Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 06 November 2014, At: 08:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Pedagogies: An International JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hped20
Developing pedagogical practices forEnglish-language learners: a design-based approachAna Christina DaSilva Iddings a & Brian Christopher Rose ba College of Education, University of Arizona , Tucson, AZ, USAb School of Education, Georgia Gwinnett College , Lawrenceville,GA, USAPublished online: 28 Nov 2011.
To cite this article: Ana Christina DaSilva Iddings & Brian Christopher Rose (2012) Developingpedagogical practices for English-language learners: a design-based approach, Pedagogies: AnInternational Journal, 7:1, 32-51, DOI: 10.1080/1554480X.2012.630510
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2012.630510
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
Pedagogies: An International JournalVol. 7, No. 1, January–March 2012, 32–51
Developing pedagogical practices for English-language learners:a design-based approach
Ana Christina DaSilva Iddingsa* and Brian Christopher Roseb
aCollege of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; bSchool of Education, GeorgiaGwinnett College, Lawrenceville, GA, USA
(Received 15 April 2010; final version received 18 May 2011)
This study draws on the application of sociocultural theory to second-languagelearning and teaching to examine the impact of a design-based research approachon teacher development and literacy instruction to English-language learners (ELLs).Design-based research methodology was employed to derive theoretical suppositionsrelating to the process of learning as well as the means by which this process is sup-ported. Our research questions were: (a) How will this professional development modelresult in shifts in teacher thinking about language and literacy learning for ELLs; (b)what innovations in teachers’ repertoires of practice will be developed; and (c) in whatways will these shifts in teachers’ thinking and innovations in their repertoire of prac-tice bring about new forms of language and literacy learning? Our findings point to theneed to place development in the forefront of teacher professional development mod-els. Also foregrounded is the importance of promoting teachers’ critical reflection onclassroom practices and of creating hypotheses for pedagogical change vis-à-vis newunderstanding about students’ linguistic, cognitive and academic needs.
Keywords: teacher professional development; English-language learners; design-based research; pedagogical practices
Introduction
Within the past 15 years the enrolment rates of Hispanic school-age children in Americanschools have grown at a pace far outstripping that of English monolinguals. The PewHispanic Center (2008) reported that while in 1990 one in eight public school studentswas Hispanic, as of 2006, one in five students was of Hispanic background. The cen-tre also places current figures on the Hispanic student population around the 10 millionmark, with that number increasing to 28 million by the year 2050. Interestingly, a fairlyrecent report by the Housing Assistance Council (2007) claims that the southern UnitedStates has experienced the largest growth in the number of Hispanic school-age children,a population which has increased 322% in the past 15 years. The same report reveals thatthe bulk of this growth has taken place in non-metro areas (about 500% and, in somecases, over 1000% during the 1990s). Teachers in rural areas, unaccustomed to work-ing with this new composition of students, are not adequately prepared to understandthe specific linguistic, cognitive and academic needs for many of these students, whoare considered English-language learners (ELLs; American Federation of Teachers, 2004;
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1554-480X print/ISSN 1554-4818 online© 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2012.630510http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Pedagogies: An International Journal 33
Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, & Callahan, 2003; Menken & Antunez, 2001; Nieto,2003; Snow & Wong-Fillmore, 2002).
In this article, we (the authors) analyse the outcomes of a teacher development pro-gramme designed to improve classroom conditions for the language and literacy learningfor recent-immigrant ELLs enrolled into English-only classrooms in a rural area of thesoutheast United States. In particular, we were interested in understanding the professionaldevelopment of two fourth-grade teachers who were self-identified as having no formalpreparation to work with ELLs. For our analysis, we drew on the application of socio-cultural theory to second-language learning and teaching (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006), andprincipally on Vygotsky’s (1978) conceptualization of the zone of proximal development(ZPD). Following the design-based research (DBR) methodology, a genre of educationalresearch that combines empirical observations with the theory-driven planning of learningenvironments (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992), we asked these questions: (a) How will thisprofessional development model result in shifts in teacher thinking about language and lit-eracy learning for ELLs; (b) what innovations in teachers’ repertoires of practice will bedeveloped; and (c) in what ways will these shifts in teachers’ thinking and innovations intheir repertoire of practice bring about new forms of language and literacy learning?
Rationale
This research responded to a call from the area’s school district officials who were con-cerned with the rapid increase of ELL populations in their schools and were looking forways to help their teachers to better serve recent-immigrant students. More specifically,these officials were interested in increasing standardized achievement test scores, espe-cially in reading comprehension. They requested that our research team extend a previousstudy we had conducted in one of the district’s schools, which had similar purposes.
Professional development for teachers of ELLs
While traditional models of professional development, one-shot programmes devoid ofexplicit classroom connection, are the most commonly seen means by which in-serviceteachers learn (Miller, Lord, & Dorney, 1994), many researchers and teacher educatorsrecommend that these models be expanded to include, among other features, explicit con-nection to classroom concerns and extended opportunities for collegial collaboration andsupport (Abdal-Haqq, 1995; Ball, 1996; Little, 2003; Putnam & Borko, 1997; Richardson,2003). Regarding the benefits of teacher collaboration, Little (2003) states that teach-ers “express a felt responsibility to student success, and orientation toward instructionalinnovation, and a commitment to close and supportive collaboration with colleagues”(p. 938). Other studies have concluded that when teachers worked with their colleagues,they tended to discuss the issues of instruction, examine these problems in such a way as todesign novel approaches to solving them, more readily invite and accept feedback on theissues of contention and share class work (e.g. McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Westheimer,1998).
Teachers can engage in a variety of collaborative activities, many of which havebeen discussed in the research literature. For example, studies suggest that when teachersand researchers collaborate in classrooms to provide more effective instruction to ELLs,innovations are developed and attitudes are changed, resulting in an improved access toclassroom content (Day & Ainley, 2008; Hawkins & Legler, 2004). Further, teachers whoparticipate in study groups with their peers benefit from each other’s experiences and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
34 A.C. DaSilva Iddings and B.C. Rose
knowledge and are more able to reconcile classroom challenges (Bryant, Linan-Thompson,Ugel, Hamff, & Hougen, 2001; Clair, 1998; DaSilva Iddings & Rose, 2010; Levine &Marcus, 2007).
