incorporating english language teaching through science for k-2 teachers

Incorporating English Language Teaching ThroughScience for K-2 Teachers

Therese Shanahan • Lauren M. Shea

Published online: 4 April 2012

� The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2012

Abstract English learners are faced with the dual challenge of acquiring English

while learning academic content through the medium of the new language (Lee et al. in J

Res Sci Teach 45(6):726–747, 2008; Stoddart et al. in J Res Sci Teach 39(8):664–687,

2002) and therefore need specific accommodations to achieve in both English and the

content areas. Teachers require higher quality and new forms of professional develop-

ment to learn and meet the needs of their students. This study examines the impact of one

professional development model that explicitly embedded language learning strategies

into science inquiry lessons. It also demonstrates how teachers involved in the PD

program improve their self-efficacy about language instruction embedded in content and

how they interpret and implement the methodology.

Keywords Science teaching � Professional development �Language and content-based teacher learning

Introduction

Most of the approximately 1.6 million English learners (ELs) in K-12 education in

California are taught by mainstream teachers in English-only classrooms (California

State Department of Education, 2008). English learners are faced with the dual

challenge of acquiring English while learning academic content through the medium

of the new language ( Lee et al. 2008; Stoddart et al. 2002) and therefore need

specific accommodations to achieve in both English and the content areas.

T. Shanahan (&) � L. M. Shea (&)

Center for Educational Partnerships, University of California, Irvine, 441 Social Science Tower,

Irvine, CA 92697-2505, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

L. M. Shea

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Sci Teacher Educ (2012) 23:407–428

DOI 10.1007/s10972-012-9276-1

Unfortunately, the majority of teachers who are responsible for the academic

success of EL students do not have the breadth of pedagogical preparedness to

ensure student achievement (Stoddart et al. 2002).

Since most teacher education and in-service professional development (PD)

programs either specialize in content area instruction or second language

instruction, many teachers do not have professional development opportunities to

gather information and learn strategies for teaching students to facilitate their

acquisition of language and content simultaneously. This hinders student and

teacher learning because learning about language is most meaningful when it

happens in context (Gibbons 2002). Teachers require higher quality and new forms

of professional development to learn and meet the needs of their students.

This study aims to demonstrate how one professional development methodology

increased teacher learning in the integration of language and content strategies. It

also attempts to show how teachers involved in the PD program improved their self-

efficacy about language instruction embedded in content and how they interpret and

implement the methodology.

Theoretical Background

Traditional methods of professional development, more commonly known as one-

shot workshops, have typically failed in regard to improvements in teacher learning

and practice (Loucks-Horsley et al. 1998). Usually short in length, directed by

outside experts, and unrelated to current curricular goals, this type of PD has failed

to facilitate teacher learning or a professional connection to the experience. In

response, researchers have sought to identify specific traits of professional

development that are associated with teacher learning and positive shifts in

practice. Several significant studies guide the field in conceptualizing the

characteristics that make professional development effective.

Garet et al. (2001) identify three components of effective teacher professional

development based on a study of over one thousand teachers who participated in

Eisenhower grant funded opportunities. These features were associated with the

largest impact on teachers’ self-reported increase in knowledge, improvement in

skills, and changes in classroom practices. The authors claim that effective

professional development should have (1) a focus on content knowledge, (2)

opportunities for active learning (through the form of the activity and collective

participation), and (3) an extended duration. These are currently recognized by

professional development designers as crucial for successful implementation.

Hawley and Valli (1999) conceptualize eight principles of effective professional

development based on numerous studies of teacher professional development

programs. The authors posit that PD should be (1) based on student learning goals

and performance, (2) school based, (3) continuous and supported, (4) information

rich, (5) focused on theoretical understanding, and (6) based on a comprehensive

change process. It also should involve (7) teacher input, and (8) teacher

collaborative problem solving. These eight essentials encompass the three features

408 T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea

123

concluded by Garet et al., supposing that any program that achieves all eight would

have great promise of attaining its goals.

The Onset Year of a Professional Development Program

Garet et al. (2001) and Hawley and Valli’s (1999) frames provided the teacher

learning theoretical groundwork for the creation of a professional development

program for K-2 mainstream teachers in a district with a high English learner

population. Additionally, to attempt to increase teachers’ efficacy in the teaching,

Bandura’s (1997) four stages of self-efficacy were influential in its design.

A Southern California University-based Center obtained grant funding to work

with the high EL, low SES school district for 3 years. This study discusses the first

2 years of the study. The directors at the center had a long-standing partnership of

approximately 20 years with the district, making for a collaborative environment.

All of the members of the center’s PD team had previous K-12 teaching and

research experience. In designing the PD program for this grant, the following

components were incorporated and implemented to reflect the conclusions made by

Garet et al. and Hawley and Valli:

1. Learning was based on student learning goals and performance in terms of the

CA state math and science content standards for grades K-2, using the district’s

curriculum guides to determine which standards would be taught at each PD

session.

2. The sessions were school-based in that teams of teachers from seventeen

schools in the district were invited to participate.

3. The PD was continuous throughout the academic year with workshops at

evening dinner meetings, Saturday mini-conferences, and summer content

institutes. It supported teachers by providing them with classroom materials to

teach the lessons modeled in each session.

