Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meeting the Challenges of English Learners by Pairing Science and Language Educators

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Learners of English as a new language and the teachers who find these young people in their classrooms face many challenges. For secondary science educators, this is often rooted in a general lack of professional development models for the design and implementation of science/language integrated instruction. To address this issue, the present study examines how participation in a paired professional development initiative with focus on multimodalities impacts teachers’ pedagogical expertise in both language and science learning. We specifically examine the expert understandings and pedagogical skills developed by two teachers, one chemistry, one English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), who co-designed and co-taught science/language integrated lessons. Analysis of the pair’s collaborative processes, resulting lessons, and their reflections on these reveals expertise gained in three main areas: attending to both content and language, seamless integration of multimodal technology, and formative assessment. Implications for the pairing of language and science educators along with roles and impacts of multimodal teaching strategies are discussed. Lastly, a language/content pairing model with emphasis on multimodal teaching strategies is recommended as an effective means for meeting the challenges of linguistically diverse science classrooms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Subject anonymity was assured through the de-identification of all data and pseudonyms employed. The paired teachers’ collaborations throughout the school year were supervised and documented as were three recorded co-planned and co-taught class sessions. Reflections, briefings, and the pairs’ presentation to their peers were also video recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Analysis consisted of continuous coding using an in vivo approach; as tentative codes emerged from the data transcriptions, these were revised and refined as the data were iteratively organized and themed. As cross-cutting themes and patterns developed, the authors worked to foreground the participating teachers’ voices as they told the stories of the paired learning experiences and how these were instantiated in their joint and individual teaching strategies to support ELs.

  2. ELs in focal the co-taught chemistry class had proficiency levels of commanding or expanding (assessed with the NYSITELL, a standardized state test). Like other schools in the state, assessment of ELs’ levels of English proficiency was based on the New Language Arts Progressions. Informed by national and international policies mapping out non-native speakers’ trajectories of linguistic development (Council of Europe 2011; Interagency Language Roundtable 2011; WIDA 2012), this language progression organizes student acquisition of a foreign language in terms of a sequence of five levels of proficiency, namely Entering, Emerging, Transitioning, Expanding, and Commanding (NYSED 2012a, 2012b). Each level identifies a distinct developmental stage in students’ acquisition of a new language (other than the one spoken at home), based on recent research on second language learners and the Framework for English Language Proficiency (Council of Chief State Schools 2012). Higher proficiency levels are characterized in terms of student acquisition of a specific set of receptive skills (listening and reading abilities) and productive skills (speaking and writing).

  3. Project participants met regularly with project staff to review and discuss all aspects of the partnership and its activities. Each pair was responsible for viewing on, reflecting on, and writing a commentary on recordings of the jointly taught classes. These recordings and their commentaries were discussed monthly with the teachers guided by a project staff member. All participating teachers also attended at least one 5-day summer institute where pedagogical strategies were shared through a variety of formats.

  4. An Elmo is a document projection device that can also be used to project three dimensional objects.

References

  • Anstrom, K., & DiCerbo, P. (2011). Advanced literacy in science: Language demands and PD practices. AccELLerate! 2.

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (Vol. 1). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bao, X. (2017). Application of multimodality to teaching reading. English Language and Literature Studies, 7(3), 78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1993). Cognitive load effects in a primary school geometry task. Learning and Instruction, 3, 1–21.

  • Brush, T. A., & Saye, J. W. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1, 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 251–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and the schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, R. (2002). The intersection of language, education, and content: Science instruction for ESL students. The Clearing House, 76(2), 71–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The learning of teaching and learning. London: Heinmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamot, A. U., & O’malley, J. M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 227–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 151–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2013). Multiliteracies: New literacies new learning. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Socially situated views and perspectives (pp. 105–135). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Chief State Schools (2012). Framework for English language proficiency: Development standards corresponding to the common core state standards and the next generation science standards. Washington DC: CCSSO.

  • Council of Europe (2011). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Cadre1_en.asp.

  • Creese, A. (2000). The role of language specialists in disciplinary teaching: In search of a subject? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development., 21(6), 451–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creese, A. (2006). Supporting talk? Partnership teachers in classroom interaction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 434–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.

  • Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the cross fire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (2014). Rethinking pedagogical assumptions in Canadian French immersion programs. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(1), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCapua, A., & Marshall, H.W. (2011). Breaking new ground: Teacher students with limited or interrupted formal education in U.S. secondary schools. Ann Harbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

  • Dong, Y. (2002). Integrating language and content: How three biology teachers work with non-English speaking students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(1), 40–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Retrieved July 24, 2018 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED444379.pdf

  • Gee, J. (2000). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III (pp. 195–207). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Retrieved November 9, 2001, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=handbook/gee/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. (2005). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In R. Yerrick & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 19–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genesee, F. (1994) Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion. Educational Practice Reports. No 11. National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

  • Glass, R., & Oliveira, A. (2014). Science language accommodation in elementary school read-alouds. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 577–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, E. A., & Wong, S. D. (2003). Barriers to literacy for language-minority learners: An argument for change in the literacy education profession. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(5), 386–394.

  • Hamann, E. T., & Reeves, J. (2013). Interrupting the professional schism that allows less successful educational practices with ELLs to persist. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 81–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoare, P., Kong, S., & Bell, J. (2008). Using language objectives to integrate language and content instruction: A case history of planning and implementation challenges. Language and Education, 22, 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2010). Collaboration and co-teaching: Strategies for English learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J. (2004). Socialising ESL students into the discourse of school science through academic writing. Language and Education, 18(2), 97–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Interagency Language Roundtable (2011). Description of proficiency levels. Retrieved from http://www.govtilr.org/Skills/ILRscale1.htm.

  • Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 149–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieffer, M., & Thompson, K. (2018). Hidden progress on multilingual students on NAEP. Educational Researcher, 47(6), 391–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010–1030.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazuruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits of French immersion. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 605–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2006). Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to next generation science standards and with implications for common core state standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llosa, L., Lee, O., Jiang, F., Haas, A., O’Connor, C., Van Booven, C. D., & Kieffer, M. J. (2016). Impact of a large-scale science intervention focused on English language learners. American Educational Research Journal, 53(2), 395–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, E., Bunch, G., & Shaw, J. (2012). Navigating the language demands of an inquiry-based science performance assessment: Classroom challenges and opportunities for English learners. Science Education, 96(4), 631–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 279–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luykx, A., Lee, O., & Edwards, U. (2008). Lost in translation: Negotiating meaning in a beginning ESOL science classroom. Educational Policy, 22(5), 640–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2012). Interaction approach in second language acquisition. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Chichester, UK:Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Manavathu, M., & Zhou, G. (2012). The impact of differentiated instructional materials on English language learner (ELL) students’ comprehension of science laboratory tasks. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 12(4), 334–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Márquez, C., Izquierdo, M., & Espinet, M. (2006). Multimodal science teachers’ discourse in modeling the water cycle. Science Education, 90(2), 202–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, D. (Ed.). (2002). CLIL/EMILE—the European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight. European Commission: Potential Public Services Contract DG EAC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R., & Anderson, R. (1991). Animations need narrations: an experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R., & Anderson, R. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, S. P. (2008). Seeing the science: Professional pedagogical vision for instructional leaders. Catalyst for Change, 35, 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menken, K. (2013). Emergent bilingual students in secondary school: Along the academic language and literacy continuum. Language Teaching, 46, 438–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mensah, F. (2009). Confronting assumptions, biases, and stereotypes in preservice teachers' conceptualizations of science teaching through the use of book club. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1041–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meskill, C. (2005a). Infusing English language learner issues throughout professional educator curricula: The Training All Teachers Project. Teachers College Record, 107, 739–756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meskill, C. (2005b). Triadic scaffolds: Tools for teaching English language learners with computers. Language Learning Technology, 8, 46–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meskill, C., & Mossop, J. (2000). Electronic texts in English to speakers of other languages classrooms. Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages Quarterly, 34, 585–592.

  • Meskill, C., Oliveira, A., Gregory, K., Oliver, G., Reichen, B., & Witmer, P. (2014). Professional development in support of English learner achievement: Science and ESOL educator collaborations. In A Handbook to Implement Educational Programs, Practices, and Policies for English Language Learners, Information Age Press.

  • Mohan, B., & Slater, S. (2006). Examining the theory/practice relation in a high school science register: A functional linguistic perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 302–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, E., Evnitskaya, N., & Ramos-de Robles, S. L. (2017). Teaching and learning science in linguistically diverse classrooms. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1–12.

