J Sci Teacher Educ (2012) 23:407428 DOI 10.

1007/s10972-012-9276-1

Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers

Therese Shanahan Lauren M. Shea

Published online: 4 April 2012 The Association for Science Teacher Education, USA 2012

Abstract English learners are faced with the dual challenge of acquiring English while learning academic content through the medium of the new language (Lee et al. in J Res Sci Teach 45(6):726747, 2008; Stoddart et al. in J Res Sci Teach 39(8):664687, 2002) and therefore need specic accommodations to achieve in both English and the content areas. Teachers require higher quality and new forms of professional development to learn and meet the needs of their students. This study examines the impact of one professional development model that explicitly embedded language learning strategies into science inquiry lessons. It also demonstrates how teachers involved in the PD program improve their self-efcacy about language instruction embedded in content and how they interpret and implement the methodology. Keywords Science teaching Professional development Language and content-based teacher learning

Introduction Most of the approximately 1.6 million English learners (ELs) in K-12 education in California are taught by mainstream teachers in English-only classrooms (California State Department of Education, 2008). English learners are faced with the dual challenge of acquiring English while learning academic content through the medium of the new language ( Lee et al. 2008; Stoddart et al. 2002) and therefore need specic accommodations to achieve in both English and the content areas.
T. Shanahan (&) L. M. Shea (&) Center for Educational Partnerships, University of California, Irvine, 441 Social Science Tower, Irvine, CA 92697-2505, USA e-mail: tshanaha@uci.edu L. M. Shea e-mail: LShea@uci.edu

123

408

T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea

Unfortunately, the majority of teachers who are responsible for the academic success of EL students do not have the breadth of pedagogical preparedness to ensure student achievement (Stoddart et al. 2002). Since most teacher education and in-service professional development (PD) programs either specialize in content area instruction or second language instruction, many teachers do not have professional development opportunities to gather information and learn strategies for teaching students to facilitate their acquisition of language and content simultaneously. This hinders student and teacher learning because learning about language is most meaningful when it happens in context (Gibbons 2002). Teachers require higher quality and new forms of professional development to learn and meet the needs of their students. This study aims to demonstrate how one professional development methodology increased teacher learning in the integration of language and content strategies. It also attempts to show how teachers involved in the PD program improved their selfefcacy about language instruction embedded in content and how they interpret and implement the methodology.

Theoretical Background Traditional methods of professional development, more commonly known as oneshot workshops, have typically failed in regard to improvements in teacher learning and practice (Loucks-Horsley et al. 1998). Usually short in length, directed by outside experts, and unrelated to current curricular goals, this type of PD has failed to facilitate teacher learning or a professional connection to the experience. In response, researchers have sought to identify specic traits of professional development that are associated with teacher learning and positive shifts in practice. Several signicant studies guide the eld in conceptualizing the characteristics that make professional development effective. Garet et al. (2001) identify three components of effective teacher professional development based on a study of over one thousand teachers who participated in Eisenhower grant funded opportunities. These features were associated with the largest impact on teachers self-reported increase in knowledge, improvement in skills, and changes in classroom practices. The authors claim that effective professional development should have (1) a focus on content knowledge, (2) opportunities for active learning (through the form of the activity and collective participation), and (3) an extended duration. These are currently recognized by professional development designers as crucial for successful implementation. Hawley and Valli (1999) conceptualize eight principles of effective professional development based on numerous studies of teacher professional development programs. The authors posit that PD should be (1) based on student learning goals and performance, (2) school based, (3) continuous and supported, (4) information rich, (5) focused on theoretical understanding, and (6) based on a comprehensive change process. It also should involve (7) teacher input, and (8) teacher collaborative problem solving. These eight essentials encompass the three features

123

Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers

409

concluded by Garet et al., supposing that any program that achieves all eight would have great promise of attaining its goals.