4. The PD sessions were information rich in that they incorporated real world

connections to the science being taught. Connections to other curricular areas

such as language arts and math were made, as well.

5. Each PD session, whether during the evening dinner meetings, Saturday mini-

conferences or summer content institute, focused on theoretical understandingwith accessible research articles related to classroom strategies for participants

to read and discuss collaboratively.

6. The PD was based on a comprehensive change process beginning with team

building and relationship making followed by sharing of lessons with grade-

level teams at the school sites.

7. Teacher input provided feedback to the teacher-leaders after each session and

gave focus to the leadership team in making decisions about content to be

presented. Over the course of the program, teachers shared their experiences

with science implementation that further guided how the teacher-leaders

facilitated the subsequent sessions.

Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers 409

123

8. Teacher collaborative problem solving occurred in professional learning

community conversations at Saturday mini-conferences as teachers read and

discussed professional articles about school and classroom practice.

Table 1 shows the components of the PD program which aligned to current

theories of professional development as presented in Garet et al. (2001) and Hawley

and Valli (1999).

In the first year of the program, 68 classroom teachers attended a week-long

summer institute, and then monthly trainings throughout the academic year in which

they participated in, reflected upon, and discussed modeled math and science

lessons according to their grade-level curricula. In each workshop, selected, highly

qualified classroom teachers, who served as teacher-leaders, demonstrated science

and math lessons in the 5E lesson planning model format of Engage, Explore,

Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate (Bybee 1997).

Following Bandura’s (1997) model through these multiple sample lessons,

participants actively participated as students in a lesson enacted by a teacher-leader

who was chosen as master teacher and was currently teaching in the specified grade

level. These master teachers had participated in a previous 5-year National Science

Foundation grant to create a regional cohort of professional development providers.

Although they were classroom teachers in other districts, they taught children from

similar backgrounds as those in the district in this study. Classroom observations showed

that these teachers were adept at teaching math and science lessons in their own

classrooms, so they were chosen to lead the professional development in this study.

After engaging in the grade-level appropriate lesson, the participants in this study

had a 15-min conversation about teacher practice and brainstormed how they could

incorporate the lesson with their own students and what challenges they or their

students could have in the lesson. This meeting time aligned with Bandura’s vicariousexperiences. When returning to their school sites, participants shared with colleagues

about their own experiences in participation and enactment of these science strategies,

which furthered social persuasion and positive reinforcement. They then taught the

lesson to their own students which provided them with mastery experiences. Lastly,

the project encouraged teachers to gain an identity of an effective science teacher and

Table 1 Theoretical framework for professional development

PD components Hawley and Valli (1999) Garet et al. (2001)

Student learning goals and performance X

School based X X

Continuous and supported X X

Information rich X X

Focused on theoretical understanding X X

Comprehensive change process X

Teacher input X

Teacher collaborative problem solving X X

Comparison of Garet et al. (2001) and Hawley and Valli (1999) theoretical frameworks upon which the

professional development program discussed in this paper were based


123

PD participant, positively influencing their emotional state. A goal of the first year of

the program was to determine whether the implementation of a PD model based on

both Bandura’s and Hawley and Valli’s theoretical frameworks could produce

teachers who learn and implement the strategies taught, while creating a stronger sense

of teacher efficacy in teaching the content.

At the end of this first year of implementation, research revealed promising

science content–related results with participants showing a significant increase in

their physical science content knowledge as measured by a pre-/post-test. However,

results suggested that the teacher-participants needed more overt focus on language

learning strategies. Since science is a natural environment where discussion and

learning go hand-in-hand, the science professional development director decided to

incorporate an oral language learning component (referred to in the rest of this

paper as ‘‘student-talk’’ strategies) to their lessons to help their teacher-participants

support the learning needs of their students. This paper reports on the impact on

teacher implementation, teacher perception of learning gains, and teacher efficacy

after the second year of the PD, when student-talk was added to the program.

Why Student-Talk? The Benefits of Student-Talk in Science

During the stages of language acquisition, producing language provides significant

learning opportunities. In the Vygotskian view, language is constructed by

interaction with others (Williams and Veomett 2007). Using the target language

assists in gathering, transforming, organizing, and reorganizing the learners’

knowledge of the language (Fillmore 1991). It is critical that ELs have many

chances to express themselves while acquiring English because speaking allows

students to process language more deeply than simply listening (Swain and Lapkin

1995). Speaking allows individuals to negotiate meaning and adjust their language

to make it comprehensible to their audience (Hill and Flynn 2006). In addition, oral

English proficiency is of crucial importance for younger individuals because it is

associated with early literacy skills (August and Shanahan 2006; Snow 1999).

Stronger oral language skills tend to be associated with gaining access to literacy

skills (Spira et al. 2005). Subsequently, early literacy skills translate to more

successful academic experiences.

