Spring / Summer 2020, Volume 13, Issue 1
Features:
Links to Practice: SWTESOL ChapterConference Going Virtual for Our Annual Conference
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 Jennifer Killam Broward College 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
Florida Sunshine State TESOL Journal Spring / Summer, 2020
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 Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.2 p.2
Manuscripts Manuscripts may be submitted via the Sunshine State TESOL www site: https://sunshinestatetesol. wildapricot.org/page-1075471 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 Keya Mukherjee at keya.mukherjee@saintleo.edu 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.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.3 p.2
Editor's Commentary It always fills my professional heart with pride to read how vibrant our ESOL professional community is here in Florida. This past year, SSTESOL established an actual SSTESOL Press and our first publication will be a 40 Year anniversary overview of ESOL-based research, practice and advocacy in Florida. We had a very successful SETESOL Regional Conference in November 2019 and many of the presentations are in this issue's "Links to Practice" section. This year we will host our very first virtual conference. We are excited about how it is taking shape. We will host a strand within the conference entitled; the Best of the 67 Florida School Districts. Our aim is to feature best practices from each of our school districts. Similarly, we will have a strand which will highlight the best of our local chapters on top of all our regular strands. So much to look forward to!!! On the evening of Friday 13th November at the conference we will have our first SSTESOL Press book launch! It is a celebration of 40 Years of SSTESOl through Research, Teaching & Advocacy. Contributions from fellow-SSTESOLers from around Florida were made! We hope you will purchase your copy in celebration of the 30th anniversary of the Consent Degree. Keep those submissions coming! We have a wonderful editorial board and each reviewer provides great feedback to each author. If your submission is not immediately accepted, read through the feedback and make those revisions with an eye to resubmit at a latter date. If you are interested in becoming an editorial reviewer for the SSTESOL Journal, please send me an email with C.V. at terben@ut.edu. Our SSETESOL members want to read about your research, your practice and/or your work in ESOL! If you have never submitted to a journal, we invite new research, manuscripts that describe classroom practice or thought pieces on advocacy or theory in ESOL. If you are a K-12 ESOL teacher, you probably do things in your classroom that other ESOL teachers across Florida would love to read about or see. Did I write "see"? Since the SSTESOL Journal is an e-publication, you can also send in annotated videos of your classroom practice! The videos don't have to be long. They can describe an activity that works well for you when working with pre-production ELLs, with Elementary ELLs or with adults. If you are unsure, send me an email and let me help you. In this Summer 2020 issue of the SSTESOL Journal we have an array of articles and reviews. I hope you enjoy them. BTW, we had an acceptance rate of 40%. this time. Lastly, let me thank our SSTESOL board members for their unwavering support as well as my co-editor Keya Mukherjee from Saint Leo University and the rest of the editorial board who give up their time to make this journal a worthy professional platform. Sincerely, Tony Erben, Ph.D. SSTESOL Editor, 2017-2018 Past President 2020-2021 Vice President
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.4 p.2
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.5 p.2
President's Corner My Perspectives:A Vision for a Better, Stronger Sunshine State TESOL of Florida I feel honored to serve as president of SSTESOL of Florida. Now, six months into my tenure, I am proud to reflect on the transformational change that has been going on in our organization and in our country. After the Board’s annual retreat on January 20-February 1, 2020, it has been a very engaging and active couple of months for me and our new set of board members. From the writing and launching of our strategic goals, building an annual calendar plan of activities, instituting a more revitalized website, activating standing committees, creating a newsletter, holding virtual chats with presidents of local SSTESOL chapters, responding to U.S. Department of Education’s call for public response of changes in professional learning delivery, writing a position statement on systemic racism, discrimination, inequality and advancing social justice, to shifting from a traditional annual conference to the first ever annual SSTESOL Virtual Conference in the midst of COVID19 pandemic and protests across the nation due to disrespect of Black human lives.... we have not lost our focus! SSTESOL's vision is to build a better and stronger state TESOL Affiliate organization with a mission to increase our presence in the state of Florida and the TESOL community as a trusted leader in “providing leadership and advocacy in language policy issues and access to professional development opportunities, resources, and lively interaction in a professional network at all levels.” It is because of members like you and tireless Board members that I feel we keep in step with every major issue that comes our way in our efforts to ensure equity for students and members of diverse backgrounds. Our activities are guided by SSTESOL’s 2020 Strategic Goals: Advocacy: Create opportunities for leadership growth and development to develop tomorrow’s leaders. Professional learning and engagement: Provide opportunities for professional growth to enhance one’s expertise and practice. Governance: Strengthen local chapters and support the establishment of new ones; Maintain organizations’ financial stability; Expand SSTESOL’s presence, roles, and influence in the state of Florida and TESOL International Communication: Improve communication with members through newsletter, social media, and outreach. The Board and I have made good strides in being culturally and educationally responsive to support SSTESOL’s community as we leverage today’s challenges in virtual education and economic security. I am proud of these accomplishments, yet there is so much more we need to address. As we look into the future, we urge you to join us as we continue to stand with you, our students and their families. Keep your membership in SSTESOL active. There is strength in numbers! Two days ago, Dr. Rosa Castor-Feinberg penned her feelings regarding membership in SSTESOL,“I'm proud to be a member of SSTESOL, a forward-thinking organization.” That is who we are! Salamat at Mabuhay! Sincerely, Arlene Costello Ph.D. SSTESOL President, 2019-2021 Advocacy Liaison
Florida Sunshine State TESOL Journal Contents (contin.) Contents
President’s Corner 4 Editor’s Commentary 5 Advocacy Brief Open Letter to the SSTESOL Community 8 Research Lisa Crayton Revisiting the Language Experience Approach: Towards a Theory of Individualized Reading Instruction for English Language Learners 9 Nour El Imane Badjadi Transforming theoretical premises to dynamic practices via teachers’ Perceptions and Implementation of Learner-Centered Education: A Focus on University Second Language Teaching 13 Helene M. Dutcher & Investigating Instructional Strategies for Multilingual Learners: Robert A. Griffin Implications for ESOL Support in High Schools 24 Kisha Bryan, Going Against the Grain: AdvocacyThrough Representation, Katherine Barko-Alva & Inclusion, and Teacher Agency Leah Horrell Pedagogy Sangeeta Johri Cultural Proficiency in Terms of Enhancing ESL Learners’ Motivational Level! 43 Sonia Velazquez and The Importance of Interactive Learning for ESOL Students in General Soonhyang Kim K-12 Classrooms 48 Links to Practice Catherine Baucom and Re-Imagining the Role of the Teacher as a Translanguaging Facilitator 56 Kayla Devenburg Jacob Rieker and Task Design in the Hospitality English Curriculum: Considerations and Madelyn Diller Implementation 57 Jun Zhao Teaching Reporting Verbs for Source Incorporation in ESL Composition Classes 58 Lucy Belomoina Let’s Get Writing: Using L1 as a Transitional Tool 59 Ana Clara Sánchez and What Makes a Task a Task? Debunking TBLT Myths 60 Gabriel Obando Jennifer Rives and Nearpod: Engaging, Interactive Presentations for ESL and Foreign Chizuru Imase Language Classrooms 61 Nicole Amare Prescriptive or Powerful: Recall of Parallel Structures and Implications for ELs 62 Emily A. Thrush and One-pagers for Developing Literacy with STEM Content 63 Teresa Dalle Sydney Jones Empowering ESL Student Writing through the Flipped Grammar Classroom 64 HwanHee Song, Empowering Prospective EFL Teachers to Have a Successful Teaching Miranda Peters, Experience in Korea 65 Julie Johnson, and Lauren Bankert Steif Justin Crandal and Growing Through Reflection: Practical Strategies for Guided Reflection Sarah Flaniken in the Classroom 66 Lewis Malamed and Pronunciation Bootcamp: Empowering 67 Michelle Snider Ying Xiong Turning Students into Reflective Learners: Utilizing Audio Learning Journals 68 Cristiane Vicentini Using Digital Technologies for Assessment and Feedback 69
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.6 p.2
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.7 p.2
Florida Sunshine State TESOL Journal Contents Contents
“Reading words, and writing them, must come from the dynamic movement of reading the world. The question is how to create a fluid continuity between, on the one hand, reading the world, of speaking about experience, of talking freely with spontaneity and, on the other hand, the moment of writing and then learning how to read.”(Freire, 1985, p.18) Introduction Reading instruction in the secondary school has generally been viewed as too little, too late. Students with reading difficulties are targeted in the elementary school where much time and resources are spent making sure children learn how to read. But what about those students who fall through the cracks, never learning to read in the elementary school? Secondary school teachers rarely have the opportunity to work for extended periods of time exclusively with one student or have the freedom to diverge from traditional secondary reading practices where textbooks predominate, teachers emphasize factual information, and teachers govern students’ encounters with print. (Warner & Lovell, 2014). ).This case study examines what happens when a teacher devotes time and resources to one student in the secondary school, for one semester. The student, James, a 17-year-old immigrant from Haiti, was labelled “learning disabled” and “emotionally disturbed.” James struggled to learn English as well. What transpired was an account with three critical outcomes: 1) the student took control of his learning and curriculum; 2) the teacher revised the learning context based on the needs, capacities, interests, and experiences of the student; and 3) a successful literacy experience unfolded, culminating in the student’s jubilant outburst “I can read!” Theoretical Perspective Reading instruction in the secondary school has characteristically been viewed as too little, too late because: 1) it is assumed that students with reading difficulties have engaged in remedial instruction in the elementary school that enabled them to reach a reading level necessary to enter high school; and 2) secondary teachers are trained as content area, subject-matter specialists, not equipped to teach basic reading skills (Brozo & Simpson, 2007). Teaching children to read is the emphasis in the child-centered environment and self-contained structure of elementary schools so that once students enter high school, they are prepared for the lecture-oriented, teacher-directed instruction and textbook assignments in content areas that they will encounter. How to catch up secondary students, then, who still cannot read? Along with this inability are a host of negative attitudes about reading and writing. With the luxury of working individually with one struggling high school reader, I chose to adopt classic educational philosophies from Dewey, Vygotsky, and Freire in order to optimize the individualized nature of our instructional paradigm. Ideally, education should be based on the actual life experiences of the individual learner who is given the freedom to establish the purposes of learning and who actively participates in the development of the curriculum based on personal needs, capacities, interests, and experiences (Dewey, 1938) Teachers are mediators who create the environment where facilitation of students’ transactions with the world are conducted in a safe, supportive fashion (Vygotsky, 1978). Freire (1985) proposes that it is important that the words which become the starting point for learning to read and write come from the student’s ideas, not from the teacher’s reading book: “We should respect the expectations that students have and the knowledge students have. Our tendency as teachers is to start from the point at which we are and not from the point at which the students are” (p.15) With these theories driving my instructional decision-making process, I decided that the most appropriate methods and procedures for designing the curriculum for James would be self-selection of books and the Language Experience Approach. Using literature and stories that students choose for themselves as the basis for reading instruction is beneficial because it gives the students motivation to read what interests them and it is a powerful predictor of reading success (Allington, 2001). Self-selection of books enables students to take ownership of their instructional context. Integrating self-selection of books with the Language Experience Approach, another instructional technique based on student input, creates a learning environment where the student is actively choosing and creating the reading texts: “In a typical Language Experience Activity, the student talks while the teacher takes dictation. Once the message has been written down, the student should be able to read back the message. The written text becomes the instructional material the teacher can use because the student is familiar with both the content and context of the message” (Fisher et. al., 2007). In this instructional context, James was given the freedom to choose the books we read together and the freedom to dictate the words which became the cornerstone of our reading curriculum. Methods and Procedures James informed me during an interest inventory interview that he enjoyed reading scary stories. I took advantage of this knowledge and proceeded to check out a stack of short stories from the library—Edgar Allen Poe’s classic tales,True Ghost StoriesandThe Headless Horsemanbecame the texts that centered our curriculum. I would read aloud to James as he would listen to the stories. Afterwards, we would engage in comprehension strategy activities such as retellings, story maps, reciprocal questioning, text impressions, and summaries. As I slowly earned his trust by allowing him to shape and focus our curriculum with books that interested him, James began to open up to me. Once he realized that our time together was time for him to tell me what he wanted to learn about reading and writing, not time for me to tell him what I think he should know, he began to share personal aspects of his life, namely, his epistolary relationship with a girl. He would come to class with letters from her, letters that he could not read. This dilemma was weighing on him, but he timidly asked if I would read the letters to him. Jumping on this opportunity to infuse authentic literacy experiences into our curriculum, these letters became the focus of our instruction. James would come to class with letters from his female friend and I would read them aloud to him. He would then dictate a response, which I wrote down and he subsequently copied in his handwriting in order to give them to her. One day as we were composing a letter together, he asked “Do you know where I could get some poetry to put in these letters?” I enthusiastically found poetry books for James from different genres. I exposed him to Shakespearian Sonnets, the Romantic poets such as Blake, Wordsworth, Shelley, Byron, and Keats, lyricism, and modern poetry in hopes that these classic authors and styles would inspire him in his poetic musings and enlighten him towards a deeper understanding of the power of language as a means of reflecting emotion and feeling. But he didn’t just copy the poems of famous authors. He said that his girlfriend liked the poems he composed himself and this motivated him to work conscientiously and thoughtfully on creating poetry. He told me that he considers poetry to be his favorite type of reading material. Results and Discussion James came to our meetings ready to write several pages of original text in letter form. He informed me that his girlfriend wanted at least a two page letter every other day. It got to the point where he didn’t want to listen to any more stories or engage in any other activities except write letters and compose poetry. He seemed to be gaining confidence in his ability as a writer because he had a supportive and enthusiastic audience. Most significantly, he was making the transition to reading the letters independently once they were written. One way I supported this transition was to repeat his sentences aloud as I was writing them down. James would ask “What have I got now?” and “Start from the beginning.” I ended up reading these letters at least four or five times in the course of their composition because James liked to hear the whole text and make continuous additions and revisions. These repeated readings helped James hear how his letters flowed and this made it easier for him to read the text back to me. When he would read a sentence or two aloud, I asked him to read them back again so he could hear his voice reading fluently. One day during our final weeks together, James dictated a two page letter which I wrote down for him. As I was writing it down, I asked him, “James, when you’re copying these letters do you know the words you are writing? Can you read what you are copying?” He answered, “Yes, except for a few hard words that I just copy.” This conversation seemed to trigger his thinking about his ability to read independently the words he was copying. He took the letter and began reading it softly to himself. He read about half way down the page and was so happy and proud of himself that he shouted “I can read! I can read! Give me a book! Give me a book! I need to practice on a book! I’m going to go home tonight and read a book! Let me read something to you! Give me something to read!” This outburst was particularly “un-James like.” He was usually distant and reserved with a cool attitude of indifference. Not anymore. He then said, “I don’t get it. We haven’t been working on words and you haven’t been making me read from books but how come all of a sudden I can read this?” I explained to him that the letters we were writing were in his own words on a subject he cares about and that’s why he could read them better than anything anyone else has written. After this conversation, James was in such a great mood. He opened up and told me about his family and his plans for vacation. He really seemed to appreciate me instead of being defensive, hostile, and on-guard.I knew that this session with James was a real turning point for him as a reader. I realized that all the reading and writing we engaged in had paid off in his understanding of what reading is and in his view of himself as a person who can and does read. His confidence soared and he began to view himself as a reader and writer. Conclusion and Implications Making reading and writing relevant to the real-life experiences in the lives of students and giving students the freedom to establish their own literacy purposes and activities are two ways teachers can empower and motivate students towards successful and rewarding literacy experiences. Secondary school reading teachers should keep in mind that their students are individuals with unique interests, abilities, needs, and experiences who need opportunities to express themselves through reading and writing of self-selected topics. Secondary students with reading difficulties do not all learn the same way and should not be expected to read the same books, practice the same skills, and write about the same topics. James had a successful experience as a reader only when he took control of our activities and told me what he wanted to learn. I needed to trust that if I gave up my control of our curriculum, James would be given the freedom to discover himself as a reader and writer. He subsequently created a reason to want to learn how to read, that is, to read his own letters. What he was learning had personal meaning to him and was directly relevant to his life. Secondary school teachers may feel pressure to rely on traditional teacher-directed instruction based on textbooks and literal recall of facts. They may let the textbook dictate what goes on in their classrooms. While this may save time and make it easier to assess what student’s know and don’t know, other valuable and authentic learning experiences may be lost in the process. In content areas such as science and social studies, students should be encouraged and allowed to read biographies, historical fiction, and non-fiction, informational text related to specific topics instead of relying solely on textbook descriptions. This way, content area teachers can help improve reading ability in conjunction with teaching specific subjects. In English and Reading classes, students should engage in some form of individualized reading and writing during which time they choose their own materials and topics, proceed at their own pace, dialogue with peers about their texts, and share in their own unique fashion. Now that James has experienced success at reading and writing and he knows how good it makes him feel about himself, he will be motivated to continue reading and writing in the future. When teachers and students work as partners, and students create their own knowledge by pursuing their interests in meaningful ways, successful literacy experiences can evolve naturally. By giving up the impulse to control and direct student encounters with print and text, teachers can actually empower their students with the gift of freedom to be independent learners, in control of their own lives as readers. References Allington, R. L. (2001).What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs.New York: Longman. Brozo, W.G. & Simpson, M.L. (2007).Content literacy for todays’ adolescents: Honoring diversity and building competence(5thed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Deary, T. (1995).True ghost stories.New York: Puffin. Dewey, J. (1938).Experience and education.New York: Macmillan. Fisher, D. et al. (2007).50 content area strategies for adolescent literacy.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Freire, P. (1985). Reading the world and reading the word: An interview with Paulo Freire.Language Arts, 62,15-21. Irving, W. (1991).The headless horseman.New York: Doherty. Poe, E. A. (1984).Poetry and tales.New York: Literary Classics. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978).Mind in society.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warner, M.L. & Lovell, J. H. (2014).Teaching writing grades 7-12 in an era of assessment: Passion and practice.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
OPEN LETTER to the Sunshine State TESOL (SSTESOL) of Florida Community on Racial Injustice, Discrimination, Inequity and the Advance of Social Justice June 14, 2020 Dear SSTESOL of Florida Community, SSTESOL joins protesters against racism, injustice, and inequity in support of Black Lives Matter and its cause, which is to end the deliberate and implicit oppression, discrimination, inequity, and disrespect for the sanctity of Black life. We grieve with George Floyd, Ahmad Arbery and Breonna Taylor’s families who were killed senselessly at the hands of white police officers’ brutal and inhumane treatment. They are among the many victims of structural racism, implicit bias, and injustices functioning as toxic diseases in our Black community, which includes Black immigrants, Afro-Asians, and Afro-Latinxs. SSTESOL condemns racism, discrimination and injustice of any form and these manifestations of hatred and violence are unequivocally wrong. As an organization that is a trusted leader in teaching for multilingual/ multidialectalism and the development of cultural competency of education professionals in the state of Florida, SSTESOLis proud to embrace diversity, inclusion, equality and equity as we stand in solidarity with our fellow Black educators, their families, and their children who are our students. In line with our mission, we are committed to supporting members from different backgrounds by “providing leadership and advocacy in language policy issues and access to professional development opportunities, resources, and lively interaction in a professional network at all levels.” SSTESOL President Arlene Costello stated that “each child/[individual] who lives in a multicultural, pluralistic society - regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, language or cultural background - should have equal access to high quality education, all educational opportunities and experiences offered by the American public school system to meet his or her learning needs,” (1994, p. 24) and pursuit of happiness. As TESOL International President Deborah Short (2020) stated, “When systemic racism challenges the safety and well-being of any group within our society, we must join together to denounce it with all our collective strength and resolve. As language educators, we are all too familiar with the effects of trauma and violence on the ability to learn and thrive. Colleagues of color, their families, their friends and their students continue to be harmed by racism, discrimination, and xenophobia. Now is the time to come together and demand that this injustice finally stops.” At SSTESOL, as always and during these difficult days, you can find support and strength as we work together and move forward in achieving social justice for the good of humanity and culture. As advocates and leaders in the field of English language teaching, we also pledge to take actions that will create positive change in communities of learning and beyond. SSTESOL members are leaders, advocates, professional resources, and agents of change. We challenge you to join us in our work to reform racist systems by reflecting and educating ourselves on our own role within the racist systems. These reform steps begin with listening, communicating, understanding and accepting. Thank you for joining SSTESOL in our quest for advancing social justice, equality, and happiness for all. Sincerely, The SSTESOL Advocacy Liaisons on behalf of SSTESOL Board of Directors Arlene Costello, Ed.D. and Ryan Pontier, Ph.D. SSTESOL President & Member-At-Large
Research Revisiting the Language Experience Approach: Towards a Theory of Individualized Reading Instruction for English Language Learners Lisa Crayton Florida Gulf Coast University ABSTRACT Reading instruction in the secondary school has generally been viewed as too little, too late. Students with reading difficulties are targeted in the elementary school where much time and resources are spent making sure children learn how to read. But what about those students who fall through the cracks, never learning to read in the elementary school? This case study examines the literacy experience of one such student: James, a 17-year-old immigrant from Haiti who was labeled a non-reader, learning disabled, and emotionally disturbed. James also struggled with learning the English language. Working on an individualized reading program suited to his needs and experiences, James was able to make significant gains in reading attitude, perception, motivation, and interest. He began to view himself as a reader. As his story unfolds, literacy educators can gain insights into what struggling readers really need in order to succeed.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.9 8
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.8 p.2
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.11
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.10
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.12
INTRODUCTION Globalized approaches to education are growing in spread and influence forming and informing current educational reforms. They are trendy for policy-makers to encourage and trendy for universities to offer reflecting the paradigm shift in education towards learner-centeredness (Slavin 2019; Donovan and Bransford, 2005; Grossman et al., 2007; Li and Edwards, 2014; Nicolescu and Neaga, 2014; Weimer, 2013; Annemarie, 2011; Cheng et al., 2016). With this regard, learner-centered education (LCE) has been viewed as a model that emerged at the turn of the twentieth century, summing up the human teaching experience, shaping a new understanding of learning, establishing current instructional practices, drafting the blueprint for educational reforms, and paving the way for future prospects of what teaching and learning ought to be like in the new millennium (Lee and Hannafin, 2016; Aslan and Reigeluth, 2015; Weimar 2013; Cornelius-White and Harbaugh, 2009; Danzig et al., 2017; Keengwe et al., 2009; Watson and Reigeluth, 2008; Franklin et al., 2014). Since 2007, conforming to a global paradigm-shift in the methods of teaching and learning, the system of higher education has aimed at emphasizing learner-centeredness by means of encouraging students’ active learning and developing problem solving skills (Palmer et al., 2016; Annemarie, 2011; Idri, 2012; Azzi, 2012; Jackson, 2015). This paper explores second language teachers’ attitudes and implementation of LCE, focusing on its benefits and limitations for second language teaching and learning in the context of Middle East and North Africa higher education. Review of Literature Learner-Centered Education (LCE) has established a worldwide track record in motivating students, stimulating personal growth and lifelong learning, and developing communication skills, among other gains (e.g., Hallinger and Lu, 2013; Berdut et al., 2014, Slavin, 2019, ; see Cornelius-White, 2007 for a meta-analytic review). However, the gains of LCE are claimed to be largely dependent on the way teachers view, perceive, and implement it, especially that it is claimed not to belittle the teacher’s role but, rather, to multiply it (Weimer, 2013); a premise that maybe challenging to many teachers (Massouleh and Jooneghani, 2012). In addition, previous studies have indicated that the implementation of LCE pedagogies requires high levels of awareness and specialized skills on the behalf of teachers, together with encouraging school environments (Hallinger and Lu, 2013; Polly and Hannafin, 2011). From this perspective, the present study addresses the discrepancy between theoretical educational standards and classroom instructional practices. Moreover, despite that several studies advocate that implementing LCE is challenging in terms of both course design and the development of instructional methods and materials (Mansfield and Beltman, 2014; Polly and Hannafin, 2010; Rezig, 2011), a number of research reports have shown that LCE has been successfully implemented even where teacher-centered instruction used to be the norm such as North Africa and East Asia (e.g., Moussaoui, 2012; Hallinger and Lu, 2013; Berdut et al., 2014; Shehdeh, 2010). Likewise, the present study is relevant because it not only explores how LCE is perceived by instructors as one of chief agents in educational change but also examines to what extent and in what ways LCE has been implemented in the Algerian university context to improve students’ second language learning. This research, thus, attends to the mounting need for empirical research on the implementation of LCE methods in higher education contexts. The Present Study The purpose of the present study is to contribute to the emergent body of knowledge on the betterment of alignment between espoused and enacted practices as means of increasing the effectiveness of LC educational reforms (Polly and Hannafin, 2011; Idri, 2012; Senussi, Orafi and Borg, 2009; Nicolescu and Neaga, 2014). In so doing, it tackles the need for research on instructors’ adoption and adaptation of the conceptual values advocated by educational reforms to actual teaching practice (Underwood, 2012; Chaco, 2005; Grossman et al., 2007). Previous studies have shown that research evidence is crucial for eliminating the gap between espoused educational standards and enacted practices. Therefore, this study is important since it addresses the discrepancy between theoretical ideality and practical reality with regard to the implementation of LCE. From an interdisciplinary stance, the paper aims at contributing to the literature on second language instruction in higher education. By so doing, it investigates teachers’ attitudes and implementation of LCE methods, namely task-based, content-based, project-based, cooperative and collaborative methods in university second language courses (this study comprehensively focuses on the use of these particular methods as concrete terms to refer to current teaching practices reflecting learner-centered education). More particularly, the objectives of this study are: 1)To explore teachers’ attitudes and implementation of LCE in the context of higher education second language instruction. 2)To investigate the challenges teachers face and derive recommendations based on their experiences with the implementation of LCE. Research questions can therefore be formulated as follows: 1.What are second language teachers’ perspectives regarding LCE? 2.To what extend do second language teachers implement LCE in their courses? 3.What implications can be derived from second language teachers’ implementation of LCE methods? Method Participants To achieve the aforementioned aims, a descriptive exploratory study is carried out where a questionnaire is surveyed to a random sample of 128 second language teachers in the departments of French, English and Translation working at Algerian Universities. The participants were largely homogeneous in terms of background and included male and female as well as experienced and early-career participants. All of the participants speak Arabic as their mother tongue and were teaching French or English as second languages. At the university level, second languages are mostly taught for academic (translation and literature) and educational purposes (applied linguistics and second language acquisition). The language programs taught by the participants were sets of compulsory courses including grammar, phonetics, literature, general linguistics, translation, language history and culture, TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language), and educational psychology, or ESP (English for Specific Purposes) for non-English major students, all taught in the second language, i.e., French or English (demographic information of questionnaire participants in Appendix 5). As for the interview, the participants were 9 teachers selected from the initial questionnaire sample based on their implementation rates reported in the questionnaire (general Information of interview participants in Appendix 3 and interview excerpts in Appendix 4). Data Collection and Analysis This study employed quantitative and qualitative approaches to data collection and analysis. In accordance with the purposes of this study, a survey was designed based on the literature reviewed on LCE (Cornelius-White and Harbaugh, 2009; Weimer, 2013). First, the questionnaire was designed to elicit information about second language teachers’ backgrounds, attitudes, practices, and implementation of LCE and consisted of three sections. The first four questions constitute the first section and are meant to gather information about teachers’ age, gender, and work experience. The next section included question items about teachers’ views of teaching and learning conceptions related to LCE. Teachers were required to indicate how far they agree with some statements associated with LCE using: strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree. The focus of the third section was narrowed down to an inquiry into teachers’ implementation of LCE methods. In this section, teachers were required to indicate the extent to which they use LCE methods in their courses; English version of the questionnaire in Appendix 1. Cronbach's Alpha for the questionnaire was .891. Second, the semi-structured interview sought information on teachers’ evaluation and implementation of LCE methods in their courses. Participants were required to reflect on the difficulties they faced and the solutions they found practical within their teaching situation (context, learners, etc); English version of the interview questions in Appendix 2. The choice of questionnaire and interview for data collection was based on the purpose of this study. The initially constructed versions were followed by revisions based on the feedback provided by three senior teacher educators in Languages and Human Sciences School at Biskra Mohammed Kheider University from which the study sample was taken. Using both questionnaire and interview data is appropriate for investigating teacher’s beliefs and practices and for inspecting challenges teachers face in their implementation of LCE, along with the coping strategies they have developed. The data collected were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistical analyses using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences SPSS 16.0 software. Meanwhile, interviews were audio recorded and analyzed qualitatively. Results Teachers’ Attitudes towards LCE Attitudes toward LCE approaches to instruction show variation across questionnaire statements in the participants’ responses. Table 1: Descriptive Results of Teachers’ Attitudes Towards LCE Table 1 shows the descriptive results of questionnaire items indicating that, overall, teachers agree with the pedagogic premises associated with LCE (total mean for Attitudes Category: 3.11=agree, see response weights bellow). However, from the responses’ means in the questionnaire data (Item 1: the view of teaching as knowledge transmission, Item 3, usefulness of providing learning opportunities, and Item 4: students’ responsibility for their own learning), it was obvious that teachers assign a remarkable amount of importance to the transmission of knowledge from teachers to students. While it is rational that teachers might hold that a LCE approach have both advantageous and disadvantageous outcomes, there seems to be some contradiction in their responses since they are evidently aware of the LCE orientation towards encouraging active learning (Items 2, 5, 6; Category 1). Teachers’ Implementation of LCE Methods Table 2 shows participants’ responses about using specific LCE methods in their classes, namely Content-, Task-, and Project-Based, Cooperative and Collaborative methods (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; Category 2) as well as Awareness Raising and Scaffolding (guidance and support) strategies (Items 6 and 7, Category 2). The responses from the questionnaire (Table 2) indicate that teachers variedly, though overall moderately, adopt reform-oriented LCE methods (total mean: 2.41= average, see response weights below). Specifically, content and task-based methods (Items 1, 2: Category 2) are the most commonly used since they are regarded as the most practical as they can be easily adapted to teacher-fronted classrooms. Similarly, interview data point toward the practicality of joining the two methods. Table 2: Descriptive Results ofTeachers’ Implementation of LCE Methods Interview[1]data also indicate positive attitudes and gains from jointly implementing content and task-based methods. As a teacher interviewee clarifies “… with regard to LCE methods, when the teacher reviews course content, explains a language point related to the course content as part of feedback on students’ task performance or contribution, content knowledge will be deepened because students not only understand, but also apply course content and the language they use to express it.”(Excerpt 1, Senior 2) Likewise, another interviewee notes: “frequently requiring learners to solve a problem, arrive at a conclusion, or complete a task and to share information allows them to collect information and cultivate themselves” (Excerpt 2, Senior 3). In addition, a relatively large number of teachers have employed cooperative and collaborative methods (Survey Items 4, 5, Category 2). Similar findings are revealed in the reported experiences through qualitative interview data. As a senior teacher pointed, “though time consuming, cooperative and collaborative methods can foster growth in many areas: learning to use interpersonal skills effectively, understanding and applying the course content to life situations, developing self-esteem and ability to explain concepts to others” (Excerpt 3, Senior 5). Similarly, a teacher interviewee reports “through encouraging student-student interaction, positive interdependence and individual accountability, students gain greater motivation and self-confidence, learn to work cooperatively, and eventually become autonomous learners” (Excerpt 4, Novice3). Another teacher notes: “varying teacher-student interaction through collaborative dialogue and mentoring students’ groups stimulates the negotiation of meaning and allows the maximum ofstudentsto contribute to the discussion and develop as thinkers, and communicators in the second language… This is because students have the opportunity to benefit from the presence of the teacher and peers, to receive feedback from multiple sources” (Excerpt 5, Novice 1). Conversely, few teachers reported using project-based methods, (Questionnaire Item 3: Category 2). The findings also suggest that many teachers seem to doubt the usefulness of raising students’ awareness of their active role in the learning process, assuming that to the teacher-centered mode of instruction and changing their habits may cost lots of effort and time, and regard the provision of adequate support and guidance as challenging (Questionnaire Items, 6 and 7, Category 2). In the interview, this theme was raised in specific reference to students’ readiness and the challenges that teachers face in implementing the LCE reform. One interviewee comments: “we cannot ignore that LCE methods require students to enlarge their knowledge by doing extra readings, investigate issues in depth, and solve problems and other study skills to which many students may not be used to… especially in over-crowded classrooms or lecture halls” (Excerpt 6, Senior 1). Another point raised by a teacher interviewee is that: “language teachers and learners come to class with a lifetime of experiences and preconceived notions about teaching and learning” (Excerpt 7, Novice 2). Teachers’ Attitudes and Implementation of LCE The results show that despite that the correlation among teachers’ attitudes (Category 1) and implementation (Category 2) of LCE is significant (Table 3), the descriptive statistics point to a noticeable gap between the two survey categories (Table 4). Table 3: Correlation Among Teachers’ Attitudes and Implementation of LCE Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Teachers’ Attitudes and Implementation of LCE The gap between teachers’ attitudes and implementation of LCE indicated in Tables 3, 4 suggest that many instructors have found difficulty in adapting LCE approaches and conceiving how the conceptual premises of LCE can be translated to instructional practices. In consonance with the quantitative results, interview data highlight a tension between teachers’ attitudes toward the reform standards and the practicality of educational reform though many teachers are cognizant of the benefits of LCE reform for second language learning. For instance, an important point that was raised by a number of participants is skills integration. As a senior instructor explained: “A LCE framework provides a natural context for integrating the four skills. Oral interaction helps wiring development at least in two ways. First, content will be enhanced, through brainstorming in groups, for example” (Excerpt 8, Senior 5). Similarly, another teacher views that “the acquisition of new vocabulary and improvement of learners’ grammar are stimulated by interaction and likely to occur through scaffolding during collaborative work” (Excerpt 9, Senior 4). In the same vein, a writing teacher reported: “… In a learner-centeredclassroom writing not only triggers reading, but listening and speaking as well; this is likely to lead to an increase in students’ overall competence and writing abilities thereby” (Excerpt 10, Senior 6). Discussion Question 1: What are second language teachers’ perspectives regarding LCE? The results (Table1) show that though teachers are evidently aware of the LCE orientation towards encouraging active learning through guided discovery in order to enlarge students’ resources such as online learning and self-study instead of the heavy reliance on teacher’s ‘spoon-feeding’, they still assign a remarkable amount of importance to the transmission of knowledge from teachers to students. These findings have been clarified by triangulation with interview results where participants frequently show concerns about the time needed to cover the programs’ content and the demands discovery-based learning necessitates on both students and teachers. This contradiction is consistent with research findings pointing to the significance of reform-focused training (Polly and Hannafin, 2011) and, at the same time, provide support to previous studies indicating the need for adapting educational reforms according to the context of implementation (Idri, 2012; Rezig, 2011; Senussi, Orafi, and Borg, 2009; Nicolescu and Neaga, 2014). Question 2: To what extend do second language teachers implement LCE in their courses? On one hand, the findings indicating positive attitudes and gains from jointly implementing content and task-based methods, especially within frameworks cooperative and/or collaborative learning, are in consonance with of experimental research on the effectiveness of content-based, cooperative and collaborative language teaching methods (e.g., Moussaoui, 2012; Valeo, 2013). One example is Valeo’s (2013) study which provides evidence for the effectiveness of content-based with task-based approaches (focus-on-form activities) in a language program for adults. On the other hand, the findings that teachers moderately raise students’ awareness of their active role in the learning process and regard the provision of adequate support and guidance as challenging lend support to the view that the adoption and adaptation of LCE reform requires collaboration between the teacher and the learners who have already constructed notions about what their role in the classroom is. The results also suggest that the implementation of LCE is a process that requires gradually refining epistemological beliefs and dropping stereotypical notions about learning and instruction. These findings are consistent with research in similar contexts (Idri, 2012; Senussi, Orafi and Borg, 2009; Annemarie, 2011) which has highlighted the effect of students’ responsiveness and readiness for a reform-oriented approach to teaching; especially if the approach entails learning skills students may not be equipped with, study strategies they may not be aware of, and responsibilities they did not expect. Question 3: What implications can be derived from second language teachers’ attitudes and implementation of LCE methods? The results are in accordance with previous studies that examined the implementation of standards-based educational reforms and found inconsistency between conceptualization and practice in instruction (e.g. Polly and Hannafin, 2010, 2011). In addition, the findings provide evidence that if LC strategies are to be successfully implemented, teachers need to informedly tailor the implementation of these methods according to their teaching situations through what Kumaravadivelu (2003) refers to as ‘theorizing from practice’; he further explains: Such a continual cycle of observation, reflection, and action is a prerequisite for the development of context-sensitive pedagogic theory and practice…no theory of practice can be fully useful and usable unless it is generated through practice. A logical corollary is that it is the practicing teacher who, given adequate tools for exploration, is best suited to produce such a practical theory. The intellectual exercise of attempting to derive a theory of practice enables teachers to understand and identify problems, analyze and assess information, consider and evaluate alternatives, and then choose the best available alternative that is then subjected to further critical appraisal. In this sense, a theory of practice involves continual reflection and action. (p.35) Taken together, the findings draw attention to the effects of teachers’ and students’ epistemological beliefs and pre-assumptions of roles and responsibilities on reform implementation, adding, thereby, toprevious studies on reform implementation (e.g., Grossman, Onkolb, and Sands, 2007; Li and Edwards, 2014; Nicolescu and Neaga, 2014; Makgato, 2013) and, more particularly, contributing to the literature on the implementation of LCE (Hallinger and Lu, 2013; Berdut et al., 2014; Massouleh and Jooneghani, 2012; Watson and Reigeluth, 2008; Karimi, 2011) and on the contextualization of second language education (Wolff, 2000; Atkinson, 2003; Underwood, 2012, Chaco´ n, 2005; Tamtam et al.,2012). At this point, it can argued that, besides being informed about existing choices,teachers need to investigate reform-oriented methods by themselves, neither to conform to nor to reject them, but rather to make sense of them so that they can be meaningfully implemented within their own teaching situations. The findings further raise questions as to how attitudes toward the distribution of roles and responsibilities develop and change and how LCE methods can be better assimilated into educational routines in a particular context. Implications for LCE-oriented Reform Implementation The cornerstones of a Contextualized Framework of LCE One of the purposes of this study was offering insights and inspirations for contextualizing educational reform by exploring the challenges and the merits of incorporating LCE methods. With this regard, the findings of this study indicate that the alignment of global premises of reforms largely depends on the perceptions and practices of educators. In light of these findings, it is suggested for instructors and teacher-educators to take into consideration the following implications derived from the themes highlighted by teacher interviewees. First, to achieve high levels of the effective use of LCE methods, it is highly recommended to give importance to teachers’ professional autonomy in teacher education programs. With this regard, three main suggestions have been given by teacher interviewees based on their experiences: 1.Teachers’ cooperation and teacher-generated materials can be a useful way to deal with the lack of time associated with learner-centered activities. Teachers’ cooperation toward the same goal (a syllabus, a series of tasks, a textbook, etc.) can help teachers gain time and efforts. In addition, they can promote a culture of cooperation as they become an example for their students to learn from the attests of team spirit and collegial integrities. Similarly, materials generated by a teacher for a particular context can be used and improved by another teacher and so forth. 2. Teachers need not only to exchange expertise but also to research on their own to explore suitable ways of properly implementing the strategies in their classrooms. This can also have cultivating effects on teachers’ academic awareness. As an interviewee teacher suggested, there can be teachers’ newsletter so that more theoretically based innovations, including LCE methods, will be put into contextualized practice by encouraging teachers to undertake research endeavors. In so doing, teachers need to work together to find the right content and tasks which provide suitable levels of motivation and desirable learning outcomes. In this way, larger curriculum goals may be more easily attained. 3. LCE methods are not always the best way, but one way to teach the second language. It is up to the teacher’s knowledge, experience, and preferences to construct the best way in accordance with their aims, learners, and the context they are in. In other words, LCE methods cannot be effectively implemented if they are taken to mean superficial practice. Rather, what, when, and how to implement them need to be systematically thought over, especially through conducting action research. The Dynamism of Meeting Students’ Needs According to the findings of this study, reform alignment requires dynamism is designing instruction around two main pillars: students’ responsiveness and social capital. First, epistemological beliefs play an important role in understanding the piecemeal nature of learner autonomy which is essential for the successful implementation of LCE reforms. Students’ conceptual beliefs about the nature of learning and assumptions about teacher’s role are observed to change gradually as they gain more subject knowledge and familiarity with reform-oriented activities. Therefore, it is recommended that: 1. Organizing learning activities according to students’ readiness for autonomy is likely to reduce anxiety and derive better learning outcomes. “Charging students of a large number of assignments and projects is not enough”. Rather, students need to have a clear mental representation of what they are supposed to do specific activities and to be provided by useful tips or suggestions about how to approach these activities (Excerpt 11, Novice 2). For example, while theoretical or factual information might be presented in whole class lectures, learner-centered activities might be the appropriate way of cooperatively practicing skills and applying the learned information; creative individual activities which may require teacher-student collaboration; however, can be left to a later stage to ensure that all students have acquired the underlying knowledge or skills and are able to use it in new situations. Systematically developing longer products, such as research papers, can be of great help since the chief reasons that students waste time off-task are that they do not know what they are supposed to be doing, or they do not know how to approach it. 2. Bearing in mind the piecemeal nature of learner autonomy, clearly defining the task at hand, timeframes, and the organization of various steps needed to complete the assignment can improve students’ study skills and overall achievement. For instance, in cases where group tasks may continue through weeks or months, it is particularly helpful to guide the groups in determining short-term goals within the longer-term objectives, a procedure which is likely to enable students to organize their learning and gradually move towards autonomy. As noted by Bradley-Bennett et al. (2010): “It’s a harsh reality – we love our students, but our goal should be to help them get to a level of competence and achievement where they don’t need us anymore.” (p.7). Promoting learner autonomy can be helped by encouraging learners to learn how to learn, and equipping them with the means necessary to self-direct and self-monitor their own learning. Moreover, the findings of this study suggest that if LCE methods are to be efficiently implemented, teachers need to capitalize on and develop students’ social capital; thus: 1.Teachers have the role of co-communicators; they need to give importance to classroom interaction as a means of promoting second language acquisition processes and whole-person development. 2.Students need to be aware of their active role in language learning, attentive to the opportunities which arise, and eager to maximally benefit from the presence of their teacher and classmates. As Kanar (2011) notes: Some students sit passively in a lecture or class discussion, letting their minds wander, not taking notes, and never asking questions. … The key to getting more out of class, and out of one’s college experience as a whole, is one’s active engagement in the process. An active learner is one who gets involved by taking notes, asking questions, participating in discussions. (p.17) 3.Some students may crucially need preparatory elective courses such as effective note-taking, study skills, learning strategies, critical reading and research skills. Likewise, many students will benefit from advice and coaching about how to focus on the task at hand, and how to prioritize and organize tasks into sub-tasks. They also need help in learning how to provide constructive feedback on their classmates’ contributions. Figure1. Sums up the aforementioned implications and illustrates a data-driven model for contextualizing LCE methods into MENA language classrooms. Figure 1: Model for Contextualizing LCE Reform Conclusion This paper has explored teachers’ perceptions of the challenges and benefits associated with the overall usefulness of implementing LCE methods. It, thereby, contributes to research on the interaction between theory and practice for even and fruitful educational change. All in all, it can be concluded that, even in the present post-method era, the teacher adopts a particular classroom strategy according to their learners’ characteristics and to the whole learning situation as well. According to participants’ experiences, the implementation of learner-centered methods in the second language classroom is likely to contribute to the betterment of second language teaching and learning. However, teachers need to progressively introduce LCE methods not necessarily all the methods together or in all of the sessions. Rather, what is to be taken into consideration is that each method shapes and is shaped by the other. For instance, content may shape a task or a project to be completed cooperatively and/or collaboratively. LCE methods, I assume, interweave and interact with each other in a synergic relationship; the result of such a relationship will vary from context to context depending on the teacher, the learners, and the learning objectives. Noteworthy, LCE methods may not be effective for full-time use in the second language classroom. The effectiveness of LCE is by no means determined by how much time is spent in learner-centered activities. Rather what matters is what methods are used with whom, for what purpose, and in what way. This is not to gainsay the practical usefulness of LCE though; nor is it to suggest that there are rock-solid golden rules for implementing it. Rather, this article is meant to serve as another contribution to the pool of resources on education reform implementation which both provide educators with insights from, potentially similar, implementation contexts together with a set of suggested instructional activities and guide them toward becoming independent teaching material developers. Interestingly, the findings also indicate a teacher initiated shift towards social-centeredness in reaction to reform-oriented learner-centeredness. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research From the outset of this research, the aim has been to examine the implementation of LCE methods for second language learning in terms of both language and content. What was meant to be done is finding out the limitations and benefits of implementing LCE methods based on university second language instructors’ attitudes and experiences. However, this study is not concerned with examining the relationship between implementing LCE methods and a particular aspect of second language learning. For instance, one way to extend the findings of this study is by addressing the effectiveness of LCE methods in promoting English academic writing, in particular, due to this ability’s importance in higher education contexts. It would also be desirable to conduct such a research using experimental or longitudinal designs with the analysis of students’ perspectives. Further intriguing issues with regard to the LCE methods discussed in this study include the challenges and prospects of individualized language teaching, peer assistance and collaborative learning in this same context of the present study. Other possible areas of research include investigating how the use of cooperative discussion tasks which highlight different aspects, options, and alternatives can enhance students’ critical and higher-order thinking. The same as most attitudes-focused research, a limitation of this study is that the findings reflect the attitudes and experiences of the study participants; thus replicating this research in a different context may shed light on other aspects of LCE-oriented reforms. Besides, all that I can claim is that the methods discussed in this study have been found, by many second language teachers, worthy of consideration, yet further research is needed in knowledge areas other than language learning, such as science and technology for instance. [1] Note that interview data are not reported in question-answer format. Instead, they were thematically organized, in accordance with the research questions, to allow for triangulation with questionnaire results References Annemarie, P. (2011). The Middle East at a crossroad : an educational revolution.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,15, 1257–1261. Aslan, S., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2015). Examining the challenges of learner-centered education. Phi delta kappan, 97(4), 63-68. Atkinson, D. (2003). Writing and culture in the post-process era.Journal of Second Language Writing,12(1), 49–63. Azzi, M. (2012). The New Pedagogical Practices within the LMD System: Perceptions of EFL Faculty Members.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,69. In The International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology(ICEEPSY), 1004–1013. Berdut, I. R., & Basulto, O. H., & Zivanai, J., & Gueton, P R., & Tunjera, N. (2014). Learning Contracts to Assess and Evaluate Diverse Classrooms at Teaching Institutions : A Study Made in Cuba and Zimbabwe Abstract: The International Journal of Human & Social Sciences, 2(10), 305–314. Bradley-Bennett, K., & Davis, C., & Weddel, K. S. (2010).Learner-Centered Instruction: An Independent Study Course for Adult Education and Family Literacy Teachers.USA: NCPDC (Northern Colorado Professional Development Center). Retrieved January 11th, 2012 fromhttp://ae.stvrain.k12.co.us/ncpdc.html. Chaco, C. T. (2005). Teachers ’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela.Teaching and Teacher Education,21, 257–272. Cheng, A., Morse, K. J., Rudolph, J., Arab, A. A., Runnacles, J., & Eppich, W. (2016). Learner-centered debriefing for health care simulation education: lessons for faculty development. Simulation in Healthcare, 11(1), 32-40. Cornelius-White, J. D. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relation- ships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77, 113–143. Cornelius-white, J., & Harbaugh, A. (2009). Learner-Centered Instruction: Building Relationships for Student Success. SAGE Publications, Inc. ISBN-10: 1412954983 Danzig, A. B., Borman, K. M., Jones, B. A., & Wright, W. F. (2017). Learner-centered leadership: Research, policy, and practice. Routledge. Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Franklin, K., Dellard, T., Murphy, B., Plaas, K., Skutnik, A., Sohn, B., … Thomas, S. (2014). A Transformational Twist on Learner-Centered Teaching: Experience and Existential Phenomenology Practice Session. InSixth Annual Conference on Higher Education Pedagogy Center for Instructional Development and Educational Research. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University February 5 – 7, 2014. Grossman, G. M., Onkol, P. E., & Sands, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkish teacher education: Attitudes of teacher educators towards change in an EU candidate nation.International Journal of Educational Development,27(2), 138–150. Hallinger, P., & Lu, J. (2013). Learner centered higher education in East Asia: assessing the effects on student engagement.International Journal of Educational Management,27(6), 594–612. Idri, N. (2012). Education and Reform to Reach Autonomous Learners: Between Reality and Myth.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,69(Iceepsy), 2174–2183. Jackson, L. (2015). Challenges to the global concept of student-centered learning with special reference to the United Arab Emirates:‘Never fail a Nahayan’. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(8), 760-773. Karimi, R. (2011). Interface between problem-based learning and a learner-centered paradigm.Advances in Medical Education and Practice, (2), 117–125. Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Onchwari, J. (2009). Technology and student learning: Toward a learner-centered teaching model. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 17, 11–22. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003).Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Li, D., & Edwards, V. (2014). English language teaching and educational reform in Western China: A knowledge management perspective.System,47, 88–101. Makgato, M. (2014). The challenges of teaching and learning technology subject at schools in South Africa : A case of INSET teachers in Mpumalanga Province.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,116, 3688–3692. Mansfield, C. F., & Beltman, S. (2014). Teacher motivation from a goal content perspective : Beginning teachers ’ goals for teaching.International Journal of Educational Research,65, 54–64. Massouleh, N. S., & Jooneghani, R. B. (2012). Learner-Centered Instruction : A Critical Perspective. Journal of Education and Practice, 3, 50–60. Moussaoui, S. (2012). An Investigation of the Effects of Peer Evaluation in Enhancing Algerian Student’s Writing Autonomy and Positive Affect.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,69. In The International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology(ICEEPSY), 1775–1784. Nicolescu, V. Q., & Neaga, D. E. (2014). Bringing the Market in, Letting the Science out. Neoliberal Educational Reform in Romania.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,142, 104–110. Palmer, D. J., Sadiq, H. M., Lynch, P., Parker, D., Viruru, R., Knight, S., ... & Stillisano, J. (2016). A classroom observational study of Qatar's independent schools: Instruction and school reform. The journal of educational research, 109(4), 413-423. Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2010). Technology’s role in revisioning learner-centered professional development. Article to appear in Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 557–571. Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Examining How Learner-Centered Professional Development Influences Teachers’ Espoused and Enacted Practices.The Journal of Educational Research,104(2), 120–130. Rezig, N. (2011). Teaching English in Algeria and Educational Reforms: An Overview on the Factors Entailing Students Failure in Learning Foreign Languages at University.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,29, 1327–1333. Senussi, M., Orafi, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Intentions and realities in implementing communicative curriculum reform.System,37(2), 243–253. Shehdeh, F. (2010). Challenges of teaching English in the Arab world: Why can’t EFL programs deliver as expected?Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,2(2), 3600–3604. Slavin, R. E. (2019). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Tamtam, A. G., Gallagher, F., Olabi, A. G., & Naher, S. (2012). A comparative study of the implementation of EMI in Europe , Asia and Africa.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,47, 1417–1425. Underwood, P. R. (2012). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms : A Theory of Planned Behaviour perspective.Teaching and Teacher Education,28(6), 911–925. Valeo, A. (n.d.). The Integration of Language and Content : Form-Focused Instruction in a Content-Based Language Program,1(2013), 25–50. Watson, S. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2008). The Learner-Centered Paradigm of Education. Educational Technology Magazine The Magazine for Managers of Change in Education, 48, 42–48. Weimar, M. (2013) Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 9781118119280 Wolff, D. (2000). Second language writing : a few remarks on psycholinguistic and instructional issues.Learning and Instruction,10, 107–112. Appendices All Appendices are found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PO_MAV2lZSEZe QtHtaT5_bOixg9nyWz5/view?usp=sharing
Research Transforming theoretical premises to dynamic practices via teachers’ Perceptions and Implementation of Learner-Centered Education: A Focus on University Second Language Teaching Nour El Imane Badjadi Ouargla University, Algeria ABSTRACT Although Learner-Centered Education (LCE) is claimed to have several learning gains, research suggests that teachers’ attitudes and practices play a crucial role in promoting its prolific outcomes. This study examines the adaptation of LCE and examines how it has beenimplemented in second language teaching by university teachers since launching an educational shift embodied in the Learner-Centered reforma decade ago. In so doing, a questionnaire was distributed to a random sample of 128 instructors. The data collected were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistical analyses using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences SPSS 16.0 software. Meanwhile, interviews were analyzed qualitatively. The quantitative analysis of data provides a snapshot of instructors’ attitudes towards LCE and the extent to which they implemented it in their courses. More importantly, the analysis of qualitative interview results outlines a 'contextualized' framework that takes into account the conceptual nature of the global premises of LCE by linking them to teachers’ perceptions and practices in a particular context. The findings provide insights into the dynamism of meeting college students’ second language learning needs. The study further addresses the problems of designing teacher training that aims at promoting higher education second language learning in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) context.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.13
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.14
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p. 15 p.915
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.16
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.17
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.18
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.19
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.21
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.20
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.23
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.22
Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate the instructional strategies offered to multilingual learners (MLLs)—sometimes referred to as English Learners, English Language Learners, or Limited English Proficient (Martínez, 2018)—in one rural high school in the southeastern U.S. As part of this investigation, we sought to determine what strategies mainstream teachers utilized with MLLs in their classes, what teachers thought about the types of support MLLs received, and what MLLs perceived about the types of support afforded to them for their academic development and acculturation into the dominant school culture. Specifically, the research questions that guided this study were: 1.What strategies are general education teachers implementing to meet the academic needs of MLLs? 2.What are MLLs’ perceptions of the implementation of MLL instructional strategies at the school? 3.What are the teachers’ perceptions of their implementation of MLL instructional strategies in their classroom? 4.What are MLLs’ perceptions of school accommodations made to facilitate their social adjustment at school? A Growing but Underperforming Subgroup Multilingual students make up a sizeable subgroup of students in the U.S. and in Georgia, the state in which this study took place. Approximately 10% or 5 million MLLs were enrolled in schools nationwide in 2016 (McFarland et al., 2019), and approximately 6.3% or 119,000 in Georgia schools in 2019 (Governor’s Office of Student Achievement [GOSA], 2020). However, this fast-growing subgroup of linguistically diverse students has historically underperformed their English-dominant peers (Spees et al., 2016). In 2019, the achievement gap between MLLs and their English-dominant peers in Georgia on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was 45 points in reading and 37 points in mathematics in eighth grade (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2019). Moreover, dropout rates among MLLs are higher than those of monolingual students (Sugarman, 2019). The reasons for the underperformance of MLLs are debated but likely stem from the English-only models of instruction and assessment that are prevalent in most U.S. schools (Giouroukakis & Honigsfeld, 2010; Shapiro, 2014). The ESOL program isa state-funded instructional program created to support MLLs. In the State of Georgia, the ESOL program’s primary purpose is to provide students with the supplemental services they need to effectively “increase both English language proficiency (ELP) and academic language proficiency in content-area subject matter” (Georgia Department of Education [GaDOE], 2019, para. 2). To promote growth in English and academic language proficiency, regular education teachers must use a variety of instructional strategies to meet the needs of linguistically and culturally diverse MLLs (Goldenberg, 2013). The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine the use of diverse modifications general education teachers employ to make language and content as comprehensible as possible and social adjustments as accommodating as possible for MLLs throughout the school day. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015,allstudents are expected to succeed, and thisallalso includes students whose first language is not English. The research site school and other secondary schools throughout the region and country would benefit greatly from an evaluation of the use of differentiated strategies to support MLLs in mainstreamed classes and to determine whether more extensive teacher training and support materials are needed for teachers. Determining the use of differentiated instructional strategies used to enhance English language proficiency and the degree to which teachers do or do not implement various differentiated content strategies would provide the school with useful knowledge to assist school leaders in implementing schoolimprovement plans benefitingMLLs and teachers of MLLs. Effective Instruction for Multilingual Learners As noted, students whose first language is not English form one of the fastest growing subgroups of students in P–12 schools throughout the U.S. (Echevarría et al., 2018). Some researchers estimate that by the year 2030 approximately 40% of all U.S. students will be MLLs (Ardasheva et al., 2012). With such an influx of MLLs in schools and with more rigorous graduation requirements and the emphasis of ESSA on all students succeeding, secondary teachers grapple with how best to effectively teach linguistically diverse students like MLLs (Echevarría et al., 2018). The first step in implementing effective MLL instruction is for educators to be able to empathize with and understand the dilemmasMLLs face (Author,2019; Lander, 2020). One way to empathize with MLLs is to view them as valuable contributors to classroom learning. Not only is their bi/multilingualism an asset and a cognitive advantage (Bialystok, 2018), but they bring with them valuable cultural and linguistic funds of knowledge that can be called upon to enhance their learning and the learning of their monolingual peers. In addition, they can offer invaluable information about their native culture that would only enrich the teacher’s instruction and that more importantly would create a sense of comfort and stability for the MLL (Bussert-Webb & Zhang, 2018). While bilingual education models have been shown to yield the most positive results for MLLs (Castro et al., 2017; Slaybaugh, 2019), ESOL instruction is Georgia, including at the research site, is primarily delivered in English-only immersion settings. In such English-only school settings, implementing effective instructional strategies in all academic classes—not just in sheltered ESOL classes—is an effective way to reach MLLs and make the content as comprehensible as possible (Goldenberg, 2013).School leaders should provide information about effective instructional strategies teachers can use to enhance their teaching methodology; after all, MLLs “regularly sit through a [whole] class period with most of the content provided through a new language” (Short & Echevarría, 2005, p. 13). Recommended instructional strategies require more than simplifying the material for MLLs. MLLs benefit from instruction incorporating authentic, meaningful instruction that supports social and academic English language growth (Author, 2019). MLLs often do not have the same background knowledge as their English-dominant peers (Shin et al., 2019); therefore, effective teachers must become proficient in their use of scaffolding strategies to help MLLs begin to organize their thoughts in English, develop study skills, and follow classroom procedures (Lee, 2018). In addition, Lee (2018) suggested several effective, research-driven MLL writing strategies, e.g., journal and poetry assignments assist MLLs in developing their personal and expressive language skills while analytical, compare-and-contrast writing helps them develop their comparative writing skills. Furthermore, using simplified language, modeling, peer-support learning, making use of appropriate visuals and graphics, and designing more kinesthetic, hands-on projects can all greatly facilitate language development for MLLs (Goodwin & Rentz, 2020). Vaughn et al. (2017) agree that slower teacher speech and clearer enunciation, the utilization of visuals and demonstrations, explicit vocabulary instruction, etc. are all effective MLL instructional strategies. However, they also argue that these strategies are not enough to promote academic literacy. MLLs become proficient in common, conversational English—or what Cummins (1980) termedbasic interpersonal communicative skills(BICS)—within a year or two. However, gainingcognitive academic language proficiency(CALP) takes more time and effort, between 5 and 7 years (Cummins, 1980, 2016). One way to promote CALP is by having teachers reflect on the language demands of their courses and then plan differentiated instruction to help support MLLs as they acquire both the content standards and the academic language of the content (Echevarría et al., 2018). Method Research Site The evaluation was conducted at a rural high school in southcentral Georgia with an enrollment of approximately 2,300 in grades 10–12.In 2019, about 46% of the student population identified as White, 32% Black, 19% Latinx, 1% Asian, and 2% multiracial. Approximately 62 (or 2.7% of the total student population) received support through the ESOL program (GOSA, 2020). Instructional Model The local education agency for the school in this study mandated a modified sheltered immersion model for MLL instruction. Therefore, the school mainstreamed MLLs into three out of four classes (on a four-courses-per-semester block schedule), while one class was scheduled as a sheltered ESOL language support class. To the extent both practicable and practical, the ESOL program and the school considered the use of MLLs’ home languages as the most appropriate means of facilitating instruction and for communicating with parents. Student Group The student sample was composed of students in grades 10–11 (N= 13) identified as MLLs who received language support through the ESOL program. The students’ first languages included Arabic, Gujarati, Ukrainian, and Spanish, but most of the students (77%) spoke Spanish. Nine students (69%) were females, and four (31%) were males. Furthermore, eight (62%) were juniors, and five (38%) were sophomores. Their length of residency in the U.S. ranged from less than one year to 11 years (Table 1). Table 1: Student Group Demographics Data Collection and Analysis Permission was obtained from the principal to conduct the evaluation at the school and to observe MLLs and their teachers. Consent forms were obtained from teachers for the purpose of completing a survey and for conducting an observation in their classrooms. Consent forms were also obtained from the students who took the survey and participated in the focus group discussion. Data collection instruments were aligned with the research questions as shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Research Questions and Data Collection Instruments Alignment Chart To ensure validity of data collection instruments, the researchers conducted member checks by taking tentative findings back to some of the participants from whom raw data were derived and asking them whether the interpretation conveyed what they intended it to say. Comparisons of qualitative data with quantitative data were analyzed to check for consistency and reliability in the findings. Student Survey A student survey (Appendix A) was developed and administered to all MLLs in the student group (n= 13) during a single instructional period. The student survey consisted of seven Likert-response items on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree) with items such as “My teachers use examples that I can relate to that help me understand subject matter” and “My teachers schedule time at the end of each lesson to review what has been learned” included. Three open-ended questions were also included that asked students to describe ways their core content teachers and ESOL teachers and translators supported their learning in core content courses. Basic descriptive statistics were reported for the student survey data, including the means and standard deviations. Key excerpts from the qualitative open-ended survey items were also reported to elucidate the quantitative survey results. Student Focus Group Discussion A student focus group discussion with 13 MLLs was conducted during one ESOL sheltered instructional period using astandardized open-ended approach(Silverman, 2020). The focus group discussion (Appendix G) was audio recorded and subsequently transcribed. The researchers served as moderators for the focus group discussion.Before initiating the focus group discussion, the moderators explained their backgrounds, purpose, and interest in conducting the discussion. During the discussion, the students were also given the opportunity to ask questions and express their concerns regarding their educational progress and experiences. After carefully reading the field notes (Appendix H) and transcript, both researchers highlighted key words to begin the process of coding from the raw text. As different themes emerged from the data, different colors were used to separate key words and excerpts into categories. Comments were organized under particular headings to illustrate what works as perceived by students in meeting the needs of MLLs (Silverman, 2020). Specifically, data were organized into a table using key findings that fell in categories related to general sentiments (either positive or negative) and central theme (teaching strategies, teaching process, and teaching outcomes). Teacher Survey The teacher survey (Appendix D) was developed and given to those core content teachers who had one or more MLLs in their core content courses (n= 15). The teachers were given approximately one week to return the completed survey. The teacher survey consisted of eight Likert-response items on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree) with items such as “I conduct pre-reading activities (e.g., previewing the text chapter by examining the section headings and illustrations) for my MLLs” and “I adjust my expectations for MLL language output and allow for non-verbal responses such as pointing, nodding, pictures, and graphic organizers.” Three open-ended questions were also included that asked core content teachers to describe ways they make their instruction relevant and comprehensible to MLLs. Basic descriptive statistics were reported for the teacher survey data, including the means and standard deviations. Key excerpts from the qualitative open-ended survey items were also reported to elucidate the quantitative survey results. Classroom Observations Observations were conducted in nine core classes—three math, three English, and three science classes to determine whether teachers were implementing effective MLL instructional strategies using a checklist of 20 research-based effective MLL instructional strategies (Appendix I). Core social studies classes were not observed because during the semester in which the study was conducted, no MLLs were enrolled in a social studies core content course. Observations were scheduled with the teachers beforehand to lessen the anxiety and/or unpleasantness teachers often associate with formalized classroom observations. The researchers were non-participant observers in the mainstreamed classrooms. If the researcher observed a strategy being used in a particular classroom, they placed a check next to the observed strategy. Strategies that were observed by at least two observers were included on the summary chart under the core content area. Observation data were summarized and presented visually in a figure. Findings Student Survey Results from the student survey (Table 3) indicated that the students surveyed generally agreed that their teachers’ used examples to help them relate to and understand subject matter (M= 1.85;SD= 0.55) and that teachers scheduled time at the end of each lesson to review what was covered in the lesson (M= 1.85;SD= 0.69). However, there was less agreement on the amount of feedback students received on their usage of English in non-ESOL classes (M= 2.69;SD= 1.38). While students’ responses to the open-ended survey questions (Appendix C) revealed some teachers provided extra time, attention, and repetition for understanding, others disagreed. One student remarked, “My teachers treat me the same way they treat other students, they don’t consider that I need to learn more English in order to succeed.” Another student added, “I often do a poor job because I don’t understand what’s being taught.” Table 3: Student Survey Results Focus Group Discussion Emergent themes and key findings from the focus group discussion are summarized in Table 4 below. In the focus group discussion, students said they found it helpful when teachers paired them with another student who spoke their language and when they received extra time to study, take tests, and complete work. Students found that they were frustrated with insufficient and rapid teacher explanations. Additionally, they expressed a need to develop greater understanding of content related vocabulary and a concern about the lack of their inclusion in classroom conversations with teachers and other students. Table 4: Focus Group Discussion Data Grid Teacher Survey Surveyed teachers (Table 5) agreed most about the language demands of their subject area being greater on MLLs than on native-language speakers (M= 1.67;SD= 0.49) and largely conceded in their response to item 2 that they do not adequately conduct pre-reading activities for their MLLs (M= 2.87;SD= 0.74).The strategy of conducting pre-reading activities includes the clarification of vocabulary required to gain a better understanding of content. This finding that pre-reading activities were largely absent triangulated with other findings. For example, during the focus group discussion (Appendix G), a student likely referred to the lack of background-building strategies when they described the need for teachers “to explain more.” Another student expressed their concern as, “Sometimes they go too fast.” However,consistent with teachers’ responses to item 6 on the teacher survey (M= 1.80;SD= 0.77),classroom observation data (Figure 1) revealed that teachers in English, math, and science classes provided ample repetition of language tasks by repeating, restating, rephrasing, reviewing, and rereading.In the student responses to the open-ended questions on their survey (Appendix C), one student said the following about things non-ESOL teachers do to support their learning: “They explain things again; they read it again.” However, another student expressed a lack of support by writing: “They will not tell [ask] you if you need help.” Table 5: Teacher Survey Results Classroom Observations Observations of nine core content classes (three English, three math, and three science classes) are summarized in Figure 1 below. Overall, 13 of 20 (65%) instructional strategies were observed, with science teachers providing more support strategies (9) than social studies (7) or English (3) teachers. Although teachers agreed in the survey that they pair MLLs with “buddies” (M= 1.73;SD= 0.46), this was only observed in English classes. The level and frequency of support varied greatly. Whereas teachers were observed working one-on-one with MLLs in math and science classes, students were only allowed time to check and discuss understanding of directions and material with peers in math classes. While students expressed ways in which they received individual attention in their open-ended responses (e.g., “Gives me more attention,” “My teachers tell me what is most important and what I should write about,” and “My teacher explain[s] things differently to me to help me understand”), this support was largely not observed in English classes. Most notably, seven of the 20 (35%) instructional strategies and modifications on the observation checklist (Appendix I) were not observed in any of the nine classes: ·Extend wait time for oral and written participation and responses ·Provide small-group instruction ·Encourage “buddies” to take a dictated response during pair work requiring explanations of concepts that MLLs can better express orally ·Use bilingual dictionaries during reading and writing assignments in order to clarify meaning when possible ·Use technology and multimedia (e.g., software, books on tape, etc.) ·Adjust expectations for language output (e.g. student speaks in words and phrases, simple present tense statements) ·Allow shortened responses Discussion and Recommendations In their effort to determine the extent of the implementation of effective MLL strategies and modifications like those listed in the classroom observation instrument (Appendix I), the researchers triangulated their findings from the focus group discussion with results from student and teacher surveys and classroom teacher observations. The differentiated strategies MLLs said were most helpful Table 6: Instructional Strategies for MLLs Observed in the Core Content Classrooms included using audio and visual materials, simplification of materials (i.e., teachers making content “easier”), being paired with another student who speaks their native language, extensivevocabulary study, and receiving extra help and time on tests and other required tasks. Additionally, certain MLL strategies deemed effective but which the students in this study did not explicitly describe included the use of graphic organizers and providing allowances for the use of non-verbal responses (Goldenberg, 2013; Goodwin & Rentz, 2020). For example, one of the observed math teachers took time for students to check and discuss their understanding of directions, a strategy that would help students who expressed concerns over the rapid pace of instruction in non-ESOL classes (Shin et al., 2019).MLLs in the focus group saidthat writing definitions is ineffective and, instead, preferred using flashcards to learn vocabulary and concepts. One student described how variations of the use of flashcards could extend his understanding in different subject areas, but unfortunately,he saidteachers do not often encourage his use of flashcards or other study techniques. All of these findings demonstrate that the support strategies and techniques that were being implemented in core content classes varied greatly, with some teachers offering more support than others. As such, school leaders should work in conjunction with school- and district-level ESOL professionals to provide ongoing professional development to teachers across content areas concerning best practices in ESOL instruction and support (Echevarría et al., 2018). The responses during the focus group discussion and on thesurveyelicited some of the frustrations MLLs experienced. For example, students remarked about the uncomfortable dynamics of being placed in a small group with other students who were unwilling to be helpful or collaborative with students whose first language was not English. Other frustrations included not understanding school rules and beingscheduled intoelective classes that they did not choose and that theydidnot needfor graduation. The school take steps to improve communication during MLL academic advisement and scheduling. A lack of educator empathy emerged from both the focus group discussion and the open-ended survey items. One MLL was upset when his teacher would not let other students help himin class, and others talked about how they often were excluded from conversations with teachers and studentsin classes. A student wrote, “In this school, the teacher does not like to help me, and teachers will not let me talk in Spanish if we do not know something in English.” Similarly, MLLs expressed apprehensive about oral presentations, stating that they make them “nervous.” They also described how excessive class noise and a lack of discipline affected their learning and were a main reason they enjoyed going to the media center where the media specialists maintained a quiet and studious atmosphere. As part of the ongoing professional development recommended for teachers, lessons in culturally responsive pedagogy, including equity and equality, should be a central focus (Bussert-Webb & Zhang, 2018; Author, 2019; Lander, 2020). The teachers surveyed often repeated that MLLs had opportunities to work with a translator who came to the school once a week and received direct language support during their dailyshelteredESOL class. However, MLLs attended thesheltered ESOLclass for only one period and were mainstreamed in all other classes. School leaders should seek ways to modify the instructional schedule so that MLLs receive more language support during sheltered ESOL classes. Specifically, more sheltered classes should be provided for MLLs at the beginning stages of English acquisition, and MLLs whose English proficiency has developed enough to enter mainstream courses should be taught by educators with specific experience and training in working with MLLs and other culturally and linguistically diverse students (Bussert-Webb & Zhang, 2018), including the benefits of inclusivity (Jeddi, 2018). Conclusion Other evaluative studies like this one are needed to establish more specifically and conclusively the extent of implementation of effective instruction for MLLs at the study site. However, the findings in this preliminary study establish a need for classroom teachers to provide more accommodations to MLLs who lack sufficient understanding of content in non-ESOL classes (Echevarría et al., 2018; Vaughn et al., 2017). Furthermore, the school should provide teachers with additional information and training to effectively teach MLLs at different levels of proficiency in the English language. Some students and teachers alike noted the lack of assistance for non-Spanish speaking MLLs in the form of translators and materials. Therefore, school leaders should provide teachers with adequate tools and resources and ongoing professional development, including information and training in cross-cultural skills and helping teachers develop empathy for non-native speakers of English (Author, 2019; Lander, 2020). Limitations The transcript of the student focus group revealed the hesitancy of students to elaborate more extensively with the moderators. Moderators likely asked too many questions at one time in an effort to facilitate the discussion. Although the moderators initially sought to raise the comfort level of the student participants with personal anecdotes and introductions, this effort was met with limited success, and as the discussion progressed, the moderator interjected an excess of personal experiences and biases that should be avoided in future discussions. While this study is an excellent starting point, additional follow-up discussions should be conducted to obtain information from students and teachers on their personal experiences with the MLL strategies. References Ardasheva, Y., Tretter, T. R., & Kinny, M. (2012). English language learners and academic achievement: Revisiting the threshold hypothesis.Language Learning,62(3), 769–812.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922. 2011.00652.x Bialystok, E. (2018). Bilingual education for young children: Review of the effects and consequences.International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,21(6), 666–679.https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016. 1203859 Bussert-Webb, K. M., & Zhang, Z. (2018). Positive reading attitudes of low-income bilingual latinos.Reading Psychology,39(1), 90–119.https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2017. 1383331 Castro, D. C., Gillanders, C., Franco, X., Bryant, D. M., Zepeda, M., Willoughby, M. T., & Méndez, L. I. (2017). Early education of dual language learners: An efficacy study of the Nuestros Niños School readiness professional development program.Early Childhood Research Quarterly,40, 188–203.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq. 2017.03.002 Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue.TESOL Quarterly,14(2), 175–187.https://doi.org/10.2307/3586312 Cummins, J. (2016). Reflections on Cummins (1980), “The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue.”TESOL Quarterly,50(4), 940–944.https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.339 Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2018).Making content comprehensible for secondary English learners: The SIOP®model(3rd ed.). Pearson. Georgia Department of Education. (GaDOE). (2019). English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL).https://bit.ly/2P9sWG7 Giouroukakis, V., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). High-stakes testing and English language learners:Using culturally and linguistically responsive literacy practices in the high school English classroom.TESOL Journal,1(4), 470–499.https://doi.org/10.5054/tj.2010.240193 Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know—and don’t yet know—about effective instruction.American Educator,37(2), 4–38.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ1014021.pdf Goodwin, B., & Rentz, B. (2020). Building bridges for ELLs: Research matters.Educational Leadership,77(4), 82–83.https://bit.ly/2HMcoQw Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. (GOSA). (2020).K–12 public schools report card.http://gaawards.gosa.ga.gov/analytics/ K12ReportCard Jeddi, A. (2018). Anti-immigration sentiments and the true benefits of inclusivity.GATESOL in Action,1(1), 1–6.https://bit.ly/3dedSS6 Lander, J. (2020). Building bridges for ELLs: Seeing their strengths.Educational Leadership,77(4), 24–28.https://bit.ly/3c1nUWa Lee, S. (2018). Scaffolding evidence-based writing for English learners in three steps.The Reading Teacher,72(1), 99–106.http://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1712 Martínez, R. A. (2018). Beyond theEnglish Learnerlabel: Recognizing the richness of bi/multilingual students’ linguistic repertoires.The Reading Teacher,71(5), 515–522.https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1679 Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (2019). Hypothesis: A class supplying rich comprehensible input is more effective and efficient than “immersion.”IBU Journal of Educational Research and Practice,7, 83–89. McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Forrest Cataldi, E., Bullock Mann, F., & Barmer, A. (2019).The condition of education 2019(NCES 2019-144). National Center for Education Statistics.https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/ 2019144.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES). (2019).The nation’s report card.https://www.nationsreportcard.gov Prokopchuk, N. (2019).Sharing our knowledge : Best practices for supporting English language learners in schools. University of Saskatchewan. Shapiro, S. (2014). “Words that you said got bigger”: English language learners’ lived experiences of deficit discourse.Research in the Teaching of English,48(4), 386–406. Shin, J., Dronjic, V., & Park, B. (2019). The interplay between working memory and background knowledge in L2 reading comprehension.TESOL Quarterly,53(2), 320–347.https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.482 Short, D., & Echevarría, J. (2005). Teacher skills to support English Language Learners.Educational Leadership,62(4), 8–13. Silverman, D. (2020).Interpreting qualitative data(6th ed.). SAGE Publications. Slaybaugh, B. (2019). Is English only comprehensible input?Humanising Language Teaching,21(3), 15–16. Spees, L. P., Potochnick, S., & Perreira, K. M. (2016). The academic achievement of Limited English Proficient (LEP) youth in new and established immigrant states: Lessons from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).Education Policy Analysis Archives,24(99), 1–27.https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2130 Sugarman, J. (2019).The unintended consequences for English learners of using the four-year graduate rate for school accountability. Migration Policy Institute.https://bit.ly/2uQKbW5 Vaughn, S., Martinez, L. R., Wanzek, J., Roberts, G., Swanson, E., & Fall, A. M. (2017). Improving content knowledge and comprehension for English language learners: Findings from a randomized control trial.Journal of Educational Psychology,109(1), 22–34.https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000069 Willner, L. S., & Mokhtari, K. (2018). Improving meaningful use of accommodations by multilingual learners.The Reading Teacher,71(4), 431–439.https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1637 Appendices All appendices can be accessed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/ 1oSeKANaS1AdOJDMVmwCwtkT6NBFgpMH4/ view?usp=sharing
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.24
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.25 p.2
Research Investigating Instructional Strategies for Multilingual Learners: Implications for ESOL Support in High Schools Helene M. Dutcher and Robert A. Griffin Coastal Plains Regional Educational Service Agency and University of West Georgia ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the instructional strategies offered to multilingual learners (MLLs) in one rural high school in the southeastern U.S. As part of this investigation, the researchers sought to determine what strategies mainstream teachers utilized with MLLs in their classes, what teachers thought about the types of support MLLs received, and what MLLs perceived about the types of support afforded to them for their academic development and acculturation into the dominant school culture. To determine the extent of the implementation of effective MLL strategies and modifications, data were collected from a student focus group discussion, student and teacher surveys, and classroom teacher observations. Findings demonstrated that the support strategies and techniques that were being implemented in core content classes varied greatly, with some teachers offering more support than others. Findings are discussed and specific recommendations are provided, including providing ongoing professional development to teachers across content areas concerning best practices in ESOL instruction and support.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.26 p.2
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.27 p.2
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.29 p.2
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.28 p.2
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.31 p.2
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.30 p.2