Improving reading comprehension for ELLs
This study added knowledge to a previous sponsored research project, which was led byRisko, DaSilva Iddings and Rampulla from 2003 to 2006 (for one of articles that came fromthis project, see DaSilva Iddings, Risko, & Rampulla (2009)), conducted in a comparableschool context to the one chosen for this examination. This prior research was designedto investigate second- and third-grade ELLs’ participation in literacy practices from mul-tiple perspectives (e.g. teachers, researchers) and across classrooms (e.g. ESL, Spanishclass, English-only general education classes) as well as within other areas of school (e.g.playground, cafeteria). Our findings suggested that in order to promote ELLs’ develop-ment of reading comprehension, it is necessary to (1) account for the multiple linguisticcompetences specific to bilinguals (i.e. their greater metalinguistic awareness); (2) openup new opportunities for children to employ strategic actions (i.e. language brokering) inorder to create meaning and to elaborate on the content of instruction; (3) utilize instruc-tional materials that do not compromise the purposes, integrity or rigour of the curriculum;(4) organize content of instruction clearly and explicitly; (5) provide abundant opportuni-ties for collaborative peer interaction; and (6) leverage students’ lived experiences in waysthat support new learning (DaSilva Iddings et al., 2009). These findings added support tomuch of the literature related to the improvement of reading comprehension for ELLs. Forexample, Martinez-Roldán, Yeager and Tuyay (2005) conducted a study involving childrenenrolled in a second grade Spanish/English bilingual class to examine the effects of firstlanguage as a mediational tool for thinking and talking about text. The authors reportedthat the bilingual children participating in the literature circles they observed engagedeach other in their attempts to understand the text by using English, Spanish and code-switching. In this way, the students were able to combine linguistic resources to create awide range of forms and codes with which to deepen reading comprehension. Also, Molland his colleagues (Moll, 1988; Moll & Dworin, 1996) organized learning situations sothat Mexican-American students learning English could discuss their English reading inSpanish. Doing so enabled these students to achieve a much more sophisticated and higherlevel understanding of English text than if they had used only English.
In addition, studies have suggested that the type of social and cultural knowledgesources ELLs draw from when approaching printed text and when interpreting Englishvocabulary can vary considerably from their monolingual counterparts (e.g. García, 1991;Jimenez, García, & Pearson, 1996). The findings of the above-mentioned research pointto the need to better prepare teachers to understand and utilize the cognitive, linguisticand cultural assets of ELLs for reading comprehension. Thus, working collaborativelywith teachers, the researchers for this study aimed to address this need through a pro-fessional development programme guided by a sociocultural theoretical perspective andDBR (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992).
Research approach
A sociocultural theoretical perspective
For a definition of what we mean by sociocultural theory (often a divergently understoodconcept) we draw on Lantolf’s (2000) explanation that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Pedagogies: An International Journal 35
despite the label, sociocultural theory is not a theory of the social or of the cultural aspectsof human existence . . . it is, rather, a theory of mind . . . that recognizes the central role thatsocial relationships and culturally constructed artifacts play in organizing uniquely humanforms of thinking. (cited in Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 1)
As such, we have applied this theoretical approach to the understanding of development inrelation to teachers and students (and to a lesser extent, the researchers), who were herebyconsidered to be in dialogical1 relationships with one another as well as with the socialcontexts of interaction.
In defining development from a sociocultural perspective, we invoke one of the funda-mental tenets of Vygotsky’s theory, directly connected to learning: the concept of ZPD. InMind in society, Vygotsky (1978) wrote of ZPD as “the distance between the actual devel-opmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potentialdevelopment as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collabo-ration with more capable peers” (p. 86). Although this quote has been widely interpretedand purposed in pedagogical literature and practices, we adopt Newman and Holzman’s(1993) views of the ZPD characterized as revolutionary activity, leading to both learningand transformation for all participants (transformational model; for this view of the ZPDas applied to second-language learning, see also DaSilva Iddings and McCafferty (2005)and Kinginger (2002)). From this perspective, then, our research centres on the changes informs and organizations of thinking (and practice), which can potentially take place whenpeople with different goals, roles and resources interact within a specific context.
Design-based research methodology
Acting on a call for educational research to more closely address the issues of class-room practice (National Research Council, 2002), many researchers have employed DBRto investigate classroom learning in context (e.g. Cobb, 2000; Lehrer & Schauble, 2000;Simon, 2000; Stein, Silver, & Smith, 1998). As explicated by Cobb, Confrey, diSessa,Lehrer and Schauble (2003), and more recently by Reinking and Bradley (2008), DBRaims to derive theories relating to the process of learning as well as the means by which thisprocess is supported through intervention: “The intent is to investigate the possibilities foreducational improvement by bringing about new forms of learning in order to study them”(p. 10). Researchers propose hypotheses about a specific form of learning, and these con-jectures are repeatedly implemented, exposed to scrutiny, accepted or refuted. Researchersmay then need to refine their initial hypotheses in the light of newly collected data with afocus on direct application of seemingly abstract theoretical concepts onto a specific con-text. In other words, the theories employed within the experiment are useful to impel notonly thinking but also practice.
The study
In this section, we first offer a description of both the setting for the study and the par-ticipants. Next, we discuss our data sources and the means by which they were collected.Lastly, we present our data analysis procedures.
Setting
Our study was conducted at Oakwood Elementary School, a school that had suddenlyreceived a large influx of recent-immigrant students because of a recent district re-zoning.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
36 A.C. DaSilva Iddings and B.C. Rose
Located in a rural area in the southeastern United States, Oakwood Elementary containedupwards of 400 students and 38 certified teachers. The teaching staff were highly trainedand experienced with 84% of the faculty having obtained a Master’s degree or higher andhaving taught for an average of 17 years. The teachers were mainly Caucasian, middle-class and female. The majority of these teachers were English monolinguals. Studentswho claimed to speak a language other than English at home and were classified asELLs, determined by a state language-proficiency test, were also enrolled in a pull-outESL programme, which occurred during regularly scheduled, mainstream language artsinstruction. All schools in the United States are required to offer instructional support tostudents who do not speak English (for more on the legal precedents surrounding instruc-tional support for ELLs, see Castañeda v. Pickard (1981) and Lau v. Nichols (1974)).However, schools are not under a specific mandate to provide a particular instructionalprogramme; rather, each state, district and school may determine the programme offeringsbased on demographics, material and staff availability, and access to funding. Oakwood hadadopted the state-mandated English-only regulations, restricting the language of instruc-tion and assessment to English in all subject areas. In the school officials’ interpretationand implementation of the mandate, the use of any language other than English was entirelydisallowed in the classroom, even in interactions among the students. To be sure, this inter-pretation was especially problematic because, as a result, teachers and administrators wereunable to consider the positive influences first-language (L1) use can have on both cogni-tive and second-language (L2) development. The school was very well maintained, and theclassrooms were host to modern technology. Specifically, each of the fourth-grade class-rooms in which the study was conducted held seven computers, a large screen TV andelectronic chalkboards. The average class size was near 18 students. In the beginning ofthe year, students in both classrooms sat in rows facing the teacher. The ELLs were oftenseen on the margins of the classroom, sitting apart from the rest of the class, playing onthe computer. These sitting arrangements changed considerably through the course of theyear to accommodate for “team” seating situations where desks were co-joined to createphysical spaces for social and collaborative interactions.