In science, the ‘‘conceptual is the linguistic where language is the primary

medium through which scientific concepts are understood, constructed, and

expressed’’ (Bialystok 2008, p. 109). Students engaged in extended science

discourse in a reduced-anxiety environment are provided opportunities to construct

knowledge, while promoting the repetition of key content words or phrases, use of

functional context-relevant speech, and rich feedback (Kagan 1995; Snow and

Kurland 1996). When students talk about science with other students and with the

teacher, they make sense of their own thinking, listen to the ideas of others, become

aware of multiple perspectives, re-think their own ideas, are able to evaluate

another’s ideas, and frame their own ideas before writing (Worth 2008). To develop

their own understanding of academic words, students need to actively use words and

explore in language-rich classrooms that focus not only on content but also on


123

learning vocabulary (Fathman and Crowther 2006). According to Stoddart et al.

(2002), there is a natural synergy between science and language that provides

opportunities for student understanding of science content and language beyond

what could be learned separately. In other words, the integration of the two is

greater than the sum of its parts.

Integrating Science and Student-Talk in the Second Yearof the Professional Development

The second year of the professional development focused on how science lessons

can include multiple and expanded opportunities for all students to produce oral

language. By using academic student-talk strategies from the district’s current

English Language Development curriculum, the science director, a graduate

student researcher (a former bilingual teacher and current doctoral student in

language and literacy), and master teacher-leaders worked together to create

lessons that integrated student-talk opportunities in each of the 5Es. These student-

talk strategies supported concept development while providing students with

opportunities for relevant, meaningful academic talk. The second year of the

program now had new goals of increasing oral language development through self-

expression, interaction skills, proper use of language structures, and vocabulary

development.

These student-talk strategies supported continuous assessment because students

were usually placed in dyads or trios, creating a more effective forum for teachers to

check for understanding, assess progress, and appropriately adjust their level of

instructional speech. Since these mainstream, K-2 teacher-participants taught

students at various levels of language proficiency integrated in their classrooms,

these strategies provided teachers the ability to differentiate the responses expected

given the language acquisition level of their students. The student-talk strategies

that were incorporated into the science lessons can be found in ‘‘Appendix 1’’. An

example of their use in a lesson is shown in Fig. 1.

The incorporation of science and student-talk strategies in the second year

impacted several of the overarching goals from Hawley and Valli. Teacher input in

regard to their students’ science and language learning goals and performanceultimately led to the change in the program. By focusing on why and how student-

talk strategies can improve students’ literacy development, the PD program

enhanced the foci of providing information rich and theoretical content.

In the second year of the PD program, teacher-participants attended monthly

workshops in the new model. Teacher-leaders continued to demonstrate their

science lessons in the 5E lesson planning model format; however, in each stage of

the model, Engage, Explore, Explain, Evaluate, and Elaborate, the lessons featured

multiple opportunities for students to relevantly talk in groups or pairs. As a teacher-

leader was about to implement a specific student-talk strategy, he/she paused to

explain the cognitive, linguistic, and social benefits of student oral language

production. For example, in a Three-way interview student-talk strategy (see

‘‘Appendix 1’’ for example of student-talk strategies), teacher-leaders stressed that


123

every student in the lesson had opportunities to use scientific language, ask scientific

questions, and listen to peer responses. The teacher-leader would contrast the

quality and quantity of oral language to more traditional whole class reporting so

participants could interpret the value of using this strategy. Teacher-participants

engaged in the lessons as students, being given many opportunities to use oral

language in science. In other words, second-grade teachers collaboratively

participated as second-grade students in science and student-talk lessons.

Fig. 1 Example from the engage component in a 2nd Grade Lesson on Sound. Numbers represent thesequence of the lesson. Script connotes the student-talk components of the lesson. The italicized fontrepresents student oral language production


123

Figure 1 shows the engage component of a PD implemented, second-grade lesson on

sound that incorporates student-talk. When a similar lesson was enacted by teacher-

leaders in the first year, prior model, the teacher would question the whole class and then

one or two students would respond. The underlined text denotes the additions made to

include student-talk strategies for this current year of study. This example shows how

every student is required to share language and content with peers. The teacher models

potential English structures and vocabulary to scaffold student responses. Note how

much more language and different exploratory ideas come from the sample student

responses when the teacher supplants whole-class questioning with student-talk

strategies. This provides even early English Learners with an opportunity to participate.

When a student participates in his/her home language, this provides the teacher and other

students opportunities to connect the vocabulary knowledge to the target language.

Additionally, because each student participates orally and uses language, the teacher can

assess conceptual understanding through use of the home and/or target language.

The science component of the PD program implemented the student-talk

integrations. The math PD directors did not implement this integration in their

program. Teacher-participants only learned about student-talk integration and its

benefits with science, which consisted of half of the workshop time. The total

possible hours of time spent on student-talk methodology integration over the

course of the year were 18 h.

To determine the effectiveness of the student-talk and science integrated model, a

year-long mixed-methods research study was completed.

Research Design

The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to examine the impact that a PD

model based on Bandura and Hawley and Valli’s work, and incorporating science

and language development had on both teachers’ practices and on their perceptions

of their own and student learning. More specifically, the following research

questions guided the work:

1. After explicit modeling and overt discussion of student-talk strategies, do

teacher-participants who attend 75 % or more of the PD program increase their

implementation of academic student-talk in their K-2 classrooms compared to

other teacher-participants who attend less than 75 %?

2. What perceptions do teachers have about their learning gains in relation to the

integration of student-talk and science?

