incorporating english language teaching through science for k-2 teachers
TRANSCRIPT
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
410 T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea
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
Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers 411
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
412 T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea
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
Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers 413
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.
414 T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea
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.
Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers 415
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
416 T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea
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’
Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers 417
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.
418 T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea
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)
Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers 419
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
420 T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea
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).
Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers 421
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.
422 T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea
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
Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers 423
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.
424 T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea
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
Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers 425
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
426 T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea
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.
Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers 427
123
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.
428 T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea
123