The Onset Year of a Professional Development Program Garet et al. (2001) and Hawley and Vallis (1999) frames provided the teacher learning theoretical groundwork for the creation of a professional development program for K-2 mainstream teachers in a district with a high English learner population. Additionally, to attempt to increase teachers efcacy in the teaching, Banduras (1997) four stages of self-efcacy were inuential in its design. A Southern California University-based Center obtained grant funding to work with the high EL, low SES school district for 3 years. This study discusses the rst 2 years of the study. The directors at the center had a long-standing partnership of approximately 20 years with the district, making for a collaborative environment. All of the members of the centers PD team had previous K-12 teaching and research experience. In designing the PD program for this grant, the following components were incorporated and implemented to reect the conclusions made by Garet et al. and Hawley and Valli: 1. Learning was based on student learning goals and performance in terms of the CA state math and science content standards for grades K-2, using the districts curriculum guides to determine which standards would be taught at each PD session. The sessions were school-based in that teams of teachers from seventeen schools in the district were invited to participate. The PD was continuous throughout the academic year with workshops at evening dinner meetings, Saturday mini-conferences, and summer content institutes. It supported teachers by providing them with classroom materials to teach the lessons modeled in each session. The PD sessions were information rich in that they incorporated real world connections to the science being taught. Connections to other curricular areas such as language arts and math were made, as well. Each PD session, whether during the evening dinner meetings, Saturday miniconferences or summer content institute, focused on theoretical understanding with accessible research articles related to classroom strategies for participants to read and discuss collaboratively. The PD was based on a comprehensive change process beginning with team building and relationship making followed by sharing of lessons with gradelevel teams at the school sites. Teacher input provided feedback to the teacher-leaders after each session and gave focus to the leadership team in making decisions about content to be presented. Over the course of the program, teachers shared their experiences with science implementation that further guided how the teacher-leaders facilitated the subsequent sessions.

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

123

410

T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea

8.

Teacher collaborative problem solving occurred in professional learning community conversations at Saturday mini-conferences as teachers read and discussed professional articles about school and classroom practice.

Table 1 shows the components of the PD program which aligned to current theories of professional development as presented in Garet et al. (2001) and Hawley and Valli (1999). In the rst year of the program, 68 classroom teachers attended a week-long summer institute, and then monthly trainings throughout the academic year in which they participated in, reected upon, and discussed modeled math and science lessons according to their grade-level curricula. In each workshop, selected, highly qualied classroom teachers, who served as teacher-leaders, demonstrated science and math lessons in the 5E lesson planning model format of Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate (Bybee 1997). Following Banduras (1997) model through these multiple sample lessons, participants actively participated as students in a lesson enacted by a teacher-leader who was chosen as master teacher and was currently teaching in the specied grade level. These master teachers had participated in a previous 5-year National Science Foundation grant to create a regional cohort of professional development providers. Although they were classroom teachers in other districts, they taught children from similar backgrounds as those in the district in this study. Classroom observations showed that these teachers were adept at teaching math and science lessons in their own classrooms, so they were chosen to lead the professional development in this study. After engaging in the grade-level appropriate lesson, the participants in this study had a 15-min conversation about teacher practice and brainstormed how they could incorporate the lesson with their own students and what challenges they or their students could have in the lesson. This meeting time aligned with Banduras vicarious experiences. When returning to their school sites, participants shared with colleagues about their own experiences in participation and enactment of these science strategies, which furthered social persuasion and positive reinforcement. They then taught the lesson to their own students which provided them with mastery experiences. Lastly, the project encouraged teachers to gain an identity of an effective science teacher and
Table 1 Theoretical framework for professional development PD components Student learning goals and performance School based Continuous and supported Information rich Focused on theoretical understanding Comprehensive change process Teacher input Teacher collaborative problem solving Hawley and Valli (1999) X X X X X X X X X X X X X Garet et al. (2001)

Comparison of Garet et al. (2001) and Hawley and Valli (1999) theoretical frameworks upon which the professional development program discussed in this paper were based

