texts. The analysis above shows how a fifth-grade ELA text can be deconstructed in such a way that to make the language easier to digest for students, especially ELLs. In this section, we recommend three strategies for teachers to use when putting this into practice: (a) tracking participants in discourse, (b) uncovering attitudes, and (c) following the development of the text. Tracking Participants in Discourse The first strategy is concerned with identifying key participants and tracking them throughout the discourse. Teachers can present this to elementary students as finding the main characters and following them throughout the story, searching for the different ways that they appear. This strategy helps students understand who and what is involved and what it is they are doing. As we demonstrated with the analysis of the text here, teachers and students can start by identifying the different processes found in the text. This will allow for a discussion regarding what is taking place in the text. Following the identification of processes, teachers and students can identify the participants in the text and work to track them by looking at the different pronouns used to refer to them throughout the text. For instance, with the Makaio text, teachers can identity all of the different ways that Makaio and the whales were presented and referenced. For processes, teachers can lead students in a discussion about the main processes used in the text and connect those to the overall text structure. The students, especially ELLs, will benefit from both of these steps, as it will help them to see who and what is involved and what they are doing. A useful tool to use throughout this strategy is a graphic organizer with the sections who, what, when, and where. Students can fill in the chart with the information as they come across it in the text. This will allow them to simplify the discourse and grasp that information presented in the text. This is also a good tool to use when guiding students to write summaries about what they read. Uncovering Attitudes The second of the three strategies looks at how language is used as a tool to display different kinds of attitudes or feelings throughout the text, including the strength of the feelings involved and the sources of such feelings. In other words, we look at the language used to express feelings, judge characters’, and show appreciation. This can be challenging, especially for ELLs, as it involves some level of cultural knowledge. The best way to approach this is for teachers to lead students in a discussion regarding the different relationships among characters involved in the text and whether they are formal or informal, close or distant, and what types of attitudes are involved. It will also be helpful to talk about the overall tone of the text and to brainstorm ideas about what types of feelings the author is trying to inspire in the readers. This will involve identification of the different adjectives and verbs used in the text to describe feelings. In our text, for example, it appears as if the author was hoping to have readers connect with the main character, Makaio, as she experienced the loss of her whale friends. In order to do this, the author used adjectives such as sad and touched on how much she missed her whale friends. This is an important step, as it can give students an overall sense of the story, help them to better connect with the characters, and understand the intent of the author. A useful tool to use in this stage is a simple word web where a character is placed in the middle circle, and students then help to identify adjectives and verbs used in the text to describe the character. This will allow students to put in perspective the way the author uses language to demonstrate different attitudes. Following the Development of the Text The last of the three strategies is focused on how language is used to construct a cohesive message. This strategy encourages students and teachers to follow the development of the text through its different stages. Teachers can present this to students as the different word choices that authors’ use to make a text fit together and make sense. In the case of our text, we would identify the genre as a narrative and then proceed to discuss the major stages, including orientation, a subsequent problem or complication, evaluative response(s) to the complication, a resolution, and sometimes a coda (Christie, 1999). After identifying the genre and associated stages, it is also important to examine how the different conjunctions, connectors, and circumstances work to build relationships between the different parts of the text. This can be especially beneficial for students as it will help them understand how the text is progressing. For example, our narrative text uses circumstances as time markers to move the text forward. Identifying the phrases such as long ago and one night help students to grasp how time is moving forward and what this means for the participants involved. In our case, they would be able to draw conclusions regarding the age of the main character and her coming death. The conjunctions and connectors, on the other hand, serve to organize the text as a sequence of activities. These can be as simple as and or but, which are fairly easy for students to identify. Having a discussion about how these language features impact the text and what role they play in connecting different events will help students to understand what is going on in the text. Conclusion Throughout this article, our aim has been to convey the idea that SFL can be used in the classroom to assist all students, especially ELLs, with academic language and reading comprehension. Although this research focused specifically on a fifth-grade ELA text, teachers can use the three-angle approach to guide their deconstruction of complex texts across all content areas and grade levels. This is an important topic, as we know that the population of ELLs will only continue to rise in the years ahead (Gottlieb, 2016). In order for teachers to meet the needs of this growing population, they will need to incorporate opportunities for an explicit focus on language in the context of meaningful interaction about curricular topics (Moore & Schleppegrell, 2014), and this SFL-based approach can provide them with these needed opportunities. Biographical Statement Loren Jones, Ph.D., is an Assistant Clinical Professor at the University of Maryland, College Park specializing in literacy and language learning for multilingual students. Her research focuses on best practices for literacy and language instruction to support English learners and bilingual learners in the primary school context. Sharon L. Smith is a doctoral student specializing in literacy and language learning for multilingual students in the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami. Her research focuses on best practices for literacy and language instruction to support emerging bilingual learners in the elementary school context. Luciana C. de Oliveira, Ph.D., is Professor and Chair in the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami. Her research focuses on issues related to teaching English language learners (ELLs) at the K-12 level. Dr. de Oliveira is currently President (2018-2019) of the TESOL International Association. References Author 3 (2017): de Oliveira, L. C. (2017). A genre-based approach to L2 writing instruction in K-12. TESOL Connections. Retrieved from http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolc/ downloads/features/2017/2017-07- TLC.pdf Author 3, & Colleague 1 (2015): de Oliveira, L. C., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2015). Focus on grammar and meaning. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. [Key Concepts for the Language Classroom book series edited by Patsy Lightbown & Nina Spada.] Author 3, & Colleague 2 (2014): de Oliveira, L. C., & Iddings, J. (2014). (Eds). Genre pedagogy across the curriculum: Theory and application in U.S. classrooms and contexts. London: Equinox Publishing. Author 3, & Colleague 3 (2016): de Oliveira, L. C., & Silva, T. (Eds.) (2016). Second language writing in elementary classrooms: Instructional issues, content-area writing, and teacher education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Author 3, & Colleague 4 (2014): de Oliveira, L. C., & Lan, S-W (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A genre-based approach to teaching English language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25(1), 23-39. Colleague 1 & Author 3, (2006): Schleppegrell, M. J., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2006). An integrated language and content approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(4), 254-268 Bear, D.R., Dole, J.A., Echevaria, J., Hasbrouck, J.E., Paris, S.G., Shanahan, T., & Tinajero, J.V. (2009). Treasures, Grade 5, Unit 5: CCSS Reading/Language Arts Program. New York: MacMillan/McGraw Hill. Brisk, M. E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms. New York: Routledge. Christie, F. (1999). Genre theory and ESL teaching: A systemic functional perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 33(4), 759-763. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587889 Colleague 1, & Author 3 (2006). Gebhard, M., Chen, I. A., & Britton, L. (2014). “Miss, nominalization is a nominalization:” English language learners' use of SFL metalanguage and their literacy practices. Linguistics and Education, 26, 106-125. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2014.01.003 Gebhard, M., Harman, R., & Seger, W. (2007). Reclaiming recess: Learning the language of persuasion. Language Arts, 84(5), 419-430. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41962214 Gottlieb, M. (2016). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language proficiency to academic achievement (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and education, 5(2), 93-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(93)90026-7 Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Hammond, J. (2006). High challenge, high support: Integrating language and content instruction for diverse learners in an English literature classroom. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(4), 269-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.08.006 Harman, R. (2017). Bilingual learners and social equity: Critical approaches to systemic functional linguistics. New York: Springer. Helman, L. (Ed.). (2016). Literacy development with English learners: Research-based instruction in grades K-6 (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Kerfoot, C., & Van Heerden, M. (2015). Testing the waters: Exploring the teaching of genres in a Cape Flats Primary School in South Africa. Language and Education, 29(3), 235-255. doi:10.1080/09500782.2014.994526 Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20, 10-21. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.00 Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London: Continuum Moore, J. & Schleppegrell, M. (2014). Using a functional linguistics metalanguage to support academic language development in the English Language Arts. Linguistics and Education, 26(4), 92-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.01.002 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington D.C.: Authors. Pavlak, C.M. (2013). “It is hard and fun”: Scaffolding biography writing with English learners. The Reading Teacher, 66(5), 405-414. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1142 Schleppegrell, M. (2007). At last: The meaning in grammar. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(1), 121-128. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171750. Skinner, E., & Hagood, M. C. (2008). Developing literate identities with English language learners through digital storytelling. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 8(2). Retrieved from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/skinner_ hagood/article.pdf Unsworth, L. (2006). Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 55-76.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.41
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.43
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.42
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.44
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.45
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.46
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.47
SSTESOL AWARDS Click on the image to the left to find out about our many membership awards!
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.48
Praxis If I Don’t Speak My Students’ Language, How Should I Help? Newcomer Tips for Teachers of English Language Learners (ELLs) in Mainstream Classrooms Alice Jo Ahyea & Jo Kozuma Jacksonville University & University of Florida ABSTRACT As teacher educators working with pre-service teachers, we have been faced numerous times with the same repeated question: “If I do not speak their language, how will I be able to help English language learners?” Based on state demographics, the increasing presence of English language learners (ELLs) in our classrooms is evident, yet pre-service teachers appear to have an unwarranted belief that teaching is impossible if they cannot communicate with their ELL newcomers. This paper will discuss and share the realities of linguistically diverse classrooms and provide tips and strategies for monolingual English speaking teachers when ELL newcomers are placed in their classrooms.
Introduction We have all been there before. You are in the middle of a lesson or reviewing a chapter for a test when there is a knock on the door. Your principal walks into your classroom with a new student. You stop what you are doing to go meet the new student and you find out that not only do you have a new student in the middle of the school year, but the student is also an English Language Learner (ELL). With the growing number of students with diverse language and cultural backgrounds attending public schools, the probability of having ELLs in our classrooms is very high. The latest demographics from the National Clearing House for English Language Acquisition (NCELA, 2014) reported that in the state of Florida there were close to 285,000 ELLs in the K-12 school system for the 2012-2013 academic year. This was a 36% increase of ELLs in the schools from a decade before during the 2002-2003 school year (Zhong & Batalova, 2015). Although Spanish has been described as the language that most of the Floridian bilingual homes speak (72%), this does not mean that all ELLs in our schools are Spanish speakers. According to the Florida Department of Education (2017), there are more than 300 different languages represented in the Florida schools. Teachers who were relying on their two years of high school Spanish to help their ELLs may find that their foreign language class may not be useful in our multilingual schools. To address the learning needs of the ELLs in our schools, the Florida Consent Decree in 1990 mandated that general classroom teachers must meet educational requirements in their teacher education program (Aliza, Morales-Jones, Yahya,& Zainuddin, 2005). Florida is just one of four states that requires teachers to be trained in working with ELLs (Education Commission of the States, 2014). For teachers in Florida, being compliant with the Florida Consent Decree means that mainstream classroom teachers should be equipped with the appropriate knowledge and professional development of working with ELLs in the classrooms. What is the Issue? Teacher educators working with students at teaching colleges for the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) endorsement programs for the state of Florida, have been faced with the same repeated question and fear expressed by many of our pre-service teachers. “I do not speak their language. How will I be able to help the ELL students?” Based on state demographics, we know that most ELLs who are placed in classrooms will come to class speaking different home languages. If the ELLs come to school with some level of proficiency in English, however, then the job of the teacher could be less stressful. On the other hand, if the ELL students are completely new to the United States, to the American school system, and to the English language itself, this is most likely the time when teachers start to feel overwhelmed. Although many ESOL teaching strategies, methods, and accommodations were most likely covered during their teacher education program, many pre-service teachers may not have remembered covering the content in class, especially when it does not directly pertain to their practicum or internship (Coady, Harper, & de Jong, 2011). This classroom experience deficit with ELLs as pre-service teachers can in return create in-service teachers who are unprepared to work effectively with ELLs (Sugimoto, Carter, & Stoehr, 2017). In addition, most teachers in the field quickly realize that teaching ELLs needs to be more than “just good teaching practices”(de Jong & Harper, 2005). Teachers need specialized knowledge to teach ELLs. What Can Teachers Do? There are myriad of teaching tips for newcomers available online. From bloggers, to school district professional development materials, textbooks, and journals: teachers have always been willing to share their teaching tips with the teaching community. You will find, however, that the tips are not really well defined. As an example, one tip that is often listed is to speak slowly. This is a great teaching tip, however, the question still remains: How slow is slow? With all of the methods and strategies that must be incorporated in our classroom instructions and the benchmarks that must be met, how can anyone remember what to do? In order to help classroom teachers have a better sense of what they could easily implement into the classroom, we are offering a basic protocol of guidelines and classroom tools that teachers can incorporate into their classroom practices for when their ELL newcomer joins their class. Successful Newcomer Tips for Teachers Just as any student, ELLs should each be treated as a valuable contributing participant of the class (Leseaux & Harris, 2015). What we have observed in the field, however, is that there are still many teachers who equate not being able to speak the language with having limited intellectual capacity (Walker, Shafer, & Liams, 2004). Often times the ELLs would be designated to an isolated area of the classroom or would be given busy work of meaningless worksheets that does not accurately reflect their language or academic abilities. Listed below, we offer suggestions that teachers can follow prior to their ELLs arrival or shortly after their arrival. For pre-arrival, preparation is the key. In this manner, the classroom teacher will always be ready to receive an ELL whether it is at the beginning, middle, or end of the school year. Pre-Arrival and Arrival Preparations 1. Seat assignment: This is usually the first item that most teachers do for any newcomer who comes to class. For ELLs, teachers have a tendency to have them sit at the very front of the class. The justification is that they would be able to help the ELLs better if the ELLs sat closer to the teacher’s desk. Try sitting in the front of your class and look around as if you were a newcomer. What do you see? Sitting in the very front of the class makes it difficult for the ELL to see what the class is doing. Tip #1: Have the newcomer sit in the middle of the class towards the front. This way the ELL will be able to look around side to side or in front of him or her and see what others are doing, e.g., taking out their math books, writing in a science journal, or lining up to go to lunch without physically turning around in their chair. 2. Classroom ambassador: Many teachers utilize other students to help them acclimate the newcomer to the school. This is a good way to introduce other students who may share the same home language in your class or in school and make the ELL feel more welcomed. The caveat is that sharing the same language can quickly become a language crutch for the ELL. Instead of learning English, the ELL would start to heavily rely on someone else to translate. Tip #2: Assign a classroom ambassador to help the newcomer feel more comfortable in their new surroundings. If the students share the same home language, then limit the term of the ambassadorship to two weeks or else the newcomer will become too dependent on their newfound friend. 3. Learning Assessment Packet: The objective of this packet is for the teacher to assess the language and academic abilities of their new ELL student for the first couple of weeks after arrival. Create a folder with grade appropriate worksheets that will allow you to gauge the level of learning of your new ELL. For example, if you are teaching mathematics, have worksheets that are below, at the same level, and above your current students. The same approach should be taken for any subject matter that is taught in your class. For language arts, have worksheets that start at the basic level of writing the alphabet to a topic that is a little more challenging such as writing a descriptive essay of their favorite food or sport. Remember to have this folder readily available so that whenever your new ELL walks into your classroom, you will not have to scramble to decide what your new ELL can do while you teach the rest of the class. Tip #3: Have appropriate worksheets and activities ready for your new ELLs. Preparing this type of folder beforehand would allow you to have the ELL work on class materials that would provide you with the necessary information for your ELL’s need assessment to be academically successful in your classroom. 4. Welcome Information About Your School: Nothing is more confusing than to go to a new school and not know the classroom rules, routine, the layout of the campus, or where the restrooms are located. The school’s welcome information should be creative. It can be a booklet with pictures that is easy to understand by both the ELLs and their parents or it can be a class video project of the students in the class reporting and/or interviewing teachers to highlight your school. Tip #4: Create a school and classroom schedule guide with pictures. A lot of common things that we do in school such as riding a school bus and eating in a school cafeteria are not universal. Having a visual schedule will help the ELL understand your classroom schedule as well as the location that the student needs to go, e.g. library, bus ramp, or cafeteria. More importantly, if the ELL cannot remember your name or where your classroom is located, he or she will be able to point to your picture. Key Awareness for Teachers to Remember One strategy that is often stated is that teachers should create a calm and welcoming environment that will allow ELLs to take risks with their language (Wright, 2015). Problems can occur when the teacher takes it too far by simplifying the lesson until it is neither academically or linguistically challenging for the students to learn. Another issue that is often encountered is that ELLs with very low English proficiency are often ignored or delegated to meaningless learning tasks to keep them busy. The assumptions by many teachers are that since the ELL is not actively engaging in class, they must not care. The following newcomer tips are for classroom teachers to keep in the back of their mind as they create learning activities and create their lesson plans. 5. Talk to Your ELLs: Knowledge about the proficiency level of your ELLs is a helpful guide for teachers to determine what type of comprehension questions can be asked to the ELLs. There are resources readily available for teachers to quickly assess the proficiency levels of their ELLs as well as know the language abilities of those levels. Matching the ELL’s language proficiency abilities will help circumvent the frustration teachers feel when they are trying to communicate with their students or trying to engage the student in the lesson. Tip #5: Keep talking to your ELL, even if they do not respond. It is important for teachers and peers to talk to ELLs because even beginners in English can understand more than they can produce. Knowing the proficiency level of your ELL will help guide you to ask questions in an appropriate manner, such as yes or no questions for beginners and compare and contrast questions for more advanced students. Matching the language ability of the ELLs with appropriate questions will encourage them to interact more in class. 6. School Culture: Schools are different around the world. They may have the same objective of creating a learning environment where children can learn knowledge, skills, or a trade and may serve the same social function; however, everything else that encompasses the cultures of the schools is drastically different. Everything from the number of hours in school, the days of the week in school, and the grading system to the amount of homework given are all culturally tied to their community and society. Tip #6: Know that school culture is different for ELLs. Working in groups, asking for help, and speaking in front of the class are found in North American learning environments and are not necessarily universal. ELLs may not participate in class because they do not know what to do. Demonstrate, model, and give explicit instructions in order to ensure that the ELLs will know what is expected from them. 7. Relying on Translations: In today’s society where we have information at our fingertips, translation software, websites, and applications on mobile devices that are readily available and often times with no fee. Although these electronic bilingual translators are useful for translating a word or short phrase when you travel, often times they do not fare well in the classroom where academic language is needed. We find that translating every word causes more confusion than necessary for the ELLs. Teachers also need to remember that there are some ELLs who have oral proficiency in their home language, but may have limited to or no reading and writing skills in that language, thereby showing or giving translated passages of English writing into another language is meaningless for them. Tip #7: Do not always rely on translations. Some things just do not translate well. If the content topic is taught in English and the assessment of the lesson is written in English, then it is better to increase the English comprehension of the ELLs than to rely on poor translations. This can be accomplished by demonstrating, showing pictures, using graphic organizers, or giving student friendly definitions to increase comprehension. 8. Include the ELLs: In an inclusion classroom, ELLs should be active participants in all of your lessons’ activities. Being pulled for special or independent work on a computer will just isolate them and will make them further behind their peers academically. It is important to provide ample opportunities for the ELLs to interact with their peers. Tip #8: Specifically create learning activities that will require the ELLs to talk with their peers. Facilitating peer interaction will naturally increase vocabulary if the ELLs are required to hear it, say it, write it, and read it. 9. Do Double Duty: When a newcomer enters our classroom as an English language learner, many classroom teachers have a tendency to focus on their language learning and forget that they need to learn content knowledge as well. The ELLs in our classrooms must obtain two separate learning parameters simultaneously: new academic knowledge and a new language. The essential awareness for teachers is to remember that you cannot wait until your ELLs have reached a certain proficiency level to start learning. It must go hand in hand or else your ELLs will get further behind in terms of academic knowledge. Tip #9: Learning a new language takes time, but that doesn’t mean that you should wait for your ELL to gain progress in their second language first. Achieving grade level academic knowledge does not depend on your ELL demonstrating a certain level of English proficiency first. 10. Trust your ELLs and Never Give Up: Even if you have ELLs sitting in your classrooms without being able to say a single word in English or even write a single English letter in the English alphabet, never give up teaching them. ELLs may not know the English language at the moment, but they know their first language and they come to your classrooms with first language experiences. ELLs will learn English from you and their peers. We, as educators, need to keep supporting ELLs by trusting them and continuing to teach them. Tip #10: Believe in the premise that all ELLs are capable of learning and it is a matter of time and language support from others including teachers, parents, and peers. Never give up on ELLs and more importantly, never give up your teaching of ELLs! Knowledge is Power Classroom teachers are teaching and learning specialists who are trained to engage in effective instructional practices. Teachers are equipped with a variety of strategies and techniques to work with ELLs, yet there is a prevalent belief of a common language void that is still pervasive in our classroom teachers. What am I supposed to do if I cannot speak my student’s language? Our answer is that is not necessary for teachers to be able to speak their ELLs’ home languages. What we are suggesting is that just as you have invested a considerable amount of time and effort in providing your students with quality education, also do so for your ELLs. It may still be overwhelming and it may still look hopeless, but by planning ahead and having basic key awareness of your ELL you can help make those difficult initial days easier for your ELL newcomers and yourself. Biographical Statement Dr. Ahyea Jo is currently an Assistant Professor and the Director of English Language Program at Jacksonville University. Her research areas include second language development for English Language Learners (ELLs) and teacher education for ELLs. Dr. Jo Kozuma coordinates a K-12 teacher preparation program at the University of Florida for international students. She has worked in both EFL and ESL contexts and has taught a wide range of ESOL professional development courses. References Ariza, E. N., Morales-Jones, C., Yahya, N., & Zainuddin, H. (2005). Why TESOL? Theories and issues in teaching English as a second language for K-12 teachers. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Coady, M., Harper, C., & de Jong, E. (2011). From preservice to practice: Mainstream elementary teacher beliefs of preparation and efficacy with English language learners in the state of Florida. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(2), 223-239. de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English- language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101-124. Education Commission of the States (2014). 50 States Comparison: English Language Learners. Available online at https://www.ecs.org/english- language-learners/. Florida Department of Education. (2017). English Language Learners. Available online at http://www.fldoe.org/academics/eng-language-learners. Lesaux, N., & Harris, J. (2015). Cultivating knowledge, building language: Literacy instruction for English learners in the elementary classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. National Clearing House for English Language Acquisition (NCELA). (2014). Demographic and State Data for Florida. Available online at https://ncela.ed.gov/t3sis/Florida.php. Stoehr, K. J., Carter, K., & Sugimoto, A. (2017). Stories and statistics: A mixed picture of gender equity in mathematics. In Crossroads of the Classroom: Narrative Intersections of Teacher Knowledge and Subject Matter (pp. 39-58): Emerald Publishing Limited. Walker, A., Shafer, J., & Liams, M. (2004). “Not in my classroom”: Teacher attitudes towards English language learners in the mainstream classroom. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 130-160. Wright, W. E. (2015). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy, and practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing Incorporated. Zhong, J. & Batalova, J. (2015) The Limited English Proficient Population in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. Available online at http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/limited-e nglish-proficient-population-united-states.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.49
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.51
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.50
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.53
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.52
Introduction In response to preparing students with the demands of academic rigor the Florida Standards (FS) were developed out of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) with input from teachers, content experts, states, and other professionals (CCSS, 2013). The FS standards, however, do not provide proscriptions for teaching and neither do they provide a list of what teachers can or should do. Therefore individual teachers, schools and districts are left to determine how to instruct students using appropriate methods, strategies, and approaches so that students can attain the benchmarks of the FS. Keeping in mind that ELLs remain some of the lowest performers on standardized Table 1: ELL pass rates on the Florida Standardized Assessment (FSA) compared to non-ELLs[1] tests in Florida, the increase in rigor in the Florida Standards put an additional burden on both teachers and students. Instructional Shifts The FS calls for several instructional shifts in pedagogy. The instructional shifts warrants that teachers are able to help students learn how to deconstruct both literary and informational texts. In English Language Arts, these shifts require teachers to move away from discrete teaching of reading and writing skills to develop a deeper understanding of complex informational and literary texts as well as be able to analyze evidence-based texts for writing activities. The expectation is to move learners from isolated text based reading comprehension or writing essays on discrete topics to literacy activities that require engagement and connectivity between literacy and different content area activities. A balanced curriculum of literary and informational texts with focus on building language proficiency is needed for English language learners to access the academic rigor of the Florida standards. This shift in curricular focus necessitates that teachers intentionally engage with both content and language to enable learners develop a deeper understanding of the topic, a coherent awareness of concepts and engage with evidence based reading and writing activities. Text deconstruction means being able to analyze and understand the intended meaning of the text, as well as the language, the social and cultural values represented in the text. The Standards’ model (2010) of text complexity consists of the role of the teacher and the student in dealing with issues related to text complexity. On one hand, the reader is expected to process levels of meaning in the text by deconstructing the structure, language conventions, structural aspects such as word length or frequency, sentence length, vocabulary, and text cohesion while working through the knowledge demands of authentic texts. On the other hand, the teacher is expected to use professional judgement and experience to deconstruct the level of complexity and suitability of the text for students. Stuart et al. (2008) posits four principal linguistic factors that affect students processing of text. When readers deconstruct a text, they decode sounds, decipher words, and access their meanings and their varied semantic relationships from stored knowledge. Additionally, they construct meaning by making connections to background knowledge and finally, they use their knowledge of syntactic structures, to make connections to how the words play out in a sentence. For teachers, who have limited knowledge of language systems teaching the structural elements of language can be challenging. Knowledge About Language & What Teachers Must Know This then begs the question: do teachers have a reasonable understanding of the fundamentals of English language structure or is their knowledge and how they choose to deconstruct language in the classroom more intuitive in nature? Coady, Harper & de Jong (2015) indicated that teacher graduates’ ratings of their preparation for and effectiveness in teaching ELLs were generally high, however, the two areas that graduating teachers were less confident in were language awareness and the teaching of language. Similarly, Azar (2007) characterizes post-baby boomers as Generation 1.5; people who have reached adulthood with little to no understanding of grammatical concepts. Andrews (2003) points out a number of instructional consequences regarding teachers who do not have a solid foundational knowledge of language and grammar. They include the inability to predict language learner problems, to plan lessons and a failure to present language clearly and efficiently to students. Folse (2009) found that while teachers were able to recognize errors made by ELLs in their writing, only a very small number of the teachers were able to explain the errors made by the students. The findings of this study highlights a number of issues that stretch back to the 1960s but have received closer scrutiny in the past decade, particularly in Florida. These issues involve: a teacher’s knowledge of language & grammar and their instructional ability to focus-on-form(s), the place of language & grammar in instruction, an ELL’s language learning needs, and the efficacy of a generalist elementary teacher to meet those needs. All of these issues gain further currency because of the roll out of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)[2] and its refocusing of language and grammar in terms of accuracy, conventions and expression that are inseparable from reading, writing, speaking and listening contexts. In short, a teacher is simultaneously better suited to FS instruction and can serve an ELL’s linguistic needs if they have a foundational metalinguistic awareness (KAL/TLA). According to Bigelow (2005) and Borg (2005), KAL is pivotal for a teacher when planning and implementing instruction as language is both the medium and content of learning. Thus, deciding how to address language in a lesson; implicit or explicit, inductive or deductive, becomes critical for teachers each day of the school year, as they make decisions about aligning materials, tasks and assignments to suit students according to their global literacy abilities (p.179). Borg (p.198) stresses that knowledge about language must develop in unison with pedagogical skills. Literacy/Language Design Collaborative The paradigm shift in curricular focus brought about the need to strengthen the development of language and literacy skills alongside the critical thinking and analytical skills that are needed to develop rigorous content concepts. Achieving the FS meant rigorous work for students, but teachers also need direction, collaboration, and support to design effective instructional systems to teach to the new curricular expectations. .The Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) (2013) is an initiative that provides teachers and other stakeholders with tools, resources and curricular framework to facilitate collaboration, content development as well as professional development support to implement the rigors of the Florida standards. In this framework, teachers create instructional modules that are built around a teaching task linked to standards, the set of skills needed to complete the task, instruction that is designed to teach the task and an assessment that is measured using the a rubric developed to measure the attainment of the standards. It provides a common framework for teachers to build a curriculum with a focus on literacy skills within their content area requiring students to demonstrate proficiency in skills such as drawing conclusions, argumentation, providing evidence, analyzing, problem-solving, and citing evidence (Literacy Design Collaborative, 2013). While teachers are focusing on the content skills within the LDC framework, it is crucial that the linguistic needs of ELLs are also addressed. In order to underpin this need we posit what an adapted LDC would look like; one that explicitly highlights language forms necessary to help ELLs learn English. We call our adapted LDC a Language Design Collaborative framework. Addressing language needs requires understanding how to identify the language forms and functions of the assigned tasks. The Language Design Collaborative promotes an explicit focus on language forms and encourages teachers to build language skills related to tasks in both content areas and ELA classes. But how does one accomplish this goal of identifying the language of the tasks and implementing instruction? A few simple steps provided below can be followed to identify the task, map the language function necessary for an ELL to complete the task, design of an instructional plan and strategies to address the specific language forms, and assess how the ELLs performed on the designated task and use of specific language forms and functions. • Teachers identify the student performance task called a “teaching task” using LDC templates aligned to the Florida Standards. • Teachers identify a skills list that engages teachers in backward mapping to identify the language structure and language functions / skills necessary for ELLs to succeed in completing the reading & writing tasks. Next, teachers identify the grammatical structures associated with each of the language functions. Figure 1 below highlights two examples of language functions and their associated grammatical structures. The first illustrates how the language function of agreeing requires an understanding of how pronoun structures work in English. The second example demonstrates how a knowledge of subordinate and relative clauses is needed by an English speaker in order to express the language function of informing. Once teachers identify the grammatical structures underlying such functions, it becomes easier for them to construct sentence frames within pedagogical tasks that model the use of the grammatical structure needed to be acquired by the ELLs in the classroom. Figure 1. Functions of language, their underlying grammatical structure with associated accountable talk • Teachers create an instructional plan or predesigned ELL-specific activities and use instructional strategies that develop ELLs’ language skills in literacy tasks and guide them toward completing the task. • Teachers analyse the results of ELL responses to the task and how they scored on an LDC rubric in order to monitor correct use of the target language forms and functions. In order for the implementation of a Language Design Collaborative to be successful, teachers can design mini tasks specifically to support ELLs in developing proficiency within a particular language skill and provide additional scaffolding as needed. Appendix A provides examples of functions along with the aligned language forms. A Mantra Ask yourself the question; “do I know everything about English?” The answer will probably be a resounding “no”. Yet as native speakers of English, we have an in-built error detector. Like a smoke alarm, our brain reacts to faulty English and depending on the severity of the error our reaction changes. For example, there are • errors that will make you look really stupid • errors that will make you look careless • errors for which you'll be forgiven • errors you'll probably get away with, and • errors that might annoy your reader/listener. But what about an English Language Learner? An ELL will undoubtedly make errors as they struggle with learning English, however, is it fair to judge an ELL who makes as error of English grammar in the same way one would judge a native speaker of English who makes the same error? Probably not. Then perhaps a different way to frame the errors of ELLs is along two continua: On the first continuum, an ELL’s utterances (verbal and/or written) can be viewed in terms of their communicative effectiveness. In other words, how successful was the utterance understood by the reader/listener? An ELL may have still make errors, but it can still have been perfectly comprehensible to a reader/listener. On the second continuum, an ELL may not want to use his/her English for fear of making an error. In this scenario, an ELL’s communicative fluency and/or interactive ability may be stilted because their focus is more on being communicatively accurate, in terms of grammar usage, than being communicatively effective. Look at the sign above. We can understand the message, so it rates ‘high’ on our communicative effectiveness scale, however, in terms of accuracy it rates ‘low’ since it is not very accurate. As teachers we need a ‘sure-fired’ system in place so that we can help our ELLs learn about the errors they make as they are acquiring English. This will require us, as teachers, to our Knowledge About Language (KAL). It will require teachers to develop an explicit knowledge of English grammar and how English language works. Below is a four step way – our mantra – to move beyond mere recognition of an English language error to pedagogical proficiency in teaching an ELL to internalize the rules of English language and grammar through contextualized subject-area instructional activities. (1) Identify the Error In our 4 step Mantra, our first step to move beyond native-like intuition involves developing proficiency in identifying errors. Look at the following. Can YOU identify the number of errors that are made (aka “The Folse Test”? Meticulous and punctual, Principle Davids work ethic is admirable. A hour ago Mr David excepted a job at another school. Its a well known school. However it is in the next city. He thinks it is alright but his students think he ranks as one of the most silly people on the planet. It is behaviour he will not put up with. When he got to his new school, he met his new secretary. She was not who he expected. But he wanted to really try his best. Did you count 15 errors? No? Don’t worry. You are not alone. A quick google will identify many sites all of which list literally hundreds of grammatical items and words that cause all native speakers to squirm. To help ELLs in our classrooms we will push them to make earth-shatteringly leaps and bounds in their English language proficiency with being able to identify thirty….., yes, 30 of their most commonly made errors. What do these 30 errors encompass? How were they arrived at? Answering the latter question first; the list of the 30 most commonly made errors by ELLs is the end result of a combined professional career in teaching ELLS of over 70 years by the authors. In addition, ‘our’ list of errors was cross-referenced with the literature and what other ELL professionals have written and concluded. Our 30 errors to internalize are[3]: 1. Spelling 1 (sound to letter correspondences), 2. Spelling 2 (word formation), 3. Regular versus irregular verbs, 4. Possessive Adjectives, 5a. Pronouns (general overview with focus on subject personal + interrogative pronouns), 6. Adverbs, 7. Prepositions & Prepositional Phrases, 8. Affixes, 9. Count & non-count nouns, 10. Possessive Forms, 11. Past Simple Tense, 12. Verb Forms in Past Tense Questions (use of auxiliary ‘do’), 13. Adjective Word Order, 14. Conjunctions, 15. Determiners, qualifiers, (in)definite articles, 5b. Pronouns (object personal + demonstrative pronouns), 16. Noun Clauses as Embedded Questions, 17. Phrasal Verbs, 18. Comparison of Adjectives, 19. Contractions, 5c. Pronouns (possessive + reciprocal + reflexive pronouns), 20. Present Perfect Tense, 21. Switching tenses, 22. Conditional Sentences & Modals, 23. do versus make, 24. Punctuation, 25. Text (cohesion & cohesiveness), 26. gonna (Informal and Formal Language), 27. Agreement (3rd pers. Singular s), 28. Inverted Word Order, 29. Passive constructions, 30. Subordinate and relative clauses, 5d. Pronouns (relative + indefinite + negative + quantifier pronouns). (2) Understand the Error In the second step of our 4 step Mantra, it is necessary to understand the ins and outs of the identified error. Look at the following: I waked up. Very early….no good…..I am sleep. Have breakfast after. I eated coco puffs. Brush teeth, goed to school with my moder. We walk 10 minutes. I like school. My teacher very good. I her liké/t/. Eshe teachéd very well. I learnéd math, englis, social studies. I eated luns. My moder eshe givé/t/ me sandwis, apple, drink. After eschol goed home playéd, doed homework wots TV. I like cartoon. Cookéd my moder dinner? No. Mi Papa cooked. Food is good. I go bed nightime. Sleepéd in my bed. The above is the literal transcription of a Grade 3 ELL (Jose) who is at level 2. There are many errors. The error that stands out is how Jose is attempting to construct and use the simple past tense in English. Notice how he pronounces the ‘-ed’ as /éd/ or /ét/ rather than as just /d/ or /t/. One important fact to know is that when a second language is learned by a person it is done so in psycholinguistically very regular and systematic ways. For example, if an ELL makes an error, it is most likely that the same ELL will methodically and consistently repeat the error in the same way regardless if the ELL is speaking or writing. No ELL errors can be treated superficially. They all require the teacher to dig deeper and uncover the way in which his/her ELLs makes the error. For example, Jose tends to pronounce the simple past ending. In addition, he does not seem to have mastered irregular simple past tense constructions. Lastly, look at how Jose utters “Cookéd my moder dinner?”. He is trying to say; “Did my mother cook dinner?”. Although not well-formed, his question is readily understood, however, it is obvious Jose also is unsure of how to use simple past tense verbs in question constructions. The point being that error types should not be understood monolithically. In the above example, simple past tense in English is not just a matter about adding “-ed” to the verb. For teachers, it becomes a matter of internalizing simple past tense rules in terms of how ELLs make simple past tense errors (as well as any other of our 30 error types) when trying to produce them, see below: • phonological error of regular simple past tense verb endings: how is the ‘-ed’ pronounced as /t/, /d/ or /Id/? • lexical error: when writing does the ELL know that some verbs when formed in simple past tense repeat the last consonant sound (eg: slap/slapped) or that others ending in ‘-y’ change their ending to ‘–ied’ (eg: cry/cried)? • morphological error: is the verb formed with the regular ‘-ed’ ending in simple past tense or is it an irregular verb and is formed completely differently (eg: talk/talked BUT speak/spoken)? • syntactic error: do ELLs know that simple past tense verbs when either used in a question or negated are not changed but are accompanied by an auxiliary verb ‘do’ that is put into the past (eg: Did you talk to Peter? No, I didn’t talk to Peter.)? (3) Scrutinize the Error & Understand to Explain In the third step of our 4 step Mantra, teachers need to think through how best to explain the grammar to ELLs. This is a very important step, since in our observations, teachers fall flat when they try to explain grammar to ELLs. Either they explain it in an isolated, non-contextualized and age-inappropriate way, or they generalize without accounting for the finer points of how & when the grammatical structure is used. Under “Scrutinize the Error”, teachers explain and instruct the targeted grammatical item in ways appropriate to: i. Kindergarten, Grades 1, 2 and 3 ii. Grades 4, 5 and Middle School 6, 7, 8 iii. High School years 9, 10, 11, 12 as well as contextualized within the Common Core State Standards. Look at the lesson plan below. It was written by a preservice teacher for a Grade 2 class comprising 60% ELLs. While there are certainly some interesting instructional elements, on the whole it falls flat because it does not explicitly deal with language. More seriously it centers on what students already know rather than teaching students or extending ELLs with new language and/or new grammatical structures. • The lesson plan contains a language objective which is extremely important, however, it is left as a monolithic whole. Echevarria, Vogt and Short (2008) suggest six language categories to consider when writing out language objectives. These should be closely tied to the topic of the lesson and the degree of proficiency of your ELLs. They include; i- key vocabulary, ii- language functions, iii- language skills, iv- grammar/language structures, v- lesson tasks, and vi- language learning strategies. Deciding on which language category to write into the language objectives depends on the needs of your ELLs. Every topic has content obligatory key vocabulary to master. For example, if the topic is new to the students, then instructional time needs to be allocated to help students, and especially ELLs, learn this vocabulary so that they can then converse about the topic. At times a lesson might require students to use specialized language functions such as comparing, contrasting, describing a process, expressing an opinion, formulating questions etc. In this case, a teacher needs to model the appropriate language functions. At other times, specific lesson tasks necessitate students engaging with language in unambiguous ways. Often times, it is not necessarily the language that needs to be taught to ELLs, but helping them develop better language learning strategies themselves. Such strategies may include; repeating aloud, not being afraid to make errors, speaking to others in English or discussing, not waiting for the teacher to evaluate your progress, reviewing class notes, guessing when in doubt, re-writing class notes, recording new vocabulary and grammar in a notebook, making review cards grouping verbs, nouns, etc., not pretending to understand when you really don't, paraphrasing when necessary, using mime and gestures, writing down words that you don't know, then find out what they mean, keeping a language diary, practicing daily, memorizing using images, sounds, rhymes (mnemonic devices), teaching someone what you have learned, using cognates for association with English, reviewing the day's lesson after class, using a dictionary. • A more rigorous & measurable language objective would thus be: By the end of the lesson students will learn 7 new adjectives (vocabulary) as well as learn to use comparative & superlative language structures (grammar) to express their likes and dislikes of snack foods (language function) to 80% accuracy on an end of lesson quiz. • Bellwork is very important and can be used effectively as a time to ‘revise’ old work, and/or ‘show’ or ‘model’ new work. • In order to have ELLs practice new language structures, model the structures first. In this instance, providing ELLs with a function as a basis to practice new adjectives, for example; “I like……”, I don’t like….”. • At this point, once new and old vocabulary has been practiced, introduce the new language structure; comparatives and superlatives. In alignment with Common Core this would be a good opportunity to introduce the new structure: sweet, sweeter, sweetest, where the new structures are used within a text. • The preservice teacher plans to use realia, flashcards and activity sheets which is good. The guided practice and independent practice phase of the lesson should be one where the teacher thinks through appropriate use of technology, collaborative activities, RTI sessions and reflective practice within the deconstruction of text and use of new language for higher order thinking viz-a-vis the CCSS. (4) Attack the Error In “Attack the Error”, teachers are shown how to additionally integrate into the curriculum the specified grammatical structure based on the ELL’s language proficiency level through i. the macro skills: listening, speaking, reading, writing, ii. technology, and iii. differentiated instruction. The FS for English Language Arts (ELA) articulate rigorous grade-level expectations in the areas of speaking, listening, reading, and writing (macroskills) to prepare all students to be college and career ready, including English language learners. Second-language learners, in order to fully engage with the curriculum need to develop their macroskills in order to achieve the full learning benefits/outcomes envisaged by the implementation of the FS. One point to bear in mind is that ELLs bring with them to the classroom many resources that enhance their education and can serve as resources for the enterprise of learning, for teachers, schools and society. For example, many ELLs have first language and literacy knowledge and skills that boost their acquisition of language and literacy in a second language; additionally, they bring an array of talents and cultural practices and perspectives that enrich our schools and society. For teachers this means that they should become adept at accessing and building on this enormous reservoir of talent and provide those students who need it with additional time and appropriate instructional support. Through the 4th step of our Mantra teachers think about the specifics of teaching content where the four macros skills are honed, articulated and extended in their own right as well as through the integration of technology and differentiation. Attack the Error is all about creating opportunities for classroom discourse and interactions that are well-designed in order to enable ELLs to develop communicative strengths in language arts and the ability to engage in mathematical discussions. This instruction involves much more than vocabulary lessons. Language is a resource for learning mathematics and other content areas as well; it is not only a tool for communicating, but also a tool for thinking and reasoning mathematically, scientifically, socially etc. All languages and language varieties (e.g., different dialects, home or everyday ways of talking, vernacular, slang) provide resources for thinking, reasoning, and communicating. Regular and active participation in the classroom—not only reading and listening but also discussing, explaining, writing, representing, and presenting—is critical to the success of ELLs in all curriculum areas. Scaffolding ELLs’ Procedural & Declarative Language Knowledge Classroom-based language and grammar instruction means something entirely different for ELLs than it does for native speakers of English. An ELL is in the process of learning English as a second language, Norris and Ortega sum up twenty years of “…investigations into the effectiveness of L2 instruction published between 1980 and 1998 [and conclude according to the data] that focused L2 instruction results in large target-oriented gains, that explicit types of instruction are more effective than implicit types, and that Focus on Form and Focus on FormS interventions result in equivalent and large effects.”[4] Furthermore, Nassaiji and Fotos (2004) concludes that explicit instruction (presenting the structure, describing and exemplifying it, and giving rules for its use) results in substantial gains in the learning of target structures in comparison to implicit instruction (usually consisting of communicative exposure to the target form) alone, and that these gains are durable over time. (128-129)”. The Language Strand and grammar specificity of the Florida Standards (FS) has two definitive ramifications for teachers. On the one hand, teachers, in order to help students meet the learning goals expressed in the FS bow need to know much more explicitly the grammatical rules of English. The following anecdotal story may help. Ms Applegate, a 3rd grade teacher noticed that Rocio, an early production ELL (level 2), was struggling with writing a short paragraph describing her bedroom. The prompt “It’s the first day back at school after the summer vacation. You haven’t seen your friends all summer because you went on a holiday overseas. Describe your trip and what you did to your friends” When Ms Applegate sat at Rocio’s desk and read what she has written and then ask her to describe vacation, Ms Applegate noticed two things; (1) Rocio was making lots of errors in trying to construct simple past tense verbs in her written paragraph, and (2) as she related her vacation orally, Rocio was pronouncing the ‘-ed’ endings always as /Id/. In other words, for walked Rocio was saying \wȯkt\. The teacher’s response was to give Rocio a picture indicating the type of preposition used in relation to the positioning of a pet to furniture. With respect to the mispronunciation of ‘walked’, all the teacher did was correct Rocio’s pronunciation of that single word, rather than attend to the bigger issue of helping Rocio’s phonological development in English. Ms Applegate’s instructional response to Rocio’s English grammar errors is typical of many teachers. What Ms Applegate did was rely on her native intuitive knowledge of English to help Rocio. This works up to a point, however, as the CCSS is implemented in schools, relying on one’s native-like intuition of English will not suffice when it comes to needing to help students improve their academic English by explicitly unpacking, explaining, practicing and reinforcing how English structure and grammar works. Whether through an inductive or deductive instructional approach, Ms Applegate should have unpacked and explained for Rocio how prepositions and the pronunciation of simple past tense regular verbs work: 1) that in English there are prepositions for location, manner and place and that there are easy rules of thumb to follow and teach. 2) That in English the ‘-ed’ used at the end of simple past tense regular verbs is pronounced in 3 different ways: \-t\, \-d\, and \-Id\ and that there are specific phonological rules in English that determine when each of the pronunciations are used. The point is that, on the one hand, with the FS it becomes even more imperative for teachers to refresh, and/or beef-up their internalized explicit knowledge of English language structures and grammar rather than just rely on their native-like intuition and knowledge of English. On the other hand, once teachers become more overtly conversant in how English structures and grammar work; such knowledge needs to extend beyond mere vocabulary words and grammar taught in isolation. Teachers need to articulate how students can use specific types of language to interact with content and peers and translate this into good instructional practice. Ultimately, students need to master the complexities of English and academic language in order that they too can successfully perform such FS-required tasks as persuading, citing evidence, and engaging with complex informational texts etc. This shift will require educators to implement effective language instructions for ELLs with their content curriculum. Teacher’s knowledge and implementation of explicit, engaging, and interactive language instruction could provide the opportunity to produce a higher quality of academic language knowledge, English language acquisition, learning gains and learning outcomes of ELLs across content areas and in writing while directly identifying the language and literacy strengths and weaknesses of ELLs. Outcomes and Moving Forward The deliberate move toward a Language Design Collaborative has the potential to improve instructional gains for ELLs. ELLs remain some of the lowest performers on standardized tests in Florida. The increase in rigor in the Florida Standards and the tasks required in an LDC require a paradigm shift in regards to focus on the language of tasks. This shift will require educators to implement effective language instructions for ELLs with their content curriculum. Teacher’s knowledge and implementation of explicit, engaging, and interactive language instruction could provide the opportunity to produce a higher quality of academic language knowledge, English language acquisition, learning gains and learning outcomes of ELLs across content areas and in writing while directly identifying the language and literacy strengths and weaknesses of ELLs. [1] https://edstats.fldoe.org/SASWebReportStudio/ gotoReportSection.do?sectionNumber=1 [2] In March 2014, the ‘CCSS’ designation was changed to ‘Florida Standards’ by the Florida Department of Education. [3] The errors have been color-coded to indicate the proficiency level at which ELLs start to struggle with the particular language/grammar feature: red=level 1 (pre-production), green=level 2 (early production), blue=level 3 (speech emergent), black=level 4 (intermediate fluency). [4] Long (1988, 1991) proposes that grammar instruction may be of two types: ‘focus on form’ and ‘focus on formS’. The former is defined as focusing ‘... students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication’ (Long 1991: 45–6). The latter is aligned with the teaching of discrete points of grammar decontextualized from the lesson topic. Biographical Statement Tony Erben, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor and Chair of Education (ESOL & Foreign Language Education) at The University of Tampa. He is series editor for Teaching ELLs Across the Curriculum with Routledge Press which includes: Erben, T., et al. (2008) Teaching English Language Learners through Technology. New York: Routledge. He just published an online Spanish for beginners text for university students called “Explorando” (2017) through an exciting edtech company called TopHat. Keya Mukherjee, Ph.D., is a faculty member at Saint Leo University. She is Co-ordinator of the graduate ESOl and Instructional Design & Technology program. Her expertise lies in reading across the curriculum. Kate Wittrock is an Instructor at Saint Leo University and Co-ordinator of the undergraduate ESOL program at Saint Leo University. She has many years experience as an ESOL teacher and ESOL Resource expert. References Andrews, S. (2003). ‘Just Like Instant Noodles’: L2 Teachers and their Beliefs about Grammar Pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(3), 315-375. Azar, B. (2007). Grammar-Based Teaching: A Practitioner's Perspective. TESL-EJ, 11(2), 1-12. Bigelow, M. H., & Ranney, S. H. (2005). Pre-service teachers’ knowledge about language and its transfer to lesson planning. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics in language teacher education (pp. 179–200). New York: Springer. Borg, S. (2005). Teacher cognition in language teaching. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp. 190-209). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CCSS (2013) http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards /development-process/ Coady, M., Harper, C., & de Jong, E. (2015). Aiming for Equity: Preparing Mainstream Teachers for Inclusion or Inclusive Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 340-368. Folse, Keith S. (2009). Keys to teaching grammar to English language learners: a practical handbook. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) (2013) https://ldc.org/ Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current Developments in Research on the Teaching of Grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Stuart Morag Stuart, M., Stainthorp, R., & Snowling, M. (2008) Literacy as a complex activity: deconstructing the simple view of reading. UKLA, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ j.1741-4369.2008.00490.x Appendix
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.54
Praxis Deconstructing Text & Fore-fronting a Language Design Collaborative with ELLs in Mind Tony Erben, Keya Mukherjee & Kate Wittrock The University of Tampa, Saint Leo University ABSTRACT Instructional shifts over the past years as a consequence of the introduction of new state standards and assessment instruments, in particular the Florida Standards and WIDA, have framed a re-evaluation of how best to move English Language Learners to engage with complex language structures in the classroom. A Language Design Collaborative offers a means for teachers to structure meaningful and systematic language instruction.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.55
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.56
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.57
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.58
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.59
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.60
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.61
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.63
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.62
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.64