Participants
Fourth grade was chosen for this study by school officials concerned with how best toprepare recent-immigrant students for high stakes standardized tests (e.g. Terra Nova),particularly in reading comprehension. The school principal identified two fourth-gradeteachers to participate in this study because they had recently received new immigrantstudents in their classes and had asked for help in addressing these students’ needs. Themost senior of teachers of the fourth grade, Shelly, was a veteran teacher and had been atOakwood her entire career. In contrast, Katie had taught previously at a private school outof the area and was new to Oakwood Elementary. Overall, Shelly had been teaching forabout 12 years and Katie for about eight years. In fact, during the timeframe of this study,Katie had been hired on as a long-term substitute, replacing a teacher on extended leave.Subsequent to completing this one-year assignment, she was hired on permanently. Bothteachers were Caucasian, English monolingual and had very little experience in workingwith ELLs. More specifically, neither teacher had any ELLs in their classrooms in the yearsleading up to this study. Both teachers understood the previously mentioned English-onlystance taken by the school to govern not simply the language of instruction and assessmentbut all language use in the classroom. As is discussed in greater detail below, this and othernotions held by the teacher were challenged over the course of our work together.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Pedagogies: An International Journal 37
The two teachers were eager to learn more about how best to meet the academic andlinguistic needs of the ELLs enrolled in their classes. Our focal students were three recent-immigrant Mexican children (<2 years in the United States): Analisa, Clara and Mayra. Allthree children were eight years of age and native speakers of Spanish. Analisa was enrolledin Katie’s classroom. Clara and Mayra were members of Shelly’s class. There was somevariability in L1 and L2 oral proficiency and dominance among the learners as well asdifferences in the literacy levels in L1 and L2, with Mayra being the most proficient andliterate in the L2 as she had been in the United States for nearly two years at the onset of thestudy. Clara had been in the United States for about one year, and Analisa had arrived lessthan a month prior to the onset of this research. Although there were variabilities in oral andwritten English proficiency, all three students were designated as beginning learners of thenew language according to the State language-proficiency test scores. In addition, all threewere considered by the teachers to be underperforming in reading comprehension. Otherparticipating students included about 40 other English monolingual students – members oftheir respective classes.
Our research team was composed of three members (one university professor whospecializes in L2 teaching and learning, and two research assistants). Two research teammembers were bilinguals and all had extensive experience in working with ELLs in variouseducational settings.
Data collection
The data sources used for this study included (a) field notes taken while observing teach-ers implementing and ELLs engaged in reading comprehension activities; (b) notes takenduring teacher study group meetings; (c) data collected through videotapes of classroompractice; (d) semi-structured interviews with teachers and students; (e) classroom artefacts(i.e. student journals, samples of student work, attitude assessments); (f) theoretical notesused to reference our developing research focus; and (g) anecdotal records of researchers’debriefing sessions. The study lasted for about one academic year and data were collectedduring the course of the following research activities.
Semi-structured interviews
The researchers interviewed the teachers four times during the study (about every 2months) to account for specific changes in their understanding of the role of language (L1and L2) and sociocultural factors that might impact reading comprehension instruction.The interviews also served to make explicit the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs regardingELLs. Each of these interviews lasted for about 45 minutes (see Appendix 1) and wasconducted on a one-to-one basis in the teacher’s classroom before or after school. Wealso conducted semi-structured interviews with each of the participating ELLs about threetimes in the course of this investigation (once at the onset of the study, once mid-way intothe academic year and, lastly, at the end of the year). These interviews were useful for theresearchers to gain an understanding of the ways the students were experiencing the newsocial, linguistic and cultural environment of the American school. These interviews lastedfor about half an hour and were conducted in Spanish (see Appendix 2).
Teacher/researcher study groups
A study group consisting of members of our research team and the participating teach-ers met weekly in one of the teachers’ classrooms before the school day began. During
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
38 A.C. DaSilva Iddings and B.C. Rose
study group meetings, teachers identified challenges from their own practice (e.g. fosteringELL classroom engagement, providing language support in English, learning and teachingvocabulary), which informed the topics of discussion as well as the development of system-atic practices to aid reading comprehension for ELLs. In addition, the researchers gainedan understanding of the teachers’ prior knowledge about reading comprehension for ELLs,their beliefs about the ways these students learn and any autobiographical influences thatmay have affected their knowledge and beliefs of ELLs. An annotated bibliography pre-pared by the National Council for Teachers of English Task Force for English LanguageLearners (National Council for Teachers of English, 2006) containing approximately 100books, articles and web sources was also provided to the teachers by the researchers. Theteachers, in turn, were asked to select one or two readings that addressed the particular top-ics of discussion each week. Excerpts from the video-taped observations were periodicallyviewed and discussed by teachers and researchers during teacher study group sessions. Thediscussions around the videos contributed to build knowledge of sociocultural, historical,linguistic and pedagogical factors that mediated the learning of reading comprehensionacross languages and cultures for the participating ELLs.
Focused observations with attention to what is unique about ELL’s learning
We also observed our focal students participating in regular classroom activities such astext read-alongs, text discussions and text retellings in the two fourth-grade classroomsselected for this study. A portion of the data we present in this article was culled from thevideo-taped observations conducted about two or three times a week for about 1.5 hours.Focus was placed on what may be unique about ELLs’ learning and reading comprehen-sion. For example, we closely monitored students’ linguistic production during interactionsabout text, looking for language brokering, code-switching, meta-talk, use of private speech(speech for the self) and other indications that they were operating between two linguisticsystems. In addition, we noted the ways by which students made use of the lexical andstructural similarities/differences between English and Spanish in order to comprehendtexts in English.
Hypothesis formulations and analyses
The two classroom teachers and the researchers engaged in iterative learning cycles inwhich formulations about ELLs’ learning were informed by the readings, analyses anddiscussions that took place in the study groups. These formulations were then subject tosystematic analysis (by the teachers and the researchers) and were continuously refined todevelop ideas about practices that supported the ELLs’ text comprehension. In particular,the teaching of vocabulary to improve reading comprehension within the academic areas(i.e. math, science and social studies) emerged as one of the greatest challenges the partic-ipating teachers faced. Therefore, the discussions that entailed from our joint examinationof the data focused mostly on the ways by which ELLs were coming to comprehend textsand to learn vocabulary related to the content areas they were studying. These discussionsalso involved the creation of pedagogical innovations that would best support this learning.
Data analysis
The data for this study consisted of about 20 hours of video recordings of teacher–studentand student–student interactions, field notes of classroom observations and of our study
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Pedagogies: An International Journal 39
group sessions, as well as of the data collected during the semi-structured interviewswith the teachers and students. Data analysis for this study was ongoing throughout thedata collection period and employed thematic analysis (Patton, 2002) and micro-analysismethodologies (Wertsch, 1991). With basis on our theoretical framework, we used thematicanalysis in order to identify major themes or patterns found in teacher–researchers’ studygroup discussions and in interviews with the teachers and with the ELLs. The phases ofthematic analysis for this study involved a close review of the data collected, pattern recog-nition across the data and organization of thematic categories associated with shifts in theteachers’ thinking and changes in their practices as related to a developing understandingof the learning endeavours of ELLs. We also selected episodes that provided insight on theimpact of those changes on the development of reading comprehension for the students weobserved.