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • NYSED. (2012a). NYS bilingual common core initiative: Theoretical foundations. Albany NY: EngageNY Retrieved from https://www.engageny.org/file/135506/download/nysbcci-theoretical-foundations.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • NYSED. (2012b). NYS bilingual common core initiative: Teacher’s guide to implement the bilingual common core progressions. Albany NY: EngageNY Retrieved from https://www.engageny.org/file/135511/download/teachers-guide-to-implement-the-bilingual-cc-progressions.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A. W., & Weinburgh, M. (Eds.). (2016a). Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A., & Weinburgh, M. (2016b). Guided visualization: Promoting EL science literacies through images. In L. C. de Oliveira (Ed.), The Common Core State Standards Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technological Subjects for English language learners: Grades 6-12 (pp. 91–106). Alexandria: TESOL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, R., & O’Hara, S. (2016). Framing the teaching of academic language to English learners: A Delphi study of expert consensus. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 418–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 61–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (2014). Science language wanted alive: Through the dialectical/dialogical lens of Vygotsky and the Bakhtin Circle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 1049–1083.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, M., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. Tesol Quarterly, 23, 201–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 664–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvén, L., & Sundqvist, S. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24, 302–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2012). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, M., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychololgy, 119, 176–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 571–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesche, M. (Ed.). (2001). French immersion and content-based language teaching in Canada. Special issue of The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1).

  • Wesche, M. B., & Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative, task-based, and content-based language instruction. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 207–288). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WIDA. (2012). 2012 amplification of the English language development standards: Kindergarten-Grade 12. Madison, WI: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, K., Eslami, Z., McTigue, E., & Reynolds, D. (2015). Picture perfect: Using quality graphics to support English language learners in science class. The Science Teacher, 82, 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S., & Walker, V. (2015). A pedagogical framework for technology integration in ESL classrooms: The promises and challenges of integration. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 24, 179–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported in part by the US Department of Education Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) Program Grant No. T365Z120266.]

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Theory and Practice, University at Albany, State University of New York, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY, 12222, USA

    Carla Meskill & Alandeom W. Oliveira

Authors
  1. Carla Meskill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alandeom W. Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carla Meskill.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Timeline for year-long practitioner partnership

Phase

Proposed dates

Goals/objectives

Deliverables

1. Needs assessment

September–October

- Gather EL student data;

- Teacher schedules with EL information;

- Consider district/building initiatives;

- Evaluate technology available/used;

- Collect samples of student work to support needs assessment

- A collaboratively developed report by science teacher and ESOL specialist

2. Pre-intervention

November–December

- Teachers will co-develop a lesson to be taught;

- Lesson will be video recorded and viewed, and used for reflection.

- Collaboratively developed lesson plan;

- A reflection from each teacher about lesson they viewed vis-à-vis teaching and student learning;

- Samples of student work

3. Intervention I

January–February

- Teachers will co-develop a lesson that includes multimodal strategies to establish, sustain, and advance instructional conversations in science, and purposeful use of technology.

- Collaboratively developed lesson plan;

- Written reflection from each team member;

- Samples of student work to be used as evidence of student learning

4. Intervention II

March–April

- Teachers will co-develop a second lesson that includes multimodal strategies to establish, sustain, and advance instructional conversations in science, and purposeful use of technology.

- Collaboratively developed lesson plan;

- Written reflection from each team member;

- Samples of student work to be used as evidence of student learning

5. Intervention assessment

May

- Evaluate data collected as part of the evaluation of the intervention plan

- Collaboratively written final report (including reflections);

- Student work and/or interviews to support assessment

Appendix 2

Video viewing guide

  1. 1.

    What do you notice? Try to keep yourself from judging what you see. Ask yourself: where in the video do I see that? and what else might those actions mean?

  2. 2.

    What patterns or themes do you see? What do I think is going on? Keep in mind the teacher, students, and the content and the context. Keep asking what other patterns or themes do you see? What else might be going on?

  3. 3.

    Given the patterns you see, what actions/plans do you suggest?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meskill, C., Oliveira, A.W. Meeting the Challenges of English Learners by Pairing Science and Language Educators. Res Sci Educ 49, 1025–1040 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9837-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9837-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation