This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]On: 25 October 2014, At: 17:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Theory Into PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

Developing a Training Program forSecondary Teachers of English LanguageLearners in OhioKaren L. Newman a , Keiko Samimy a & Kathleen Romstedt aa School of Teaching and Learning at The Ohio State UniversityPublished online: 15 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Karen L. Newman , Keiko Samimy & Kathleen Romstedt (2010) Developing aTraining Program for Secondary Teachers of English Language Learners in Ohio, Theory Into Practice,49:2, 152-161, DOI: 10.1080/00405841003641535

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841003641535

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Theory Into Practice, 49:152–161, 2010

Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University

ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online

DOI: 10.1080/00405841003641535

Karen L. NewmanKeiko SamimyKathleen Romstedt

Developing a Training Programfor Secondary Teachers of EnglishLanguage Learners in Ohio

This article addresses a program model de-

veloped to address the professional develop-

ment needs of content teachers who work with

English language learners (ELLs) and offers

recommendations for teachers, administrators,

school districts, state agencies, and institutions

of higher education, to address job-embedded

professional development needs. The model is

based on the authors’ daily work with content

and ESL teachers and administrators throughout

a Midwestern state that has seen recent growth in

ELLs, as well as on findings from the literature

Karen L. Newman is an assistant professor, Keiko

Samimy is a professor, and Kathleen Romstedt is a

clinical educator and M.Ed. program manager, all in

the School of Teaching and Learning at The Ohio State

University.

Correspondence should be addressed to Karen L.

Newman, School of Teaching and Learning, 333 Arps

Hall, 1945 N. High St., The Ohio State University,

Columbus, OH 43210. E-mail: newman.301@osu.edu

and a needs assessment survey they conducted

with content teachers. Teachers cite inadequacy

of current knowledge and services, a need for

specialized professional development, and issues

of accessibility. Therefore, those who wish to en-

courage teacher professional development, create

resources to improve teachers’ ability to deliver

academic content to ELLs, or develop training

programs, must take into account teachers’ needs

vis-à-vis their willingness to engage in profes-

sional development.

THE NUMBER OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE

learners (ELLs) in Ohio’s secondary schools

has been steadily increasing over the last two

decades, with marked increases paralleling na-tional demographic shifts. According to the Ohio

Department of Education’s (ODE) Lau Resource

Center (personal communication) and official

152

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 17:

13 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Newman, Samimy, Romstedt Training Secondary Teachers of English Language Learners

ODE enrollment statistics (2008), in the aca-

demic year 2005–2006, 28,937 ELLs were en-rolled at both the primary and secondary levels,

representing 1.6% of the overall Ohio student

enrollment. In the school year 2006–2007, the

number increased to 31,711, a nearly 10% in-

crease over the previous school year, with ap-proximately 11,000 ELLs enrolled at the sec-

ondary level. This number represents an increase

of 124% over the number reported 10 years

prior, in 1995–1996. Ohio’s ELLs speak over 110

different home languages1 and come from newor established immigrant families (predominantly

from Spanish-speaking countries), secondary mi-

grants to Ohio from other states, migrant agri-

cultural families, and refugees who have sought

legal asylum in the United States, since Ohio

and its capital, Columbus, are designated refugeeresettlement sites.

ELLs bring a wide variety in level and extent

of prior formal educational experiences along

with limited English proficiency, which present

further challenges to helping teachers and stu-dents meet academic standards. The academic

stakes are much higher for ELLs at the secondary

level, because in Ohio, all students must pass the

Ohio Graduation Test to obtain a high school

diploma. Although many Ohio school districts

have designated ESL teachers and programs,most have no program of support for content

teachers to assist ELLs in meeting the state’s

standards of academic achievement. In short,

content teachers have a need for extensive profes-

sional development in pedagogical methods andpractices that have proven efficacy for ELLs.