3. How did the PD program increase teacher efficacy in relation to science and

language teaching?

Teacher-participants agreed to have the researchers visit their classrooms to

conduct classroom observations to attempt to answer research question 1 both

quantitatively and qualitatively. Research questions two and three were answered by

participant interviews using qualitative methods. Each is described in greater detail

below.


123

Participants

The professional development involved 68 K-2 classroom teachers from this low

performing school district all of whom self-selected to participate. Their ethnicities,

ages, preparation, and teaching experience varied widely. About half of the K-2

teachers had prior participation in previous center-sponsored professional develop-

ment programs. Participants had diverse experiences in language acquisition training.

Observation Participants

This specific study looked at the shifts in classroom practice of 21 randomly

selected teachers, of the 68 participants, to determine the impact of the ‘‘content and

student-talk’’ learning environment on teachers’ learning. The 21 teachers

participated in classroom observations that will be discussed in greater detail

below. These included nine kindergarten, four 1st grade, and twelve 2nd-grade

teachers. Their average participation was 72 % of the total possible number of PD

hours offered. Eleven of these teacher-participants engaged in 75 % or more of the

program PD hours and 10 engaged in less than 75 % of the total PD offered.

Interview Participants

The researchers chose six teachers to serve as interview participants. These six were

selected out of the 21 based on their participation rates, their grade level, and

varying shifts in student-talk implementation from fall to spring of the year of this

study. The six second-grade teachers averaged 84.3 % attendance, with a range of

33–100 %. Four of the six teachers were observed to increase their use of student-

talk strategies in science, 1 teacher had no significant change, and 1 decreased use of

the student-talk strategies. Because second graders are tested by the state in science,

the researchers chose second-grade teachers with the hope of a future study to relate

teacher perception to actual student performance. This subsample was as diverse as

the full population, including 1 man and 5 women (equivalent to the 1:5 male–

female ratio in the full group). Teachers’ classroom experience ranged from 7 to

15 years. These six teachers included four English language learners and two native

English speakers. For this study, the interview component attempted to uncover how

and why participants enacted student-talk strategies in content lessons.

Each of the data sources collected for this study is described in more detail below.

Observations

The 21 teacher-participants were randomly selected to take part in two classroom

observations. The first took place in the fall (November), after two workshops had been

offered. The second took place in the spring (early June) after all possible workshops

had been offered. Teachers independently chose a 30–60 min math or science lesson

to enact while the observer was present. Because of the realities of current elementary

school climate where math and language arts are predominantly taught, with less

emphasis on science instruction, the subject and the length of the lesson was

determined by the teachers and usually varied by grade level.


123

At each observation, researchers sought to determine whether teachers imple-

mented the student-talk strategies into their content lessons. Because the observed

teachers chose the time and date of the researchers’ visits, the content of the lesson

was not as important to the study as was the integration of the strategies into a

lesson. For the majority of the observations, the content area in the fall was different

from the content area in the spring. For example, only 19 % of teachers were

observed implementing science lessons at both observation points.

Researchers collected a variety of data at each observation. First, extensive field

notes provided a qualitative look at multiple aspects of the classroom environment.

Second, the peer classroom observation protocol (PCOP) was designed, tested, and

utilized for the purposes of recording specific strategies used by teachers to promote

content and language learning. This tool is described below and can be found in

‘‘Appendix 2’’.

Peer Classroom Observation Protocol (PCOP)

Designed by the center’s science directors, this protocol aligned with the four broad

English learner standards for the state of California as they apply to content-based

learning: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The tool allowed the observer to

document occurrences of receptive and expressive language through the teachers’ use

of research-based language learning strategies, such as student-to-student discussion,

students listening to teacher, students working in groups, teacher’s use of realia, and

teacher’s use of manipulatives (Chamot and O’Malley 1994; Echevarria et al. 2000;

Herrell 2000). It contained strategies and tools used by teachers and descriptions of

student involvement aligned in 5-min increments. This tool allowed observers to

measure the total percentage of instances of strategies that occurred during lessons.

More specifically for this study, the tool gave observers the opportunity to record

instances during the 5-min increments when teachers used strategies that promoted

student-talk. For analytical purposes, the PCOP scores later allowed for quantitative

analysis in determining differences in amount of strategy use. (See ‘‘Appendix 2’’.)

Use of the PCOP provided data to quantitatively measure change in practice and

strategy use. Each of the 21 participants had fall and spring scores, giving them fall

student-talk percentages and spring student-talk percentages. Two researchers

achieved reliability in the PCOP by completing seven observations together in the

fall and debriefing. In conjunction, this tool and the field notes provided a more

thorough perspective of the teacher’s pedagogy and classroom environment.

Interviews

Based on shifts in classroom observation scores, six second-grade teachers were

selected as interview participants. These teachers participated in one semi-

structured interview lasting approximately 30 min and taking place at the end of

the PD program. Questions probed for perceived shifts in teacher knowledge,

implementation strategies, and student learning. Teachers were asked to comment

on various aspects of the professional development in relation to their learning or

practice changes. The goal was to look deeper into teacher perceptions of how and


123

why their scores shifted in relation to the professional development. The questions

that provided a starting point for conversation in the interview are included in

‘‘Appendix 3’’.

Analysis

Several forms of analysis were utilized in this mixed-methods study. Linear

regressions were completed for data collected from the 21 teacher observations

using the percentages from the PCOP. The six interviews from the 2nd grade

subsample were analyzed using grounded theory. All interpretations and coding

for these data were member checked with members of the center’s PD team and

with a faculty member at the Southern California university associated with the

center.

Linear Modeling

To answer the first research question regarding shifts in teacher implementation,

aggregate data from the PCOP protocol were utilized in linear modeling to

determine shifts in fall to spring scores. Two variables, students discussing withstudents and students working in groups, contributed to a latent variable renamed

Student-Talk, which was used in the analyses. Teachers’ PD attendance hours

divided by the total possible hours created an attendance percentage variable.

Those participants with less than 75 % attendance were considered low attendance,

and those with greater than 75 % attendance were high attendance. In the group of

21 randomly selected teachers for the observational component of the study, ten

teachers had low attendance and 11 had high. A threshold model allowed

comparison in student-talk implementation between groups.

To estimate the potential associations between percentage of professional

development geared toward integrating student-talk and content to outcomes, a

linear regression was used. Two separate models estimated the true value of the

student-talk outcomes at the spring observation. The first model estimated the

outcome with only participation hours as the independent variable. The second

model estimated outcomes controlling for the participants’ score at the fall

observation.

Grounded Theory

Researchers utilized a grounded theory approach with all qualitative data. The

fall and spring observational field notes and interview data were checked for

instances and descriptions of student-talk. Similar dimensions of teacher learning,

practice, and efficacy were grouped together. As patterns emerged, researchers

examined them in relation to the research questions. By constantly comparing the

teachers’ comments to their PCOP scores and to relevant literature, the study

attempted to uncover the underlying themes of teacher learning, practice change,

and efficacy improvement (Dick 2005; Glaser and Strauss 1967). Once results

were interpreted, the results from the PCOP continued to confirm the teachers’


123

comments. For research question one, in which quantitative and qualitative data

were necessary, a data integration technique was used whereby the PCOP data

and the interview data were merged into a coherent whole (Johnson and

Onwuegbuzie 2004). To ensure valid results, leaders of the center’s PD team and

researchers worked together to check the coding schemes and their relation to the

research questions.

Results

Our study demonstrated several significant results of how a science professional

development program can increase teacher learning, practice, and efficacy in

relation to language learning.

Increased Student-talk

Research question one addressed how participation in the student-talk infused

science lessons related to shifts in implementation. To answer this question,

quantitative data from the PCOP observational tool were utilized. At the beginning of

the year, no significant difference in student-talk implementation was found between

the low participation group and the high participation group. This means the two

groups were relatively similar in regard to their student-talk implementation. Over

the course of the academic year (from the fall observation to the spring observation),

there is significant and positive change in the amount of student-talk that occurred in

the high participation groups’ classrooms. The high participation group has an

increase significant at the p \ .10 level. Most important, however, is that the two

groups become significantly different, with the high participation group making more

substantial gains in student-talk implementation. Table 2 and Fig. 2 show these

results.

Although there were not significant differences in the student-talk scores in the

fall, it was important to assure any insignificant differences were controlled for.

Therefore, the second model measures the increases in student-talk controlling for

teachers’ fall score. Table 3 shows these results. Controlling for the participants’

fall score, the results show a positive, yet insignificant, increase in student-talk score

for those who attended 75 % or more of the professional development.

To determine the practical impact of this model, the effect size (Cohen’s d) was

calculated for the high participation group by dividing the regression coefficient by

the standard deviation of the dependent variable. For those teachers who attended

75% or more of the PD, a large effect size of .64 was determined.

Because this sample size is quite small, the significance does not quite reach

statistical significance (p = .252); however, Allison (1999) has provided evidence

that non-significant coefficients in small samples are inconclusive evidence for the

absence of an effect. Additionally, Hinkle et al. (2003) propose that a statistically

non-significant difference does not preclude practical importance. Therefore, our

best estimates show that the PD model was effective in increasing teachers’ use of

student-talk strategies in math and science lessons.


123

Qualitative results from the field notes not only supported the quantitative

increase observed in student-talk strategies from fall to spring but also showed more

structured and organized implementation. Teachers guided the students to talk more,

expected use of science vocabulary, and modeled academic structures. The students

produced more academic phrases and science vocabulary with their peers.

Additionally, teachers utilized the student-talk strategies just as much in the

observed math lessons as they did in the observed science lessons.