Introduction The roles and responsibilities of teacher education programs are essential to the future of each country (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) remains a teacher education discipline that is significant in producing globalized communities to address linguistic and cultural diversity around the world. Approximately 1.7 billion people studied and used English worldwide in 2015, and that is projected to rise to 2 billion by 2020 (British Council, 2018). In addition, there are approximately 450 university-level academic and teacher education programs in English as a Second Language (ESL) or related disciplines in the US and Canada (TESOL International Association, 2018). These data show a continued and significant need for TESOL and ESL programs. However, developing and managing successful TESOL programs and curricula are not easy tasks, even more so given the constantly changing landscape in higher education funding, demographics, and domestic and international politics. This paper describes the guidelines for developing and managing a graduate TESOL program and discusses influencing factors on such as task, based on experiences at a moderately-sized, well-developed TESOL program in the U.S., located in a rural area of the Southeastern United States (hereafter called as “the university”). The university has both undergraduate and graduate TESOL programs housed in an English department. Six full-time tenure-line faculty members who have expertise in linguistics, second-language teaching, and relevant fields serve as course instructors with no adjunct instructors. The university offers TESOL courses related to teaching methods, second language acquisition, curriculum design, assessment, technology, culture, applied linguistics to align with the local, state, national, and international TESOL training needs. The program provides a Master of Arts (MA) TESOL and P-12 English as a second language (ESL) Endorsement options at the graduate level, and students can take face-to-face, online, and hybrid courses based on their needs and preferences to complete their programs. An undergraduate TESOL major with a licensure option was started six years ago. However, since the graduate programs were started first and have undergone the most development, they will be the main focus of this article. The collaboration between the authors—representing a senior faculty member, a junior faculty member, and a graduate from the same TESOL program—with diverse experiences and roles was helpful to identify and discuss the features and influencing factors in developing and managing a TESOL program. The senior faculty member has had teaching and administrative roles in the program since 1997, shortly after its inception over 20 years ago, and the junior faculty member has been teaching in the program for five years. The graduate from the program has gone on to develop and coordinate TESOL programs at three different universities since 2008. We believe that the overall strategies and factors to consider for those who wish to establish a TESOL program remain the same, even though today’s educational contexts and needs are different than that of one or two decades ago. In the discussion below, after a brief literature review of TESOL program development and coordination, we provide guidelines and influential factors to develop, manage, and encourage innovation in TESOL programs and curricula successfully based on our own experiences. Review of Literature: Education in TESOL In order to understand and improve education in TESOL, researchers have shared their findings and discussed diverse topics relevant to TESOL program participants and outcomes. Such topics include, but are not limited to, understanding second language (L2) teacher education, teachers’ and students’ experiences in and perspectives on the programs, specific instructional activities and tasks in classes and their effectiveness, and students’ career paths to teaching English in the US or abroad. Kanakri (2017) reviewed the literature on L2 teaching and shares an in-depth understanding about L2 teacher preparation to teach ESL students and their needs and challenges. Some researchers have explored and compared teacher educators’ and TESOL students’ diverse experiences and perspectives (Ilieva & Fraser, 2013; Li & Tin, 2013). For example, Ilieva and Fraser (2011) share their experiences, discourses, and identities in a MA TESOL program, and Li and Tin (2013) discuss TESOL students’ expectations and understanding of strengths and weaknesses of their programs. Issues concerning similarities and differences among native- and non-native-English-speaking teachers’ and students’ experiences have been examined (Anwaruddin, 2011; Kang, 2014; Ma, 2012; Park, 2012). Anwaruddin (2011) showed that TESOL methods empower native-English-speaking teachers, teacher-trainers, and publishing companies to monopolize the global TESOL industry, but marginalize non-native-English-speaking teachers for the same reason. Activities and tasks, such as practicum (Andrew & Razoumova, 2017) and service learning (Askildson, Kelly, & Mick, 2013; Cho & Gulley, 2016; Moore, 2013; Rueckert, 2013), and the role they have in improving TESOL programs are also topics that researchers have investigated.. The career paths of TESOL graduates and their roles in the field have been discussed as well by Priddis, Tanner, Henrichsen, Warner, Anderson, & Dewey (2013). They report that even degree-holding TESOL professionals may encounter difficulty obtaining jobs at first, but afterwards TESOL graduates usually spend about half of their career time in TESOL-related positions. Some authors share their experiences of redesigning curricula (Baecher, 2012). However, such studies are often limited to a particular aspect of a curriculum, such as integrating clinical activities and field experiences into TESOL programs. As a broad survey of the literature shows, teacher educators and researchers have investigated many diverse topics and components in order to understand and improve TESOL education, including the roles and perceptions of teacher educators and teacher-trainers, activities, tasks, and career paths. However, comprehensive discussions and suggestions about the development and management of a whole TESOL program are still scarce. This paper fills this gap. In the following sections, we suggest the guidelines for TESOL program development and management and provide some examples. TESOL Program Development, Influential Factors and Guidelines In order to develop a quality TESOL program, program directors or coordinators need to consider several factors. These include, but not limited to, state regulations and policies, the uniqueness of the program, and a well-balanced curriculum. In real-life implementation, factors for program development and management can be diverse depending on the regulations, needs, and local and regional constraints. Moreover, multiple factors can influence each other, but we have focused on three more salient factors in program development. State Regulations and Policies Based on the analyses of needs of an institution and its stakeholders, program developers should prepare proposals for university-wide review. In this first stage, they do detailed research concerning the proposed objectives, rationales, curriculum, admission requirements, enrollment planning, and budget of the proposed program. Two decades ago all stakeholders at the university were internal to the institution (students and teachers) and its local area. However, in addition to satisfying internal requirements, any relevant state regulations and policies should be considered. As ELL populations grew in our region, so did the need for the state to establish licensure requirements for what was, in our region, a new area. Therefore, program developers need to know what elements a state-level governing board for higher education will consider in determining if there is a need to add such a program while avoiding duplication. Development plans must consistently address how a particular institution has the resources and personnel to confer a proposed degree or course of training. Furthermore, developers need to make sure that the program can meet educational requirements for professional licensure, if the degree leads to a teaching certification. Or, in the case of a developed program in an area where licensure may be newly introduced or expanded, developers may need to demonstrate how a current program can be adapted or revised to meet the specific, sometimes strict, requirements that often are linked to licensure. For this part of the process, collaboration with university administrators and expert staff, as well as stakeholders in the community, is critical. Unique Features of the Program Another factor in program development to consider is the unique features of the proposed program relative to the structure of the university. TESOL contains diverse instructional foci in its curricula, and often intersects with disciplines such as, linguistics, applied linguistics, and education. Due to this interdisciplinary nature of TESOL, a program itself may be housed within departments of education, English, linguistics, foreign languages, world languages, or communication, giving it different, particular characteristics and educational foci. For example, if a TESOL program is a part of an education department, the emphasis of the program would rightly be expected to trend towards classroom training and pedagogy. However, a program that is a part of a linguistics department could have more emphasis on language acquisition theory and classroom-based research. In any situation, developing a unique but well-formed TESOL program is important to meet students’ unique needs. Based on educational goals, settings, and regulations, a new program should decide to offer appropriate degree types and levels. The types of degrees and the nature of the program should emphasize its strengths and make those strengths more salient for future students. For example, the TESOL program in this paper first started by offering both an M.A. and graduate ESOL endorsement program. In addition to the M.A. program for students seeking a graduate degree, the ESOL endorsement program was developed to meet the ESL training and professional development needs of current teachers of other disciplines. A Well-Balanced Curriculum A rich and balanced curriculum is an essential factor in the development and maintenance of a successful TESOL program. Even though a host department or college may influence the selection of particular major or minor courses, program developers must consider core values of our field. For example, if a TESOL program is housed within an English department, using existing English courses with some modification if applicable can be an efficient way to reduce start-up costs for a new program. However, to meet students’ needs effectively and to make a new program unique, developing new TESOL-specific courses needs to be considered. Moreover, since TESOL education advocates cultural and linguistic diversity and focuses on language learning and teaching of culturally, linguistically diverse language learners of English, all parts of the curriculum should also be aligned with these components. The overall curriculum should be associated with all the TESOL standards: (a) language, (b) culture, (c) planning, implementing, and managing instruction, (d) assessment, and (e) professionalism (TESOL/CAEP Standards for P-12 Teacher Education Programs, 2018). However, this is not a simple issue because curriculum development is influenced by many factors, including, but not limited to, students’ needs, educational policies, and instructors’ specialties. In addition, program developers may encounter other challenges, such as being urged to “shoe-horn” a TESOL class or two into a vaguely-related existing curriculum to create the appearance of a TESOL program. For example, if a TESOL program is housed within an early childhood education department, a developer may be “strongly recommended” to integrate early childhood courses into the TESOL curriculum, which may not necessarily meet all the TESOL students’ needs and goals. When faced with this kind of dilemma, program developers should justify why and how they can develop a unique program and offer appropriate and balanced courses to students. To provide justification for such recommendations, developers can investigate the structure of other TESOL programs in similar situations and contexts regarding overall design, education policies, and other political issues. Developers may also consult and refer to the standards of the TESOL International Organization or other specialty professional associations such as the International Literacy Association. TESOL Program Management, Influencing Factors, and Guidelines The procedures of planning and designing a well-organized TESOL program and getting it approved are very complicated and time-consuming. However, the efforts early in the development process can contribute to the long-term viability of a program. Once the program begins, the administrators’ and faculty members’ major roles change from that of program developers to program managers, assessors, and innovators. Various topics and factors, including institutional support, qualified faculty with a range of specializations, sufficient enrollment and student diversity, and multiple options for instructional delivery influence running TESOL programs successfully. Institutional Support Collaboration with colleagues and support from the institution are critical to manage a TESOL program successfully, so earning the trust of colleagues and administrators and securing diverse support are two of the core tasks for program managers. Constant communication with colleagues and students and assessment of the progress of the program will help the managers deal with many challenges related to maintaining a program, including advertising the program, hiring quality instructors, and recruiting and retaining students. Of course, every institution would love to have high admissions and enrollment numbers from Day 1, but creating a strategic plan for diverse issues with regard to program management provide guideposts by which to define and measure success, including, but not limited to, recruiting and enrollment goals, student retention, faculty needed, and student involvement in professional activities. For instance, program managers need to actively advertise the program to potential students for recruitment but may need to do so while using resources prudently. This can be done by developing a recruiting plan including activities such as visiting school sites, meeting potential candidates at conferences, and targeted advertisements online. Moreover, the continuing and systematic evaluations and assessment of the program are necessary to monitor the status of the program and provide data about progress toward program guideposts and attainment of outcomes. Being clear about successes and challenges helps build trust and cooperative relationships with diverse units within the institution for the financial support and patience needed when a program is initially established. Without active and sufficient advocates throughout the institution, it is challenging to maintain a strong and healthy program in the long run. For example, our university TESOL program had a small enrollment rate for the first couple of years, since it was a new degree in a rural area in the US. That is, in the late 1990s many of our first students were certainly aware of the English language learning needs of international students and local farmworker populations, but they were surprised to learn that TESOL was a degree that could lead to becoming an ESL/EFL teacher, or that TESOL was indeed a professionalized field. So some of the need for support in the early days of the program included the time to develop outreach programs and implement recruiting plans until enrollment began to grow and stabilize. A Sufficient Number of Quality and Diverse Teaching Faculty Even though a new program may start with just one or two faculty members, the program eventually needs a sufficient number of faculty members appropriate for its type and size. If possible, hiring more full-time faculty is most beneficial because full-time faculty can help guarantee consistent and quality courses being offered, and encourage program-level collaboration among the faculty, including commitment to multi-year initiatives, such as recruiting programs and curricular revision. Of course, part-time faculty members can provide valuable expertise and quality instruction, but a program cannot ask from them the same level of commitment and administrative effort required to maintain and grow a program in the long term. Given the current challenges facing higher education funding, a goal of hiring more full-time faculty might be viewed with skepticism, but if a program is going to develop an identity related to its focus and strengths, it must have a dedicated faculty that can help fine-tune and adapt the focus and strengths in a rapidly-changing world. As a program grows, it needs more faculty with diverse backgrounds. A faculty with diverse linguistic, cultural, and academic specialties can serve as exemplars of the cultural and linguistic diversity our discipline values. The diverse backgrounds and capacities of faculty are critical resources, not only for teaching and advising students, but also recruiting students and developing relationships with other institutions nationally and globally. Yet it may indeed be a reality that many TESOL directors are required to run programs with fewer full-time faculty than requested. If this is the case for any reason, it is still important to secure a sufficient pool of qualified and reliable part-time instructors who can consistently provide quality classes. This can be challenging even for institutions in urban or highly populated areas. Fortunately, advances in online and distance education provide options in course delivery (see discussion below) and can allow programs to find and employ high-quality instructors who bring a wealth of experiences and perspectives to the TESOL classroom. Enrollment Levels and Student Diversity The number of enrolled students is one of the most common metrics used to gauge the status of a program. This is most likely to be a significant factor on the decision of further support from the institution, including decisions concerning faculty hiring. Therefore, even though it seems obvious to say, program administrators and faculty need to be involved either directly or indirectly in the enrollment and retention of students. The university faculty of the program in this paper regularly discusses the recruitment plan and actively communicates with faculty and administrators in other institutions. In addition, they have developed a rapport with school district coordinators, as well as teachers, and have very actively played major roles in state-level professional organizations. Most of all, faculty members’ active communication with students and commitment to providing quality classes support student retention, which is as important as a solid recruitment plan. Even programs that have a reputation for a quality curriculum and successful graduates may be subject to declines in enrollment due to factors outside of their control, such as decreasing interest in teaching, opportunities for scholarships, the affordability of tuition, location of facilities, living expenses, and changes in travel and visa regulations for international students. A good strategy to support stable enrollment and recruitment is to target specific potential student groups based on the program goals. For example, a TESOL program may want to recruit both domestic and international graduate students. If a new program is for initial P-12 teacher certification, program managers may want to focus recruitment efforts on local and regional populations. To recruit students, providing well-planned and placed advertisements, developing long-term, cooperative relationships with other institutions, and communicating with potential students consistently and promptly are core. At our university, a faculty member who had extensive international experience recruiting for and running an ESL program used contacts as a teacher abroad to propose programs and exchanges with people and institutions. Some of these initiatives grew into longer term exchanges, professional development workshops and programs in EFL contexts, and a program to deliver courses abroad for teachers who couldn’t come to the US to study long term. Multiple Instruction Delivery Options Considering multiple instruction delivery options is and will continue to be a part of planning for both established and newly created TESOL programs. There are several instruction delivery options, such as face-to-face, online, and mixed-mode classes (a mix of face-to-face and online) and synchronic video either at one or more classrooms in different locations or though individual computer login (Park, Kim, Mukherjee, & Ates, 2018, forthcoming). Historically, face-to-face classes are still considered traditional, and the majority of TESOL programs provide this option. These face-to-face classes are beneficial for the students who prefer traditional classes and active face-to-face interactions for learning. However, changes in the lives and preferences of potential students require TESOL programs to offer classes in more than one way. When students are not able to take classes at designated times, live far from the schools, or have too many demands on their time to commute to campus, online classes can be a good alternative option. Additionally, online courses or programs become a strategic option because a program can still recruit students with those restrictions (Allen & Seaman, 2008; Porter & Graham, 2016). For instance, students who are teaching in another country can earn a degree without physically living on or near campus, and currently practicing subject area teachers living far from campus can take courses for graduate degrees, professional development, or an ESOL endorsement by taking online classes (Kress, Thering, Lalonde, Kim, & Cleeton, 2012). Mixed-mode or synchronic video options work well when a program has some campus students and some distance students, but not enough to justify individual face-to-face and online sections of the same course in a particular semester (Huang, Lin, & Huang, 2012; So & Brush, 2008). In the university, the TESOL program provides face-to-face, online, and mixed-mode classes depending on the needs of the program and students. For instance, face-to-face classes are traditionally provided based on physical classroom meetings and activities. Online classes are all based on synchronous meetings, but students are also allowed to take online classes in an asynchronous way, in which students can view the recorded virtual discussions and lectures after the synchronous meetings are over and submit their responses to the instructor instead. The mixed-mode classes (combined classes between face-to-face and online modes) are offered when the program can’t offer two separate classes for any reason, such as lower enrollment in a particular semester. Conclusion Like other academic disciplines, developing and managing a TESOL program successfully can fill a crucial need for well-trained English language teachers, but it can be a daunting task as well. Every context will be different due to the size and nature of the institution, the goals and outcomes of the potential student population, and perspectives and backgrounds of the program developers and faculty members. Yet, there are still some common issues that all program administrators and faculty members need to consider. At the program development stage, they need to carefully analyze policies and parameters, the desired “uniqueness” of the program, and the curriculum. At the program management stage, institutional support, a sufficient number of quality, diverse full-time faculty, sufficient enrollment and student diversity, and multiple instructional delivery options are important factors to consider. For diverse issues about program development and management, good communications with colleagues inside and outside one’s institution and a clear strategic plan with institutional support provides effective, continuing, and proactive solutions. In addition, continuous monitoring of assessment data will help program administrators and faculty analyze situations and collaborate with one another to develop innovative solutions to new challenges. However, the influences of these expected and unexpected issues are context sensitive, so the guidelines or experiences may need to be adapted in particular situations. In these cases, program directors and coordinators will need to actively find different solutions to meet the needs in their own unique contexts. Biographical Statement References Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States. Retrieved from http://olc.onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/ survey/staying_course Askildson, L. R., Kelly, A. C., & Mick, C. N. (2013). Developing multiple literacies in academic English through service-learning and community engagement. TESOL Journal, 4, 402-438. doi:10.1002/tesj.91 Andrew, M., & Razoumova, O. (2017). Being and becoming TESOL educators: Embodied learning via practicum. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 40(3), 174-185. Anwaruddin, S. M. (2011). Hidden agenda in TESOL methods. Journal of English as an International Language, 6(1), 47-58. Baecher, L. (2012). Integrating clinical experiences in a TESOL teacher education program: Curriculum mapping as process. TESOL Journal, 3(4), 537-551. doi:10.1002/tesj.34 British Council. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/organisation Cho, H., & Gulley, J. (2016). A catalyst for change: Service-learning for TESOL graduate students. TESOL Journal, 8(3), 613-635. doi:10.1002/tesj.289 Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35-47. doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348024 Huang, E. Y., Lin, S. W., & Huang, T. K. (2012). What type of learning style leads to online participation in the mixed-mode e-learning environment? A study of software usage instruction. Computers & Education, 58, 338-349. doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.003 Ilieva, R., & Fraser, S. (2013). Curriculum Discourses Within a TESOL Program for International Students: Affording Possibilities for Academic and Professional Identities. The Journal of the International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies, 16-37. Retrieved November 8, 2017, from http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci Kanakri, A. (2017). Second language teacher education: Preparing teachers for the needs of second language learners. International Journal of Language Studies, 11(1), 63-94. Kang, H. (2014). Teacher candidates perceptions of nonnative-English-speaking teacher educators in a TESOL program: “Is there a language barrier compensation?” TESOL Journal, 6(2), 225-251. doi:10.1002/tesj.145 Kress. H., Thering, A., Lalonde, C., Kim, S., & Cleeton, L. (2012). Faculty reflections on online course development and implementation for teacher education. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 8(1), 73-83. Li, B., & Tin, T. B. (2013). Exploring the expectations and perceptions of non-native English speaking students in masters level TESOL programs. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 21-35. Ma, L. P. F. (2012). Strengths and weaknesses of NESTs and NNESTs: Perceptions of NNESTs in Hong Kong. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 1-15. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.005 Moore, J. L. (2013). Preparing advocates: Service-learning in TESOL for future mainstream educators. TESOL Journal, 4, 555–570. doi:10.1111/j.1745 Park, G. (2012). “I am never afraid of being recognized as an NNES”: One teacher’s journey in claiming and embracing her nonnative-speaker identity. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 127–151. doi:10.1002/tesq.4 Park, H.-R., Kim, S., Mukherjee, K., & Ates, B. (2018, forthcoming). What teachers need to know about teaching online classes: Common online class components and guidelines with faculty leadership and educational policies. Leadership and Policy Quarterly, 7(1-2). Perren, J. (2013). Strategic steps to successful service-learning in TESOL: From critical to practical. TESOL Journal, 4(3), 487-513. doi:10.1002/tesj.96 Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2016). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 748-762. Sanderson, D. R. (2016). Working together to strengthen the school community: The restructuring of a university-school partnership. School Community Journal, 26(1), 183-197. So, H., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318-336. doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009 TESOL International Association. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/enhance-your-career/career- development/beginning-your-career/finding-teacher- education-programs-in-tesol TESOL/CAEP Standards for P-12 Teacher Education Programs (2018). Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/advance-the-field/standards/ tesol-caep-standards-for-p-12-teacher-education- programs
Praxis Lessons Learned from Developing and Managing a Graduate TESOL Ho-Ryong Park, Soonhyang Kim & Mary Sue Sroda University of North Florida, Murray State University ABSTRACT Developing and managing a graduate TESOL program successfully is a significant goal for all TESOL programs in training English language teachers, but it is also a daunting task. Program developers need to consider all the contexts and possible issues they may encounter, which can vary depending on the size and nature of the institution, the goals and outcomes of the potential student population, among other issues. In this paper, three TESOL faculty members with diverse backgrounds and experiences share some common issues and influential factors that all program administrators and faculty members need to consider at the program development and management stages. The authors discuss each issue and provide relevant guidelines based on our own experiences.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.65
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.66
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.67
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.69
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.68
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.70
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.71
Praxis Making the Medium Match the Message for Millennials: Using Screencasts for Feedback Mariah Schuemann, Matt Kaiser, Clarissa Moorehead, Samantha Parkes University of Miami, Intensive English Program ABSTRACT When it comes to new technologies, teachers often find themselves traveling down the rabbit hole, which raises the question “Is screencasting worth the time and effort?” Going beyond traditional written commentary, this article explores the efficacy of screencasting (video recorded feedback) for teachers and students alike. It shares why screencasting is a pedagogically-sound tool that effectively aids teachers in providing student feedback on both written and oral assignments. This article explains what screencasting is, its key advantages, and how this tool is essential for instructors looking to expand their technological repertoire in an increasingly digital world.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.73
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.72
Introduction “Is screencasting worth the time and effort?” was the original research question we asked ourselves several years ago. After robust experimentation with our top choice of screencasting software, Snagit, unanimously we have found screencasting to be worth the time and effort. In our action research, we provided spoken student feedback on oral and written assignments, interviewed students about their preferences for receiving such feedback, and led professional presentations and faculty professional development sessions to teach about screencasting as a feedback tool in the U.S. and abroad. Not only has it made providing feedback a more satisfying experience, but we also see it as an indispensable tool for reaching today’s digital natives. This article will share what screencasting is, its advantages, and how this tool is key for instructors looking to expand their teaching repertoire and and keep up to date while using this pedagogically-sound teaching tool. What Is Screencasting? Screencasting also known as “veedback or video feedback” (Thompson and Lee, 2012) is a relatively new technology and is being increasingly studied in the L2 classroom. Essentially, a teacher can make “digital recordings of the activity on one’s computer screen accompanied by voice over narration” (Thompson and Lee, 2012). Making a screencast is as though the teacher turns a video camera on their computer screen and records what they are doing in real time (e.g., correcting errors, typing comments, playing back a recorded student video, etc.) while simultaneously recording voiced feedback (e.g., offering suggestions and corrections). In this way, when the student watches the screencast, they are able to see the displayed student work along with teacher annotations as well as listen to the teacher’s narrated commentary. Characterized by Stannard (2007) as “a halfway house between handing back a student a written piece of work with comments on it and actually meeting the student to mark their work” (para. 5), [the effectiveness of screencasting] is rooted in the belief that multimodal feedback allows for a wider range of individual learning styles and preferences (Mayer, 2003) and is more likely to provide a learning experience that students will find memorable (Brick and Holmes, 2008). To view a tutorial on screencasting, please follow this link: https://youtu.be/jirO0glYxuY From Writing Classes to Speaking Classes When our team first began experimenting with this new technology, we were exclusively using it to provide screencasted feedback to students in our writing classes. Instead of handing a student back an essay or research paper they had written covered in our red marks and sometimes indiscernible error correction notes, we turned to screencasting. Using the screencasting software, we could open the students’ essays on our computers, and give spoken feedback to the students while reading through their Figure 1: Screencast using Snagit written work. Although members of our team tackled screencasting on written work in different ways and provided screencasted videos of varying lengths, all of us found that students appreciated this feedback method. In fact, our research showed that 87% of our students preferred screencasted feedback. Figure 2:: Student Preferences Using Screencasting There are numerous advantages to screencasting as perceived by students. Firstly, they are able to re-watch the video multiple times to absorb the information more fully, and the feedback is presented on a platform that is natural to them because they are accustomed to learning and doing daily activities in multimodal ways that include video, audio, and written word simultaneously. Next, the feedback is extremely individualized and personal. Students view the feedback videos as a virtual conference devoted to them and their improvement. This is also advantageous to us as educators because we are able to give personal support to students despite schedule time constraints. Finally, learners are surprised that their teachers spend so much time and effort to assign grades and give comments to their work. By offering screencasted feedback, students are able to perceive the effort because they can see the length of the screencasted video. Because of the success of screencasted feedback on top of writing, members of our team began trying to see how else we could use screencasting software for other courses like Oral Communication (OC). We determined that screencasting was a perfect way to give feedback on presentations or other spoken, oral assignments because the voice-over video provided students with a true speaking/listening experience. Screencasting required student to listen to their teacher’s feedback on oral assignments in a way that was far more aligned with OC course objectives. From the teacher perspective, using screencasting to comment on presentations was easier than giving written feedback. We were able to record student presentations in class, upload them to computers, and open the files on computers. Then, using the screencasting software we could provide real-time comments. This feedback method gave teachers the opportunity to offer constructive feedback easily and in a satisfying way because specific instances of errors could be easily pinpointed and shown to students visually and aurally. Students also appreciated that they could hear and see their spoken mistakes in real time instead of having to rely on IPA or sync the written notes with the video locations. They were able to have immediate pronunciation help and could hear their teacher model the word with the appropriate sounds, stress, and intonation and attempt to imitate. Another benefit to students was that screencasted feedback allowed them to not only know the mistakes they made, but also how to correct them. Prior to screencasting, teachers rarely provided options to correct their errors, but with veedback students can develop their own voice and become more independent learners. From Traditional Classrooms to Flipped Classrooms After successfully implementing screencasting feedback over both written and spoken assignments, our team expanded our use of the tool from a traditional setting to a flipped model. Typically in a flipped classroom, the obvious uses of screencasting is as a lecturing and feedback tool; however, there are many ways in which screencasting can go beyond. One of the ways that we have used screencasting in a more innovative way is for a hybrid flipped course for the training of international teaching assistants (ITAs). In this course, traditional lecture-type materials are offered through screencasting. When the ITAs come to class, they come ready to perform the tasks that they have been studying and preparing for online such as delivering mini-lessons, engaging groups in question and answer sessions, or handling student grievances. With the help of evaluator-volunteers serving as mock students, these observers interact with the ITAs and anonymously evaluate them and provide feedback. All activities are recorded. After the mock class, the feedback is tallied. Then, a private screencast made by the course instructor is posted on the Blackboard site for each individual ITA. The feedback results are provided to the ITAs in the screencast along with a selection of specific clips that illustrate both the positive and negative aspects of the ITA’s performance. The instructor stops at key points in the video, points out the feedback, and offers any additional insights to help the students improve or reflect on what they have done well. Mock class members sign a release form agreeing that the video clips that they participate in can be used for instructional purposes for future ITA classes. This leads us to the next use. One of the issues commonly brought up in discussions on flipped classrooms is the concern that students do not come prepared having “watched” their homework. To help encourage students to watch their homework, screencasts can be made to cue in students to the consequences they will face if they come to live class sessions underprepared. Specifically, in our International Teaching Assistant course, ITAs are shown a recording of former ITAs from a previous semester doing their practicum teaching in front of a mock audience. This screencast has been edited for brevity and enhanced with instructional commentary using screencasting software. Essentially, it is a video of ITA-student teaching. In the video, the ITA professor has used a voice overlay on key sections to point out good ITA-student teaching techniques and also problematic practices to be avoided. The ITA professor edits these screencasts so that they are short and concise, giving the new ITAs just what they need in advance of their own practice teaching. After having viewed such screencasts, the new ITAs can then come to a live class with a better sense of what they are up against. This approach also offers an excellent opportunity for the instructor to coach ITAs on the advantages of taking on a growth mindset and looking at their weaknesses as opportunities to grow and help others in the same situation. From Classroom Teacher to Virtual Consultant Adopting screencasting in the university ESL classrooms is advantageous, but it would be limiting to not discuss further screencasting applications in other teaching environments. Screencasting becomes even more practical for teachers who are not solely teaching linguistic skills, but who are also integrating lessons with discipline-specific content. In cases in which language learners are expected to manage abstract theories, mathematical formulas, or complex explanations taught in the target language, Peterson (2007) recommends that screencasts are excellent tools for learners across disciplines, “particularly when using databases that have layered sets of information, requiring multiple mouse clicks.” Another way in which screencasting technology extends beyond is that it can serve as a bridge between what happens in the classroom and what happens at a student’s home. This is especially the case in K-12 settings. Teachers can use screencasting to communicate messages to parents, and if the teacher speaks their students’ native language, the teacher can now have a virtual one-on-one with the parent. Instead of typing complex instructions, the teacher could offer a screencasted “tour” that walks parents through the various components of the assignments and could do so in the parent’s native language. If the teacher does not speak the student’s home language, the teacher could enlist the help of a colleague, or even an advanced student. In the end, this bridge constructed with screencasting technology supports teachers and parents alike to better assist their learners. Going beyond the brick and mortar classroom, another practical implementation of screencasting is for online teachers. A screencasted recording of the online instructor offering instruction on an assignment or feedback on submitted work offers a human touch in an otherwise sterile online environment. For educators who teach in a fully-online environment, teacher-produced screencasts are the chalkboards of the 21st century. As the number of virtual language consultants is growing, they too can benefit from screencasting. Screencasting technology allows these teachers the ease of working from the comfort of their homes, at any time, and across multiple time zones. Furthermore, such professionals can create screencasts general enough that they can be reused with different groups across different time periods. From Experimentation to Growth With so many ever-changing factors in the arena of teaching and learning, teachers are constantly racing to keep up with what is pedagogically sound. One of the biggest advantages of working with screencasting is that it helps to keep you in pace with the rapidly changing digital classroom. In our earlier work with screencasting, we often referred to the metacognition, or self-awareness, that results from screencasting student feedback (Parkes, Schuemann, Kaeiser, & Moorhead, 2016). Although little has been written about how screencasting supports a teacher’s growth, we have found that we have: (1) become more succinct in our commentary to students, (2) learned to better balance critique along with praise, and (3) become more efficient and effective in developing a consistent feedback protocol that works with our individual teaching styles. Because screencasts are recorded, teachers naturally become more aware of how their voice comes across to learners. This last point is ironic in the sense that we often ask students to speak up in class, be a voice, and not be worried about how they sound. However, we teachers easily forget how much courage that takes. When embarking on our first, or even fiftieth, screencast, there is a mental voice that gasps “Is that really how I sound?” However, it gets easier and, at the end of the day, screencasting helps us all to become better teachers. Biographical Statement Mariah Schuemann, MA, is as a faculty lecturer with interests in curriculum development, digital communication strategies and CALL, and academic writing. She serves as a SSTESOL Member-at-Large and is a Color Vowel Chart Master Trainer. Matt Kaeiser is a lecturer and ITA coordinator with interests in active learning, music to enhance learning, and brain research. Clarissa Moorhead, MEd., is a faculty lecturer at the University of Miami IEP with interests in CALL, academic writing, and intercultural communications. She has served in various leadership roles within the department and currently leads the Outreach Committee. Samantha Parkes, MA, lives in San Jose, Costa Rica where teaches online courses for American University’s Panama Bilingue program and works with the US Embassy, The Ministry of Education, and Centro Espiral Mana to train Costa Rican English teachers. She is a CEA Site Reviewer and Color Vowel Chart Master Trainer. References Baertlein, E. & Nott, D. (2015). Improving and simplifying feedback on student writing using screencasting. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/mgebljf Dweck, C. (2017). Mindset: changing the way you think to fulfil your potential. Hachette UK. Mathisen, P. (2012). Video feedback in higher education: A contribution to improving the quality of written feedback. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(2), 97-113. Retrieved from http://www.pmathisen.no/4file/filer/artikler/ videofeedback%20in%20higher%20education% 20petter%20mathisen%202012.pdf McGarrell, H. M., & Alvira, R. (2013). Innovation in techniques for teacher commentary on ESL writers’ drafts. Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute OLBI Working Papers, 5, 37-55. doi:10.18192/olbiwp.v5i0.1117 Peterson, E. (2007). Incorporating screencasts in online teaching. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(3). Sugar, W., Brown, A., & Luterbach, K. (2010). Examining the anatomy of a screencast: Uncovering common elements and instructional strategies. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 1-20. Seror, J. (2012). Show me! Enhanced feedback through screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 104-116. doi:10.18806/tesl.v30i1.1128 Thompson, R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with students through screencasting: Experimentations with video feedback to improve student learning. The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 1(1) 1-16.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.74
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.75
Advocacy Brief Advancing Equity and Excellence in Public Education for English Learners by Arlene M. Costello Abstract Teaching K12 or adult English Learners (ELs) is both challenging and rewarding. One strives to do very much to make a difference in their language development, acculturation, and academic achievement. In order to help ELs succeed and hold schools accountable for student outcomes, much more needs to be done beyond the classroom walls. Advocacy for ELs, their families, Teachers of English for Speakers of Other Languages professionals, and the various programs that serve English Learners are crucial to preparing ELs for academic success. For this reason, this review summarizes the current three years of Sunshine State TESOL’s advocacy efforts with a focus on advancing and promoting sound education policy and developing leadership and advocacy skills of SSTESOL professionals. Key Words: English Learners, advocacy, leadership, ESSA, equity Introduction English Learners are the fastest growing population in our schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). Issues such as federal education laws and policies, budget, immigration, equity, access to quality programs, curriculum resources, testing and assessment, closing the achievement gap, accreditation, professional development for teachers, and compliance with federal laws could contribute to expansion or limitations of opportunities and growth of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Education policies and funding for high quality English language instruction, curricula and materials warrant attention and action from all advocates of English Learners “so that teachers and administrators can be better poised to provide them an equitable as well as excellent education in the United States” (Fenner, 2014, p. 1). But, who is an advocate? How do you advocate for your students and your profession? What advocacy efforts or political engagement activities have you been involved in? How does SSTESOL advance its advocacy efforts for its members and English Learners? This article aims to help you answer these questions and offers recommendations on ways for you to engage in advocacy in your own local context. Defining Advocacy Webster’s New World Dictionary defines advocacy as the act of writing or speaking in support of an issue, and which comes from the Latin word advocatus, which means one called to aid. Staehr-Fenner (2014) defines advocacy as working for student’s equitable and excellent education by taking appropriate actions on their behalf. Providing a voice for those students and their families who have not developed their own strong voice in education is an act of advocacy. Advocacy is organized action in support of an idea or cause. When we support and promote the interests of English Learners in our schools and institutions of higher learning, we act on their behalf as advocates. Advocacy is constituents educating elected officials on important issues and sharing ideas on what works. My journey in advocacy started when I was an itinerant ESOL teacher at the beginning of my teaching career in the public school system. A janitor’s closet, a corner in the library or the stage in the cafeteria was my space for teaching and learning with ELs. I spoke up for equity of educational opportunities and resources for my ELs. Upon my invitation, the School Board member representing the school where I taught visited me at my school to view my teaching space. He witnessed my students’ enthusiasm for learning despite the limited classroom resources. The following school year, things changed. I was assigned to a dilapidated portable for my classroom. Unconsciously, my advocacy work began and has been an advocate for ESOL issues since then. As a teacher, I learned how to become an advocate for my students, families, and for myself. Through membership in professional organizations, I sought training to feel comfortable and ready to thoughtfully insert myself in policy and practice conversations that involve ELs. Things began to change, although, change was slow. This is a teacher’s new role: advocates of ELs, their families, and our profession within his or her circle of influence. Figure 1: Circle of Influence In contrast, political engagement activities include attending a campaign event or campaign rallies, or working for a political campaign as a volunteer or as a paid staff. Contributing to a candidate or political group could be considered as political. Educators must be knowledgeable of the educators’ ethical practices and conduct concerning political engagement. Finally, keep in mind that your SSTESOL association is the trusted authority for advocacy and expertise in English and academic language in grades K12 and adult levels in the state of Florida. Its mission is to provide educators access to professional development, resources, and interaction and to provide leadership and advocacy in language policy issues. 1) SSTESOL’s Leadership in Advocacy: Building SSTESOL Leaders’ Professional and Advocacy Skills Participating in Annual International TESOL Policy and Advocacy Summit. In order to build SSTESOL leaders’ professional and advocacy skills, each year in June, the SSTESOL Board has voted to commit funds to send a representative to the annual International Advocacy and Policy Summit held in Alexandria, VA. Dr. Arlene Costello, Dr. Luciana de Oliveira and Dr. Debbie Giambo joined over 90 other TESOL educators and members of TESOL International Association in Alexandria, VA. for the 2018 TESOL Advocacy & Policy Summit. Dr. Ester DeJong, Ms. Jennifer Killam and Ms. Sara Courtamanche were in attendance in 2017. The program featured two days of issue briefings, breakout sessions and advocacy training, followed by a full day of visits to congressional offices on Capitol Hill. The goals of the Summit were not only to learn more about federal policy issues impacting TESOL educators and English learners, but also to provide an interactive experience for participants to actively engage in advocacy on behalf of their schools, programs, students and fellow educators. The purpose of our Hill visits were: 1) to develop relationship with Congressional offices as well as staff members, 2) inform elected representatives and staff about impact and challenges of our work as an English Language educator, 3) connect our work to the legislative asks, 4) let representatives know about issues facing the preparation and retention of teachers of ELs as well as issues facing English Learners, and 4) become a “go – to” resource in the field for Congress to connect. The Florida team visited and spent time with legislative assistants for Senator Bill Nelson, Congressman Matt Gaetz, Representative Michelle Lujan Grisham, and Representative Francis Rooney. Senator Marco Rubio did not respond to my letter requesting an appointment to meet with him or his staff. By the end of the Summit, TESOL members had visited the offices of over 150 Representatives and Senators with the following policy recommendations for the 115th U.S. Congress: · Fully fund Title III of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) at the FY 2019 authorized funding level of $785million. · Fully fund Title II of the ESSA at the FY 2019 authorized level of $2.3 million. Title II provides states with funding for professional development for educators and school leaders. · Pass the Reaching English Learners Act (H.R. 4838), which addresses the nation’s critical shortage of EL teachers by providing grants for the training and development of future teachers of English Learners. · Exercise its oversight authority to ensure that the office of the English Language Acquisition within the U.S. Department of Education remains a separate office. Senator Nelson and Representative Michelle Lujan Grisham joined numerous senators who expressed their concerns on this issue in a letter sent to Secretary DeVos. · Fully fund Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) at the authorized 2019 funding level of $664.5 million. · Reject the proposed budget cut to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the Department of State. · Passage of the Bar Removal of Individuals Who Dream of Growing Our Economy Act and passage of the Dream Act of 2017. Summit participants continue to connect and discuss local education issues at the MyTesol Connection. Jennifer Killam and I presented an echo advocacy session, The Power of Collective Advocacy in Advancing Public Education for English Learners©, at the 2018 SSTESOL Annual Conference in Orlando, FL. As a result of this session, Jennifer Killam was instrumental in reactivating the Broward TESOL Chapter. Sara Huck was inspired to form a new chapter in the Southwest region of Florida. 2) SSTESOL’s Leadership in Advocacy: Demostrating expertise in language education policy with the following actions: On ESSA · In September 2017, SSTESOL, Florida’s leading professional association for English language educators, worked in concert with human and civil rights, community-based cultural organizations in expressing opposition, in the strongest terms, to the draft waiver request of the Florida ESSA Plan. The requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provide vital protections for the education of English learners, students with disabilities, students of color and low-income students in our schools. Waiving these requirements would hinder the advancement of all Florida students. · In November 2017, Dr. Rosie Feinberg-Castro, Dr. Shirley Johnson and Dr. Arlene Costello spent a day on the Hill and the U.S. Department of Education advocating for equity and protection of ELs and compliance of ESSA Law provisions in the Florida ESSA Plan. Our mission was successful. The FL ESSA Plan was returned for further revisions. · Again, in May 2018, SSTESOL joined Florida civil rights organizations in requesting from Secretary DeVos to withhold approval of Florida’s revised ESSA plan until it is revised again to comply with the requirements set by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The revised plan excluded critical protections for our English learners, students with disabilities, students of color, and low-income students by failing to include required provisions for subgroup accountability, inclusion of progress toward English language proficiency in the accountability system, and implementation of native language assessment. · On June 5, 2018, Secretary DeVos wrote to Commissioner Pam Stewart regarding the status of the Florida ESSA Plan. Florida was given extension of the deadline for submission of the revised ESSA Plan to October 4, 2018. · Florida submitted its revised ESSA Plan. SSTESOL continued its stand that approval of ESSA Plan be withheld until it complies with the ESSA requirements. · The Florida ESSA Plan was approved. Below is SSTESOL's statement on the approval of the FL ESSA Plan. Florida Sunshine State TESOL Statement on the Approval of Florida ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) Plan The members of the Florida Sunshine State TESOL (SSTESOL) Organization are deeply troubled by Secretary DeVos’s recent decision to approve the Florida Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Plan. We strongly disagree with this move because the Florida ESSA Plan does not reflect the assurance that English Learners (ELs) have access to equitable educational opportunities since it failed to incorporate data on individual groups, including English language proficiency, into the state’s calculations for a report card grade. In addition, the Plan does not demonstrate that the state has made every effort to provide native language assessment in the content areas where applicable, as ESSA requires. We look forward to educating members of the Florida legislature of the crucial importance and effects of aligning Florida’s education laws with federal laws. This means revising Florida’s accountability system in order to ensure equity and quality schools for ALL students in our communities. The FL SSTESOL will continue to collaborate with other organizations and individuals in promoting and supporting compliance of the ESSA laws in Florida schools. On Reorganization of the Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA). SSTESOL joined numerous organizations in support of preserving the current organizational profile of the OELA, to include a full-time Director, at the Assistant Deputy Secretary level, who reports to the Secretary. Educating elected lawmakers on the importance of OELA which provides the needed guidance to the five million English Learners (ELs) in the nation is crucial. Where do we go from here? It is not too late to learn how to become advocates for ELs, their families, and our profession. To begin, engage in professional development in leadership training to support one’s new role. Try asking yourself these questions in order to guide your actions. What can I do as an individual? What can you I do for the school? What can I do for my district? What can I do for my community? How can I collaborate with other non-school based communities? Begin to establish relationships with your elected officials! They work for you!!! Finally, keep in mind that your SSTESOL association is the trusted authority for advocacy and expertise in English and academic language in grades K12 and adult levels in the state of Florida. Its mission is to provide educators access to professional development, resources, and interaction and to provide leadership and advocacy in language policy issues. About the author: Dr. Arlene Costello is SSTESOL Advocacy Liaison/First VP and president of Emerald Coast TESOL. A retired experienced ESOL educator, she is an independent education consultant and founder and Director of Connections, a center for culture and education services.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.76
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.77
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.79
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.78
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.81
SOUTHEAST TESOL REGIONAL CONFERENCE 5-9 November, 2019 - Orlando, Florida Hosted by Sunshine State TESOL
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.80
In May, 2018, the Sunshine State TESOL Association held its annual conference at the Doubletree Hilton Hotel in Orlando. Over 350 members participated in the conference which was held over three days. On the following pages, readers can now enjoy selected abstracts and presentations delivered by some of our esteemed members. The tables on pages 83 and 84 detail the scope of presentations. Those colored in yellow and green are within this edition of the SSTESOL Journal. Presentations marked as yellow, comprise a "Links to Practice" overview, a powerpoint of the presentation and additional materials/handouts as downloadable resources. Presentations marked as green, contain some but not all elements of the above. Additional thanks are once again extended to our plenary and keynote speakers: Plenary: Pauline Gibbons comes from Australia and deliverred the plenary talk on Friday, May 11th entitled Talk Matters: Creating Bridges to Literacy. Gibbons spoke about how classrooms today are increasingly multicultural and multilingual: that they represent a ‘kaleidoscope’ of ethnicities, identities, experiences and languages. We know that such classrooms offer rich contexts for learning. At the same time, English language learners are faced with the challenge of learning a new language while concurrently using that language to develop subject-specific knowledge and subject-specific literacies. Keynote: Patricia Martinez-Alvarez and Nelson Flores will give a panel presentation on Friday May 11th entitled “Something’s Going on at Home,” on why and how teachers can recognize and use cultural tools students bring from home and community to promote language, content and literacy development. Keynote: Chane Eplin gave updates on state educational policies affecting English language education, discuss current research and practices, and emphasize the importance of collaboration between higher education and K-12 in order to deliver quality education for English LanguageLearners. Featured Speaker: Paulino Brener brought a lot of drama to SSTESOL this May! On Saturday, May 12th, he spoke and demonstrated for an hour about learning how to incorporate drama games, movement, and improv in the language classroom. Closing Keynote: Luciana de Oliveira, President-Elect of TESOL International, closed the 40th Annual SSTESOL Conference on Saturday, May 12th with a keynote address entitled, “Things TESOL Professionals Should Know.”
Florida Sunshine State TESOL Annual Conference Highlights
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.83
Two important presentations are highlighted below. The first is an update from Bureau Chief Chane Eplin regarding English Language Learner education in Florida. The powerpoint contains data regarding ELL graduation rates as well as exam pass rates. The second presentation from Unidos details their work and advocacy for Latinos in Florida. In both presentation contact information is given in case more information is needed. Additional thanks are once again extended to our plenary and keynote speakers:
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.82
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.85
LINKS TO PRACTICE Experiential Learning about the Community outside the Classroom Kim Hardiman (University of Central Florida) 1) Presentation Overview Florida is a great place for ELs to experience a kaleidoscope of multicultural education. This presentation will demonstrate student-centered lessons outside the classroom into the community. Students documented their experiences by sharing learning activities in slide presentations including interviews, photographs, and teamwork while practicing listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills. International students will get the opportunity to get out of the ESL classroom and use their English in the real world! The experiential learning lesson about multicultural communities will allow the students to choose from different on- and off-campus activities based on their interests. Students will need a few days to complete the on-campus and off-campus activities. All options include a PowerPoint presentation that contains all of the tasks the student will need to accomplish. Instructors will explain how to create slides, interview people, and locate the events before the students explore the campus or community. Any teacher from K-12 to the university level can use the experiential technique and modify to their ESL/ESOL programs. Teachers can create some fun competitions. For example, offer extra credit to the student who takes the funniest picture, the student who interviews the most people, or the student who completes the most activities on campus or in the community. Assessment and feedback are provided by group presentations and written reports given at the end of the experiential activities. During the project, students can provide essential feedback about having positive or negative experiences; for example, some lower-level students may have difficulty understanding directions or trying to find transportation, listening to native speakers, getting outside their comfort zones, and so on. Second or third semester students can help newcomers learn about the community, diverse cultures, and educational resources 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? Beginning and Low-Intermediate level students can choose from the following options: On campus: UCF Bookstore, Recreation & Wellness Center, Music &Theater, Student Union Off campus: grocery stores, cafes, shopping malls, libraries, Barnes & Noble bookstore Advanced and High-Intermediate level students can choose from the following options: On campus: UCF Art Gallery, Recreation and Wellness Center, Bounce Back Carnival (this was an event put on by UCF Cares to help students relieve stress and understand depression). Off campus: any museum, a public library event, parks, zoos, animal or homeless shelters, hospitals, Hands on Orlando Volunteer, Orlando Science Center, Lake Eola events, etc. http://www.mrfreestuff.com/free-things-to-do-in-orlando/ Link to Handout Here
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.84
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.86
LINKS TO PRACTICE Perspectives from International Student Services Informing Practices for Intensive English Programs Victoria Shelly, (University of Florida English Language Institute) 1) Presentation Overview Why are my students absent? We notice when a student doesn’t show up, but we don’t always get a full picture of what’s going on in her life. We have procedures for dealing with absences, but they don’t always include ways to support her or remedy the root cause. Our intensive English program students miss class for many of the same reasons as their American counterparts, but additional factors compound these challenges for them. They also face entirely unique cultural, emotional, health- related, even legal obstacles that can further contribute to their absences. The breadth of these is hard to anticipate, but the presenter shared some insight and perspective from her experience as a former instructor and current student life coordinator. The presentation also offered both faculty and administrators some best practices for working together to successfully guide their students through adjustment to life in the US, listed below. As faculty… · Don’t take the absence personally. · Ask privately about the reason. · If the student is avoidant, don’t assume character flaw. · Contact student services if chronic or you have other information that concerns you. · If a student tells you they are somehow in danger and asks you not to tell anyone, encourage the student to reach out on their own. If they won’t, tell the student that in good conscience (and sometimes by law) you must reach out on their behalf. · When in doubt, go to your Student Services contact or appropriate admin. Don’t talk to other teachers. As administration… · Provide procedures for your faculty to follow for chronic issues. · Notify students of official warning systems and consequences. · Create an atmosphere that fosters communication. · When you have information about a student, don’t leave teachers in the dark as much as is appropriate. With open, appropriate, and prompt communication, faculty and staff can successfully guide their students through adjustment to life in the US.
LINKS TO PRACTICE Don’t Open the Book Yet: Creative Starts to Grammar Lessons Tracy Partin, Hilary Davis, Meagan O'Connell (Valencia College) 1) Presentation Overview Novice and veteran teachers want to have a repertoire of techniques for introducing a grammar concept at their disposal. Over the years, we have developed some engaging strategies for introducing grammar concepts that go beyond, “Okay, class, open your books to page 87.” Using these strategies to introduce grammar concepts activates student schema in a low stress way and allows the teacher to ascertain what the students may or may not already know about the topic. This hands-on session will demonstrate examples of low-prep activities that teachers can use to give students greater context for grammar concepts. We will also show teachers how to use the language that is generated from these activities as a foundation on which to build the grammar lesson. By using students’ real language, teachers encourage students to take on an active role in the learning process and expose students to something more meaningful than textbook sentences that often lack contextual meaning. Through the interactive and communicative approaches demonstrated in this session, participants will see how introducing grammar can go beyond just asking students to open their textbooks and can transform grammar lessons by fully engaging students from the start. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? The primary beneficiaries of our presentation would be ESOL instructors teaching grammar as a discrete skill, but ESOL instructors teaching content- based lessons could benefit from our suggestions as well. 1. Grammar lessons can be effective even without a lot of preparation time. 2. Students learn more when the lesson is guided by their own examples and personal lives. 3. Students are more likely to pay attention and take notes when they are not asked to read a chart and/or examples in their book. 4. When the grammar presentation is guided by students’ own examples, the lesson is more organic. As a result, important questions and new vocabulary may arise that wouldn’t have otherwise. Link to handout here.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.87
LINKS TO PRACTICE Conversation Analysis for Student-Focused Instruction Steven Mercier (University of South Florida) 1) Presentation Overview This presentation explores how Conversation Analysis (CA) can be used to help teachers take a student-focused approach to their work. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? Students will ultimately benefit from more student-focused instruction, and teachers can benefit from reflective practice based on CA. · If individual student meetings are part of the regular curriculum, ask students for permission to audio- or video-record the meetings. Stress that it is not for a grade or speaking test, and that it is to help better serve them. Offer to make the recording(s) available to them later, if they would like. If you do not have individual student meetings, you can audio-record class discussions. · Listen to the recordings and try to establish the following: 1. What is the intended purpose of the conversation? 2. What is actually happening during the conversation? 3. What is the nature of the turn-taking? 4. What else do you notice about the conversation when you reflect on its content? · Reflect on whether your conversations were productive, either in the way that was intended or in a different way, and how you might approach future conversations differently if necessary. Link to Handout here. LINKS TO PRACTICE Preparing Pre-Service Teachers in a WIDA Consortium Member State Lesson Planning for ELs with WIDA Resources Link to #1 Handout Here Link to #2 Handout Here
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.89
LINKS TO PRACTICE Looking at Augmented Reality in the ESL Classroom through the Students' Lens Sahar Alyahya (University of South Florida) 1) Presentation Overview This presentation aims to provide a voice to ELS students and argues their perspectives of Augmented Reality (AR) as a useful tool that motivates students in ESL classrooms. It uses a new lens which looks at AR from the students’ point of view. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? The primary beneficiary of the practical application: ESL/ EFL teachers ESL teachers could make better use of new technologies such as AR in their classrooms. Some of the technologies could be more suitable for certain subjects related to language skills than others. Some of the technologies could be more suitable, also, for certain students than others (Chun, 2011). In terms of learning style, Dunn and Reinert had determined that learners could learn through four learning channels: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile (Reid, 1987). By integrating AR in the classroom, teachers could meet the learning channel that the students need. Suggested activities and practices for teaching ESL skills through AR include the following: Listening: Using AR applications, students could be more motivated during listening activities. The teacher could use any AR application, Aurasma for instance, and add a video to the AR model. Students could watch a video with audio through a digital device, which would allow students to practice their listening skills. For example, if the lesson is about a famous character, the teacher could design a 3-D model of that character and add a video of the individual talking about himself/herself. Once the students use the digital devices to activate the AR model, the video could play, and the students could enjoy watching the video while practicing their listening skills. Reading: ESL teachers could use AR in explaining the main theme of the lesson. For example, if the lesson focuses on a geographical place, such as Taj Mahal, an AR application would be a tool to motivate the students. The teacher could design a Taj Mahal building through the AR application, and during the class, the teacher could then discuss the building while students view a 3-D rendering of the building using smartphones, iPads, or tablets. Students could watch the 3-D digital object individually using Aurasma (https://www.aurasma.com/), or a huge 3-D digital object could be placed in the classroom using a Google Expedition Tango AR platform (https://get.google.com/tango/). Since it is a reading classroom, a text could be added to the AR object, which would allow students to practice their reading skills in an augmented environment. This activity could be suitable for K-12 and higher education levels. Link to Handout here.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.88
LINKS TO PRACTICE Virtual Reality Fieldtrips with Google Expedition Amy Trujillo (Orlando Science Schools) 1) Presentation Overview Google Expeditions is a free app that can be used in classrooms for both children and adult. Participants were able to both lead and follow a guided field trip and were able to choose expeditions in languages of their choice. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? Teachers of all ages would benefit since the expeditions range from careers to places to educational topics. 1. Google Expeditions is a free app 2. Students can follow along with Google Cardboard (VR headsets) or on an iPad 3. It does not require an Internet connection 4. Google Expeditions will visit schools if requested: click here 5. You are now able to search for an Expedition or topic 6. Google Cardboards can be purchased on Amazon for a low price 7. Many expeditions are in multiple languages 8. It a free virtual field trip and is very useful when tied to what students are learning in class 9. It provides a visual to abstract concepts like cells and the periodic table 10. It is beneficial for learnings of all ages Link to Handout #1 here. Link to Handout #2 here.
LINKS TO PRACTICE Incite Excitement into Formerly Colorless Vocabulary Instruction Cindy Fisher and Stephanie Bumm (Lee County School District) 1) Presentation Overview In this interactive workshop, participants learned the best ways to instruct students in vocabulary acquisition using Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) strategies. Attendees participated in a variety of activities that included methods to introduce, practice, and review content based vocabulary. The presenters modeled and provided materials of tried and true vocabulary activities that have made an impact within the classrooms such as: Total Physical Response (TPR ), List Group Label, Concept Definition Map, Most Important Word, Sorts, Games, and more. At the conclusion of the workshop, participants were able to implement new and interactive vocabulary strategies in their classrooms to immediately to help all students, especially their English Language Learners, acquire academic vocabulary. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? · Classroom Teachers Pre-K to 12th · School and/or District Coaches · All of the strategies shown at our presentation are practical for classroom use in order to help with vocabulary acquisition. · The presentation, including two model classroom videos, is attached so educators can refer to the various strategies referenced in the presentation such as TPR, Mind Mapping, Trade a Problem, and Verbose. · The following strategies are attached with directions at the top of the page for easy implementation. o Story Map Predict-O-Gram o List, Group, Label o Most Important Word Link to Handout #1 here. Link to Handout #2 here. Link to Handout #3 here.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.90
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.91
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.93
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.92
LINKS TO PRACTICE MELTS: Micro-Credentialling of EL Teaching Skills Joyce Nutta, Shizhong Zhang, Kerry Purmensky and Florin Mihai (University of Central Florida) 1) Presentation Overview The growing number of English Language Learners (ELLs) in American K-12 classrooms have challenged teachers to adapt their teaching to accommodate them. Situated within the context of Project MELTS (Micro-credentialing of English Learner Teaching Skills)- a five-year teacher education research and curriculum development project, this qualitative study aims at understanding how elementary school teachers perceive the role of Simulated Classroom Environments (SCEs) in training teacher candidates to teach ELLs. Preliminary analysis suggests that participants generally agreed that SCEs can help teacher candidates practice classroom management and content teaching skills, and understand ELLs’ proficiency levels better. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? Teacher educators could benefit from reading this presentation and understand how Simulated Classroom Environments (SCEs) can be instrumental in preparing teacher candidates to reach ELLs. Tips for Teacher Educators: • Simulated Classroom Environments (SCEs) need to mirror ELLs’ language proficiency levels. • SCEs could help teacher candidates practice classroom management, interaction, and content delivery skills. • Teacher educators could train teacher candidates to work around limitations of SCEs. Link to Handout here.
LINKS TO PRACTICE ESL and EFL Blended Learning Classroom: Combining Face-to-Face Instruction with Online Digital Technology Abrar Alsofyani (University of South Florida) 1) Presentation Overview This presentation defines Blended Learning Programs, recommends pedagogical implications for creating a successful Blended Learning Programs, provides samples of existing research and offers directions for future research. The primary beneficiary of the practical application of this presentation are English language teachers in Second or Foreign language context (ESL/EFL). This presentation discusses how to combine face -to-face classroom instruction with online classroom instruction, where the online classroom becomes an extension of the traditional classroom. Thus, I introduce five recommended online teaching applications which can be used to compliment traditional learning methods or as an extension of the face-to-face classroom setting. 1. Google Classroom Google Classroom is a free web based environment. ESL/EFL Instructors can use it to create a hybrid classroom setting. For example, an instructor may utilize the traditional face –to-face classroom environment to teach students about argumentative essay writing. To engage all students, the whole classroom in starting their argumentative essays with the help of peer feedback. Google Classroom allows Instructors to create assignments or quizzes and grade students work to provide timely feedback. 2. Pear Deck The instructor can use this free web- based platform to engage students during the traditional face-to-face classroom. Pear Deck can be used to post a question and to check students’ lesson comprehension. Additionally, instructors can upload PPT presentations or YouTube videos to further engage students in discussion. 3. Edmodo Instructors can use in or outside the traditional classroom to create a hybrid environment or to provide additional online practice materials. Instructors may create discussion boards, upload videos or PPT presentations, post assignments or quizzes, and provide constructive feedback. 4. iBook Author This is an Apple application and reading environment. Instructors can use it to improve their students’ reading skills by creating interactive e-books that consist of extra readings and practice opportunities. 5. Polls Everywhere This free web based application can be used to create simple questionnaires to collect important data. Instructors may collect students’ opinions about a course or their evaluation of the teaching materials. It can also be used to gain insight on students’ comprehension by posing short-answer questions. Note: Samples of each web based application can be found in the PPT slides. Link to Handout here.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.95
LINKS TO PRACTICE A Community of ESOL Support Team Spells SUCCESS! Maegan Baker (Santa Rosa County School District) 1) Presentation Overview Building a community of partners in education for a student promotes growth. In this presentation, I go over how I have found success by increasing parental involvement, participating in lesson planning with teachers, and monitoring growth with team members. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? The primary beneficiaries are classroom teachers, administrators, ESOL Resource Teachers, and counselors . This presentation was inspired by my quest to bridge my student’s home life and school life. I also wanted to reduce the stress that school work might bring into the home. I first started with administrators, counselors, and classroom teachers. I created a biography page that allowed those people a snapshot into the student’s background as well as academic and social strengths and preferences. Then I invited parents to meet with me and invited the administrator, counselor, and teachers as well. In that initial meeting we established connections with approved interpreters, if needed, and went over the ELL Plan as well as testing accommodations for the school year. This set the stage to make the parent feel welcome and established successful lines of communication. Around November I met with parents again to gain insight on how the year was going. The parents expressed concerns over the school using multiple applications for communication. This opened the discussion for finding better ways to keep parents connected to the school without requiring them to download multiple apps on their personal devices. Talking Points has proved to be very successful for us in Santa Rosa County. As far as instruction goes, I am a resource teacher for my schools. I support the classroom instruction so that my ELL students have the language and accommodations for language in order to be successful. I share the video from YouTube that I feel best captures this relationship, and why my role in a team planning meeting is important. https://youtu.be/R422RPysEBI Link to Prezi presentation here.
LINKS TO PRACTICE Establishing an International Center to Serve the Needs of Adolescent Newcomers Carla Huck and Matthew Miller, (Lee County School District) 1) Presentation Overview This session addresses key considerations for implementing an International Center to welcome newcomers using a “school within a school” model. Specific elements addressed include intake criteria, scheduling, curriculum and instruction, personnel, professional development, and family /community involvement. Participants will join in a discussion of challenges and successes, and take home an action plan template and appropriate resources needed to replicate this model in their own school sites. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? The primary beneficiaries are ESOL Administrators K-12; Secondary Teachers; ELL Advocates; Teacher Educators . The International Center at Dunbar High School in Fort Myers serves the needs of newly arrived secondary students with limited proficiency in English, many identified as SLIFE. Students become familiarized with American culture and school customs, while at the same time receiving intensive literacy and language instruction and access to core content curriculum. This presentation shows the specific way to block schedule students by grade level, and then focuses on textbooks and supplementary materials used; SIOP professional development model and ongoing coaching for all teachers in the school; sample parent involvement activities that have been held; and multiple extended learning opportunities from peer mentoring to after school tutoring. Learn about our plans to improve the graduation rate for ELLs! Link to Handout here.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.94
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.96
LINKS TO PRACTICE Instructional Design and the 21st Century ESL Classroom Robyn Socha and Danielle Hamill (Full Sail University) 1) Presentation Overview This presentation shows how to create content for a new 21st century classroom with infographics, game based learning activities (not gamification), and project based learning/assessments ideas. This is a collaboration of ideas for all the modalities. It will inspire ideas and spearhead some concrete content for your future classroom. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? Takeaways for instructors are as follows: · Design basic Infographics · Understand the validity of game based learning in the ESL classroom · Create instructional videos that model for students how to make their own videos that will assess the language in an engaging and motivational way This gives the pedagogical validity of the benefits of active engagement of technology vs. passive consumption in the ESL classroom. It examines how motivation effects learning and practical applications that help with schema and volition. Instructors will be shown how to use interactive infographics, game based learning activities and project based learning/assessment in all ESL modalities. The presentation gives practical approaches on how to create an infographic and how it could be used in reading, grammar, and writing. In addition, game based learning creates an engaging safe environment that lower affective filters and helps with fluent acquisition of the language. Instructors will see examples of game based learning activities with Google Maps for integrative learning. Finally, instructors will see how to create and model videos in their instructional design and inspire students to write their own scripts and video their own creative content that applies form and function of the language in a creative way.
LINKS TO PRACTICE Using Folklore to Teach Culture and the Four Language Skills Michelle Snider and Kimberly Calvin (Valencia College) 1) Presentation Overview Our presentation is about incorporating storytelling in an Intensive English Program (IEP) to help increase the motivation of students reading while learning the four language skills. This genre naturally increases language learning because it connects to all cultures. Students are exposed to American English literature and culture in a way that can be entertaining and educational. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? The primary beneficiary of the application are first the students and then the instructors. In addition to learning the language, students also benefit by having the opportunity to learn about folklore from a different culture and share how the stories might relate to those from their culture. Students are inspired by the very nature of folklore: it touches people’s emotions and connects them. Then, the teachers benefit by having students more interested in what they are reading and being motivated to complete the activities, especially speaking and writing ones. Also, since there are so many different types of stories from various cultures that are available free online, the teacher has many choices when trying to connect the folklore with a lesson or the students’ background knowledge. The links to practice are: · Scaffolding: using different graphic organizers, activities to activate prior knowledge of vocabulary, videos to activate prior knowledge. · Teaching reading across the curriculum (i.e., all 4 skills). · Increasing oral and writing skills by retelling stories. The takeaways are: · How students summarize and retell a story. (see the PPT for details) · How to use storytelling to teach grammar points (past tenses and perfect tenses) with creative writing activities.(see the Folklore Activity handout) · Where to find online folklore resources from different countries that sometimes contain videos and/or audio. · Where to find a Lexile and how to use it to match the story with the students reading level of difficulty. · Why folklore is different from other readings: it provides a thread to help build a bridge with cultural gaps. · What population it can be used by: all ages in any language program. Link to Handout #1 here. Link to Handout #2 here.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.97
LINKS TO PRACTICE Exploring the World Around Us and Beyond! Stephanie Ilich, Kazuki Kanai and Jennifer Tuttle, Manatee Education Association 1) Presentation Overview Exploring the World Around Us and Beyond, maps how teachers can use the ACCESS 2.0 for ELLs and Initial Placement Assessments to obtain a snapshot of their ELL students. Practical classroom application of WIDA Can Do Descriptors using SIOP Components and Features, framed by the states standards assist educators in developing engaging content learning activities. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? Educators, administrators, and others working with English Language Learners may find the contents of this presentation applicable to their diverse student needs. The “take away” of this presentation is the immediate use of the content presented. Exploring the World Around Us and Beyond, is a demonstration on how to weave together state standard expectations, WIDA Can Do Descriptors, ACCESS 2.0 for ELLs scores, and Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Components and Feature Strategies and Activities. Selected SIOP Components used are Building Background Knowledge and Practice & Application. A non-fiction text chosen to hook participants (students), Nature Stinks by A-to-Z Books, bridge student interest and content learning. The presentation stressed the importance of knowing our students (where they are from, experiences they have/have not had, cultural norms and such). Equally important are educators knowledge and use of the data obtained from initial placement assessments we use. Understanding ZPD and how to scaffold students (Non or limited English speaker) to the next learning level by using the WIDA Can Do Descriptors, Proficiency Level, and Key Use of Language. Knowing how to structure engaging activities that are SIOP infused (across domains-Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing) help to ensure student success at their individual levels of proficiency. Link to Handout #1 here. Link to Handout #2 here. Link to Handout #3 here. Link to Handout #4 here. Link to Handout #5 here.
LINKS TO PRACTICE Technology in Education: Engaging Adult English Learners with Limited Literacy Imelda Bangun and Siying Li (University of South Florida) 1) Presentation Overview This presentation focuses specifically on acquainting educators with the prevailing literature of best practices in in curriculum design for adult English Language Learners with limited literacy. It also presents instructional strategies in integrating Computer-Assisted Language Learning tools to engage English learners and help them achieve their goal of gaining proficiency in reading and writing 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? Educators of adult English learners with limited native language literacy usually have limited access to resources on effective instructional reading and writing strategies for pre-literate learners. Thus, they will benefit from the materials (e.g.; pre-literacy adult ELL curriculum, syllabi, lesson plans, online materials, apps, etc.) presented during this presentation. Educators of pre-literate adult English learners should understand the underlying goals and needs of their students. This understanding provides a firm basis for establishing a curriculum design best suited to help adult learners achieve their goals. In addition to appropriate curriculum design, adult education programs that incorporate technology in their programs provide an additional benefit to adult English language learners who seek to build their language and life skills beyond the limited goal of classroom success. Technological tools can also enhance the quality of teaching and learning experiences of the learners when effectively integrated with appropriate pedagogical foundations. The use of technology as a teaching tool could result in the ability to tailor instructional content – thereby helping educators to differentiate instruction in the classroom. Both the inability to communicate effectively in English, and the lack of print literacy in their native language, formal education, as well as digital literacy hamper the abilities of adult immigrant English learners to perform basic functions in American society such as obtaining housing and employment as well as hindering their roles as parents in the education of their children. Therefore, the reasons for taking English classes and the needs of preliterate adult, immigrant English language learners extend beyond a narrow focus of simply becoming fluent in English. This presentation presents a curriculum design, instructional technology resources, and best practices to teach reading and writing to adult immigrants with limited literacy. Link to Handout #1 here. Link to Handout #2 here. Link to Handout #3 here. Link to Handout #4 here.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.99
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.98
LINKS TO PRACTICE Exploring the World Around Us and Beyond! Kelly Fykes (Saint Edward's School) 1) Presentation Overview Everyone knows that Google Slides is an excellent presentation tool and a fabulous way to disseminate information to students. However, there are several ways to get students involved with and using Google Slides. I challenge you to try to use Google Slides in different ways and you will increase collaboration, communication, and will help students create mastery of vocabulary words and concepts. Teachers of all subjects and grades could implement these strategies in their classes. Also, students of varying linguistic levels will benefit from them. The first innovative way Google Slides can be used is for Collaboration. Get all your students on one slide deck and give them editing rights. To start, create a blank Slide presentation and make sure you give everyone editing rights. Ask the students to claim a slide and give them directions. I love to do this as an introduction activity. Students quickly use the camera on the device to snap a selfie, write their name and list three facts about themselves. Lower level ELLs can look at the teacher’s example or other students’ slides to get ideas for theirs. Then, I ask the students to look at their peers’ slides and make comments. This increases interaction right from the beginning. Other ways to apply this technique are with exit tickets, summaries of concepts taught. The second way Google Slides can be used is to increase Communication amongst your students. The teacher creates various information gap activities where students must communicate with one another to complete a series of tasks. The teacher generates a slide deck for Partner A and a different one for Part B. For example, if you have just studied animals, Partner A’s slide deck would have a picture of a bear while Partner B’s slide deck has a picture of a flamingo. The students have to ask each other Yes/No questions to try to guess what animal the other one is looking at. This could be applied to all different types of academic content like elements, shapes, parts of speech, etc. In this example, teachers need to make sure that students only have access to View the Slide deck because they won’t be making any changes to it. The third way is to use Google Slides to create mastery. Teachers can create Bingo boards, Guess Who games, and simple Drag and Drop activities that students can use to practice vocabulary skills. The key to this is to make sure that students are making a copy of the Google Slide deck since they will be interacting with it individually. Another trick with this type of activity is to make sure that you edit the master slide to lockdown elements that you don’t want students to manipulate or change, like the Bingo board. I included a how-to video in my presentation link. Make sure the students are staying in Editing mode when they are dragging and dropping items in these activities. We all know that repetition equals mastery, so this type of activity allows the students to interact with vocabulary words many times in a fun and engaging manner. Take a look at my presentation slides and examples to get a better idea of what this looks like in a classroom setting. I included pro tips and some animated GIFS to help explain what to do. I hope you enjoy using Google Slides in a different way as much as I do.
LINKS TO PRACTICE Increasing Oral Language Opportunities for ELLs Across Content Areas Carla Huck and Tara Tomlinson (Lee County School District) 1) Presentation Overview Our presentation is based on the premise that oral language provides the academic foundation for content learning. We demonstrate specific strategies to implement across content areas (History, ELA, Math, and Science) to foster oral language development. The examples provided include carefully structured learning tasks to ensure that students of all proficiency levels can participate in academic conversations with peers. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? The primary beneficiaries are K-12 ESOL Administrators, Specialists/Staff Developers, Teachers, and Students in Teacher Preparation Programs . Every classroom teacher needs to incorporate interaction into daily lessons as part of the gradual release of responsibility, from I do, We do, You do together, to You do. Our suggested activities all target the four domains of language, thereby increasing academic language proficiency along with content knowledge and skill mastery. We work as SIOP trainers with K-12 teachers and have great success with these “tried and true” recommended strategies, which include Information Gap, Guided Listening, TACOS, Anticipation Guides, Four Corners, Shades of Meaning, Most Important Word, Math Vocabulary Tally Chart, Paired Math Discussion Protocol, Math Discourse Cards, Curriculum Based Role Play, and more! We also incorporate Kagan Structures into our delivery, showing how best practices for students work across grade levels and content areas. Presentation and Handouts here.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.101
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.100
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.102
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.103
LINKS TO PRACTICE Kaleidoscope of Grammar: Best Practices Aliona Buresh (Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University ) 1) Presentation Overview My presentation is devoted to showing ESOL instructors the ways to introduce and practice grammar in a way that is interactive and engaging for students. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? In my presentation, I talk about how to present a new grammatical point to students and how to practice it to make students stay engaged and motivated throughout the lesson. In my “take aways”, instructors will find three activities that can already tomorrow be taken to the classroom. The first activity is when we ask students by working in pairs or small groups to write a story about their friends in the classroom using correct tenses. This activity allows students to practice forms and usage of each tense that was studied in class. In the second activity, students in pairs will be working on a PowerPoint Presentation about a country that they are interested in. Students will need to do research about the past, present and try to predict the future of a chosen country. When students come to the class the next day, students will be having “Roundtable Sessions”. While a pair of students presents about their chosen country, the other students are listening and taking notes. Students that are listening and taking notes are also asking questions for clarification. It makes this process more real. When all students are done presenting, they are asked to report on which country they liked the most using the correct tenses. This activity allows students to practice formula, meaning of tenses in writing, listening, speaking, and reading. Link to Handout
LINKS TO PRACTICE Mindfulness Practices for English Language Teachers and Students Krista Royal, David Braasch (University of South Florida) 1) Presentation Overview n this presentation, we explored what mindfulness is, reviewed the benefits for teachers and students, discussed how to start a mindfulness practice of your own, and shared ways that it can be brought into the classroom. 2) Who is the primary beneficiary of the practical application of the presentation and what are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? While the presenters teach in an Intensive English Program, any teacher or education professional could benefit from these ideas. Mindfulness is a natural function but is not as known or appreciated in education as thinking is. Mindfulness is paying attention to the present moment, without judgement. When thinking is complemented by mindfulness, it becomes more powerful and leads to more critical thinking. In 21st century education, critical thinking is an essential skill. However, we live in a world of distraction, which impedes our abilities to synthesize, evaluate, and apply what we are teaching and what students are learning. Mindfulness cultivates focus and relaxed alertness, for teachers and students, in and out of the classroom. A major principle of mindful education is that before it can effectively be brought into a classroom, it first needs to be incorporated into the life of the teacher. This presentation shares with participants simple, but effective, mindfulness techniques that they can use to develop their own practice as well as bring into classroom settings. Participants take away an understanding of how mindfulness can enrich their personal and professional lives, how to begin their own mindfulness practice, how to bring mindfulness into their classroom, and how this practice will ultimately benefit students. Link to Handout
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.105
Book Review Fairbairn and Jones-Vo (2010) Differentiating instruction and assessment for English language learners: A guide for K/12 teachers. Sonia Velazquez, Laura Miller, Soonhyang Kim University of North Florida
LINKS TO PRACTICE Teaching & Fishing: A Co-teaching Model for ESOL and Content Teachers Dana Al-Zaid, Lara Laverey, Katherine Leiva, Bogi Macsai (North Broward Preparatory School) LINKS TO PRACTICE Music: A Universal Language Alia Hadid (University of South Florida) Link to Handout
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.104
While differentiated instruction is an effective instructional technique for meeting the diverse needs of learners in K-12 classrooms, "differentiation itself does not explicitly tell teachers how to enact differentiation for ELLs" (Fairbairn & Jones-Vo, 2010, p. 2). In order to provide effective differentiation for English Language Learners (ELLs), educators must first understand the basics of intercultural communication and the language acquisition process (Fairbairn & Jones-Vo, 2010; Wright, 2015). Fairbairn and Jones-Vo’s (2010) book is a valuable resource for K-12 teachers and teacher educators of ELLs because it identifies specific stages of language acquisition and language proficiency levels for K-12 ELLs and provides specific instructional and assessment strategies that can facilitate the instructional practices of K-12 teachers to promote academic language development for ELLs. Shelly Fairbairn is a professor at Drake University whose expertise is in the areas of teaching and learning, professional development, teacher training, assessment, and language teaching, and Stephaney Jones-Vo is a professor of graduate classes for educators of ELLs and an English as a Second Language (ESL) consultant at Heartland Area Education Agency in Iowa. In their book, the authors identify five ELL proficiency levels, from Level 1 to Level 5. Within each level, Fairbairn and Jones-Vo (2010) provide practical instructional and assessment strategies that K-12 teachers and teacher educators can easily incorporate into their lesson plans. The first two chapters discuss relevant factors K-12 teachers should consider about their ELL students and basic steps that can be taken to begin differentiating instruction. The authors describe how teachers can better understand the second language acquisition process and how they can recognize descriptors of each of the five proficiency levels. The next five chapters describe each of the five proficiency levels individually. Each chapter begins with general descriptors of ELLs within the level presented. The descriptors explain what educators can expect to observe in regard to their ELLs’ listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities. Additionally, each of the chapters on the five proficiency levels includes sample differentiated assignment templates, a list of assignment/assessment strategies, and suggestions for ways to adapt professional development activities. Following the level-specific chapters, the book concludes with a chapter on the combined five levels, and this chapter provides example student scenarios for elementary, middle school, and high school students. Based on the way the information is organized in the book, K-12 teachers and teachers preparing to enter K-12 classrooms can easily reference information regarding general or specific questions and inquiries they may have about the K-12 ELL student population. Each chapter on the five proficiency levels is beneficial for K-12 teachers because they can quickly compare the abilities they observe in classrooms with the descriptors provided in each of the chapters. The content and resources presented in their book are significant teacher tools that K-12 teachers and teacher educators will want to incorporate as a curricular resource. Fairbairn and Jones-Vo (2010) use effective methods of explanation that make the information in their book easily comprehensible and applicable for K-12 classroom instruction. The information is descriptive, organized, concise, teacher-friendly, and easily accessible. It is primarily helpful for teacher educators because it introduces an awareness to the needs of ELLs that novice teachers may not have considered. Overall, we recommend this book as a resource for general K-12 teachers, ESOL teachers, and teacher educators who are training teachers for K-12 classrooms. We would like to add that while we are impressed with the content and organization of the book, we also thought that the inclusion of the poster along with the book was an effective resource that K-12 teachers can access as a quick reference to the information in the book. Fairbairn and Jones-Vo’s (2010) large poster is a practical resource that can be easily posted and referred to in a classroom in order to facilitate instructional methods. The poster is extremely well structured with three main blocks of information: Student Descriptors, Instructional Strategies, and Assignment/Assessment Strategies. In the first block, each of the five proficiency levels is briefly defined within each of the four language skill areas. In the Instructional Strategies block, recommended instructional methodologies are provided for ELLs across all proficiency levels and in accordance with the four language skill areas. The third block on the poster lists assignment and assessment strategies that can be implemented for ELLs across all levels and also within each specific proficiency level across the four language skill areas. Having this highly accessible resource available in a classroom would be tremendously valuable for K-12 teachers who want to differentiate their instruction to meet the needs of the ELLs in class. Although Fairbairn and Jones-Vo (2010) include an extensive amount of information on accommodation strategies for different levels of English language proficiency, activity templates, and assessment ideas, one area of improvement for this book would be the addition of samples of modified lesson plans or materials that K-12 teachers and teacher educators can refer to and that are specifically designed using the differentiated strategies the authors suggest. The book provides many ideas for how to differentiate lesson plans. However, the book does not include any concrete examples where the authors model a lesson or activity that has been modified using differentiation techniques. K-12 teachers and teacher educators could benefit from the inclusion of modified sample lessons because they could visualize the outcome of a differentiated lesson based on a specific situation that the authors could provide. Furthermore, K-12 teachers and teacher educators could utilize the differentiated sample lessons and apply modifications to these lessons to meet the specific needs of their students. The addition of definitive examples is something that could improve Fairbairn and Jones-Vo’s (2010) book. To conclude, Fairbairn and Jones-Vo have created a timely and well-constructed book that can help both novice and seasoned K-12 teachers learn more about differentiating instruction for the K-12 ELL population. The book shows how teachers can differentiate their classroom instruction and assessments to be conducive to academic success for ELLs. The book and the wall poster are well organized and introduce concise information for K-12 teachers and teacher educators about the levels of language acquisition. In our opinion, this book is effective for understanding and facilitating the learning needs of ELLs in K-12 classrooms. This book is a highly accessible support resource that K-12 teachers will want to continually refer to in order to ensure that their ELL students are acquiring language across all content areas. References Wright, W. E. (2015). Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice (2nd Ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. Fairbairn, S., & Jones-Vo, S. (2010). Differentiating instruction and assessment for English language learners: A guide for K/12 teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.106
NOTES
SSTESOL Journal ISSUE 12 Number 1, FaLL, 2018 p.107
FALL 2018
SUNSHINE TESOL JOURNAL