In our work as teacher educators at Ohio State

University, we are acutely aware of students’ and

teachers’ needs for ESL instruction. Our daily

contact with preservice and in-service contentand ESL teachers, as well as with administrators

in school districts (superintendents, curriculum

directors, ESL specialists), and our research into

teachers’ needs, reveal many core issues. We took

these issues into account as we sought to better

understand and address the training needs of con-tent teachers, and to assist us in working toward

expanding the knowledge base, dispositions, and,

ultimately, the number of teachers qualified to

Figure 1. Application of findings to creation of train-

ing program.

work with ELLs through an in-service teacher

professional development program that we de-

veloped. In this article, we discuss findings from

results from our review of the literature, our pro-fessional intuition, and a needs analysis survey

that we conducted to assess teachers’ needs, and

we address implications for creating in-service

training programs for secondary content teachers

of ELLs, where such training has been lacking.

Developing a Training Program

We developed a training program for in-

service secondary-level teachers through the sup-

port of a $1.5 million U.S. Department of Educa-

tion grant from the Office of English LanguageAcquisition. We attempted to address as many of

the needs that we had documented, with regard

to new and existing resources. Figure 1 offers

a visual representation of how we approached

the creation of our training program. Program

development grew out of our findings from areview of the literature and a needs assessment

survey that we developed, which further informed

the reciprocal interaction of logistics, program

content, and collaboration.

Literature Review

Content and ESL Teacher Collaboration

As part of our interest in understanding teach-

ers’ needs for in-service training programs and

153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 17:

13 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Integrating English Language Learners in Content Classes

applying our findings, we reviewed professional

development models for teacher learning, col-laboration, and partnership to understand con-

temporary issues in ESL teacher professional

development. Professional development typically

consists of in-services or workshops of varying

length, often of the one-shot variety, in which anoutside expert is invited to present information

to teachers on a particular issue or topic. How-

ever, the National Staff Development Council

(2001) has advocated that in-service training be

sustained and continuous, rather than brief anddecontextualized, and promote learning commu-

nities and collaboration. Recognizing the ineffec-

tiveness of top-down models, many programs, in-

stead, incorporate elements of collaborative pro-

fessional development and job-embedded train-

ing into their designs.Furthermore, Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of so-

cial constructivism, along with developments in

cognitive psychology and sociocultural theories

of learning, have played a major role in the shift

from top-down models of education to bottom-up models, whereby learners, through their own

agency, engage in building their knowledge and

skill base. Drawing upon social constructivist

theories, the trainer of trainers model is one form

of staff development that has been successfully

implemented to promote teacher learning. Learn-ing is scaffolded through meaningful, cooperative

activities and the assistance of slightly more

capable peers; a cadre of trained teachers, in turn,

becomes the trainer of other teachers. Calderón

(1990) described the particular effectiveness ofcooperation and collaboration with teachers who

work with ELLs, noting how cooperative learn-

ing assists teachers’ academic and instructional

development, and promotes collaborative and so-

cial skills (particularly coaching, feedback, andsupport techniques), self-esteem, the building of

teacher communities, and increased competen-

cies in decision-making and problem-solving.

Calderón and her colleagues’ (Calderón, 1986;

Calderón & Belker, 1981; Calderón & Cummins,

1982) on-going empirical research has shownthat, in order for teachers to successfully transfer

new knowledge and behaviors into the classroom,

the following elements are necessary: (a) pre-

sentation of research and theory, followed by

(b) extensive modeling and teaching strategies;(c) analysis and discussion of adaptation and

modification of teaching; (d) extensive observa-

tion and practice; (e) guided practice with peer

coaching, feedback, mentoring, and videotaping;

(f) adaptation to curriculum and lesson planning;(g) reflective activities that promote analysis of

one’s own teaching performance and decisions;

and (h) self-directed collaborative study groups

where colleagues continue to refine their practice

(Calderón, 1992). To maximize our success, ourprogram would need to incorporate all eight of

these elements.

Along with the trainer of trainers model,

interdisciplinary collaboration (Benesch, 1988;

Kaufman & Brooks, 1996) offers an additional

model for teaming classroom and content teach-ers with ESL practitioners, whereby mainstream

classroom and content teachers of the various

academic subjects are paired with ESL teach-

ers, who offer support, mentoring, and coach-

ing strategies as these content teachers learn tomodify teaching practices and adapt instruction

and assessment. Wong Fillmore and Snow (2002)

address the need for more of such interdisci-

plinary training for classroom teachers and also

advocate that teachers participate in courses on

language and linguistics, language and diversity,sociolinguistics, and second language learning

and teaching, in order to improve their knowl-

edge base and work effectively with the na-

tion’s diverse students. Newman’s (2005) re-

search indicates that ESL personnel often reportthat elementary classroom and secondary content

teachers are unaware of how to most effectively

collaborate with them, so it was vital for us to

investigate whether and how collaboration exists

among school personnel, in order to work towardbuilding and sustaining communities of practice

(Lave & Wenger, 1991) to meet content area

teachers’ professional development needs within

a research-based framework.