123

Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers

411

PD participant, positively inuencing their emotional state. A goal of the rst year of the program was to determine whether the implementation of a PD model based on both Banduras and Hawley and Vallis theoretical frameworks could produce teachers who learn and implement the strategies taught, while creating a stronger sense of teacher efcacy in teaching the content. At the end of this rst year of implementation, research revealed promising science contentrelated results with participants showing a signicant increase in their physical science content knowledge as measured by a pre-/post-test. However, results suggested that the teacher-participants needed more overt focus on language learning strategies. Since science is a natural environment where discussion and learning go hand-in-hand, the science professional development director decided to incorporate an oral language learning component (referred to in the rest of this paper as student-talk strategies) to their lessons to help their teacher-participants support the learning needs of their students. This paper reports on the impact on teacher implementation, teacher perception of learning gains, and teacher efcacy after the second year of the PD, when student-talk was added to the program.

Why Student-Talk? The Benets of Student-Talk in Science During the stages of language acquisition, producing language provides signicant learning opportunities. In the Vygotskian view, language is constructed by interaction with others (Williams and Veomett 2007). Using the target language assists in gathering, transforming, organizing, and reorganizing the learners knowledge of the language (Fillmore 1991). It is critical that ELs have many chances to express themselves while acquiring English because speaking allows students to process language more deeply than simply listening (Swain and Lapkin 1995). Speaking allows individuals to negotiate meaning and adjust their language to make it comprehensible to their audience (Hill and Flynn 2006). In addition, oral English prociency is of crucial importance for younger individuals because it is associated with early literacy skills (August and Shanahan 2006; Snow 1999). Stronger oral language skills tend to be associated with gaining access to literacy skills (Spira et al. 2005). Subsequently, early literacy skills translate to more successful academic experiences. In science, the conceptual is the linguistic where language is the primary medium through which scientic concepts are understood, constructed, and expressed (Bialystok 2008, p. 109). Students engaged in extended science discourse in a reduced-anxiety environment are provided opportunities to construct knowledge, while promoting the repetition of key content words or phrases, use of functional context-relevant speech, and rich feedback (Kagan 1995; Snow and Kurland 1996). When students talk about science with other students and with the teacher, they make sense of their own thinking, listen to the ideas of others, become aware of multiple perspectives, re-think their own ideas, are able to evaluate anothers ideas, and frame their own ideas before writing (Worth 2008). To develop their own understanding of academic words, students need to actively use words and explore in language-rich classrooms that focus not only on content but also on

123

412

T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea

learning vocabulary (Fathman and Crowther 2006). According to Stoddart et al. (2002), there is a natural synergy between science and language that provides opportunities for student understanding of science content and language beyond what could be learned separately. In other words, the integration of the two is greater than the sum of its parts.

Integrating Science and Student-Talk in the Second Year of the Professional Development The second year of the professional development focused on how science lessons can include multiple and expanded opportunities for all students to produce oral language. By using academic student-talk strategies from the districts current English Language Development curriculum, the science director, a graduate student researcher (a former bilingual teacher and current doctoral student in language and literacy), and master teacher-leaders worked together to create lessons that integrated student-talk opportunities in each of the 5Es. These studenttalk strategies supported concept development while providing students with opportunities for relevant, meaningful academic talk. The second year of the program now had new goals of increasing oral language development through selfexpression, interaction skills, proper use of language structures, and vocabulary development. These student-talk strategies supported continuous assessment because students were usually placed in dyads or trios, creating a more effective forum for teachers to check for understanding, assess progress, and appropriately adjust their level of instructional speech. Since these mainstream, K-2 teacher-participants taught students at various levels of language prociency integrated in their classrooms, these strategies provided teachers the ability to differentiate the responses expected given the language acquisition level of their students. The student-talk strategies that were incorporated into the science lessons can be found in Appendix 1. An example of their use in a lesson is shown in Fig. 1. The incorporation of science and student-talk strategies in the second year impacted several of the overarching goals from Hawley and Valli. Teacher input in regard to their students science and language learning goals and performance ultimately led to the change in the program. By focusing on why and how studenttalk strategies can improve students literacy development, the PD program enhanced the foci of providing information rich and theoretical content. In the second year of the PD program, teacher-participants attended monthly workshops in the new model. Teacher-leaders continued to demonstrate their science lessons in the 5E lesson planning model format; however, in each stage of the model, Engage, Explore, Explain, Evaluate, and Elaborate, the lessons featured multiple opportunities for students to relevantly talk in groups or pairs. As a teacherleader was about to implement a specic student-talk strategy, he/she paused to explain the cognitive, linguistic, and social benets of student oral language production. For example, in a Three-way interview student-talk strategy (see Appendix 1 for example of student-talk strategies), teacher-leaders stressed that