Introduction In 2017, the EL student population in the U.S. reached approximately 5 million students (NCES, 2018). While lawsuits and legislation have attempted to secure the educational rights for language minority students and their families, federal mandates, such as Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) (ESSA), have focused more on accountability and prioritizes the education needs of ELs. As accountability in K-12 has come into focus, the literature on TESOL/ESL instruction and on teacher preparation shows that content teachers are not necessarily equipped (de Jong & Harper, 2005) to meet the academic, sociocultural, cognitive and linguistic needs of ELs (Herrera, 2016). In addition, teachers who serve culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students, particularly English Learners (ELs), are more likely to have less control over their own development and practice (Olivant, 2015). Just as troubling is the revelation that TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education teacher preparation programs and the faculty that staff them are often marginalized and mustgo against the grain to advocate for their students, their programs, and their profession. This study is part of a larger qualitative research project that attempts to describeTESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education faculty’s narratives as well as meaningful ways in which TESOL/ESL teacher educators and professionals have approached their work context in order to embrace transformative resistance and subversive pedagogies of hope (see Barko-Alva & Jo, 2016; Giroux, 1983; McLaren, 2015) to advocate for TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education programsat their institutions. Literature Review: Preparing Future Teachers to Embracing Advocacy During the 2014-2015 school year, ELs were the fastest-growing student population in the country, growing 60% in the last decade, as compared with 7% growth of the general student population (Grantmakers for Education, 2013). In 2014, approximately 5 million ELs were served in U.S. schools, representing nearly 10% of public-school enrollment. While ELs reside throughout the United States, their density, or the share they represent of total public-school enrollment, varies greatly by state. Five of the six states with the highest percentages of ELs in their public schools were in the West. According to NCES (2016), in the District of Columbia and six states—Alaska, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas—10 percent or more of their public-school student population were ELs, with California having the highest percentage, at 22.7 percent. Nearly one-third of the country’s school districts with the largest EL populations were in California (Ruiz Soto, Hooker, & Batalova, 2015). Seventeen states had percentages of EL public-school enrollment between 6.0 and 9.9 percent. These states were Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington (Batalova, & McHugh, 2010; NCES, 2016). A number of states around the country have seen a dramatic increase in the number of ELs enrolled in the past decade (Breiseth, 2015). For example, Indiana has seen an EL population growth of 400% while there has been an 800% population growth in South Carolina. Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama, and Arkansas have also seen dramatic growth in its EL student populations (Batalova & McHugh, 2010). With this growth, we must ensure the education of this population. To facilitate transformative and reflective classroom practices, ESL teacher educators must equip teacher candidates to administer the scope and sequence of curricula as well as deploy different methods tailored to meet the content, linguistic, sociocultural, and cognitive needs of their ELs (Herrera, 2016). To accomplish this task, teachers must be able to understand the influence of language, content, culture, and educational policy on classroom practices. Just as important, teacher educators must accept their roles as agents of change to advocate for the profession and model advocacy skills for their teacher candidates. Language/Linguistic Knowledge TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education teacher candidates must be provided acomprehensive understanding of the linguistic dynamics involved in first and second language development is needed to scaffold meaningful content and language instruction (de Jong & Harper, 2005). In terms of understanding language, teachers should know the following about language: Aspects of language (morphology, phonology, syntax, semantics, discourse), social and academic language, and language differences vs. language disabilities (Bunch, 2013; Fillmore Wong & Snow, 2000). Lindholm Leary (2007) suggested that literacy/language instruction must be direct and explicit to create optimal learning environments for students learning in multilingual settings. In addition, teachers should be able to embrace and affirm students’ linguistic repertoires as they make sense of the content they are negotiating (Beeman & Urow, 2013; Escamilla et al., 2014). ContentKnowledge Because research shows that students are expected to master complex texts, abstract concepts, and express their ideas through writing (Harper & de Jong, 2009), teacher educators must facilitate activities and provide experiential learning opportunities for practice. Harper and de Jong (2009) found that the best teachers purposefully use content teaching strategies to make content accessible and intentionally develop students’ language skills. Integrating language and content instruction provided students access to text complexity (Schleppegrell & de Oliveira, 2006) and required more time devoted to student discourse (Fillmore Wong & Fillmore, 2012). Cultural Knowledge Traditional teaching approaches lack relevant connections to students (Gibbons, 2006). To be successful teachers must be prepared to connect students’ home cultures to the culture of the school (Gay, 2002). Therefore, teacher educators must prepare candidates to create classroom environments that increase teacher-student and student-student engagement (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002). Teachers who are empathetic, socially aware, and value inclusion, are able to more effectively address student cultural diversity within the classroom even when teacher-student cultural differences exist (Jenson, Whiting, & Chapman, 2018). Lucas and Grinberg (2008), in their very thorough review of the literature on preparing all teachers to teach bilingual students, argue that teachers specifically need to experience—or at least dabble in—multilingualism, by studying a language other than English and by having contact with people who speak languages other than English, in order to be better prepared to work with bilingual students. They argue that such an experience can serve as a foundation for teachers’ development of “affirming views of linguistic diversity” and “an awareness of the sociopolitical dimension of language use and language education,” both of which are fundamental to support bilingual students in their classrooms (Lucas & Grinberg, 2008, pp. 612–613). Policy Issues In addition to language, content, and culture knowledge, teacher educators must focus on policy issues. ESL teachers who are aware of the inequities ELs face beyond the classroom become advocates critiquing institutional policies and developing alternative practices and policies (Athanases & de Oliveira, 2007). A cross-case study by Forhan & Scheraga (2000) found teachers of EL students find themselves responding to and making decisions concerning language policy and becoming politically active because policy affects their students and their professional lives. Staehr Fenner (2014) revealed policy decisions often fail to consider ESL teachers and students. Advocacy and Agency It is our position that advocacy and agency are two of the most important components of language teaching and language teacher preparation (Linville & Whiting, 2019). An advocacy-based approach to teaching is an informed practice involving understanding the pros and cons of programs and policy, acknowledging professional or economic disparities, embracing social justice principles, and having empathetic concern for the students’ lives (Varghese & Stritikus, 2005). Educators who embrace and foster the role of advocacy find themselves constantly negotiating how to transform their efforts into concrete policies directly affecting the communities they serve (Athanases & de Oliveira, 2008; Bryan et al., 2019; Jenson et al., 2018). Based on the data gathered through interviews of over 50 teachers, Harper et al. (2008) showed how legislation and policy leads to the devaluing of ESL teacher expertise, instructional roles, and the homogenization of curriculum, instruction, and assessment of ELLs. It is in situations like these that teachers often display agency. Agency, in this sense, is not something that they have – as a property, capacity or competence – but is something that they do (Biesta et al., 2015). While there are many studies on teacher agency (Kay-Aydar, 2015; Morgan, 2010; Sánchez-Suzuki Colegrove & Zúñiga, 2018) in general, there are few if any studies that highlight the challenges of ESL teacher educators and their agency in fostering effective ESL teacher education programs. Theoretical Framework This work is supported by complementary theoretical frameworks. First, drawing from Freire (1998a), Giroux (2004), and Webb (2010), subversive pedagogical practices of hope (Barko-Alva & Jo, 2016) embrace active reflection and transformation in the classroom. When policy transformation efforts are delayed due to fossilized and bureaucratic processes, TESOL/ESL professionals used their content, socio-cultural, and linguistic knowledge to enact change disrupting top-down hegemonic practices and adopting bottom-up approaches. Transformative resistance (Giroux, 1983; McLaren, 2015) highlights the promise of critique and resistance.Henry Giroux’s first book Ideology, Culture and the Process of Schooling (1981) elaborated the philosophical foundations for a theory and practice of education that would be not only critical of established institutions and practices, but also capable of transforming those institutions and practices, with the ultimate goal of transforming society itself. Both are used as theoretical frameworks, as the study highlights the voices of faculty in TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education Programs as they address the challenges posed by institutional structures that require them to advocate for their work and programs. Methods The purpose of this study was to explore and highlight the experiences of TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education faculty as they navigate teacher education program curricula and policies to prepare teachers to work with ELs. As such, the study was guided by the following research questions: 1.How have TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education faculty experienced marginalization within their colleges or departments? 2.How have TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education faculty been able to advocate for their program, students, and the EL families they serve? Data Collection Instruments & Procedures Data were collected through a qualitative survey in order to elicit in-depth responses from participants. Our qualitative survey featured: short answer questions and long answer questions. These questions also featured a multiple-choice demographic questionnaire to gain further insight on the participants’ work context and professional background. Participants Twenty TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education professionals completed the qualitative survey. Participants were faculty members which included but were not limited to full-time, part-time, tenured, tenure-track, clinical, lecturer, and adjunct faculty. Participants worked at public and private institutions. These faculty members administered undergraduate and graduate programs at Liberals Arts and Research One institutions (i.e., 4- and 2-years programs). Eighty percent of faculty members are affiliated with Colleges of Education, and twenty percent are unaffiliated with Colleges of Education, that is, they are teaching in Modern Language Departments. Participants represent approximately nine different states across the nation (e.g., CO, FL, VA, DC, TX). Years of teaching experience in higher education was evenly distributed: A. 30% of faculty had approximately 21 or more years of teaching experience, B. 30% of faculty had approximately 6 to 10 years of teaching experience, C. 30% of faculty had approximately 1 to 5 years of teaching experience. Data Analysis Researchers were fully familiarized with data before the coding process began. The text featured in participants’ responses were coded and overarching themes emerged, they were identified, reviewed, defined, and named (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Findings It should be clear that teacher training programs must prepare teachers to be advocates and agents of change who haveknowledge of linguistics, content, culture, and policy. There is an entire profession dedicated to conducting this work. Nevertheless, training for future TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education teachers remains a difficult task as departments of education and higher education institutions continue to operate under ideologies that are counterproductive. In the following sections, common themes in the form of“questionsandcomments of marginalization” encountered by TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education professionals are highlighted. Participants’ discourses of resistance and hope are embedded as part of our preliminary analysis. Is ESL Certification/Training Really Necessary For K-12 Teachers? The simple answer is “yes.” Teachers are responsible for educating all students. Students and faculty ask this question because they assume that any native English speaker should be able to teach ELs by virtue of them being a native speaker of English. These data are disseminated to students and colleagues by providing the demographics of the EL population and explaining that the likelihood of a teacher having an EL enrolled in their class is high, and it is important for each and every teacher to be prepared to support the academic development of every ELs. Unfortunately, the confusion posed by departments of education regarding requirements for TESOL/ESL, bilingual certification, or endorsement provides a ripe environment for individuals to question whether or not training is necessary. Our data show that curriculum and instruction departments without an established TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education program often see ESL preparation as a conglomeration of teaching strategies. One TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education professional stated, [There is a] lack of recognition of the professionalism of the field. The belief that anyone who speaks English can teach English. Now, the belief that ESL/ELL instruction is just a series of instructional strategies to be infused into courses. It's not. It's a holistic philosophical, planning, instructional delivery, and assessment change in addition to the modification of cultural perspectives and culturally congruent pedagogy. State policies often dictate the importance of a discipline. For example, Florida provides ESL endorsement to teachers who have matriculated through an approved ESL-infused teacher education program without a testing requirement. Only those who are interested in the certificate are required to pass the Florida ESL certification examination. Texas and Virginia allow any pre-service or in-service teacher to take the ESL examination without taking any ESL foundation or methodology courses at a college or university. By passing the ESL praxis exam alone, teachers are presumed competent to serve this particular student population. Teachers in Tennessee may choose if they want to pursue the ESOL endorsement or not. Colleges of Education are not required to offer TESOL courses, and more often than not, these courses are not part of their curriculum. Another TESOL/ESL professional stated, In our state, there are currently NO courses required for teacher ed programs in elementary and secondary education unless you are in the TESOL program as a "specialist." This means that many of the K-12 teachers our university trains have very little real knowledge of ELs, and very little understanding of what it means to teach the English language. In some cases, if pre-service teachers choose to pursue the endorsement and take suggested course work, they must successfully take a minimum of four ESL courses and pass the Praxis ESL examination (i.e., Virginia). ESL endorsement and certification can be vastly different from state to state. Do we really need to take all of these TESOL courses? Isn’t one course enough? TESOL professionals know that one course is not enough to equip teachers with thenecessary skills to work with ELs. Earlier, we suggested teachers who serve are not only capable of teaching language for both academic and social (see Bunch, 2013) purposes, but they are able to effectively incorporate, implement, and integrate students and their families’ biographies, languages, culture, and identities as part of their curriculum (Herrera, Porter, Barko-Alva, 2020). Our analysis indicates that those who are responsible for and have the desire to approve curricula think that one course should be able to effectively address these topics. To the contrary, TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education is its own discipline, just as science, social studies, mathematics, and reading are their own disciplines. In most cases, effective ESL teachers have taken more than a single course or professional development session to gain the skills needed to increase the content knowledge and language development of this student population. We also argue that experiential learning is an important component of any ESL teacher training program just as it is for teachers in the other content area. Nonetheless, credit hours and requirements in TESOL/ESL programs are still being eliminated. These sentiments are expressed by one of the participants: I know that before I came here, three undergraduate TSL classes were offered, but because students complained that two of them were too similar, the courses were reduced to two courses. However, I think one of those courses would have been cut eventually because the college was just tasked with reducing the number of credits that students need to graduate from 126 credits to 120. More often than not, TESOL/ ESL and Bilingual Education faculty at institutions of higher education find themselves engineering ways to increase pre-service teachers’ access to ESL content as part of their teacher-preparation program to counteract discriminatory discourses and perspectives. A new TESOL faculty said, One thing I did not expect as a new faculty member (also new to this town and region of the country) was resistance to working with ELs. One of our university's main licensure areas has made the TESOL endorsement required for all candidates. Some (many?) have expressed that they do not want to work with ELs and work (and act) as though they are checking off boxes to reach the end. I also didn't expect to need to build so much background knowledge for teacher candidates. For instance, when reading about Funds of Knowledge, one candidate wrote she was concerned that centering the experiences of bilingual children in the classroom would marginalize non-bilingual children -- completely missing the rich possibilities for multiculturalism in the classroom… This new faculty quickly realized the larger issue, ... her perspective reflects a belief that it is natural to center the experiences of White, non-bilingual communities in the curriculum. But there is absolutely nothing natural about that. In order to move our field forward, the work continues. For example, one of the authors is the coordinator of a graduate TESOL program but teaches an instructional strategies course and supervises a field experience in an undergraduate elementary education program. For the first three years in her current position, there were no TESOL courses as part of the undergraduate elementary education curriculum. She made consistent efforts to incorporate TESOL pedagogical strategies in the instructional strategies course and place undergraduate elementary education majors in schools with large EL student populations in order to have exposure and build rapport with ESL teachers who are advocates for their students. Her agency and determination have resulted in two TESOL courses being added to the undergraduate elementary education curriculum. Do We Really Need TESOL Faculty? Can’t Special Education or English faculty teach the courses? We must recognize and value the unique expertise and skill sets of ESL faculty members in order to achieve inclusive, equitable, and socially just instructional practices oriented to meet the needs of ELs. In teacher preparation programs across the nation, the goal is to prepare a well-equipped cohort of pre-service teachers who are able to meet the socio cultural, academic, linguistic, and cognitive needs of ELs (Herrera, 2016). Despite the immeasurable amount of work TESOL/ESL faculty conducts at their institutions, they often feel as though they are invisible. A faculty wrote, We offer both a K-12 and an Adult TESOL track; no other program in our university has both of these (they only have K-12). Our program has its own content (applied linguistics, Second Language Acquisition theory, English language awareness), but seldom gets recognition for this. We are generally considered to be a “special needs” (i.e., not mainstream) provider, often lumped in with Special Education faculty. We tend to attend conferences that are different from other education faculty. We try to learn about their subjects, but they seldom try to learn about ours. There is limited articulation between ESL programs and other programs in the department. For these perspectives to experience meaningful transformation, ESL faculty would have to be recognized across all content areas as educators who strive to understand language use as a resource (Ruiz, 1984) by promoting a multilingual instructional framework as well as embracing advocacy as a crucial aspect of classroom instruction. TESOL as a Last Resort Program Many Colleges of Education use TESOL as the program of last resort for students who are either undecided regarding their majors or for those whose grade point averages are not sufficient enough to be enrolled in one of the other education programs. For example, in one College of Education, all education programs require a 3.0 for admission—except for two programs, TESOL being one of them. The underlying assumption is that anyone, especially a native speaker, can teach English. As an ESL faculty member explained, Unlike the other programs, standards for admission are quite a bit lower. This means there are more students, yet only one full-time faculty member. I also see not having any TESOL courses in an undergraduate teacher prep program as a disservice to pre-service teachers. This ideology marginalizes ESL teacher expertise and the profession as a whole. TESOL professionals in such programs are designing more rigorous curriculum to assure that the students enrolled are students who are passionate about teaching ELs. Yet, TESOL courses are often seen as additional content and not necessarily part of the mainstream curriculum in teacher preparation programs. As one participant put it, TESOL is considered an "extra thing" for teacher candidates -- not their "main job". For instance, TESOL field placements have been "bumped" for other field placements, i.e., after a candidate is already in place for a TESOL placement, a placement from the main licensure area (which has already been informed of the TESOL placement) may make a placement for the candidate that is in direct conflict with the placement we've already made, and that the candidate has already begun. This jeopardizes the relationships we have with teachers and schools, which is particularly problematic since we have so few qualified supervising teachers for TESOL in our area. Difficulties securing optimal teaching placements for pre-service teachers limits pre-service teachers experiences as far as learning how to provide meaningful instruction including academic, linguistic, and sociocultural support for ELs and their families. Who Are You and What Are You Doing Here? TESOL professionals, despite the challenges, have been tirelessly working toward creating spaces in educational contexts where K-12 teachers, ELs, and their families are able to access an array of academic, social, and cultural resources. ESL faculty find multifaceted ways to disrupt hegemonic discourses and make their voice heard. One faculty stated, I created the now-required one-credit course to remedy the lack of any training for teachers to work with ELs at my institution. I am very active in college and university service and speak up for my program all the time, I consult with the local school district and stress the importance of advocacy, I am working with a small group of local teachers/administrators on a conference on co-teaching. I go into some classes and talk about ELs for those who haven't had to take the class. I present at local conferences on EL rights. This urgent sense of advocacy has become an intrinsic part of their holistic identity as faculty members in the TESOL/ESL sphere. Data suggest that a keen sense of advocacy is addressed when TESOL/ESL faculty adopt initiatives that tend to benefit not only their TESOL/ESL program, but their entire teacher preparation department. A first-year faculty member discussed how they were able to enact advocacy in their programs, [I attended] numerous meetings across departments and colleges to iron out communication challenges. [I conducted] PD for local school districts to try and support their TESOL efforts (many local teachers do not work well with TESOL professionals and/or have refused to make accommodations for ELs); spearheading shifts to the 1st year experience to include building candidates' background knowledge re: immigrant experiences; meetings with other TESOL faculty to encourage updates to the TESOL curriculum, to advocate for making grant applications to develop graduate program for local teachers desiring a TESOL endorsement, etc.; invited guest speakers for a university-wide forum related to TESOL. Our experiences along with those of unknown colleagues who participated in this study small study suggest that TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education faculty voices