Table 2 Mean scores difference in student-talk for high and low participation

Predictor Mean student-talk

Fall Spring Difference (Spring–Fall)

Low participation hours (\75 %) (N = 10) .275 (.359) .560 (.588) .285 (.111)

High participation hours (C75 %) (N = 11) .563 (.556) .997 (.512) .433? (.228)

Difference (high–low) .288 (.207) .436? (.240)

Standard deviations in parenthesis. Standard errors in italicized parenthesis? p \ .10

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1S

tud

ent

Tal

k

Sco

re

< 75% >= 75%

PD Participation Level

Fall

Spring

Fig. 2 Changes in meanstudent-talk scores. Data fromPCOP rubric comparing changesbetween participation groups

Table 3 Participation and

student-talk fall score regressed

on student-talk spring score

Standard errors in parenthesis? p \ .10

Predictor Student-talk:

fall

Student-talk:

spring

Participation C75 % .497? (.282) .327 (.276)

Student-talk: Fall – .636? (.319)


123

Interview data confirmed that teachers were cognizant of their efforts to

implement the strategies. Teachers reported trying the various techniques to focus

on students’ language production. One teacher reported,

So, it wasn’t like I was pairing them sometimes, I was pairing them all the

time. And moving them around in their grouping. One strategy that they teach

us is having them move around in groups- not just keep the same groups. So,

make it innovative- change it up a little. The kids would get to talk to other

kids that they usually never talk to and they gain language from not just the

same groupings, so it’s always a little bit more language and more discussion.

Teacher Learning

Ball and Cohen (1999) claim that teachers’ knowledge of their students and their

subject matter can increase in the fine details of implementing a lesson. In other

words, teachers can learn as they implement new practices. Sherin (2002) found

that teacher understanding of the content, their pedagogical content knowledge,

and their curricular knowledge can increase as teachers navigate through reform

methodology.

Data showed that the interviewed teachers improved their learning about the

possibilities that science holds in regard to language learning. Due to prolonged

exposure in the professional development and a year of increased implementation,

teachers in the PD were able to understand the value of science and language

integration. While discussing what she learned from the PD program, one second-

grade teacher reported that using the student-talk strategies in science can facilitate

student collaboration and idea sharing:

I realize how much more valuable it is to have them bouncing ideas off each

other. This year, I found that I realized the value of really doing that with them.

As she integrated the student-talk strategies in science, another interviewed

teacher stated that she learned the importance of academic language in inquiry:

I’ve learned that allowing students to use the language that they are trying to

learn in science…was allowing kids to engage and explore and while using

academic language.

These two quotations exemplify teachers’ learning in recognizing the symbiotic

relationship between science and language development. Additionally, we argue

that the greatest learning is shown in the observed increase in student-talk and

science integration.

Teacher Efficacy

Teachers in our study claimed to feel more efficacious in regard to teaching science

and incorporating language teaching through science. Because teachers were

engaged in trainings that focused on Bandura’s four stages, teachers could navigate

their own trajectories. By actively engaging in lessons through vicarious


123

experiences, then sharing their learnings socially, and teaching the lessons in their

own classrooms while continually being encouraged to be a science and language

teacher, the interviewees reported a raised feeling of confidence. One second-grade,

interviewed teacher reported a stronger sense of efficacy when questioned about her

integration of science and language development.

I still need to learn more about the science, but I feel confident. I am confident.

Another teacher demonstrated her increase in efficacy when she discussed her

understanding that students learn better when they actively engage in student to

student talk. She reported that she lectured less, her students improved academ-

ically, and she gained confidence in her new way of teaching.

I think [the PD has] helped me to be a better teacher…Just opening my eyes to

the ways kids learn a little better, a little more, being aware of not teaching

passively and thinking of more active ways to… you know being able to do

things and to make them more interesting for kids instead of just lecturing. I

think I have really improved in that area.

One teacher abandoned her traditional teaching style and promoted active student

to student interactions in her classroom. She reported feeling like a better teacher

because she was able to listen to her students’ explanations of their thinking. Her

confidence increased because the student-talk strategies allowed her to grasp her

students’ conceptual understanding, and then, her new knowledge informed her

instructional decisions.

It has helped [me be a better teacher] because before, like I said, it was just

paper and pencil. Now, I can see more into their thinking. So, if they’re

making mistakes, then I can find tools, such as hands-on or strategies… If

they’re on a test, and they’re guessing right, I would never know that they had

no idea of place value, because they didn’t tell me how they got their answer.

They just bubbled in or circled or saw on another person’s paper that they had

the right answer. And I would think that they know it, but they really don’t

know it because they didn’t tell me, they didn’t have to explain their thinking.

The three interview examples above demonstrate how teachers increased their

confidence in science and language integration due to the accessible student-talk

strategies promoted in the PD program. When teachers feel efficacious, they are

more likely to continue to implement new ways of teaching (Guskey 1988).

Implications

Focus on educational linguistics is an imperative part of professional development

for teachers of second language learners (Snow 1999). The integration of academic

student-talk with science showed to be a powerful technique to train teachers to

combine science content trainings with language development strategies. This

contributes to research in the field of teaching science to diverse learners and on

professional development (Hart and Lee 2003; Lee et al. 2008a, b; Stoddart et al.

2002).


123

The researchers found that teachers can begin to understand the dramatic increase

in student learning derived from the incorporation of language instruction with

science content instruction. This study has implications in the development of future

teaching professional development programs. The increased level of academic

student-talk in the teachers’ classrooms showed that teachers were internalizing

their learnings, able to implement the strategies in science, and transfer their

knowledge and practice to other subject areas. Therefore, the researchers argue that

this approach was valid in enhancing teacher learning and implementation in

science and language learning. Additionally, the researchers suggest that language

integration should be included in critical components of all science professional

development.

