Collaboration Between ESL and Content Teachers: How Do We Know When We Are Doing It Right?

Abstract

Partnership and the integration of language and content teaching in English-medium schools have long been active areas of research and inquiry in applied linguistics and TESOL. However, most researchers have tended to focus on methods and techniques to use in the classroom or on the analysis of the linguistic demands of the content areas. Much less attention has been paid to researching the process of coplanning and co-teaching and to supporting the evolution of the partnership between ESL and content teachers. This paper draws on questionnaire and interview data collected as part of a school-based professional development initiative in an English-medium school in Asia that focused on developing more collaborative relationships between ESL and content/classroom teachers in a large culturally and linguistically diverse elementary school. The paper begins with an analysis of some of the underlying assumptions in current conceptualisations of effective collaboration between ESL and mainstream/content-area teachers, then presents an emerging framework that draws on teacher talk and critical discourse analysis to describe and evaluate the stages of collaboration and the different levels of its effectiveness. The implications of this research for evaluating approaches to partnership and for setting realistic goals for professional development and institutional change will also be explored.

Catering for EAL/D Students’ Language Needs in Mainstream Classes: Early Childhood Teachers’ Perspectives and Practices in One Australian Setting

“…In this way, collaboration between EAL/D and mainstream teachers can be systematic and mutually beneficial (Davison & Williams, 2001;Leung, 2011;Peercy & Martin-Beltran, 2011;Rushton, 2008). The idea of integrating content and language through teams of experts in schools where this expertise coexists is not new (Arkoudis, 2006;Davison, 2006;Lucas, Villegas & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008). Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been popular for teaching languages other than English (LOTE) in universities in many parts of Europe for some years now, as is other forms of partnership teaching (Creese, 2002).…”

Curricula and pedagogic potentials when educating diverse students in higher education: students’Funds of Knowledgeas a bridge to disciplinary learning

“…Academic Literacies research has explored the nature of power and authority in academic writing, examining meaning-making, identity, and the power invested in particular literacies and discourses (Lea 2008, 231). They have argued that making elite codes explicit in disciplinary learning redresses the inherent power imbalance in privileged academic codes and assumptions that excludes some learners (Lea 2008;Davison 2006). This has led to questioning the prevalent practice of removing 'struggling students' from the discipline to undertake generic 'study skills' in centralised university support services in universities, maintaining that it is the responsibility of all educators to consider the communicative aspects of pedagogic practice (Ivanič et al 2009, 36).…”

A Comparative Analysis of EFL and ESL Program Curricula: Perceptions of U.S. and Turkish Program Directors and Teacher Candidates

“…In addition, this domain advocates promoting instructional environments that value just and equitable resources for English language learners (ELL) in mainstream classrooms (inclusive education) where they have access to the same rigorous and challenging education with their native-speaker peers (Platt, Harper, & Mendoza, 2003;Polat, 2010;Reeves, 2004;Valdes, 2001). Finally, this domain champions collaboration between mainstream and L2 teachers and demands partnerships with external constituencies, parents, and professional communities to support the education of ELLs (Arkoudis, 2006;Crawford, 2004;Creese, 2005;Davison, 2006;De Jong & Harper, 2005).…”