in hegemonic spaces are often met with either resistance or dismissal while espousing the “ESL is just good teaching” (de Jong & Harper, 2005) ideology explicitly reflected in the curriculum of teacher preparation programs across the nation. Despite the challenges, they continue to carve out structures within their institutions and elsewhere to a collegial environment that respects the profession. Conclusion Findings from this preliminary study suggests that the TESOL profession continues to be marginalized, faculty members - especially BIPOC faculty members - are able to name their challenges in an effort to provide agency and advocate for themselves, their students, and the profession. There are still a number of people who ask whether ESL certification and training are really necessary. Based on the continuous rise in the EL population and the achievement gaps that persist between them and their native speaking peers, of course certification and training is necessary. We must ask ourselves if we are okay with a subgroup of students not achieving at high levels. To us, this is unethical. Do we really need to take (or offer) all of these TESOL courses? is another question that circulates amongst some students and college of education faculty. This question, however, is never posed to English language arts, science, social studies, or mathematics professors. While the number of credit hours for most courses are outlined by state departments of education, college of education colleagues must support TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education faculty when they argue that one TESOL course is simply not enough. They must listen and support when we argue that all education faculty must consider the needs of ELs as they are training teachers. For example, math, science, social studies and ELA methods professors should provide activities and assignments that would require pre-service educators to practice making their content accessible to ELs. While Special Education and Literacy faculty have specific skill sets and experiences, they are not qualified to prepare teachers to work with ELs. Any assertion to the contrary marginalizes the TESOL profession. Based on the data from this study, faculty members are often considered Special Education or English faculty. It may be beneficial for those creating organizational charts to group these faculty members together, but they must remember that their profession and disciplinary knowledge is quite different. While not particular to the TESOL profession, TESOL faculty are often the subject of microaggressions that question “who are you and what are you doing here?” Based on the advocacy work that our participants do, there is no doubt that they are contributors who have improved the TESOL/BE curricula in their respective work environments. Here, it is also important to point out that there are a growing number of BIPOC faculty in the TESOL/BE profession. Picca and Feagin (2007) suggests that normally white-controlled spaces continue to be normed with a dominant racial frame adding to the devaluing of teacher expertise in specific disciplines. Faculty of color find navigating higher education a complex and painful process, manifesting in marginalization (Marbley, Wong, Santos-Hatchett, Pratt & Jaddo, 2011). With few Black and Brown faculty members in departmental settings, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) faculty often experience isolation and heightened expectations (Núñez, Murakami, & Gonzales, 2015). TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education faculty who work within these advocacy spaces tend to identify themselves as BIPOC faculty and they resist the dominant culture in order to create counter-stories, drawing on cultural community to make agentive choices through academic classes and political teachings, often face pressure for assimilation (Motha & Varghese, 2016). In conclusion, we know that TESOL/Bilingual Education marginalization within higher education institutions will not dissipate rapidly but hearing the testimonies of advocates establishes the relevant counter-story necessary for revolutionary change. We believe that it is possible for higher education institutions to assist TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education faculty in preparing pre-service teachers to work with ELs. New TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education faculty—advocates can address institutional shortcomings by using the frameworks of subversive pedagogical practices of hope (Barko-Alva & Jo, 2016) and transformative resistance (Giroux, 1983; McLaren, 2015) to prepare pre-service teachers to be social justice defenders for EL students and their families. References Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy‐enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviors’ predicting students' engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261-278. Athanases, S. Z., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2008). Advocacy for Equity in Classrooms and Beyond: New Teachers' Challenges and Responses. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 64-104. Athanases, S. Z., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2007). Conviction, confrontation, and risk in new teachers' advocating for equity. Teaching Education, 18(2), 123-136. Barko-Alva, K. & Jo, A.A. (2016). Factors that contribute to effective multilingual and multicultural classroom environments. In: Bryan & Vásquez Neyshba (Eds.), ESL Methods for Achievement and Equity.Chapter 8. Kendall & Hunt Publishing Company. Batalova, J., & McHugh, M. (2010). Number and growth of students in US schools in need of English instruction.Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Beeman, K., & Urow, C. (2013). Teaching for biliteracy: Strengthening bridges between languages. Caslon Publishing. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624-640. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol, 3: 77-101.10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. Breiseth, L. (2015). What you need to know about ELLs: Fast facts. Data retrieved from http://www. colorincolorado. org/article/what-you-need-know-about-ells-fast-facts. Bryan, K. C., Cooper, A., & Ifarinu, B. (2019). From majority to minority. Advocacy in English Language Teaching and Learning. Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era.Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298-341. 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. Escamilla, K., Hopewell, S., Butvilofsky, S., Sparrow, W., Soltero-González, L., Ruiz-Figueroa, O., & Escamilla, M. (2014). Biliteracy from the start: Literacy squared in action. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. ESSA (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016). Fillmore, L. W., & Fillmore, C. J. (2012). What does text complexity mean for English learners and language minority students? Understanding language: Language, literacy, and learning in the content areas, 64-74. Fillmore, Lily Wong & Snow, Catherine E. Snow & Educational Resources Information Center (U.S.) (2000). What teachers need to know about language. U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center, [Washington, DC]. Florida Consent Decree - 1990. (2017). Retrieved fromshorturl.at/wyRW1 Forhan, L. E., & Scheraga, M. (2000). Becoming sociopolitically active.Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 195-218. Freire, P. (1998a). Pedagogy of freedom. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching.Journal of teacher education, 53(2), 106-116. Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: Students, teachers and researchers. A&C Black. Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Giroux, Henry. A. (2004). When hope is subversive. Tikkun, 19(6), 38-39. Grantmakers for Education (2013). Educating English language learners: Grantmaking strategies for closing America’s other achievement gap. Retrieved from shorturl.at/mAEW8 Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2009). English language teacher expertise: The elephant in the room. Language and Education, 23(2), 137-151. Harper, C. A., De Jong, E. J., & Platt, E. J. (2008). Marginalizing English as a second language teacher expertise: The exclusionary consequence of No Child Left Behind. Language Policy,7(3), 267-284. Herrera, S. G. (2016).Biography-driven culturally responsive teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Herrera, S. G., Porter, L. &Barko-Alva, K.(2020). Equity in school-parent partnerships: Cultivating community and family trust in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press Columbia University. Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2007). Effective features of dual language education programs: A review of research and best practices. Guiding principles for dual language education, 5-50. Linville, H. A., & Whiting, J. (Eds.). (2019). Advocacy in English Language Teaching and Learning. Routledge. Lucas, T., & Grinberg, J. (2008). Responding to the linguistic reality of mainstream classrooms: Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners.Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts, 3, 606-636. Marbley, A. F., Wong, A., Santos-Hatchett, S. L., Pratt, C., & Jaddo, L. (2011). Women faculty of color: Voices, gender, and the expression of our multiple identities within academia. Advancing Women in Leadership, 31, 166. McLaren, P. (2015). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. Routledge. Morgan, B. (2010). Fostering conceptual roles for change: Identity and agency in ESEA teacher preparation. Kritika Kultura, (15). Motha, S., & Varghese, M. M. (2016). Rewriting dominant narratives of the academy: women faculty of color and identity management. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1-15. Musanti, S. I., & Pence, L. (2010). Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking resistance, constructing knowledge, and navigating identities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1), 73-89. National Center for Education Statistics (2018).The Condition of Education 2016(NCES 2016-144), shorturl.at/zADK1 Núñez, A. M., Murakami, E. T., & Gonzales, L. D. (2015). Weaving authenticity and legitimacy: Latina faculty peer mentoring. New Directions for Higher Education, 2015(171), 87-96. Olivant, K. F. (2015). “I am not a format”: Teachers’ experiences with fostering creativity in the era of accountability. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29(1), 115-129. Pawan, F., & Craig, D. A. (2011). ESL and content area teacher responses to discussions on English language learner instruction. TESOL Journal, 2(3), 293-311. Picca, L. H., & Feagin, J. R. (2007).Two-faced racism: Whites in the backstage and frontstage. New York, NY: Routledge. Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8, 15-34. Ruiz Soto, A. G., Hooker, S., & Batalova, J. (2015). States and districts with the highest number and share of English language learners. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Sánchez-Suzuki Colegrove, K., & Zúñiga, C. E. (2018). Finding and enacting agency: An elementary ESL teacher’s perception of teaching and learning in the era of standardized testing.International Multilingual Research Journal, 12(3), 188-202. Schleppegrell, M., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2006). An integrated language and content approach for history teachers.J ournal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(4), 254-268. Staehr Fenner, D. (2014). Advocating for English learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Varghese, M. M., & Stritikus, T. (2005). “Nadie Me Dijó [Nobody Told Me]” Language Policy Negotiation and Implications for Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 73-87. Webb, D. (2010). Paulo Freire and ‘the need for a kind of education in hope.Cambridge Journal of Education, 40, 327-339.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p. 33 p.933
Research Going Against the Grain: Advocacy Through Representation, Inclusion, and Teacher Agency Kisha Bryan, Katherine Barko-Alva, Leah Horrell Tennessee State University and William and Mary ABSTRACT This paper highlights the findings of a qualitative study that supports Athanases & de Oliveira’s (2008) suggestion that advocacy must be a pillar of TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education teacher preparation programs. The findings highlight the narratives and meaningful ways in which TESOL/ESL and Bilingual Education teacher educators and professionals describe curricular and programmatic challenges faced while preparing candidates to work with and advocate for English Learners (ELs) and their families. Subversive pedagogical practices of hope (Barko-Alva & Jo, 2016) and transformative resistance (Giroux, 1983; McLaren, 2015) theories are used as frameworks for understanding the ways that teacher educators address the challenges posed by institutional structures.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.32 p.2
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p. 35 p.933
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p. 34 p.933
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p. 36 p.933
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p. 37 p.933
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p. 38 p.933
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p. 39 p.933
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p. 40 p.933
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p. 41 p.933
What is Motivation? Motivation is a concept that is intended to explain one of life’s most elusive questions: why do we do what we do? Implicit in seeking to answer this question is the intention that educators might better understand motivation to encourage student learning (Ginsberg, 2005). Defining motivation as the natural human capacity to direct energy in the pursuit of goals, an undergirding assumption is that human beings are purposeful, and we direct our energy through attention, concentration, and imagination to make sense of our world (Ginsberg, 2005). Therefore, motivation plays a significant role in defining who we are and what we are? It helps us in making our dreams come true and strengthens our existence. It also helps us in building our personality to achieve what we aspire to and want. In particular, motivation helps us in achieving second- language acquisition. What is Culture? Culture can be defined as the webs of significance we spin as human beings: Who we are and how we interact with the world is an intriguing intersection of language, values, beliefs, and behaviors that pervade every aspect of a person’s life, while continually changing and evolving (Ginsberg, 2005). Culture can also be defined more broadly in terms of acquisition of a second language where the term culture becomes “intercultural.” How we view cultural understanding within the language class has evolved from an understanding of the “target culture” toward an understanding of how two different cultures are related (Fenner, 2008). When students internalize a new language and its new culture, they do not work in a vacuum. Indeed, their beliefs, values, and assumptions shape their understanding of themselves and their understanding of others (Kourova & Modianos, 2013). How Cultural Proficiency Enhances Motivation in ESL Learners? Cultural awareness and respect for cultural diversity always enhances motivation in ESL learners. Language learning is a case of learning symbols and systems of codes but is also a matter of developing cultural knowledge and competence. In fact, culture can be viewed as being a feature of language itself (Kramsch, 1993, cited in Fenner, 2008). In terms of cultural proficiency, motivation plays an essential part in enhancing students’ foreign or English as a Second Language learning skills. Motivation arouses students’ interest in learning of a foreign language as they relate often abstract sounds of foreign language to real people and places (Fenner, 2008). Therefore, by applying motivational framework in second- language teaching, we can certainly enhance the language learning and motivate second- language learners for a positive learning outcome. What is Motivational Framework? Motivational Framework integrates vital constructs of motivation from many disciplines. The central tenet of this conceptual framework is that, to support the motivation of all learners, it is necessary to address essential knowledge and skills within a culturally responsive, and intrinsically motivating, pedagogy (Ginsberg, 2005, p. 219). In addition, the motivation framework demystifies the role of culture in teaching and learning, without prescribing lists of learning preferences and teaching approaches for entire student groups (Ginsberg, 2005). Furthermore, the motivational framework is respectful of different cultures and is capable of creating a common culture within a learning situation that all students can accept it. It dynamically combines the essential motivation conditions that are intrinsically motivating for diverse students (Wlodkowski, 1999). Motivational Framework for Culturally Responsive Teaching and how it Enhances Motivation in ESL Learners The motivational framework for culturally responsive teaching is built on principles and structures that tend to be meaningful within and across cultures, and the purpose of motivational framework is to unify teaching practices that elicit the intrinsic motivation of all learners so that educators can consistently design leaning experiences that matter to, and support, the success of all students. In terms of everyday instruction, it seeks to explain how to create compelling and demographic variety of assumptions learning experiences that honor the diverse perspectives, values, and talents that students bring to the classroom (Ginsberg, 2005, p. 221). Therefore, the motivational framework for culturally responsive teaching enhances motivation in ESL learners through four basic conditions that work together to support students’ natural interest in learning: establishing inclusion, developing a positive attitude, enhancing meaning, and engendering competence (Ginsberg, 2005). Although, the motivational framework for culturally responsive teaching includes new teaching strategies for each condition (Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2000), it also serves as a template for recognizing existing strengths in educational practice and providing clues to develop those strengths. In this way, it is respectful of the work that educators are already doing, and it encourages classroom teachers to apply principles of motivation for all students with consistency (Ginsberg, 2005, p.222). The four Motivation Conditions of the Motivational Framework: Establishing INCLUSION Establishing Inclusion refers to principles and practices that contribute to a learning environment in which students and teachers feel respected by, and connected to, one another (Ginsberg, 2005). That means Establishing Inclusion emphasize the human purpose of what is being learned and its relationship to the students’ experience. Also, it shares the ownership of knowing with all students. Furthermore, it collaborates and cooperates with the students and the class assumes a hopeful view of people and their capacity to change. Establishing Inclusion also treats all students equitably (Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995). Strategies for applying INCLUSION in the Class Following are the strategies for applying INCLUSION in the class: a. The teacher should treat all students respectfully. b. Students’ lives and cultures should be represented in the class (Ginsberg, 2005). c. Collaborate and cooperate with the students. d. Treat all students equitably and avoid any kind of discrimination (Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1999). Classroom Activities for INCLUSION a. Collaborative learning approaches b. Cooperative learning c. Writing groups d. Peer-editing teaching e. Multicultural & multidimensional projects f. Focus groups and reframing A work sample of Focus groups and reframing in the author’s class teaching collaborative group activities has been added below: Part 1 Part 2 Developing a Positive ATTITUDE Developing a positive attitude refers to principles and practices that contribute to, through personal and cultural relevance and through choice, a favorable disposition towards learning (Ginsberg, 2005). Meaning that, as second language teachers, we have to incorporate teaching and learning activities in our lesson plans based on students’ previous knowledge or experiences. We can also encourage students to make choices in content and assessment methods based on their experiences, cultural values, needs, and strengths. Strategies for Applying Positive ATTITUDE in the Classes Following are the strategies for applying positive attitude in the class: a. Classes should be taught with students’ experiences, concerns or interests in mind. b. Students should make choices related to learning that include experiences, values, needs, and strengths. c. Students are able to voice their opinions in the class (Wloodkowski & Ginsberg, 1999). Classroom Activities for Positive ATTITUDE a. Clear learning goals b. Problem-solving goals c. Experimental learning d. Fair and clear criteria for evaluation, such as good feedback e. Learning contracts or activities which promote students’ interests and experiences Enhancing MEANING Enhancing meaning refers to challenging and engaging learning. This condition expands and strengthens learning in a way that matters to students and builds their identities as valued civic participants (Ginsberg, 2015). The broader purpose of this concept is that the teacher should provide challenging learning experiences involving higher-order thinking skills. She should also address relevant, real-world or current issues in an action-oriented manner in the classroom. Strategies for Applying Enhancing MEANING in the Classes a. Active participation in challenging ways. b. Questions that go beyond facts and encourage different points of view. c. Teacher builds on what students know. d. Teacher respectfully encourages high-quality responses or higher order thinking skills. e. Teacher should encourage or incorporate student dialect into classroom dialogue (Wloodkowski & Ginsberg, 2005) Classroom Activities for Enhancing MEANING a. Projects based on critical thinking and critical questioning techniques b. Assignments based on experimental inquiry techniques c.Case-study methods Engendering COMPETENCE Engendering competence refers to principles and practices that help students to be effective at what they value, authentically identifying what they know and can do, and linking them to a hopeful future (Ginsberg, 2005). The teacher can connect assessment process to students’ world, frames of reference and what they value, and by doing so, she can beautifully connect the students to a better future. Strategies for Applying Engendering COMPETENCE in the Classes a. Clear criteria for student success b. Grading policies fair to all c. Performance and demonstrations with real world connections d. Encourage self- assessment (Wloodkowski & Ginsberg, 2005) Classroom Activities for Engendering COMPETENCE a. Feedback/Peer-feedback b. Authentic assessment c. Portfolios and process-folios d. Self-assessment/ Self-reflection e. Tests and testing A work sample of Feedback/Peer-Feedback in one of author’s writing class has been videoed and the link added below: Peer-Feedback Conclusion Thus, after exploring culturally responsive teaching in her classes through the four components of Motivational Framework, the author realized that it is one of the best tools for motivating students. The different teaching strategies from the four components can be applied beautifully in all ESL levels: listening, speaking, reading, and writing classes. After using Motivational Framework in her classes, the author highly recommends it to other ESL educators to utilize it in their classrooms. To prove this theory in practice the author has added some interesting class assignments from her own classes in the appendix which she has created based on the four aspects of Motivational Framework: Inclusion, Attitude, Meaning, and Competence. References Fenner, A. (2008). Cultural Awareness in the Foreign Language Classroom. In Cenoz, J. and Hornberger, N. (E.Ds.).Encyclopedia of language and Education.Vol. 6, pp. 273-285 Ginsberg. B Margery (2005).Cultural Diversity, Motivation, and Differentiation,Theory Into Practice, 44(3), pp. 218-225 Kourova, Alla and Modianos, Doan (2013). Inter-cultural Awareness and its Role in Enriching Students’ Communicative Competence.The International HETL Review,Special Issue 2013, pp. 60-70 Wlodkowski & Ginsberg (1995). A Framework for Culturally Responsive Teaching, Educational Leadership,September, pp. 17- 21 Wlodkowski J. Raymond (1999) Part One: Motivation and Diversity: A Framework for Teaching,New Directions For Teaching And Learning,no. 78, Summer 1999 Appendices All appendices can be access through this link: click here.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p. 43 p.933
Pedagogy Cultural Proficiency in Terms of Enhancing ESL Learners’ Motivational Level! Sangeeta Johri Hillsborough Community College ABSTRACT This research-based article explores the benefits of Motivational Framework for Culturally Responsive Teaching in Higher Education. To support her study, the author explains how she has experimented and utilized the Motivational Framework in her classes while teaching English as a Second Language to her students from diverse cultural backgrounds. The author highlights the four different aspects of Motivational Framework such as, Inclusion, Attitude, Meaning, and Competence. She also highlights different strategies and activities which she has used in her own classes based on Motivational Framework.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p. 42 p.933
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.44
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.45
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.46
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.47
Book Launch SSTESOL Conference Friday 13th Nov. 2020
* Do You have an Idea for a Book? ** Do You have a Curriculum Resource Worth Publishing? *** Do You have your own Teaching Materials you Want to Sell? Guidelines: click here Submit Your Ideas!