In addition, we utilized a micro-level of analysis and more specifically geneticanalysis (Wertsch, 1991) to examine interactions involving teacher–researchers, teacher–teacher and teacher–student interactions. The genetic law of cultural development, one ofVygotksy’s principal and most unique contributions, proposes that all human higher mentalfunctions appear first on the interpsychological plane (i.e. through social interactions) andthen on the intrapsychological plane (i.e. becomes internalized) – for the Russian psychol-ogist, these social/mental processes entail learning and development (Vygotsky, 1978).The application of genetic analysis to our investigations served as a means to understand-ing the ways by which the participating teachers were reaching beyond their current levelsof development in and through their interactions and contexts of activity. In these ways, amicro-level of analysis provided a methodological tool for the examinations of shifts in theteachers’ thinking and in the ways by which the teachers were coming to systematicallyemploy innovations in their pedagogical repertoire of practices in order to support ELLs’reading comprehension.
Findings
For our findings, we present excerpts from the data we analysed for this article, which illus-trate the three main foci for this investigation: (a) shifts in teacher thinking about languageand literacy learning for L2 students; (b) innovations in teachers’ repertoire of practices;and (c) ways in which these shifts in thinking and innovations in practice brought aboutnew forms of language and literacy learning.
Shifts in teacher thinking about language and literacy learning for ELLs
As our discussions progressed during our weekly meetings for the teacher study group,we noted that the teachers’ thoughts about their own instruction were gradually shiftingas they became increasingly aware of the need to provide greater academic and linguisticsupport for the ELLs in their classrooms in order to promote reading comprehension forthese students. For example, the teachers were in a school that had adopted English-onlyregulations. Accordingly, they had not, before our conversations, considered the value ofusing the students’ L1 as a mediational means for the students to learn both the content ofinstruction and the language that conveyed it. However, through the guided observationsand group discussions conducted within this research the teachers were coming to theconclusion that they needed to modify their instructional practices to include opportunitiesfor their students to use their native language in order to mediate text comprehension.Shelly explained this shift:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
40 A.C. DaSilva Iddings and B.C. Rose
I just expected or thought that it was important for them to use English all the time. And Iguess after reading some of the articles and after our discussions I realized that their nativelanguage . . . they’ve learned so much already in their native language, so to continue to usetheir native language for learning may be best. I remember Clara wanting to read Charlotte’sweb in Spanish. And before I think I would have said, “Nope, everything needs to be done inEnglish.” Then I let her, “Oh yes! Read Charlotte’s web [in Spanish]. Enjoy it! Because you’regoing to learn so much.” Some reading comprehension skills like predicting, foretelling andforeshadowing, you can still do that with a book in Spanish.
In response to this recognition attained during our discussions, both teachers began toallow students to speak, read and write in their native language. In so doing, they wereable to keep the purposes of instruction (i.e. predicting, foretelling and foreshadowing)intact for all students (including ELLs). This signalled a shift from previous occasions,when the teachers thought it was more useful for the ELLs to spend much of their timeduring reading comprehension instruction doing phonetic drills (e.g. filling in the correctvowel between consonants to form words, such as in the case of vest) than to engage in textdiscussions leading to comprehension.
It is important to note that these shifts in the teachers’ thinking about what languagepractices might be most effective to promote reading comprehension with ELLs were notimmediate; instead, they seemed to take place slowly and tentatively. Most of the time,these shifts could be observed during our conversations as the teachers reflected upon theirobservations regarding their students. For example, Katie explained that she was at firsthesitant to allow the students to speak in Spanish because of English-only regulations inthe school. She claimed:
I was so torn because the [ELL] kids are here and they are totally immersed in English and Iknow that they are getting more than what we think they’re getting. I think they should be ableto use their native language but I think . . . I don’t know where you draw the line. Like . . .where should you say, “Only speak in English”. But, if they truly can’t form the words, thenthey are sitting in the classroom, they’re not feeling productive, and they can’t talk to the otherstudents. But even though I was hesitant, I let Analisa use Spanish. I tried to find a fine balancebetween letting her speak Spanish to the other students and having a go-between, translatingas much as we could so that we could include her.
In addition to feeling ambivalent about possibly violating the school’s English-only reg-ulations, Katie expressed hesitance in allowing students to speak in Spanish because itwas difficult for her to tell whether the students would remain on task, as she could notunderstand what they were saying. However, based on her recent readings, observationsand group discussions she came to believe that the use of their first language would enablestudents to elaborate on assigned tasks. She remarked:
When we did writing assignments having to do with some of the readings we did in class, Iwould have [Analisa] do them in Spanish. Then I would have her discuss it with one of theSpanish-speaking students and then they would translate the writing to me and tell me aboutit. Then, I would have Analisa try to tell me as much as she could in English. That was reallyinteresting and I was just hoping that the Spanish students were telling me the truth aboutwhat really was written on the page, because I had no idea. So that was one way that she couldparticipate in writing about texts . . . and she would write a lot. I mean, she would form aparagraph just like you would form a paragraph. You could tell that she could write and thatshe knew things in her own language.
Over time, through allowing students to speak in their native language, the teacherswere becoming more aware of what the students were able to do. That is, some of their
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Pedagogies: An International Journal 41
misconceptions about their inabilities to participate in reading comprehension activitieswere slowly being dismantled. For example, during an interview, Katie expressed that,had she known how well Mayra could comprehend texts within the various content areaswhen using Spanish, she would have been better able to gauge her abilities. In deepeningher understandings about Mayra’s capabilities, Katie also realized that if she modified herinstruction by providing greater linguistic supports, Mayra could access the informationmore readily. She commented:
[Mayra] was great in math and it didn’t take her any time to understand things in math. Andthere is a lot of vocabulary in math. But she picked up on the math vocabulary very easy. Andthat’s a big thing that I have begun to do, this year. That is kind of one thing that I took awayfrom our conversations, focusing a little bit more on content vocabulary for all of my students,not just my ELLs, but I make sure that when I am doing something for math I’ll tell them veryexplicitly. . . . Like today we were doing division and as we were working with manipulatives,I was telling the students, I was making them use the words, divisor, dividend, quotient insentences, so that they would know that vocabulary in context. I believe that really helped thestudents comprehend the math texts.
As our discussions progressed through the course of our study, both Katie and Shellyacknowledged they had made dramatic changes in their practices as they began to thinkdifferently about the ELLs. In addition, they realized many of the modifications theyimplemented were not only essential for ELLs but also provided benefits to the Englishmonolingual students as well. Shelly affirmed:
My teaching changed last year during our study. It changed immensely. It was because I sawthe need to support my ELLs. I had to provide other experiences and I saw how valuable thoseexperiences were for the whole class.
Indeed, the shift in the teachers’ thinking was so pronounced that Shelly requested that shereceive more ELLs the next year. She stated, “It’s just been my desire to learn as much aspossible about ELLs and how to best teach them so that their year with me is not wasted.”Katie, as well, noticed a shift in her thinking and she was very interested in continuing tooffer more opportunities for her students to interact with one another. She claimed, “I wouldwant to make sure that I would have small group discussions, where my students could usetheir own language more often.” The two fourth-grade teachers went on to take summercourses on teaching English to speakers of other languages at the local college, and duringthe following academic year, they continued frequent “study group” conversations with theother fourth-grade teachers about the ELLs enrolled in the grade level. These subsequentstudy group sessions had a similar format as the one we implanted and were led by bothShelly and Katie.