Building collaboration between ESL teachers,

paraprofessionals, and content teachers is indeeda complex issue. A constructivist framework for

collaboration that includes use of techniques and

strategies and/or the training of the participating

154

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 17:

13 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Newman, Samimy, Romstedt Training Secondary Teachers of English Language Learners

teachers has been shown to optimize the positive

effects of teamwork for students (Crandall, 1998;Kaufman & Brooks, 1996; Leung & Franson,

1990; Teemant, Bernhardt, Rodriguez-Munoz, &

Aiello, 2000; Wagner, 2001). But collaboration

without direction has shortcomings. Discursive

analysis studies of classroom talk by ESL andcontent teachers (Davison, 2006; Gardner, 2006)

reveal the existence of inequalities in the relative

status and power of ESL and content teach-

ers. Case studies of collaborative teams of ESL

and content teachers (Anstrom, 2002; Arkoudis,2003, 2006; Creese, 2002) highlight the ways

in which these inequalities appear to impact

the effectiveness of collaborative efforts between

teachers. Clair’s (1998) work on teacher groups

found that other variables such as tensions about

knowledge, use of traditional models of profes-sional development, and variations in level of

understanding of what ELLs need also influenced

collaboration. Lack of clarity regarding the roles

of ESL and content teachers is another issue

that may impede collaboration, and even whenroles are clear, they carry different professional

pressures, which can affect how collaboration

is carried out (Creese, 2006; Roache, Shore,

Gouleta, & Butkevich, 2003). The literature re-

view helped us to understand how to build effec-

tive collaborative communities that allow for fullparticipation of ESL and content teachers into

our program design.

We also investigated university-based, profes-

sional development programs that have sought

to implement content and ESL teacher collab-oration. For example, the Interdisciplinary Col-

laborative Program (2005) at Indiana University

sought to bring ESL and content teachers to-

gether for the purpose of professional develop-

ment and integration of content and languagelearning, facilitated by distance-learning technol-

ogy, as have similar projects, including TEAM-

UP (Regents of the University of Minnesota,

2007) and Project IMPACT at Southeastern

Louisiana University (2008). Our understanding

of the literature and contemporary practices wascentral, then, in shaping the subsequent needs as-

sessment survey that we created to assess content

area teachers’ wants and needs, and in applying

our findings to our professional development

program.

Needs Assessment Survey

Richards (2001) noted that an advantage ofconducting a needs assessment is that, when gaps

are identified, accountability among stakeholders

for closing the gaps may be increased, which

is a necessary step in improving educational

programs. One of our overall program aims wasto steer ourselves and other stakeholders (such

as school district leaders, teachers, government

agencies, and institutes of higher education) to-

ward greater accountability, collaboration, and

partnership to address these gaps for in-service

teacher training, so we created a needs assess-ment survey to conduct empirical research on

teachers’ actual needs. We selected six public

school districts in Ohio to serve as representative

districts in which to conduct the survey, and these

districts comprised a mix of urban, suburban,and rural districts that had some of the state’s

highest enrollment of ELLs. Our 30-item, Web-

based survey2 was developed using SurveyShare,

a subscription-based, professional online survey

tool, to investigate such topics as: numbers of

ELLs in teachers’ classes; status of services andexisting infrastructure; opportunities for profes-

sional development; collaboration between con-

tent area and ESL personnel; and interest in

participating in professional development. ESL

coordinators distributed a Web link to the surveyvia an e-mail invitation sent to approximately

1,672 secondary content and ESL teachers across

the six districts. We received a response rate of

144 teachers, or 9%, and respondents included

138 content teachers in mathematics, science,social science, special education, music, busi-

ness, health & physical education, foreign lan-

guages, language arts, art, family and consumer

science, computers and technology, and history;

and six teachers who identified themselves as

ESL teachers or paraprofessionals. Data from thesurvey were analyzed quantitatively for the fixed-

response items, and qualitatively for the open-

ended responses, which were grouped together

155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 17:

13 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Integrating English Language Learners in Content Classes

according to similar themes to yield emergent

categories.Our survey findings revealed that 96% of

content teachers had ELLs in their classes, with

56% reporting between 1–10 students and 19%

reporting between 11–20 students. Despite the

high numbers of ELLs in respondents’ classes,only 26% of all teachers had ever taken a specific

college course that addressed teaching ELLs, and

only 45% reported ever having participated in

an in-service on ELLs. Furthermore, only 9%

of content teachers were in possession of anendorsement in Teaching English to Speakers of

Other Languages (TESOL). These findings indi-

cate a significant gap in participants’ professional

knowledge, as well as in the six districts’ infra-

structure to educate their teachers. Seventy per-

cent of all participants responded, however, thatthey would be interested in taking a graduate-

level course that addressed ESL, and 41% re-

ported an interest in pursuing a TESOL endorse-

ment to add to their existing license. Although

most teachers lack training, our findings showencouraging news for trainers and administrators,

namely, that the majority of content teachers are

willing to pursue professional development for

ESL.

We also wanted to know factors that could

influence teachers’ willingness to participate inprofessional development. Of the twelve criteria

we offered, respondents’ top six factors were

“minimal or no cost for tuition” (92%), “of-

fered at a nearby school in my district” (71%),

“free textbooks” (64%), “offered in my building”(57%), “offered during the summer” (45%), and

“offered via distance education” (36%). Only

13% were willing to participate on weekends, and

only 6% reported that they were willing to come

to the researchers’ home campus to take courses,indicating a need for training to be delivered

on weekdays, and via alternative means. Fifty-

eight percent indicated that they were willing to

participate in a distance learning class related to

ESL; and 60% reported having taken a course via

distance learning. These findings clearly indicatethat, although professional development courses

in ESL would appeal to the majority of respon-

dents, cost and the proximity of these courses

to their school or school district would influence

teachers’ willingness or ability to participate.Teachers also reported on their perceptions

of ELLs’ needs. Responses clustered around lin-

guistic, sociocultural, and other concerns. Teach-

ers reported that ELLs encountered linguistic

challenges such as the inability to understandcontent vocabulary and oral instruction/lectures,

a lack of reading/writing skills to complete as-

signed tasks in a timely manner, and limited

oral proficiency to participate in class discus-

sions. Sociocultural factors included students notknowing how to behave in a classroom and

having difficulty making eye contact, asking

questions, or telling their teacher if they really

understood school materials due to sociocultural

beliefs and values from their native culture about

the institution of education, interaction with maleversus female teachers, and the appropriateness

of asking questions (which might be perceived as

disrespectful), social isolation, and lack of indi-

vidualized attention. Several teachers expressed

a need for their district to offer more ESL in-tensive classes, sheltered classes, and designated

welcome centers.

Because theory and practice support the need

for secondary content and ESL teacher collabo-

ration (Benesch, 1988; Calderón, 1990; Kaufman

& Brooks, 1996; Teemant et al., 2000; Wagner,2001), we inquired about teachers’ collaborative

experiences. Sixty-five percent of content teach-

ers reported collaborating with an ESL teacher,

yet 55% of the respondents skipped the subse-

quent question asking them to elaborate on theircollaborative activities, causing us to question

the actual nature of the reported collaboration.

Collaborative experiences included discussions

with ESL teachers about students’ educational

background and academic progress; consultingESL teachers to share suggestions, strategies, and

resources; having an ESL teacher or tutor in class

to help students with their completion of tests

and quizzes; and working with ESL teachers to

modify lessons and assignments. Relatively few

teachers cited this latter collaborative activity,and the lack of response by 45% of teachers

may suggest that collaboration is negligible, or

that teachers were unsure of how to respond

156

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 17:

13 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Newman, Samimy, Romstedt Training Secondary Teachers of English Language Learners

to this question. Four of the six ESL teacher

respondents reported that content teachers soughtthem out; however, they cited a lack of time

as the major barrier to effective collaboration

with content area teachers. In general, responses

indicated that ESL teachers are seen more as a

resource, and not necessarily as an equal partnerin the education of ELLs in content area subject

matter.

Teachers reported on such district services

as welcome centers, SIOP (Sheltered Instruction

Observation Protocol, cf. Echevarria, Vogt &Short, 2008) training workshops, academic team

meetings, study halls for students, supplemental

classes, interpretation, and ESL pull-out services.

Although many of teachers said that they had

some experience with using ESL support ser-

vices, and most reports were positive regardingthe assistance that was occasionally provided,

22% of respondents reported that their school dis-

trict provided very limited ESL support services.

One teacher reported frankly that the district’s

services were little more than half-hearted efforts,and others commented on the disproportionate

ratio of students to ESL teachers.

Teachers also perceived the need for improve-

ment in their districts’ ESL services and in their

own knowledge of working with ELLs. Some

teachers were not really sure about the services;one reported that ESL staff are “the unknown

personnel because they do not receive much

attention in the building.” Some respondents,

then, are totally unfamiliar with the nature of

ESL services and personnel, even when they areavailable.

We acknowledge that our needs assessment

survey and its findings may have been con-

strained by mitigating factors, such as the online

format of the survey, which some respondentsmay have found prohibitive. Because we relied

on a third party to distribute the online survey,

we could not know whether all potential par-

ticipants actually used their school’s e-mail ac-

counts or read the survey invitation. Participation

was voluntary, and no incentives were offered,other than the possibility that teachers might be

able to avail themselves of professional devel-

opment. In addition, teachers who didn’t have

ELLs in their classrooms may have ignored the

e-mail solicitations, so our respondent pool mayhave consisted of teachers who did have ELLs

and who were thus more inclined to respond.

These and other factors may have skewed our

analysis, and, although we recognize that the

generalizability of our findings may be limited,nevertheless, our findings do corroborate those

of other studies that examine content area teach-

ers’ needs for ESL professional development.

Despite any shortcomings in our survey or its

analysis, respondents highlighted extensive gapsin their training and their districts’ ESL services,

underscoring content teachers’ urgent need for

professional development.

Discussion

The striking increases in ELL enrollment over

the past decade have added to the current pres-

sures on public schools across Ohio to provide

high quality education for all students. With96% of our responding content teachers reporting

ELLs in their classrooms, this percentage is sig-

nificantly higher than the 42% national average

as reported by the National Center for Education

Statistics (2002). Content teachers are acutely

aware of their lack of training, and as our surveyshowed, they want to learn how to adapt materi-

als, lesson plans, and the delivery of those plans,

as well as how to enhance the role of parents in

the school lives of their students. They have no-

ticed important linguistic and sociocultural issuesassociated with ELLs’ difficulties in their content

classrooms, but they may not be able to address

these difficulties within a cogent framework of

second language acquisition and effective ESL

instructional theories for integrating languageand content instruction. Most important, most

are ready and willing to pursue professional

development if it can be made convenient.

Based upon these findings from the literature

and our needs analysis survey, we developed a

program model to address the needs of contentteachers. Program logistics, program content, and

collaboration efforts further interacted to create

our professional development model.

157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 17:

13 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Integrating English Language Learners in Content Classes

Logistics

First, we addressed basic logistical needs that

our respondents cited. We needed to minimize

inconvenience for participants, and to cover the

costs of tuition and textbooks. Thus, our pro-

gram is free of charge3 to teachers, representing

an approximate value of $5,000 for the fourgraduate-level courses that we offer. Since 58%

of respondents cited interest in taking courses via

distance education, and 60% had experience with

distance education, we blended existing resources

and infrastructure at our university4 with thoseavailable throughout the state of Ohio. Distance

education (synchronous and asynchronous) is

used to deliver the four courses in our program,

and the courses are coupled with three face-

to-face meetings, in order to build trust andcommunity among all participants.

Logistics included the need for sustained in-

teraction to build capacity and continuity. Thus,

we constructed a year-long program, similar to

other university-based professional development

programs, with ongoing follow-up after com-pletion. Because of the literature’s emphasis on

learning communities and communities of prac-

tice, we decided to only accept district cohort

teams, rather than solo teachers from a variety of

districts. If change is to be effected, we reasonthat district teams are more adept at supporting

each other across time, and within their own

districts and buildings. Our own staffing logistics

limit participation to five to seven district teams

per year, consisting of within-district groups ofsix to eight teachers, yielding an overall yearly

cohort of approximately 40 teachers. As addi-

tional incentives, we offer graduate-level college

credit for the four courses that can be applied to-

ward either a TESOL endorsement or a Master’s

degree in foreign and second language educationat our institution.

Program Content

The literature and our needs assessment sur-vey informed program content, which specifi-

cally addresses theory and practice, as well as

the framework of state-endorsed, graduate-level

university coursework for TESOL (which also re-

lates to the logistics of our need as an institutionto generate student enrollment and credit hours).

Our year-long program and its four courses form

the core of our university’s seven-course TESOL

endorsement program: Introduction to Methods

of Teaching ESL; Field Experience Practicum;Language and Society; and Testing and Assess-

ment. None of these courses had previously been

taught via distance education, which necessitated

a revision of the courses to adapt them to a

new teaching and learning environment. Coursecontent includes (a) basics of second language

acquisition in order to better understand ELLs’

language phenomena; and (b) practical methods

of teaching English to ELLs and adaptation of

instruction, materials, and assessment in a way

that makes language accessible but preserves theintegrity of the content. Because of its empirical

research base and focus on content teachers, we

drew from the SIOP, developed by Echevarria

et al. (2008), to address the need to integrate

English language and content instruction. Addi-tionally, (c) best practices and collaboration with

colleagues are heightened through weekly online

discussions in a course conferencing system, and

(d) culture and family influence on instruction

are also incorporated. These topics draw from

respondents’ expressed wants and needs, and ourunderstanding of gaps in current services, and

also mirror many of the recommendations noted

by Calderón (1992).

Collaboration

Although a large-scale, sustained effort is nec-

essary to accommodate all content area teachers

who are interested in ESL professional devel-

opment, such an effort is beyond the currentcapacity and infrastructure of state and district

ESL programs to undertake, unless alternative

and cost-effective approaches can be considered.

Because the nature of ESL and content col-

laboration among our survey respondents was

inconclusive, we advocate an approach that drawson job-embedded, collaborative professional de-

velopment models such as interdisciplinary col-

laboration and the trainer of trainers model

158

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 17:

13 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Newman, Samimy, Romstedt Training Secondary Teachers of English Language Learners

noted above. Collaboration has a number of

other important qualities, including the fosteringof a shared vision and responsibility among

all teachers for the education of ELLs. Such

collaboration can help to mitigate professional

tensions noted by the research, and work to

build and sustain communities of practice. Im-portantly, Petrie and Sukanen (2001) noted that

“collaboration also counteracts teacher frustra-

tion with the frequency of pull-out instruction”

(p. 36), which is frustrating for students, too,

when they are singled out and removed from theircontent classroom peers, thus setting them even

further behind the ever-advancing pace of content

classes.

Collaboration in our program also includes

(a) collaboration between us, the program de-

velopers, and school districts on Ohio; (b) col-laboration among teachers from different dis-

trict teams; (c) collaboration among teachers of

the same content area (e.g., science); and (d)

collaboration among content and ESL teachers.

In collaborating with ESL coordinators to helpus distribute our survey to teachers, we learned

of the importance of working with the existing

ESL infrastructure, and of including districts

as partners. As such, teacher recruitment for

program participation is conducted by ESL co-

ordinators and district personnel, since they bestknow the needs of their districts. This helps

to mitigate the outside expert factor and fos-

ters greater collaboration between university and

school districts. By promoting district peer teams

of differing backgrounds and experience, we helpto foster Vygotsky’s (1978) constructivism and

scaffolding of learning, as well as interdisci-

plinary collaboration. Our model also includes at

least one ESL teacher from each district. Trained

and certified ESL personnel receive a stipendof $500 per class to engage in peer coaching,

including observations of teaching and offer-

ing supportive feedback for their team’s content

teachers. After learning about and experiencing

collaboration throughout the program, teachers

are expected to continue their collaboration af-ter program completion. To assist in this, the

final component in the program consists of dis-

trict teacher teams creating ongoing educational

programs to share with peers in their school

districts, thus enacting the trainer of trainersmodel.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The literature and our needs analysis have

documented significant gaps in currently-existing

ESL services, underscoring content teachers’

urgent need for professional development. For

stakeholders who wish to enhance job-embeddedprofessional development for teachers, the fol-

lowing recommendations, drawing from our pro-

fessional experience, form the basis of such a

plan of action. First, we recommend that content

teachers be provided with professional develop-

ment that is comprised of the following fourparts:

1. Content teachers need to learn the basics

of second language acquisition, in order to

understand how language is acquired, to betterunderstand the language phenomena that they

observe among their ELLs.

2. They need to become aware of practical meth-

ods of teaching English to ELLs, because

language learning should and does take place

within the context of the content of a class-room, and not only in weekly or biweekly

pull-out sessions with an ESL tutor; such

awareness will serve to maximize their learn-

ing. To accomplish this, content teachers need

training in adapting instruction, materials, andassessment in a way that makes language eas-

ier but preserves the integrity of the content.

3. Both content and ESL teachers need to learn

how to look for best practices and guide

fellow teachers toward them. This awarenessof best practices can serve as the foundation

of collaboration with their colleagues.

4. Finally, content teachers need to know how

culture influences the classroom, how societal

issues impact policy and programs in order to

afford teachers a foundation for requesting theresources needed to successfully implement

their training, and how to involve ESL parents

in their students’ education.

159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 17:

13 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Integrating English Language Learners in Content Classes

These recommendations draw directly from par-

ticipants’ expressed wants and needs our survey,the literature, and our understanding of gaps in

current services.

It is our belief that implementation of these

recommendations for the training of content

teachers will benefit a variety of stakeholders andserve to foster the development of dispositions

for collaboration and improved instruction for

ELL students around the state of Ohio, and

in other, similar contexts where in-service, sec-

ondary content, and ESL teachers are in need ofjob-embedded professional development. Impor-

tantly, such recommendations may find purchase

in contexts where a unified, statewide vision

of the education of ELLs may be lacking or

still under development. Through the training

program that we developed, we will soon beable to empirically investigate and report on

additional findings from the recommendations we

have advocated in this article.

Notes

We particularly thank the U.S. Department of Edu-

cation, Office of English Language Acquisition, Lan-

guage Enhancement and Minority Affairs, for their

funding of our training program and research efforts.

In addition, thanks are also due to the members of

our professional development program team including

Yunyan Zhang, Sun Yung Song, Michelle Ray, and

Steven Wisnor, who assisted us with compiling our

research data.

1. The most common home languages for Ohio’s

ELLs include Spanish, Somali, Arabic, Amish Ger-

man, Japanese, Vietnamese, Russian, Korean, and

Cantonese.

2. A copy of this 30-item survey may be obtained by

contacting the authors.

3. Because of prohibitive costs of textbooks and its

impact on our program budget, we eventually re-

quested that our partnering school districts agree to

cover the cost of textbooks for their participating

teachers; we covered all other costs. We have since

instituted a minimal registration fee for participants,

in order to encourage buy-in and sense of personal

investment.

4. Our desire to create and implement a distance

education program subsequently created a need for

our own professional development as researchers

and teacher educators, as two of us had no ex-

perience whatsoever with distance education. One

of our current research projects explores how we

grew to become distance education instructors as a

by-product of our needs assessment and program

development research.

References

Anstrom, K. N. (2002). Team teaching between En-

glish as a second language and content specialists

at the secondary level: A case study of teacher

beliefs and practices. Unpublished doctoral disser-

tation, George Washington University, Washington,

DC.

Arkoudis, S. (2003). Teaching English as a second

language in science classes: Incommensurate epis-

temologies. Language and Education, 17, 161–73.

Arkoudis, S. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground be-

tween ESL and mainstream teachers. International

Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,

9, 415–33.

Benesch, S. (1988). Linking content and language

teachers: Collaboration across the curriculum. In

S. Benesch (Ed.), Ending remediation: Linking

ESL and content in higher education (pp. 53–65).

Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers

of Other Languages.

Calderón, M. (1986). A trainer of trainers model:

Focus on acquisition of literacy by limited English

proficient students. Report #GXX8410030. Wash-

ington, DC: Secretary of Education.

Calderón, M. (1990). Coaching and collegial collab-

oration. El Paso, TX: Ysleta Independent School

District.

Calderón, M. (1992). Educational research and teacher

training for successfully teaching LEP students.

In Proceedings of the Second National Research

Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student

Issues: Focus on Evaluation and Measurement.

Retrieved April 22, 2008 from http://www.ncela.

gwu.edu/pubs/symposia/second/vol2/educat-dis.

htm#Calderon.24

Calderón, M., & Belker, J. (1981). Management system

for the bilingual education teacher training series.

Dallas, TX: National Center for the Development

of Bilingual Curriculum.

160

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 17:

13 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Newman, Samimy, Romstedt Training Secondary Teachers of English Language Learners

Calderón, M., & Cummins, J. (1982). Communicative

competence in bilingual education: Theory and

research. Dallas, TX: National Center for the De-

velopment of Bilingual Curriculum.

Clair, N. (1998). Teacher groups: Persistent questions

in a promising approach. TESOL Quarterly, 32,

465–92.

Crandall, J. (1998). Collaborate and cooperate:

Teacher education for integrating language and

content instruction. English Teaching Forum, 36,

2–9.

Creese, A. (2002). The discursive construction of

power in teacher partnerships: Language and sub-

ject specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL

Quarterly, 36, 597–616.

Creese, A. (2006). Supporting talk? Partnership teach-

ers in classroom interaction. International Journal

of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 434–

453.

Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and

content teachers: How do we know when we are

doing it right? International Journal of Bilingual

Education and Bilingualism, 9, 454–475.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2008). Making

content comprehensible for English learners: The

SIOP model (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Gardner, S. (2006). Center state in the instructional

register: Partnership talk in primary EAL. Interna-

tional Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilin-

gualism, 9, 476–494.

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Program. (2005). The

interdisciplinary collaborative program. Retrieved

February 27, 2007 from the Trustees of In-

diana University: http://www.indiana.edu/�icp/in

dex.html

Kaufman, D., & Brooks, J. G. (1996). Interdisciplinary

collaboration in teacher education: A constructivist

approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 231–51.

Leung, C., & Franson, C. (1990). Teaching English

as a second language in the mainstream classroom:

Collaboration, not co-presence. Journal of Further

and Higher Education, 14(3), 61–70.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Le-

gitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002).

Schools and staffing survey, 1999–2000: Overview

of the data for public, private, public charter, and

Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and second-

ary schools (NCES Publication No. 2002-313).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics.

National Staff Development Council. (2001). Stan-

dards for staff development: Revised. Oxford, OH:

Author.

Newman, K. L. (2005). What difference does it make?

Nonnative English speaking teachers in K–12

school settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Indiana University, Bloomington.

Ohio Department of Education. (2008). Enrollment by

student demographic (state). Retrieved April 28,

2008 from http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us/PublicDW/asp/

Main.aspx

Petrie, L., & Sukanen, R. (2001). Combining forces:

Collaboration between bilingual/ESL teachers and

the regular classroom using an a priori approach.

Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 14, 32–36.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in

language teaching. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press.

Roache, M., Shore, J., Gouleta, E., & Butkevich, E. O.

(2003). An investigation of collaboration among

school professionals in serving culturally and lin-

guistically diverse students with exceptionalities.

Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 117–36.

Regents of the University of Minnesota. (2007). TEAM

UP. Retrieved February 16, 2007 from http://www.

carla.umn.edu:16080/esl/teamup/

Southeastern Louisiana University. (2008). Project

IMPACT. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from

http://www.selu.edu/acad_research/depts/teach_lrn/

service_learning/Project_IMPACT/

Teemant, A., Bernhardt, E. B., Rodriguez-Munoz, M.,

& Aiello, M. (2000). A dialogue among teach-

ers that benefits second language learners. Middle

School Journal, 32(2), 30–38.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The devel-

opment of higher psychological processes. Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wagner, S. W. (2001). Crossing classroom borders:

Pathways to the mainstream via teacher collabora-

tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University

of Illinois at Chicago.

Wong Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. E. (2002). What

teachers need to know about language. In C. T.

Adger, C. E. Snow, & D. E. Christison (Eds.), What

teachers need to know about language (pp. 7–52).

McHenry, IL: Delta Systems.

161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 17:

13 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014