123

Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers

413

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

every student in the lesson had opportunities to use scientic language, ask scientic questions, and listen to peer responses. The teacher-leader would contrast the quality and quantity of oral language to more traditional whole class reporting so participants could interpret the value of using this strategy. Teacher-participants engaged in the lessons as students, being given many opportunities to use oral language in science. In other words, second-grade teachers collaboratively participated as second-grade students in science and student-talk lessons.

123

414

T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea

Figure 1 shows the engage component of a PD implemented, second-grade lesson on sound that incorporates student-talk. When a similar lesson was enacted by teacherleaders in the rst year, prior model, the teacher would question the whole class and then one or two students would respond. The underlined text denotes the additions made to include student-talk strategies for this current year of study. This example shows how every student is required to share language and content with peers. The teacher models potential English structures and vocabulary to scaffold student responses. Note how much more language and different exploratory ideas come from the sample student responses when the teacher supplants whole-class questioning with student-talk strategies. This provides even early English Learners with an opportunity to participate. When a student participates in his/her home language, this provides the teacher and other students opportunities to connect the vocabulary knowledge to the target language. Additionally, because each student participates orally and uses language, the teacher can assess conceptual understanding through use of the home and/or target language. The science component of the PD program implemented the student-talk integrations. The math PD directors did not implement this integration in their program. Teacher-participants only learned about student-talk integration and its benets with science, which consisted of half of the workshop time. The total possible hours of time spent on student-talk methodology integration over the course of the year were 18 h. To determine the effectiveness of the student-talk and science integrated model, a year-long mixed-methods research study was completed.

Research Design The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to examine the impact that a PD model based on Bandura and Hawley and Vallis work, and incorporating science and language development had on both teachers practices and on their perceptions of their own and student learning. More specically, the following research questions guided the work: 1. After explicit modeling and overt discussion of student-talk strategies, do teacher-participants who attend 75 % or more of the PD program increase their implementation of academic student-talk in their K-2 classrooms compared to other teacher-participants who attend less than 75 %? What perceptions do teachers have about their learning gains in relation to the integration of student-talk and science? How did the PD program increase teacher efcacy in relation to science and language teaching?

2. 3.

Teacher-participants agreed to have the researchers visit their classrooms to conduct classroom observations to attempt to answer research question 1 both quantitatively and qualitatively. Research questions two and three were answered by participant interviews using qualitative methods. Each is described in greater detail below.

123

Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers

415

Participants The professional development involved 68 K-2 classroom teachers from this low performing school district all of whom self-selected to participate. Their ethnicities, ages, preparation, and teaching experience varied widely. About half of the K-2 teachers had prior participation in previous center-sponsored professional development programs. Participants had diverse experiences in language acquisition training. Observation Participants This specic study looked at the shifts in classroom practice of 21 randomly selected teachers, of the 68 participants, to determine the impact of the content and student-talk learning environment on teachers learning. The 21 teachers participated in classroom observations that will be discussed in greater detail below. These included nine kindergarten, four 1st grade, and twelve 2nd-grade teachers. Their average participation was 72 % of the total possible number of PD hours offered. Eleven of these teacher-participants engaged in 75 % or more of the program PD hours and 10 engaged in less than 75 % of the total PD offered. Interview Participants The researchers chose six teachers to serve as interview participants. These six were selected out of the 21 based on their participation rates, their grade level, and varying shifts in student-talk implementation from fall to spring of the year of this study. The six second-grade teachers averaged 84.3 % attendance, with a range of 33100 %. Four of the six teachers were observed to increase their use of studenttalk strategies in science, 1 teacher had no signicant change, and 1 decreased use of the student-talk strategies. Because second graders are tested by the state in science, the researchers chose second-grade teachers with the hope of a future study to relate teacher perception to actual student performance. This subsample was as diverse as the full population, including 1 man and 5 women (equivalent to the 1:5 male female ratio in the full group). Teachers classroom experience ranged from 7 to 15 years. These six teachers included four English language learners and two native English speakers. For this study, the interview component attempted to uncover how and why participants enacted student-talk strategies in content lessons. Each of the data sources collected for this study is described in more detail below. Observations The 21 teacher-participants were randomly selected to take part in two classroom observations. The rst took place in the fall (November), after two workshops had been offered. The second took place in the spring (early June) after all possible workshops had been offered. Teachers independently chose a 3060 min math or science lesson to enact while the observer was present. Because of the realities of current elementary school climate where math and language arts are predominantly taught, with less emphasis on science instruction, the subject and the length of the lesson was determined by the teachers and usually varied by grade level.

123

416

T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea

At each observation, researchers sought to determine whether teachers implemented the student-talk strategies into their content lessons. Because the observed teachers chose the time and date of the researchers visits, the content of the lesson was not as important to the study as was the integration of the strategies into a lesson. For the majority of the observations, the content area in the fall was different from the content area in the spring. For example, only 19 % of teachers were observed implementing science lessons at both observation points. Researchers collected a variety of data at each observation. First, extensive eld notes provided a qualitative look at multiple aspects of the classroom environment. Second, the peer classroom observation protocol (PCOP) was designed, tested, and utilized for the purposes of recording specic strategies used by teachers to promote content and language learning. This tool is described below and can be found in Appendix 2. Peer Classroom Observation Protocol (PCOP) Designed by the centers science directors, this protocol aligned with the four broad English learner standards for the state of California as they apply to content-based learning: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The tool allowed the observer to document occurrences of receptive and expressive language through the teachers use of research-based language learning strategies, such as student-to-student discussion, students listening to teacher, students working in groups, teachers use of realia, and teachers use of manipulatives (Chamot and OMalley 1994; Echevarria et al. 2000; Herrell 2000). It contained strategies and tools used by teachers and descriptions of student involvement aligned in 5-min increments. This tool allowed observers to measure the total percentage of instances of strategies that occurred during lessons. More specically for this study, the tool gave observers the opportunity to record instances during the 5-min increments when teachers used strategies that promoted student-talk. For analytical purposes, the PCOP scores later allowed for quantitative analysis in determining differences in amount of strategy use. (See Appendix 2.) Use of the PCOP provided data to quantitatively measure change in practice and strategy use. Each of the 21 participants had fall and spring scores, giving them fall student-talk percentages and spring student-talk percentages. Two researchers achieved reliability in the PCOP by completing seven observations together in the fall and debrieng. In conjunction, this tool and the eld notes provided a more thorough perspective of the teachers pedagogy and classroom environment. Interviews Based on shifts in classroom observation scores, six second-grade teachers were selected as interview participants. These teachers participated in one semistructured interview lasting approximately 30 min and taking place at the end of the PD program. Questions probed for perceived shifts in teacher knowledge, implementation strategies, and student learning. Teachers were asked to comment on various aspects of the professional development in relation to their learning or practice changes. The goal was to look deeper into teacher perceptions of how and

123

Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers

417

why their scores shifted in relation to the professional development. The questions that provided a starting point for conversation in the interview are included in Appendix 3. Analysis Several forms of analysis were utilized in this mixed-methods study. Linear regressions were completed for data collected from the 21 teacher observations using the percentages from the PCOP. The six interviews from the 2nd grade subsample were analyzed using grounded theory. All interpretations and coding for these data were member checked with members of the centers PD team and with a faculty member at the Southern California university associated with the center. Linear Modeling To answer the rst research question regarding shifts in teacher implementation, aggregate data from the PCOP protocol were utilized in linear modeling to determine shifts in fall to spring scores. Two variables, students discussing with students and students working in groups, contributed to a latent variable renamed Student-Talk, which was used in the analyses. Teachers PD attendance hours divided by the total possible hours created an attendance percentage variable. Those participants with less than 75 % attendance were considered low attendance, and those with greater than 75 % attendance were high attendance. In the group of 21 randomly selected teachers for the observational component of the study, ten teachers had low attendance and 11 had high. A threshold model allowed comparison in student-talk implementation between groups. To estimate the potential associations between percentage of professional development geared toward integrating student-talk and content to outcomes, a linear regression was used. Two separate models estimated the true value of the student-talk outcomes at the spring observation. The rst model estimated the outcome with only participation hours as the independent variable. The second model estimated outcomes controlling for the participants score at the fall observation. Grounded Theory Researchers utilized a grounded theory approach with all qualitative data. The fall and spring observational eld notes and interview data were checked for instances and descriptions of student-talk. Similar dimensions of teacher learning, practice, and efcacy were grouped together. As patterns emerged, researchers examined them in relation to the research questions. By constantly comparing the teachers comments to their PCOP scores and to relevant literature, the study attempted to uncover the underlying themes of teacher learning, practice change, and efcacy improvement (Dick 2005; Glaser and Strauss 1967). Once results were interpreted, the results from the PCOP continued to conrm the teachers

123

418

T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea

comments. For research question one, in which quantitative and qualitative data were necessary, a data integration technique was used whereby the PCOP data and the interview data were merged into a coherent whole (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004). To ensure valid results, leaders of the centers PD team and researchers worked together to check the coding schemes and their relation to the research questions.

Results Our study demonstrated several signicant results of how a science professional development program can increase teacher learning, practice, and efcacy in relation to language learning. Increased Student-talk Research question one addressed how participation in the student-talk infused science lessons related to shifts in implementation. To answer this question, quantitative data from the PCOP observational tool were utilized. At the beginning of the year, no signicant difference in student-talk implementation was found between the low participation group and the high participation group. This means the two groups were relatively similar in regard to their student-talk implementation. Over the course of the academic year (from the fall observation to the spring observation), there is signicant and positive change in the amount of student-talk that occurred in the high participation groups classrooms. The high participation group has an increase signicant at the p \ .10 level. Most important, however, is that the two groups become signicantly different, with the high participation group making more substantial gains in student-talk implementation. Table 2 and Fig. 2 show these results. Although there were not signicant differences in the student-talk scores in the fall, it was important to assure any insignicant differences were controlled for. Therefore, the second model measures the increases in student-talk controlling for teachers fall score. Table 3 shows these results. Controlling for the participants fall score, the results show a positive, yet insignicant, increase in student-talk score for those who attended 75 % or more of the professional development. To determine the practical impact of this model, the effect size (Cohens d) was calculated for the high participation group by dividing the regression coefcient by the standard deviation of the dependent variable. For those teachers who attended 75% or more of the PD, a large effect size of .64 was determined. Because this sample size is quite small, the signicance does not quite reach statistical signicance (p = .252); however, Allison (1999) has provided evidence that non-signicant coefcients in small samples are inconclusive evidence for the absence of an effect. Additionally, Hinkle et al. (2003) propose that a statistically non-signicant difference does not preclude practical importance. Therefore, our best estimates show that the PD model was effective in increasing teachers use of student-talk strategies in math and science lessons.

123

Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers Table 2 Mean scores difference in student-talk for high and low participation Predictor Mean student-talk Fall Low participation hours (\75 %) (N = 10) High participation hours (C75 %) (N = 11) Difference (highlow)
?