Design and innovation of pedagogical practices
As a result of their readings and conversations in the study groups, the teachers wereconsistently developing new understandings about ELLs both moment-to-moment dur-ing practice and observations of their students, and over time. Congruently, they createdseveral innovations in their instructional practices to better support the academic develop-ment of her students, particularly in relation to reading comprehension in the content areas.These innovations included the contextualization of vocabulary, multimodal instructionaldeliveries, increased peer interaction and extended previewing practices.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
42 A.C. DaSilva Iddings and B.C. Rose
Contextualization of vocabulary in the content areas
When students came across a word that they did not understand in the texts they werereading,2 they would use an index card to write the word in English and its translation inSpanish. On the reverse side, they drew a picture that illustrated the concept or idea con-tained in the word, provided synonyms and antonyms, and applied the word to a sentence,both in English and in Spanish. These index cards were then bound with a ring and placedinside the texts where the words were found. That way, the students had their own personaldictionaries that were directly relevant to the texts they were reading and meaningful tothe students. These cards were mainly used to promote text comprehension in the contentareas, as Katie described:
We did a unit on plants, but the textbook was too overwhelming for Analisa. So, I would haveher match a picture of a given plant part to the Spanish vocabulary card. She would say theword describing the plant part in Spanish and I would say it in English and then we would kindof do a matching of the cards, the pictures, and the labels.
By utilizing the Spanish/English vocabulary cards, the ELLs were able to use their nativelanguage to contextualize the words and aid their comprehension of texts in the contentareas (e.g. science). As the classroom did not contain a Spanish/English dictionary, thestudents would often need to use the Internet to look up the Spanish information. Thestudents then discussed their cards with the classroom teachers as well as with their peers.
Mode of instruction
Through our dialogue in one of the study group sessions the teachers also came to theconclusion that the use of visual aids was of great value in presenting material to ELLs.3
As a result of this, one of the participating teachers relied on her LCD projector to showpictures and movie clips to help students make connections with their past experiences,draw inferences and gain access to text contents. In teaching a lesson on hydroelectricity,for example, Shelly used her computer and projector to take her students on a virtual tourof Hoover Dam:
With ELL students in my classroom, I was more apt to use visual pieces. We received LCDprojectors in our classrooms and so I was more apt to go out to the Internet and pull somethingfrom it and show them what I was talking about. So, as we were reading about dams andhydroelectricity, I was showing them the Hoover Dam and then we were taking a tour of theHoover Dam. So, I guess I was more up to show them visuals.
These multimodal instructional deliveries were helpful in providing students with access tothe topic of instruction and thus in creating opportunities for students to make connectionswith their previous knowledge about dams and about electricity. Had these alternative typesof instructions not been available to the ELLs, these students may not have had any chanceto understand the lesson.
Increased opportunities for peer interactions
Another notable innovation in the classroom practices of the participating teachers wasthe appearance of increased student interaction in their classrooms. The teachers includedactivities that required the students to share their ideas with their tablemates. Also, duringthe school year, each student was placed in the role of table leader. This role required eachstudent to organize table activities and act as a student–teacher liaison. As the teachers
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Pedagogies: An International Journal 43
provided more time for interactions between students, allowing for the use of both Englishand Spanish, and began to pair up the ELLs in order to collectively optimize their lex-ical resources, these students were experiencing a sense of affirmation – and even ofleadership – as Shelly remembered:
We began to work in teams and there was always a team leader. I didn’t have Clara as a teamleader right away. She was kind of one of the last ones picked for that role as I wanted to waituntil she felt very comfortable with her classmates. When it was finally her turn, I rememberthe students coming up with a team name in Spanish. And the [English monolingual] girls inher group wanted for Clara to give them Spanish lessons. So, I think giving her an opportunityto be a leader was very powerful for her.
In this way, interactions in Spanish began to be not only encouraged but also expected. Twostudents in Shelly’s classroom were seated together and often discussed the texts they werereading. These discussions were held in both English and Spanish and served as accesspoints to the classroom practices for both students, as this excerpt from an interview withShelly illuminates:
At the beginning of the year I had Clara and Mayra sitting more in the back, figuring that ifthey needed to converse during a lesson they would be less distracting to the class. But thenas time went on, it didn’t matter where they were in the room, but I usually did put themtogether. And them talking throughout a lesson wasn’t a bother or hindrance to anyone. It wasjust expected. And I would say, “This is what I want you to know. Mayra, would you andClara talk about it?” and “Mayra, do you think Clara understands it?” Often, at the beginningof the year, Mayra used more Spanish but near the end of the year I noticed she was usingmore English. And then when Clara could tell that Mayra wasn’t understanding what she wassaying, she would switch over to Spanish. Or she would use just one word in Spanish. So shewould explain in English and say, “Well, this.”
Extended previewing activities
Another instructional innovation we observed in our teachers’ classrooms was a focus onextended pre-reading activities. Whereas at the beginning of the year all lessons involvingreading comprehension would immediately begin with the actual reading of the text, as weprogressed the teachers began to realize the need for providing ample opportunities for thestudents to familiarize themselves with the content of the text before coming to read it.One example of this could be seen in the preview conducted by Shelly for a poem entitled“The Foul Shot” (Hoey, 1962). Pre-reading activities included a vocabulary search for fivewords (solemn, nudges, hesitates, exasperates and coy) the students would encounter in thetext. Shelly anticipated her students’ confusion and held a discussion of these five wordsas a whole class. Students offered definitions and the students were the subjects of eachexample offered by the teacher. Next, Shelly showed the class a clip of a professionalbasketball player taking a foul shot. Upon viewing the clip, the class (including the ELLs)entered a discussion of what a foul shot was, who takes a foul shot, why a foul shot istaken and how to take a foul shot. In addition, she had one of the students enact a foulshot to “demonstrate what it looks like”. All of this occurred before the students even sawthe poem. Shelly mentioned that these activities were planned to ensure all of her studentswould understand what a foul shot was prior to reading the poem. She remembered:
I became very aware of how important it was for the students to have a good understandingof the vocabulary that they used in the lesson. Like when I taught the poem “The Foul Shot”.I took the students through very detailed discussions . . . the character in the poem . . . his
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
44 A.C. DaSilva Iddings and B.C. Rose
thoughts from when he was dribbling the ball to when he was shooting the basket . . . and thenwhat happened afterwards. And I just knew “foul shot” was not a term that all of the studentswould understand, especially my ELL students. I wasn’t sure if it was something that theywould understand. It was a vocabulary word that, if they had no experience with basketballwouldn’t understand that.
When asked about how the English monolingual students in the class reacted to suchdetailed explanations and extended previewing activities, Shelly answered that she thoughtall students benefited from this type of instruction. Moreover, she said she had come to theconclusion that “what is good instruction for ELLs seems to be beneficial for all students,but the reverse logic does not seem to hold true all the time”.
We point out that although the pedagogical practices described above might not perse seem innovative in relation to the literature concerned with the literacy development ofELLs, they truly were innovations to these teachers’ repertoire of practices. These newpractices were made visible to the teachers through discussions and micro analyses ofvideotapes of instructional interactions. As our study group progressed through the courseof the study, the teachers, in collaboration with the researchers, became ever more able tocarefully and systematically note the ways that they could refine or innovate their practiceto better attend to and engage the children.
Impact on ELLs’ English-language learning and achievement in reading comprehension
A noticeable change that occurred over the course of this study for the ELLs in both theclassrooms we observed was the increased access to classroom practices. For example, atfirst, when Analisa was given first-grade level phonics worksheets to work on while herclassmates worked on other content area activities, she would complete the worksheets tothe best of her ability. However, later in the school year, Analisa decided that kind of workwas not challenging enough for her and requested to participate in the same activities as therest of the students in the class. Slowly, Katie began to modify her methods of instructionso that Analisa could participate. In so doing, she kept the content of the lessons and thepurposes of instruction virtually the same for all members of the class, while modifyingonly the methods of instruction for the ELLs. In this way, during the instructional periodbetween January and June, Katie instituted a number of practices that served not onlyto provide Analisa with grade-appropriate curricular experiences but also to bolster herreading abilities.
Analisa then began to show rapid improvement, leading to unexpected levels ofachievement. For example, sometime in the middle of the academic year, when she firstarrived in Katie’s classroom, Analisa was made to take a standardized achievement test(in English) in order that her reading level be determined. Analisa’s performance was somuch below basic levels of achievement that her test was not scorable. By the end ofthe school year, just six months after the initial test, Analisa had increased her scoresnearly three grade levels. Katie, very surprised and pleased with the score, remarked,“these [ELL] students know so much more than you think they know”. Such was alsothe case for Clara in Shelly’s class. Her initial reading level, as tested in September, wasalso unscorable. Shelly re-administered the test in January and on one final occasion at theend of the school year. Clara was able to reach close to a second-grade reading level bythe end of the year. Similarly, Mayra also improved her reading level over the course of theschool year and was able to reach a third-grade reading level. Mayra, in fact, experiencedparticular academic success in Shelly’s classroom. She received a score of “Proficient” forreading/language arts on the state-administered standardized tests and was well within the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Pedagogies: An International Journal 45
boundaries of Proficient on all measures within this category. Additionally, she received ascore of “Advanced” for mathematics. As a result of her test scores, coupled with her class-room achievement, Mayra was awarded the President’s Award for Academic Excellence forfourth grade.
In sum, over time and through a continuous series of design experiments, we observedclear shifts in the three teachers’ thinking about reading comprehension instruction for theparticular students they were working with; they changed their practice accordingly andultimately improved conditions for learning for the new ELLs enrolled in their respectiveclassrooms. Specifically, the two teachers gradually came to derive some principles thatwere consistently shown to be helpful to their ELLs: (1) allowing ample use of the nativelanguage as a mediational tool for reading comprehension; (2) explicit explanation andpeer discussions in native language of the L2 vocabulary related to the various subjectareas (as well as the consistent and recurring use of this vocabulary) proved to be essentialfor the children to grasp instructional content and to make connections with their priorknowledge; (3) attention to classroom organization was a critical factor in promoting par-ticipation in and access to instruction; (4) extensive previewing activities, so that studentscould become familiarized with the contents of texts even before they attempted to read;and (5) greater reliance on multimodal instructional deliveries, which included the use ofdrawings, enactments (i.e. dramatic play) and websites to provide students with ways to bet-ter contextualize the key ideas contained in the texts presented in class. In congruence withthe genetic law of development, these new understandings for the teachers began to takeplace in the social plane as they participated in the research group discussions of the articlesand conversations about the specific language and literacy interactions we observed in theirrespective classrooms. With support from the researchers, the teachers then applied theseunderstandings into the design of reading comprehension instructional activities for theirELLs. These activities were, in turn, continuously reformulated and refined as the teachersand the researchers in further conversations found them to be helpful (or not helpful) to thestudents.
Discussion
Our study aimed to understand the processes of teacher development as a result of partici-pation in a DBR teacher development programme ultimately designed to improve readingcomprehension instruction for ELLs who were new to the linguistic and cultural educa-tional environment (new immigrant students). Of particular interest was the convergenceof (a) the shifts in teacher thinking about language and literacy learning for L2 students; (b)the design and innovations of teachers’ repertoire of practices; and (c) the ways by whichthese shifts in thinking and innovations in practice brought about new forms of languageand literacy learning, specifically for ELLs. The findings from the related literature firstserved as a resource to derive theoretical conjectures that were then applied to the newcontext and re-analysed. Preliminary questions such as what is the role of native languagein making meaning of English texts, and should opportunities for collaborative peer inter-action be provided, were discussed at length in our teacher–researcher study groups. Also,discussions of a variety of relevant readings, examinations of student work samples andviewing and analysis of videotapes took place during study group sessions in order to cre-ate theoretical conjectures regarding the children’s learning of reading comprehension (e.g.Katie’s realization that “ELLs know so much more than we think they do”). The questionsand conjectures raised by the group were then subjected to systematic scrutiny and wereconstantly refined while other questions arose attending to the specific challenges that the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
46 A.C. DaSilva Iddings and B.C. Rose
teachers were encountering in working with ELLs enrolled in their classrooms (e.g. Katie’squestion about “How can the vocabulary contained in English text be contextualized inhelpful ways for ELLs?”).
Although this study was limited by the small number of participants, we believe thatit fulfilled its purposes in shedding light on the processes by which the activities involvedin the DBR model allowed for the creation of multiple ZPD as participating teachers, stu-dents and researchers responded contingently to one another, to the context of activityand to the social circumstances of learning. Through the genetic analysis we were ableto capture some of the processes by which, during the course of these social interactions,change, both moment-to-moment and over time, took place leading to the internalizationof new understandings, and thus led to expanded opportunities for learning and devel-opment to occur for all involved. Examples of these processes include teachers comingto better understand their ELLs’ academic potentials, children advancing their oral andwritten English proficiency and academic achievement, researchers learning about whatteachers need to know and be able to do in working with the participating ELLs and teach-ers and researchers together drawing general principles that might guide instruction foremergent-level ELLs. In this way, the use of DBR largely functioned as both process andproduct – or as tool and result for this study. In other words, the dialogic nature of theDBR approach, which began to mediate the teachers’ practices, provided them with waysto grow in their abilities to understand and attend to the needs of ELLs placed in their class-rooms. In addition, their repertoire of usable knowledge or knowledge that could be directlyapplicable to their classrooms’ context and the circumstances of their students (Lagemann,2002) increased considerably through the readings and conversations during the studygroup meeting. As such, the teachers began to formulate conjectures about how to changetheir practices in the light of new understandings about the learning processes of childrenbecoming bilingual. As they tested and refined these conjectures, they were increasinglybetter able to tap into the children’s cognitive and linguistic assets, which, in turn, began todevelop.
As measured by standardized achievement tests4 and by teachers’ perceptions of devel-opment, all three students demonstrated considerable progress in their learning of how toapproach an English text and were able to create strategies to elaborate on the content ofthe text (e.g. speaking to their friends in their native language about the texts, relying ontheir prior experiences with text). In terms of vocabulary respective to expository texts inthe different subject areas, the students created their own personal means to discover whatwords meant, found parallels in their native language and drew pictures as resources toattain and sustain meaning.
The researchers were also impacted by this study in that we came to further realizethat teachers need to have specialized preparation in order to meet the needs of ELLs andthat the “one-size fits all” pedagogy and teacher development programmes that do not takeinto consideration the increasing diversity of the student populations are no longer fea-sible. Also, through the course of this inquiry we learned much from the practices theteachers developed and implemented. Although many of the ideas and foundations fornew practices arose from the study group interactions, we emphasize that they were in noway prescribed by the researchers. Instead, these ideas were by and large initiated by theteachers and developed and supported through the process of collaboration (e.g. guided dia-logue) with the researchers and one another. Moreover, we learned that to better understandteacher development, it is necessary to view these processes not in isolation, but in rela-tionship with the students whom they teach and with the contexts of the learning activity.However, the actual “doing” of this study revealed complications in studying ecologically
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Pedagogies: An International Journal 47
valid reading comprehension practices in school without taking into close considerationthe literacy practices that took place in the students’ home environments as well. In addi-tion, another methodological challenge we encountered in this study was the pressure thatthe teachers felt to improve discrete reading skills for the students (e.g. phonemic patternsin English), and thus they tended to focus on narrow measures at times (see also Collins,2004) and needed to be nudged by the researchers and the readings in order to understandthe broader contextual elements that affected their students’ learning.
Implications and conclusions
This study has implications for the possible re-evaluation of professional development pro-grams aiming to prepare practicing teachers to work with linguistically diverse students.Our findings suggest that without specialized training and support, the processes by whichlearning may occur for children becoming bilingual are not readily apparent to monolingualteachers. However, these processes can be made explicit through collaborative inquiriesinvolving teachers and language researchers.
Moreover, our study is in agreement with recommendations in the literature concern-ing in-service teacher continuing education models (e.g. Abdal-Haqq, 1995; Ball, 1996;Little, 1984, 2003; Putnam & Borko, 1997; Richardson, 2003), suggesting the need forteacher professional development to (1) be situated in the teachers’ classrooms and focusedon the students they are teaching; (2) involve extended support, reflection and feedback;and (3) allow for interaction among colleagues. Also in agreement with other studies onteacher professional development (e.g. Borko, 2004; Clark, 2001; Florio-Ruane & Raphael,2001; Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001), our research proposes that teachersneed opportunities to critically examine their instructional practices in order to addressthe particular needs of their students and to collectively explore ways of improving theirteaching and to support one another. In addition, our study pointed to the importance toprovide opportunities for teachers to formulate hypothesis about their instruction and anal-yse their practices vis-à-vis new understanding about their students’ linguistic, cognitiveand academic assets and needs through a continuous process of design and experimenta-tion. We realize that a prescribed curriculum does not provide such opportunities and thatthe over-reliance on test scores to measure student achievement may prevent this type ofin-depth analysis, which the teachers greatly welcomed as a generative source of profes-sional growth and development. In these ways, our work here underscores the need to placedevelopment in the forefront of teacher professional development models aiming to pro-mote critical reflection on teachers’ specific practices, with the goal to create possibilitiesfor changes in ways of thinking about student learning and corresponding innovations inpedagogies (see also Moll & Diaz, 1987).
In closing, we hope that the findings of this study informed those working with teach-ers of linguistically diverse students about ways to support classroom practice through theapplication of a DBR approach and the interventions described here. We also hope wehave provided a glimpse into the possibilities for the improvement of the academic circum-stances of ELLs when teachers become more knowledgeable and are willing to engage insuch inquiry processes. This study reveals that English monolingual teachers working withemergent-level ELLs can support their students to make significant gains in their languageand literacy development by coming to understand their learning processes, by makinginformed conjectures about instructional practices that are helpful and by providing theirstudents with the proper conditions so that their social, cultural and intellectual assets areindeed utilized.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
48 A.C. DaSilva Iddings and B.C. Rose
Notes1. We use the term dialogic in a Bakhtinian sense (although Bakhtin allegedly never used the word
himself), which emphasizes the inherently responsive nature of dialogue, involving individu-als acting at a particular point in time and space, in reaction to what has gone before and inexpectation of what is to follow (Holquist, 1990).
2. The contextualization of vocabulary activities was an adaptation of the Frayer Method ofVocabulary Learning put forth by Dorothy Frayer and her colleagues (1974), consisting of atype of graphic organizer that helps students develop relationships and categories associated withvocabulary and allows students to link vocabulary to their personal experiences. This methodwas discussed in one of our teacher–researcher study group meetings.
3. Mode is here defined as an organized, regular and socially specific means of representation(Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001).
4. Although we had other forms of data that demonstrated the ELLs’ growth in reading compre-hension and English-language proficiency, the school district where this research took place wasmost interested in standardized test score data for the ELLs in order to comply with regulationsof the No Child Left Behind Federal Education Act.
ReferencesAbdal-Haqq, I. (1995). Making time for teacher professional development (Digest 95-4). Washington,
DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.American Federation of Teachers. (2004). Closing the achievement gap: Focus on Latino stu-
dents (Policy Brief 17). Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://www.aft.org/teachers/pusbs-reports/index.htm#english
Ball, D.L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reform: What do we think we know andwhat do we need to learn? Phi Beta Kappan, 77, 500–508.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. EducationalResearcher, 33, 3–15.
Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in cre-ating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2,141–178.
Bryant, D.P., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M. (2001). The effects ofprofessional development for middle school general and special education teachers on imple-mentation of reading strategies in inclusive content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly,24, 251–264.
Castañeda v. Pickard (1981). No. 1007 5th Cir.Clair, N. (1998). Teacher study groups: Persistent questions in a promising approach. TESOL
Quarterly, 32, 465–492.Clark, C.M. (Ed.). (2001). Talking shop: Authentic conversation and teacher learning. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A.E. Kelly
& R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education(pp. 307–333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in research.Educational Researcher, 32, 9–13.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), Newdirections in education technology (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Collins, A. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the LearningSciences, 13, 15–42.
DaSilva Iddings, A.C., & McCafferty, S.G. (2005). Language play and language learning: Creatingzones of proximal development in a third-grade classroom. In Tyler, A. (Ed.), GeorgetownUniversity round tables on language and linguistics: Language in use (pp. 112–122).Washington, DC: George Town University Press.
DaSilva Iddings, A.C., Risko, V., & Rampulla, P. (2009). When you don’t speak their language:Guiding English-language learners through conversations about text. The Reading Teacher,63, 52–61.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Pedagogies: An International Journal 49
DaSilva Iddings, A.C. & Rose, B. (2010). Promoting educational equity for recent-immigrant chil-dren in English-dominant classrooms. What does it take? In Milner, R. (Ed.), Empoweringteachers for equity and diversity: Progressive perspectives on research, theory, and practice(pp. 106–120). New York, NY: Palgrave/McMillan.
Day, D., & Ainley, G. (2008). From skeptic to believer: One teacher’s journey implementingliterature circles. Reading Horizons, 48, 157–176.
Florio-Ruane, S., & Raphael, T.E. (2001). Reading lives: Learning about culture and literacy inteacher study groups. In C.M. Clark (Ed.), Talking shop: Authentic conversation and teacherlearning (pp. 64–81). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Frayer, D., Schwenn Ghatala, E., & Klausmeier, H. (1974). Conceptual learning and development:A cognitive view. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in Californiaschools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11,43–64.
García, G.E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-SpeakingHispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 371–392.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community.Teachers College Record, 103, 942–1012.
Hawkins, M.R., & Legler, L.L. (2004). Reflections on the impact of teacher-researcher collaboration.TESOL Quarterly, 38, 339–343.
Hoey, E.A. (1962). The foul shot. Read Magazine. Weekly Reader Corporation.Holquist, M. (1990). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. New York, NY: Routledge.Housing Assistance Council. (2007). Immigration and housing in rural America. Retrieved
September 4, 2007, from http://www.ruralhome.orgJimenez, R.T., García, G.E., & Pearson, P.D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o
students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 31, 90–112.
Kinginger, C. (2002). Defining the zone of proximal development in US foreign language education.Applied Linguistics, 23, 240–261.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodality. London: Sage.Lagemann, E.C. (2002). Usable knowledge in education: A memorandum for the Spencer Foundation
board of directors [Memorandum]. Chicago, IL: Spencer Foundation. Retrieved November 1,2009, from http://www.spencer.org/publications/usable_knowledge_report_ecl_a.htm
Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.
Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second languagedevelopment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lau v. Nichols (1974). No. 414 US563.Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.),
Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science (pp. 101–159).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Levine, T.H., & Marcus, A.S. (2007). Closing the achievement gap through teacher collabora-tion: Facilitating multiple trajectories of teacher learning. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19,116–138.
Little, J.W. (1984). Seductive images and organizational realities in professional development.Teachers College Record, 86, 85–102.
Little, J.W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. TeachersCollege Record, 105, 913–845.
Martínez-Roldán, C., Yeager, B., & Tuyay, S. (2005). The inquiry acts of bilingual children inliterature discussions. Language Arts, 83, 22–33.
McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high schoolteaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Menken, K., & Antunez, B. (2001). An overview of the preparation and certification of teachersworking with limited English proficient students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse ofBilingual Education.
Miller, B., Lord, B., & Dorney, J. (1994). Staff development for teachers. Newton, MA: EducationalDevelopment Center.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
50 A.C. DaSilva Iddings and B.C. Rose
Moll, L.C. (1988). Some key issues in teaching Latino students. Language Arts, 65, 465–472.Moll, L.C., & Diaz, S. (1987). Explaining the school performance of minority students. Anthropology
& Education Quarterly, 18, 300–311.Moll, L.C., & Dworin, J.E. (1996). Biliteracy development in classrooms: Social dynamics and cul-
tural possibilities. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp. 221–246). NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.
National Council for Teachers of English. (2006). NCTE position paper on the role of Englishteachers in educating English Language Learners (ELLs). Retrieved January 1, 2010, fromhttp://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/teacherseducatingell
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. In R.J. Shavelson & L. Towne(Eds.), Committee on scientific principles for education research (pp. 135–136). Washington,DC: National Academy Press.
Newman, F., & Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. London: Routledge.Nieto, S. (2003). What keeps teachers going? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage
Publications.Pew Hispanic Center. (2008). One-in-five and growing fast: A profile of Hispanic public school
students. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of the new view of cognition.
In B.J. Biddle, T.L. Good, & I.F. Goodson (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers andteaching (pp. 1223–1296). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Reinking, D., & Bradley, B.A. (2008). Formative and design experiments: Approaches to languageand literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 401.Simon, M.A. (2000). Research on the development of mathematics teacher: The teacher devel-
opment experiment. In A.E. Kelly & R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research designin mathematics and science education (pp. 307–333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Snow, C., & Wong-Fillmore, L. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. Washington,DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Stein, M.K., Silver, E.A., & Smith, M.S. (1998). Mathematics reform and teacher development:A community of practice perspective. In J.G. Greeno & S.V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking prac-tices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 17–52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
Westheimer, J. (1998). Among schoolteachers: Community, autonomy, and ideology in teachers’work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Pedagogies: An International Journal 51
Appendix 1. Teacher interview questions
1. How many years have you been teaching?2. How many years have you taught ELL students?3. Describe briefly your philosophy of teaching.4. What are some of the challenges you face when you teach ELL students?5. Why do you think some ELL students do well while others do not?6. What do you think are the important English-language skills for ELL students to be
able to comprehend text?7. What are strong points of each of these students in relation to reading comprehension?8. What do you think about ELLs’ family involvement in the children’s academic lives?9. How are families of ELLs involved in reading comprehension tasks?
10. How is your relationship with the families of ELLs enrolled in your classroom?
Appendix 2. Student interview questions
1. ¿Como crees que te esta yendo en la escuela? [How do you think you are doing inschool?]
2. ¿Te gusta leer, en que idioma te gusta leer? [Do you like reading? In what languagedo you like to read?]
3. Cuando hablas Ingles? ¿Cuando hablas español? [When do you speak English? Whendo you speak Spanish?]
4. ¿Que idioma hablas en tu casa? ¿Cuantos idiomas hablas? [What languages do youspeak at home? How many languages do you speak?]
5. ¿Que es lo que tu haces cuando no sabes las palabras que necesitas para expresarteen ingles? [What do you do when you do not know the words you need to expressyourself in English?]
6. ¿Como te sientes de estar en una escuela Americana? [How do feel about being in anAmerican school?]
7. ¿Como te sentiste durante los primeros meses cuando comenzaste tu escuelaAmericana? [How did you feel during the first a few months when you startedAmerican school?]
8. ¿Como te sientes acerca de la relación con tus maestros y tus compañeros de clase?[How do you feel about your relationship with the teachers and classmates?]
9. ¿Piensas que tu ingles esta mejorando? ¿Por que o por que no? ¿Quien te ayuda? [Doyou think your English is getting better? Why or why not? Who helps you?]
10. ¿Extrañas a tu país? ¿Por que o por que no? [Do you miss your country? Why or whynot?]
11. ¿Tienes algun mejor amigo? ¿Porque te gusta el o ella? [Do you have a best friend?Why do you like him/her?]
12. ¿Cual es tu clase favorita? ¿Por que? [What is your favourite subject? Why?]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
8:04
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