Teachers who attended at least 75 % of the PD differed significantly in their use

of student-talk strategies from the fall to the spring compared to their colleagues

who attended less PD. The implication of this finding is that teachers who received

instruction and support throughout the academic year were better able to implement

the strategies modeled by the teacher-leaders. The repeated exposure to lessons with

student-talk strategies resulted in increased use of these strategies.

Once the teacher-participants tried the student-talk strategies and saw the

changes in their students’ language development, the teacher-participants incorpo-

rated the strategies with more confidence and used them regularly throughout their

school day. Teachers implemented these strategies through science lessons during

the classroom observations, but additionally they generalized the strategies to their

math lessons as well. They offered their students opportunities for student–student

talk within math lessons even though these were not part of the math lesson modeled

in PD or found in a textbook. This implies that the strategies are applicable, useful,

and transferable to other content areas.

Lastly, the PCOP observational tool employed in this study effectively captured

the holistic and complex nature of the elementary science classroom. Creation and

use of the PCOP time-on-strategy percentages helped further deconstruct the

lessons, language components, and teacher challenges. This tool gave researchers

and professional development providers a clear picture of the classroom environ-

ment, the instructional strategies used by the teacher, and the participation of the

students. It allowed the researchers to measure teachers’ shifts in practice for

content, language, and content and language integration. Additionally, the

utilization of the PCOP tool helped evaluate the professional development program

and will inform future changes based on needs of the teachers. This observational

tool can assist other researchers, teachers, and administrators to uncover the

implementation processes and results of content-based language teaching and lead

to stronger PD programs and practice.

Acknowledgments This research was supported in part by the California Postsecondary Education

Commission, grant ITQ 07-418.

Appendix 1

See Table 4.


123

Table 4 A sample of student-talk strategies (adapted from Avenues, Hampton-Brown 2007)

Design Description Benefits and purposes

Report to a partner Each student reports his/

her own answer to a peer

The students listen to their

partner’s response.

(‘‘Turn to a partner on

your left.’’ ‘‘Now turn to

a partner on your right’’

etc.)

This allows students to

talk to different students

in the class and gives

each student an

opportunity to share and

listen to various answers

and language structures

Talking one-on-one with a

variety of partners gives

risk free fluency practice

Students practice speaking

and listening

Three-way Interview Students form pairs

Student A interviews

student B about a topic

Partners reverse roles

Student A shares with the

class information from

student B; then student B

shares information from

student A

Interviewing supports

language development in

question formation

Students participate in

speaking and active

listening

This ensures participation

by all students

Numbered Heads Students number off

within each group

Teacher prompts or gives a

directive

Students think individually

about the topic

Groups discuss the topic

so that any member of

the group can report for

the group

Teacher calls a number

and the student from

each group with that

number reports for the

group

Group discussion of topics

provides each student

with language and

concept understanding

Random recitation

provides an opportunity

for evaluation of both

individual and group

progress


123

Appendix 2: Peer Classroom Observation Protocol (PCOP)

Table 4 continued

Design Description Benefits and purposes

Roundtable Teacher seats students in

small groups around

tables

Teacher asks a question

with many possible

answers

Each student around the

table answers the

question a different way

Encouraging elaboration

creates appreciation for

diversity of opinion and

thought

Eliciting multiple answers

enhances language

fluency

Think, Pair, Share Students think about a

topic suggested by the

teacher

Pairs discuss the topic

Teacher strategically

chooses certain students

to individually share

information from their

discussion with the class

The opportunity for self-

talk during the

individual think time

allows for the student to

formulate thoughts

before speaking

Think time allows students

to think about the

concepts and the

language before

producing

Discussion with a partner

reduces performance

anxiety and enhances

understanding

CUSD PEER CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL (PCOP)

Date:____________ Starting Time:__________ Ending Time:___________ Grade Level:___ Class Level: ____

School Name:_____________________________ District:________________ Course Subject:________________

Observed Teacher’s Name:___________________ # of Students:___________ Conducted by:______________

DIRECTIONS

All information recorded on this form should remain confidential.

Use this space to take notes and/or to record teacher talk or student-talk.


123

Observation Category

5 m

in.

10 m

in.

15 m

in.

20 m

in.

25 m

in.

30 m

in.

35 m

in.

40 m

in.

45 m

in.

50 m

in.

55 m

in.

60 m

in.

Type of Classroom Involvement by Students Class Listening to TeacherGroup Listening to Teacher Individual Listening to TeacherStudent(s) Presenting to ClassStudent(s) Asking QuestionsStudent(s) Answering QuestionsStudent(s) Using Kinesthetic MovementClass Discussion w/ TeacherGroup Discussion w/ TeacherIndividual Discussion w/TeacherStudents Discussion w/ StudentsStudents Working IndependentlyStudents Working In GroupsStudents Reading AloudStudents Reading SilentlyStudents WritingStudents Taking an ExamIntended Cognitive Level of TaskMemorization/ ComprehensionSkills/ProceduresConceptsRelational KnowledgeNot applicableLevel of Student Engagement (% of Students Engaged)Low (0%-33%)Moderate (34%-66%)High (67%-100%)Tools Used in ClassroomAudio/visual mediaManipulativesPicturesRealia (real objects)Textbooks WorksheetsOther: _____________________Not applicableStrategies Used by TeachersAdministrative tasks/prep workClassroom managementContext/orienting studentsExplaining Formative assessment Graphic organizers/ visuals Kinesthetic movement LectureListening/checking workModeling/demonstrating/think aloudPositive reinforcementQuestions: Higher orderQuestions: Lower order


123

Appendix 3: Semi-structured Interview Questions

1. Tell me about your experience in the SMILE PD program.

2. What are the most valuable pieces of information that you are learning?

3. Which aspects of the PD are the most useful to you? How are they useful?

4. What do you like about the PD?

5. What strategies have you been able to incorporate into your classroom

teaching?

6. Tell me about the language learning component. What have you taken away

with you about how language development can be integrated with science or

math?

7. This year SMILE tried to incorporate student-talk strategies into the math and

science lessons.

(a) What did you learn from this?

(b) Have you been able to incorporate this in your classroom?

• If so, how?

• If not, why not?

(c) Have you seen any benefits from incorporating more student-talk?

• If so, how?

8. In relation to our visit, we see that you are using XX strategy, let’s talk about

the professional development in relation to XX strategy.

Random selectionReading aloudRephrasingReview

Wrap-up Questions

1. Standard(s) Addressed: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Overview of Lesson: 1) Content focus 2) New material or review 3) Sequence in unit________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________

3. Were the students participating at the cognitive level intended by the lesson(s)? (Circle One) YES NO

Please explain: _______________________________________________________________________

4. Any subject matter content errors? (Circle one) YES NO Please explain:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Classroom learning climate:The physical classroom environment was conducive to student learning. YES NOThe teacher provided appropriate and equitable praise and positive reinforcement. YES NOThe teacher effectively managed classroom behavior. YES NOThe teacher had clearly established routines for instruction. YES NOStudents were courteous and respectful to one another. YES NO


123

9. What course work have you done prior to SMILE in language acquisition or

teaching ELLs?

References

Allison, P. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners (Report of theNational Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based

theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as thelearning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bialystok, E. (2008). Second language learners in the science classroom. In A. Rosebery & B. Warren

(Eds.), Teaching science to English language learners (pp. 107–117). Washington, DC: National

Science Teachers Association.

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

California Department of Education. (2008). DataQuest. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from:

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academiclanguage learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Dick, B. (2005). Grounded Theory: A thumbnail sketch. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from

http://www.scu.edu.as/schools/gem/ar/arp/grounded.html.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2000). Making content comprehensible for English languagelearners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Fathman, A., & Crowther, D. (2006). Teaching English through science and science through English. In

A. Fathman & D. Crowther (Eds.), Science for English language learners: K-12 classroomstrategies. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Fillmore, L. W. (1991). Second language learning in children: A model of language learning in social

context. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing by bilingual children (pp. 49–69). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional

development effective? Results from a nation sample of teachers. American Educational ResearchJournal, 38(4), 915–945.

Garrison, L., & Amaral, O. (2006). Designing and using program-specific instruments. Electronic Journalof Science Education, 11(1). Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://ejse.southwestern.edu.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners inthe mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Guskey, T. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of

instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63–69.

Hampton-Brown, (2007). Avenues. California: Carmel.

Hart, J., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy

achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 475–501.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new

consensus. In L. Darling Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession:Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Herrell, A. L. (2000). Fifty strategies for teaching English language learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Hill, J. D., & Flynn, K. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English language learners.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Hinkle, D.E., Wiersma, W. & Jurs, S.G. (2003). Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (5th ed.).

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has

come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

Kagan, S. (1995). We can talk: Cooperative learning in the elementary ESL classroom. ERIC Document

Reproduction No. ED 382 035.


123

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/

http://www.scu.edu.as/schools/gem/ar/arp/grounded.html

http://ejse.southwestern.edu

Lee, O., Deaktor, R., Enders, C., & Lambert, J. (2008a). Impact of a multiyear professional development

intervention on science achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 726–747.

Lee, O., Lewis, S., Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., & Secada, W. G. (2008b). Urban elementary school

teachers’ knowledge and practices in teaching science to English language learners. ScienceEducation, 92(4), 733–758.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development forteachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sherin, M. (2002). When teaching becomes learning. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 119–150.

Snow, C. (1999). Facilitating language development promotes literacy learning. In L. Eldering & P.

Leseman (Eds.), Effective early education: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 141–162). New York:

Falmer Press.

Snow, C., & Kurland, B. (1996). Sticking to the point: Talk about magnets as a context for engaging in

scientific discourse. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 189–220). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Spira, E., Bracken, S., & Fischel, J. (2005). Predicting improvement after first-grade reading difficulties:

The effects of oral language, emergent literacy, and behavior skills. Developmental Psychology,41(1), 225–234.

Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language

development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8),

664–687.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: At step

towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.

Williams, K., & Veomett, G. (2007). Launching learners in science, pre-K-5. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Worth, K. (2008). Science talk and science writing: A view from the classroom. A presentation given at

the Literacy Institute 2008, National Geographic School Publishing and Literacy Achievement

Research Center.


123

incorporating english language teaching through science for k-2 teachers

Documents

evening dinner

centers pd

cambridge

professional

southern california

effective

language instruction

english language