419

Spring .560 (.588) .997 (.512) .436? (.240)

Difference (SpringFall) .285 (.111) .433? (.228)

.275 (.359) .563 (.556) .288 (.207)

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

Fig. 2 Changes in mean student-talk scores. Data from PCOP rubric comparing changes between participation groups

Fall
0.9

Spring
0.8 0.7

Student Talk Score

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

< 75%

>= 75%

PD Participation Level
Table 3 Participation and student-talk fall score regressed on student-talk spring score Standard errors in parenthesis
?

Predictor

Student-talk: fall .497? (.282)

Student-talk: spring .327 (.276) .636? (.319)

Participation C75 % Student-talk: Fall

p \ .10

Qualitative results from the eld notes not only supported the quantitative increase observed in student-talk strategies from fall to spring but also showed more structured and organized implementation. Teachers guided the students to talk more, expected use of science vocabulary, and modeled academic structures. The students produced more academic phrases and science vocabulary with their peers. Additionally, teachers utilized the student-talk strategies just as much in the observed math lessons as they did in the observed science lessons.

123

420

T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea

Interview data conrmed that teachers were cognizant of their efforts to implement the strategies. Teachers reported trying the various techniques to focus on students language production. One teacher reported, So, it wasnt like I was pairing them sometimes, I was pairing them all the time. And moving them around in their grouping. One strategy that they teach us is having them move around in groups- not just keep the same groups. So, make it innovative- change it up a little. The kids would get to talk to other kids that they usually never talk to and they gain language from not just the same groupings, so its always a little bit more language and more discussion. Teacher Learning Ball and Cohen (1999) claim that teachers knowledge of their students and their subject matter can increase in the ne details of implementing a lesson. In other words, teachers can learn as they implement new practices. Sherin (2002) found that teacher understanding of the content, their pedagogical content knowledge, and their curricular knowledge can increase as teachers navigate through reform methodology. Data showed that the interviewed teachers improved their learning about the possibilities that science holds in regard to language learning. Due to prolonged exposure in the professional development and a year of increased implementation, teachers in the PD were able to understand the value of science and language integration. While discussing what she learned from the PD program, one secondgrade teacher reported that using the student-talk strategies in science can facilitate student collaboration and idea sharing: I realize how much more valuable it is to have them bouncing ideas off each other. This year, I found that I realized the value of really doing that with them. As she integrated the student-talk strategies in science, another interviewed teacher stated that she learned the importance of academic language in inquiry: Ive learned that allowing students to use the language that they are trying to learn in sciencewas allowing kids to engage and explore and while using academic language. These two quotations exemplify teachers learning in recognizing the symbiotic relationship between science and language development. Additionally, we argue that the greatest learning is shown in the observed increase in student-talk and science integration. Teacher Efcacy Teachers in our study claimed to feel more efcacious in regard to teaching science and incorporating language teaching through science. Because teachers were engaged in trainings that focused on Banduras four stages, teachers could navigate their own trajectories. By actively engaging in lessons through vicarious