Pedagogy The Importance of Interactive Learning for ESOL Students in General K-12 Classrooms Sonia Velazquez and Soonhyang Kim University of North Florida ABSTRACT K-12 teachers can use multiple methods in order to incorporate more time during content instruction for ESOL students to practice conversing in English and interacting with their peers. Understanding Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), Krashen’s Theory of Second Language Acquisition, Long’s Interaction Hypothesis, and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) will help K-12 teachers recognize the importance of incorporating interactive learning opportunities into K-12 lesson plans. The objective of this paper is to improve the ability of K-12 teachers to better serve their ESOL student population through the understanding and implementation of interactive learning strategies. Evidence for interactive learning is presented, followed by specific techniques and examples that may be implemented in the classroom.
Introduction Interactive learning is a pedagogical approach where time is allocated towards socializing and engaging in face-to-face conversations. This can be an important component of language development for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) students. There are methods K-12 general education teachers can use and modifications that can be incorporated into lesson plans that can increase the amount of time that ESOL students interact with their peers. The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the importance of implementing interactive teaching strategies into daily K-12 lesson plans. ESOL students enrolled in K-12 classes can benefit from the implementation of interactive activities. Interactive activities that incorporate opportunities for social exchanges within the lesson plans enhance the language production skills of ESOL students and provide access to authentic and natural English language use (Krashen, 1976; Long, 1981; Spada, 1985; Van den Branden, 2007). During face-to-face interactions, ESOL students simultaneously receive and interpret non-scripted English language colloquialisms. This type of exposure to the language is vital for developing an understanding of how the language is used in real-time and in an authentic context. More commonly, K-12 teachers tend to emphasize teaching the rules of the English language with a strong emphasis on correct grammar and sentence structure. This time to practice using the language through interactions with peers is just as important, if not more so, as time spent explicitly addressing the rules of the language (Krashen, 1976).While learning about these concepts is important for language development, providing ample time throughout class lessons for ESOL students to practice their knowledge of the language with their peers is a vital component that will facilitate ESOL students in connecting what they have learned about the English language with what say and hear during conversations. Literature Related to Interactive Learning ESOL students in K-12 classrooms need opportunities to practice developing their listening skills (their ability to absorb language input) and speaking skills (their ability to produce language output). K-12 teachers can help ESOL students develop their listening and speaking abilities by first understanding the literature behind interactive learning and language acquisition. This paper utilizes and explains English as a Second Language teaching methods and language hypotheses that can be used to create and modify lesson plans that incorporate regular occurrences of interactive learning into general K-12 classroom lessons. These include (a) Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) (Canale & Swain, 1980), which emphasizes types of lessons that facilitate interactive learning, (b) Stephen Krashen's (1976)Theory of Second Language Acquisition and Michael Long's (1996) Interaction Hypothesis, which explain the underlying frameworks for why interactive learning is an effective method for developing language acquisition, and lastly (c) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) by Lev Vygotsky (1978), which provides methods of coaching teachers on how to gauge and accommodate students' language development during interactive learning. By using these theories and hypothesis, teachers can help ESOL students build their language input and output skills through social interactions with their classmates. Communicative Language Teaching CLT is an instructional approach that is "designed to engage learners in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes" (Brown, 2014, p. 236). The philosophy behind CLT is that it gives priority to making communication the focus of the activity. ESOL students build their language skills by actively engaging in naturalistic and unrehearsed conversations (Engkent, 1986). Learning colloquial English helps ESOL students understand the way the English language works and what to can be expected of it in most common casual conversation settings (Engkent, 1986). Instead of receiving formal instruction that explicitly states how to produce and translate meaning, ESOL students who engage in CLT activities, such as role playing, discussions, and free-talking, experience the language first-hand and learn through the process of negotiating back and forth to learn how to interpret and create meaning. Providing frequent opportunities for ESOL students to negotiate for meaning during interactive language development activities allows them more time to practice engaging in authentic conversations and to learn from their exchanges with their peers/teachers. Theory of Second Language Acquisition Stephen Krashen’s (1976) Theory of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) includes his Acquisition Learning Hypothesis which differentiates between an ESOL student’s learned system and acquired system. In the learned system, formal instruction is used to develop conscious learning about the rules and functions of the language (e.g. grammar rules, form and function, syntax, etc.). In contrast, in the acquired system, the ESOL student learns the language informally through engaging in meaningful interactions and communicating naturally, similar to how one acquires his/her first language. In the acquired system, the formal rules of the language are not emphasized. Instead, the focus of the learning experience is based on the communication of meaning (Pica, 1983). Krashen's (1976) Theory of SLA also includes the Input Hypothesis which explains that L2 acquisition occurs when one is exposed to language input that is comprehensible and containsi+ 1. Krashen's Input Hypothesis definesi+ 1 as language input that is comprehensible for the ESOL student but also includes aspects of the language that are just beyond the proficiency level of the student. When working with ESOL students, it is beneficial for the student if the teacher attempts to locate the students’ level of comprehension and creates and/or modifies activities that are a little bit beyond the students’ language capabilities. Understanding this concept of language acquisition and makingaccommodations for ESOL students will benefit the learning experience and language development of ESOL students. Interaction Hypothesis Long's (1996) Interaction Hypothesis stems from similar concepts as Krashen's hypotheses. Long (1996) states that comprehensible input is important for language learning, and he also emphasizes the importance of face-to-face interactions. During face-to-face interactions, ESOL students negotiate for meaning, and this promotes language acquisition (Long, 1996). When practicing conversational skills, ESOL students utilize trial and error and implement various communicative strategies to develop their ability in order to interact authentically in the target language. K-12 teachers who regularly incorporate conversational opportunities within classroom activities can make the process of understanding language input more comprehensible and the process of producing language output more fluid and accessible for ESOL students (Long, 1996). Zone of Proximal Development Brown (2014) describes Lev Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) as the "distance between learners' existing developmental state and their potential development" (p. 13). K-12 teachers can use knowledge about ZPD to gauge the location of where their ESOL students are located in regard to their language proficiency. A student's ZPD is the developmental level where the student can complete a task with minimal assistance from the teacher. When an ESOL student is given a task that is too simple in relation to his or her own ZPD, developmental progress does not occur because the task is too easily achievable. Likewise, when a task is too far beyond the abilities of the ESOL student, developmental progress does not occur either because he or she will rely too heavily on support to accomplish the task. Therefore, K-12 teachers need to support ESOL student interactions by creating and modifying activities that are within each student's ZPD. Teaching Strategies and Example Activities for Incorporating Interactive Learning Strategies Once K-12 teachers understand the theories/hypotheses behind interactive learning and language acquisition, they can move forward to utilize and discover methods for implementing interactive learning activities into K-12 general education classes. To begin, K-12 teachers can increase the amount of time ESOL students engage in interactive learning activities. They can provide more opportunities for interactive learning by incorporating more group work, interviews, and free talking discussions. Additionally, integrating more interactive games and role-playing activities into course lessons can boost the amount of time students spend engaging in conversations with each other.Prompting students with open-ended questions during group/partner activities will help the students to engage in back-and-forth, face-to-face interactions. The interactive activities will not only help to further develop the content knowledge of the K-12 general curriculum; they will also provide opportunities for ESOL students to practice their language input and output skills and meet their language proficiency goals. Examples In order to visualize interactive teaching strategies that can be implemented into K-12 curriculum, this paper offers some example activities that can be used and/or modified. For the first example, in an activity where students are learning about different types of occupations, two students take turns describing features about themselves and guessing who/what they are based on the descriptors used. Once the two students have finished taking turns guessing each other’s occupations, two more students would move to the front of the class and to continue the activity until each student in the class has had a chance to describe their occupation and guess the occupation of the other student. For students in older grades, this type of activity could be used to describe famous historical figures, characters from literature, or other individuals that can be identified through the use of descriptive vocabulary. Another example activity could be used for learning about how to develop an argument during a lesson on debating or creating an argumentative essay. Students would be given strips of paper with phrases such as “In my opinion,” or “I understand your point,” and they would be assigned a partner or small group to discuss disputed topics where each student defends a point of view on the chosen subject. The last example could be used with many different types of content lessons. Divide the classroom into two large groups and then pair the students within each group. Create strips of paper with questions on them that are based on the content area they are learning. Each pair of students discusses their assigned questions. Once they have answered each other’s question, they rejoin with the large group and recall the answer that was given by their partner to the group. This will help the students to recall and repeat the information that they absorbed during their interaction with their partner. Conclusion The purpose of this paper is to inform K-12 teachers about why interactive teaching strategies are important for developing ESOL student language abilities while also building content knowledge. Additionally, this paper provides some ideas and examples for how to incorporate more opportunities for interactive learning in K-12 classrooms. There are many different ways that interactive learning can take place for all content areas. This paper provides a small glimpse into the kinds of possibilities that can be modified and incorporated into K-12 instruction. The overall focus of this paper is to emphasize the importance of face-to-face interactions between ESOL students and their peers to K-12 teachers. References Brown, H.D. (2014). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education, Inc. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing.Applied Linguistics,1(1), 1-47.doi:10.1093/applin/i.1.1. Engkent, P. (1986). Real people don't talk like books: teaching colloquial English.TESL Canada Journal, 3, 225-234. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v3i0.1007 Krashen, S. D. (1976). Formal and informal linguistic environments in language acquisition andlanguage learning.TESOL Quarterly, 157-168. Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second‐language acquisition.Annals of the New Yorkacademy of sciences,379(1), 259-278. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Handbook of second language acquisition,2(2), 413-468. Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions ofexposure.Language learning,33(4), 465-497. Spada, N. M. (1985). Effects of the informal contact on learners L2 proficiency: a review of five studies.TESL Canada Journal, 2(2), 51-62. Van den Branden, K. (2007). Second language education: practice in perfect learning conditions. Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 161-179. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processesCambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.48
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.49 p.2
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.50 p.2
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.51 p.2
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.53
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.52
Submission Deadline for the Spring 2021 Issue of SSTESOL Journal is March 1st, 2021
SSTESOL Presidential Initiative DID YOU KNOW? Here are some of the recent developments and resources for you and your ESOL Programs. Featured Resource: New! SSTESOL President’s Initiative: SSTESOL Book Club We are thrilled to launch a new professional resource called the SSTESOL Book Club (SBC) for English language educators, school leaders, and administrators. The SBC offers a collection of recommended reading list centered on techniques and strategies, public policy issues, innovative and best practices in the field, or humor and food for thought. Examples of recommended Summer Book List form your SSTESOL Board Members are: • García and Kleifgen, (2018). Educating Emergent Bilinguals: Policies, Programs, and Practices for English Language Learners. Kleyn and García (in The Handbook of TESOL in K-12, 1st edition by Luciana de Oliveira), 2019. • Translanguaging as an Act of Transformation: Restructuring Teaching and Learning for Emergent Bilingual Students You can find the Summer Book Club Reading List here. https://drive.google.com/…/1d9HxWllGFtAtei1jygeSWYhxv…/view… The American Psychological Association has resources for families about the changing role of today’s father. https://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/changing-father…
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.55
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.54
Stay in touch with Sunshine State TESOL. Visit our website at: https://sunshinestatetesol.wildapricot.org/
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.57
LINKS TO PRACTICE Re-Imagining the Role of the Teacher as a Translanguaging Facilitator Catherine Baucom and Kayla Devenburg Duval County Public Schools 1) Presentation Overview This presentation demonstrates and explains the need for translanguaging as an underutilized instructional strategy and social justice tool. Participants practice hands-on applications that can be used in their own classrooms. 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? K-12 and higher ed ESOL instructors will benefit from application of this presentation. The concept of translanguaging is introduced and demonstrated through an activity in Russian, requiring participants to use content knowledge in the L1 to decipher meaning in the L2, showing the possible thought process of ELLs. The presentation provides ideas for incorporating translanguaging while activating prior knowledge, during instruction, and as a part of assessment. Using videos in the L1 on a content area topic is one method modeled for building background on a topic that can be extended by having students brainstorm questions in the L1 or English. Also modeled as a strategy during instruction, teachers may have students read in English, but conduct discussion in the L1 before producing responses in English. Other techniques for translanguaging in the classroom include focusing on cognates, multilingual vocabulary journals, student reflection on language development, two-way translation, and syntactic comparison of languages. Link to Handouts here.
LINKS TO PRACTICE Task Design in the Hospitality English Curriculum: Considerations and Implementation Jacob Rieker and Madelyn Diller Pennsylvania State University, University of Central Florida 1) Presentation Overview The presentation elaborates on how two ESP practitioners developed contextualized curricula for the hospitality industry using Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT). In particular, two theory-informed task design taxonomies were discussed with respect to how these principles were implemented in three model tasks featured in the presenters’ Hospitality English courses. By drawing salient connections between the TBLT literature and the communicative demands of Hospitality English, the presentation demonstrates how principled task design is one way that second language practitioners can move toward theoretically-informed practice responsive to the professional and linguistic needs of adult learners in Workplace English contexts. 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 the presentation are ESP practitioners and, more broadly speaking, teachers looking to infuse TBLT into their courses by means of principled, theory-informed task design. ●TBLT allows learners and teachers to frame communication as a process of achieving language functions, such as making requests and giving directions, as compared to the internalization of abstracted forms divorced from meaning and real-world use. ●TBLT provides ESP practitioners with actionable tools to develop context-driven curricula that mirror the communicative needs of the workplace. ●Theory-informed tasks reflect a primary focus on achieving language functions through an exchange of information mediated by the current linguistic resources of the learner. Link to Handouts here.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.56
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.59
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.58
LINKS TO PRACTICE Teaching Reporting Verbs for Source Incorporation in ESL Composition Classes jun Zhao Augusta University 1) Presentation Overview This presentation introduces a pedagogical trial of teaching reporting verbs for source incorporation to help ESL college student writers understand the dialogic nature of writing. The functions of reporting verbs are emphasized, and genre approach of modeling, joint construction and independent construction are adopted in the teaching cycle. 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? Our presentation applies to ESL instructors who teach English writing for academic purposes. One major challenge of students using sources in writing is their lack of understanding of how sources interact with each other and with their own ideas, and how to make use of sources to serve their own purposes. This teaching trial aims to help students understand this important function of integrating sources for their own writing purposes. Practically, reporting verbs are taught beyond the forms, from a functional perspective, to help students understand the different stances of reporting verbs (positive, negative and neutral) and degrees of commitment (strong, medium and weak). For example, many novice student writers tend to choose the neutral reporting verb “X writes that …”. In my teaching, I provided different reporting verbs such as “X challenges/concurs/believes/ explains/doubts/examines…” to invite students to think about the differences of X’s attitudes and strength of commitment to the quoted idea. This was an “aha” moment for many students to see how sources could be better represented, and how they might put sources to talk to each other. Secondly, I offered various scaffolds in this learning trial. To start, the whole class studied several short readings to understand different author stances on a controversial issue they would write about. In the modeling stage, using those reading materials, I illustrated how reporting verbs could be effectively used at the sentence and paragraph level to better represent the interaction of sources in writing. In the joint construction stage, students were encouraged to work in groups to choose different reporting verbs for sentences or ideas to be used in their writing, and revise sentences containing ineffective reporting verbs both at the sentence and paragraph level. When students could better use those reporting verbs, they then worked independently on their own writing, focusing on source incorporation. The comparison of reporting verb usage in their writings proves the effectiveness of this teaching trial once students understand the dialogic nature of source use in writing.
LINKS TO PRACTICE Let’s Get Writing: Using L1 as a Transitional Tool Lucy Belomoina Illinois State University 1) Presentation Overview Learning to write in English often presents the greatest challenge for beginning and intermediate ELL students. Research in second language writing emphasizes the importance of ELL students’ writing backgrounds as an important resource rather than a hindrance in learning to write in English. The transitional model of writing development suggests that ELL students use their first language as a means of developing their voices in writing, to explore topics and ideas, to freewrite, or to work on their initial drafts. According to the transitional model, ELL students’ native language serves as a transfer mechanism and helps further develop newly gained writing skills in English. This presentation offers effective strategies on how to teach ELL students writing skills using L1 as a transitional tool. As a non-native writer, the presenter also shares her insights on L1 use in second language writing development. 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 the presentation are ESL/EFL teachers and beginning ad intermediate ESL/EFL students. 1.If you have a student who speaks the writer’s language, ask that student to be a translator (reward the translator with an extra credit). The struggling writer writes in their native language, and the helper translates the text. Write down the translation and have the writer read it. This way teachers can use students’ writing to teach them English language skills by teaching them to read their own writing (rewritten in English). 2. Have your students turn their native language writing into picture-stories with English captions. Such picture-writing activity has proven to help teachers discover the vocabulary and language skills ELL writers need in order to express themselves. 3. Have your student write their initial draft in their native language in order to develop the ideas about the topic, express their thoughts, emotions, and identity.
LINKS TO PRACTICE What Makes a Task a Task? Debunking TBLT Myths Ana Clara Sánchez & Gabriel Obando Universidad de Nariño at Pasto, Colombia 1) Presentation Overview Task-based language teaching (TBLT)intends to overcome the associated limitations of traditional methods (e.g., lack of clarity, focus on procedures rather than on empirically-based principles) (Ellis et. al, 2019).Despite growing interest on TBLT, some fuzzy areas need to be addressed. Current literature provides straightforward features of tasks, and clarifies ambiguity, which can be a good first step in getting acquainted with TBLT, and deciding about its suitability for a certain context. 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 suggestions for instructors? This presentation is intended for foreign language teachers who need to be aware of the nuances of implementing any methodological approach The theory-based parameters introduced in the workshop might help teachers identify whether their classroom activities are tasks or not. Additionally, knowing more about task-features can be useful in adapting existing activities and making them more meaning-based, connected to real-world needs and conducive to communication. Finally, having a side-by-side comparison of how tasks and activities are different might be helpful in discussing with colleagues to which extent tasks can be implemented in the foreign language classroom. Informed decisions can also be made in order to keep a balance between activities and tasks depending on learners’ needs, and the context where teaching and learning take place. Tasks that teachers could adapt and use according to the age, focus of the class, time availability, and learner proficiency include: finding information about a new classmate, getting directions to a place in the city, making decisions about a school trip, booking a hotel, finding information about movie times, deciding what present to buy for a teacher, and exchanging information to solve a real-life problem. Link to Handout.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.61
LINKS TO PRACTICE Nearpod: Engaging, Interactive Presentations for ESL and Foreign Language Classrooms Jennifer Rives & Chizuru Imase University of South Florida 1) Presentation Overview Our presentation introduced ESL and FL educators to Nearpod, a user-friendly, interactive presentation platform that engages students in content area and language skill learning. 2) What are the links to practice? What are the ‘take aways’ for teachers, and practical examples, ideas, suggestions for instructors? Referencing the 6 Principles for Exemplary Teaching of English Learners, our presentation directly relates to Principle 2 (create conditions for language learning), Principle 3 (design high-quality lessons for language development) and Principle 5 (monitor and assess student language development). Nearpod helps create conditions for language learning by enhancing and supporting students’ motivation. Its collaborative activities allow students to share their ideas and demonstrate their understanding at their own pace and in their own way, giving them a feeling of ownership over their learning. Tied into both Principles 2 and 3 is Nearpod’s ability to provide comprehensible input and scaffolding to learners to promote perception and understanding. Visual aids, multimedia support, embedded explanations, virtual field trips, collaborative discussion boards, interactive polls, drawing and matching activities, games, and embedded content presentations in Sway are all built into the Nearpod platform and can be used in presentations to scaffold learners for comprehensibility and provide explanations and modeling. Colleagues can openly share their feedback on strategies and techniques for using Nearpod presentations to integrate content area and language skill instruction across all proficiency levels. Nearpod instantly collects learner data on a variety of assessment-related features as students participate in Nearpod presentations. Nearpod instantly displays the number of students who have answered questions correctly and incorrectly . When teachers see this data, they can review or reteach the material while it is in students’ working memory to reduce the likelihood of fossilization and promote acquisition of accurate forms. Nearpod can also be used to incorporate test-like tasks that familiarizes learners with the types of formats and tasks they may encounter when taking standardized assessments. At the end of a presentation, data displaying the whole class’ and individual students’ levels of accuracy and participation can be accessed to make assessing students’ language development and mastery of course objectives simple and straightforward. This data can be accessed any time after the presentation and can be downloaded and shared with colleagues. After reviewing this data, teachers can reach out to students individually to provide ongoing, personalized, and private feedback on specific activities and target forms in a timely manner. In these ways, Nearpod presentations can form the basis of an entire lesson plan that aligns with TESOL’s 6 Principlesfor Exemplary Teaching of ELs. Links to Handouts.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.60
LINKS TO PRACTICE Prescriptive or Powerful: Recall of Parallel Structures and Implications for ELs Nicole Amare University of Southb Alabama 1) Presentation Overview No empirical evidence exists to support parallelism as superior to nonparallel constructions in improving text recall and retainability. A study was conducted to compare syntactical parallelism in block paragraphs with visual parallelism. In an online writing course, 130 students responded to passages were a mixture of visually parallel (white space) and nonparallel as well as syntactically parallel prose vs. nonparallel or four sets total:(V+, P+), (V+, P-), (V-, P+), (V-, P-).Recall and comprehension were not enhanced by syntactically or visually parallel text, but results indicate that parallel and nonparallel texts have distinct emotional effects on readers. 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 suggestions for instructors? The findings are significant for ELs and EL teachers because the aesthetics of some nonparallel texts may be preferred over that of syntactically parallel texts. Unlike what current grammar books and online writing guides teach about parallelism, results of this study show that syntactically parallel text instruction may not always be the recommended default in EL instruction. We need an essential re-evaluation of what constitutes text effectiveness with a greater emphasis on emotional responses to parallel or nonparallel structures as opposed to “right or wrong” rules. For example, EL students can be taught that nonparallelism is sometimes emotionally preferred by readers as opposed to lockstep parallel structures. A résumé, for instance, may not need every verb to be grammatically parallel in job duty bulleted lists if (1) the purpose of altering the verb conjugation is for effective emphasis, not distraction; (2) the bulleted list is already set off by sufficient, symmetrical space (visually parallel); and (3) the list is not overly syntactically parallel (i.e., 20 base form verbs in a row), causing the list to be ignored (reader gloss—see handout). Click here for Handout.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.62
LINKS TO PRACTICE One-pagers for Developing Literacy with STEM Content Emily A. Thrush and Teresa Dalle University of Memphis 1) Presentation Overview The one-pager is a way that students not only demonstrate their comprehension of information but think deeply about a text in order to produce a single page of “sketchnotes to represent its most important aspects”(www.weareteachers.com). Just as an infographic provides graphic information in a way that presents data quickly and clearly using a visual, the one-pager uses visuals and texts in a symbiotic relationship. Students improve cognitive skills as they use both graphics and texts to explain what can be difficult technical material. 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 suggestions for instructors? This is primarily for Classroom Teachers Pre-K to 12th as well as ESL teachers working with content-area teachers. Students can create one-pages with a combination of words and graphics to review and show comprehension of class material, or create a one-pager based on a video or other non-textual source to develop their background knowledge prior to reading complex texts. For the teacher, the one-pager provides a means of authentic assessment at a glance.For the student, it provides a means of developing literacy skills and autonomy.One-pagers allow for differentiation, with less proficient students using mostly visuals to demonstrate comprehension, while more fluent students can write words, sentences and paragraphs, including the vocabulary of the content-area. One-pages can include quotations, drawings or pasted visuals from online sources, personal reflections, questions and answers, and creativity in color and design. Many teachers have found it helpful to give students templates to guide their creation of the one-pager.See resources on the PowerPoint.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.63
LINKS TO PRACTICE Empowering ESL Student Writing through the Flipped Grammar Classroom Sydney Jones University of South Alabama 1) Presentation Overview Does the Flipped Grammar Classroom increase ESL students’ writing complexity or collaborative opportunities in an English for Academic Purposes program? I show how students with less proficiency in this classroom have opportunities to learn from more proficient students. This collaboration amongst students of varying proficiencies seems to suggest that ESL students in a flipped grammar classroom, such as the one at USA , could have more complex writing than students in a non-flipped grammar 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 suggestions for instructors? EAP program/IEP teachers who are using the flipped grammar classroom or who are interested in using the flipped grammar classroom would benefit most from this presentation. 1. Teachers who already are using the flipped classroom model to teach grammar could consider allowing students of multiple proficiencies to work on homework together during class. 2. Teachers who do not use a flipped classroom but are interested in trying the flipped classroom could have flipped weeks where students watch lectures at home and come to class with questions to try out the flipped classroom method.
LINKS TO PRACTICE Empowering Prospective EFL Teachers to Have a Successful Teaching Experience in Korea HwanHee Song, Miranda Peters, Julie Johnson, and Lauren Bankert Steif University of North Florida 1) Presentation Overview Due to globalization, teachers now desire to teach English abroad more than ever. South Korea is one of the countries that many prospective EFL teachers consider since it has a high demand for foreign English teachers. South Korea is a good choice for EFL teachers due to its’ well-established foreign English teacher communities, various hiring programs, and many benefits. For example, an EFL teacher can find a position through EPIK, GEPIK, SMOE, and TaLK programs at K-12 schools. While teaching in Korea, EFL teachers may also have the opportunity to teach in a wide range of settings including universities and private academy, Hagwon. In order to teach English abroad, EFL teachers must meet the general requirement and provide necessary documents. In the presentation, explicit details and information related to teaching abroad in South Korea were discussed. 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 suggestions for instructors? Benefits • Competitive salary, airfare, free housing, national medical insurance, pension, and more. • Exposure to Korean culture, people, and food General Requirement • Native English speaker or native like fluency • Minimum of AA, AS • TEFL/TESL/TESOL certificate preferred • Mental and physical health with clean criminal background Key Tips and Strategies • Network! • Understand south Korean culture • Seek out and join social media groups to gather information • Research the prospective school & location • Establish relationships with other EFL teachers
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.64
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.65
LINKS TO PRACTICE Pronunciation Bootcamp: Empowering Teachers Lewis Malamed and Michelle Snider Intensive English Program, Valencia College West Campus 1) Presentation Overview This interactive workshop offers ESL/EFL teachers an opportunity to review the basic elements of English pronunciation. The aim of the workshop is to empower all English language teachers to make effective choices in the teaching of pronunciation, especially features of stress, voicing, and intonation. 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 suggestions for instructors? This workshop aims to support all language teachers in recognizing and responding to the needs of students with common pronunciation problems. The purpose of this workshop is to provide teachers with practical and effective methods of addressing students’ pronunciation problems. Topics covered in the workshop include the following: •identifying problems with consonants (stops, fricatives, and affricates) •using minimal pairs to isolate individual sounds The takeaways are the following: •interactive, hands-on pronunciation activities •improved understanding of pronunciation basics •resources for teachers Workshop participants have the opportunity to practice activities and share teaching techniques during this workshop, which can be reconfigured to focus on other aspects of pronunciation. Click here for Handout.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.66
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.67
LINKS TO PRACTICE Growing Through Reflection: Practical Strategies for Guided Reflection in the Classroom Justin Crandal and Sarah Flaniken English Language Program at the University of North Florida 1) Presentation Overview The presentation offers strategies for ESL instructors who want to incorporate reflection into their lessons to help promote student engagement, comprehension, and retention. 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 suggestions for instructors? The primary beneficiary of the practical application of this presentation is the instructor of English Language Learners, across multiple levels and subjects. English Language Learners also benefit from the strategies provided in the presentation. Strategy #1: Clear the Cobwebs For this simple warm-up strategy,students work with a partner and reflect as they “think aloud” about a particular topic. For example, students spend 2 minutes, “clearing the cobwebs” with a partner, 2 minutes reviewing their notes, and 2 minutes scanning the textbook. This strategy can be used as a daily warm-up or before an assessment. Strategy #2: Try it again, with a friend! For this post-assessment reflection strategy, students work in pairs to retake a test and review topics. Students can retake the whole assessment or a specific section they struggled with on the first attempt. Students articulate thought processes, self-correct, and increase confidence in the learning process. Strategy #3: Full-Circle For this reflection strategy, students retake the original diagnostic assessment at the end of the semester/course. Students analyze both assessments and answer reflection questions. This strategy enables instructors and students to see their progress while increasing students’ confidence. Instructors can also identify errors students continue to make. Strategy #4: Writing Reflection: Language Logs For this writing reflection strategy, students identify specific writing errors, self-correct, and reflect to promote comprehension. This type of reflection also promotes self-directed learning. Strategy #5: Post-Writing Discussion For this strategy, students reflect on their writing after receiving feedback from the instructor. Students answer reflection questions to ensure they understand the instructor’s comments and learn from their mistakes.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.68
LINKS TO PRACTICE Turning Students into Reflective Learners: Utilizing Audio Learning Journals Ying Xiong University of Central Florida 1) Presentation Overview This presentation demonstrates how audio learning journals can be used by instructors teaching face-to-face courses in a technology-assisted environment to encourage reflective practices amongst students. It provides guidance on how to set up audio learning journals as a simple add-on to existing curricula to promote reflective learning, develop speaking skills, build rapport with students, and gather their feedback. 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 suggestions for instructors? This presentation benefits any instructors intending to encourage reflective practice amongst students. Reflective practiceshelp guide students from surface to deep learning. Itengages learners cognitively and emotionally to process and act upon the information, to synthesize and evaluate, and to apply what they have learned to contexts beyond the original situations (Costa & Kallick, 2008; Hutchings & Wutzorff, 1988).It alsoallows students to step back from their learning experience to think critically and improve on future performance by analyzing their experience. Engaging students in reflective learning is important yet it requires explicit guidance for it to be effective. When using audio learning journals to encourage reflective learning, here are a few suggestions to consider: •explain the concept of audio learning journal well and set specific requirements •consider your students’ proficiency levels •Build and customize reflection questions •Allow certain level of freedom •Listen to the students with an open heart •Provide comments and feedback •Make student feel heard •Make adjustments to your teaching according to students’ feedback Please see the PowerPoint Slides for more information on and examples of audio learning journals.
LINKS TO PRACTICE Using Digital Technologies for Assessment and Feedback Cristiane Vicentini University of Miami 1) Presentation Overview This presentation included practical tips and examples of digital technology tools (mobile apps, Web 2.0 tools, and extensions) that can be utilized by teachers for student evaluation and individualized feedback. 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 suggestions for instructors? Teachers and Teacher educators are the primary beneficiaries. Mobile and Web 2.0 tools not only afford learning to take place ‘anytime, anywhere,’ but also enable teachers to offer more personalized feedback in formats that suit different learners (e.g., video annotations, voice memos, online comments, etc.). Take Aways: When integrating digital technology in their assessment and feedback practices, teachers can encourage student engagement in a variety of literacy practices, which in turn increase motivation and learner autonomy. * Padlet: This is an online virtual bulletin board that enables interactive collaboration and sharing of content. Users can upload files from their computer, post links to websites, images, videos, GIFs, link posts to other padlets, among many other features. Access this padlet link for demonstration videos and links to the other tools in the presentation: tinyurl.com/SETESOL19 * Kaizena:This is a feedback tool designed for Google Docs. It enables teachers and students to post and reply to voice comments, which creates a more authentic experience for feedback. The tool also allows teachers to (i) set up rubrics and save templates for future use; (ii) track skills and see progress over time; (iii) create or use the tool’s built-in lessons to attach explanations or save their own videos, voice, and/or text commonly used comments as lessons for fast feedback. * Thinglink: This is a tool that allows users to turn any image into an interactive experience. Users create ‘hot spots’ on parts of the image by uploading videos, recording audio, or providing any link on the web. * Voki:This tool allows users to create a talking avatar which can be used for a variety of purposes. Click on the padlet link to see an example of how I used Voki to assign spelling practice for ESOL students. * Vocaroo:This is a free online audio recording creator which allows users to easily share their recordings via blogs, social media, email, or even embed them in Padlet boards or Thinglinks. Once your recording is done, simply click on ‘share’ and your recording is ready. For more information and ideas on how to use Vocaroo, check the padlet link.
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.69
Click here for : Emerald Coast TESOL Northeast Florida TESOL Bay Area TESOL Central Florida TESOL Palm Beach TESOL Broward County TESOL Miami-Dade TESOL Southwest TESOL
SSTESOL Affiliate Chapters
THANKS TO OUR 2019 SOUTHEAST REGIONAL CONFERENCE SPONSORS
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.71
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.70
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.73
• If you were not able to attend the ESL Library webinar, ESL Library is offering SSTESOL members a two-month complimentary subscription until June 30, 2020. You still have time to claim this offer. If interested, please send your request with your email address to Dr. Arlene Costello at sstesol@gmail.com, and on the subject line please write ESL subscription. Funding Opportunities Charting a Course for Economic Mobility and Responsible Parenting The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Child Support Enforcement is accepting applications for its newest grant, Charting a Course for Economic Mobility and Responsible Parenting. Eligible applicants will develop interventions to educate teens and young adults about the financial, legal, and emotional responsibilities of parenthood. The target populations for the three-year projects are teens and young adults ages 13–25, including unmarried parents and those who have not yet started families. Applications must be submitted throughgrants.govby June 29, 2020. https://ami.grantsolutions.gov/HHS-2020-ACF-OCSE-FD-1832… Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program The National Science Foundation’s Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program seeks to encourage talented STEM majors and professionals to become K–12 STEM teachers. The current solicitation invites creative and innovative proposals from institutions that address the critical need for recruiting and preparing highly effective elementary and secondary science and mathematics teachers in high-need local educational agencies. Visit the program’s recently updated frequently asked questions (FAQs) page. Applications are due August 25, 2020. https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp… Remember, SSTESOL is here for you, and we will continue to help address challenges and obstacles that you encounter to meet the needs of diverse learners.
Reminders
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.72
NOTES
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p.75
SSTESOL Journal Volume 13 Issue 1, Spring / Summer, 2020 p. 74 p.963
SUMMER 2019
SUNSHINE TESOL JOURNAL