123

Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers

421

experiences, then sharing their learnings socially, and teaching the lessons in their own classrooms while continually being encouraged to be a science and language teacher, the interviewees reported a raised feeling of condence. One second-grade, interviewed teacher reported a stronger sense of efcacy when questioned about her integration of science and language development. I still need to learn more about the science, but I feel condent. I am condent. Another teacher demonstrated her increase in efcacy when she discussed her understanding that students learn better when they actively engage in student to student talk. She reported that she lectured less, her students improved academically, and she gained condence in her new way of teaching. I think [the PD has] helped me to be a better teacherJust opening my eyes to the ways kids learn a little better, a little more, being aware of not teaching passively and thinking of more active ways to you know being able to do things and to make them more interesting for kids instead of just lecturing. I think I have really improved in that area. One teacher abandoned her traditional teaching style and promoted active student to student interactions in her classroom. She reported feeling like a better teacher because she was able to listen to her students explanations of their thinking. Her condence increased because the student-talk strategies allowed her to grasp her students conceptual understanding, and then, her new knowledge informed her instructional decisions. It has helped [me be a better teacher] because before, like I said, it was just paper and pencil. Now, I can see more into their thinking. So, if theyre making mistakes, then I can nd tools, such as hands-on or strategies If theyre on a test, and theyre guessing right, I would never know that they had no idea of place value, because they didnt tell me how they got their answer. They just bubbled in or circled or saw on another persons paper that they had the right answer. And I would think that they know it, but they really dont know it because they didnt tell me, they didnt have to explain their thinking. The three interview examples above demonstrate how teachers increased their condence in science and language integration due to the accessible student-talk strategies promoted in the PD program. When teachers feel efcacious, they are more likely to continue to implement new ways of teaching (Guskey 1988). Implications Focus on educational linguistics is an imperative part of professional development for teachers of second language learners (Snow 1999). The integration of academic student-talk with science showed to be a powerful technique to train teachers to combine science content trainings with language development strategies. This contributes to research in the eld of teaching science to diverse learners and on professional development (Hart and Lee 2003; Lee et al. 2008a, b; Stoddart et al. 2002).

123

422

T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea

The researchers found that teachers can begin to understand the dramatic increase in student learning derived from the incorporation of language instruction with science content instruction. This study has implications in the development of future teaching professional development programs. The increased level of academic student-talk in the teachers classrooms showed that teachers were internalizing their learnings, able to implement the strategies in science, and transfer their knowledge and practice to other subject areas. Therefore, the researchers argue that this approach was valid in enhancing teacher learning and implementation in science and language learning. Additionally, the researchers suggest that language integration should be included in critical components of all science professional development. Teachers who attended at least 75 % of the PD differed signicantly in their use of student-talk strategies from the fall to the spring compared to their colleagues who attended less PD. The implication of this nding is that teachers who received instruction and support throughout the academic year were better able to implement the strategies modeled by the teacher-leaders. The repeated exposure to lessons with student-talk strategies resulted in increased use of these strategies. Once the teacher-participants tried the student-talk strategies and saw the changes in their students language development, the teacher-participants incorporated the strategies with more condence and used them regularly throughout their school day. Teachers implemented these strategies through science lessons during the classroom observations, but additionally they generalized the strategies to their math lessons as well. They offered their students opportunities for studentstudent talk within math lessons even though these were not part of the math lesson modeled in PD or found in a textbook. This implies that the strategies are applicable, useful, and transferable to other content areas. Lastly, the PCOP observational tool employed in this study effectively captured the holistic and complex nature of the elementary science classroom. Creation and use of the PCOP time-on-strategy percentages helped further deconstruct the lessons, language components, and teacher challenges. This tool gave researchers and professional development providers a clear picture of the classroom environment, the instructional strategies used by the teacher, and the participation of the students. It allowed the researchers to measure teachers shifts in practice for content, language, and content and language integration. Additionally, the utilization of the PCOP tool helped evaluate the professional development program and will inform future changes based on needs of the teachers. This observational tool can assist other researchers, teachers, and administrators to uncover the implementation processes and results of content-based language teaching and lead to stronger PD programs and practice.
Acknowledgments This research was supported in part by the California Postsecondary Education Commission, grant ITQ 07-418.

Appendix 1 See Table 4.

123

Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers Table 4 A sample of student-talk strategies (adapted from Avenues, Hampton-Brown 2007) Design Report to a partner Description Each student reports his/ her own answer to a peer The students listen to their partners response. (Turn to a partner on your left. Now turn to a partner on your right etc.) Benets and purposes

423

This allows students to talk to different students in the class and gives each student an opportunity to share and listen to various answers and language structures Talking one-on-one with a variety of partners gives risk free uency practice Students practice speaking and listening

Three-way Interview

Students form pairs Student A interviews student B about a topic Partners reverse roles Student A shares with the class information from student B; then student B shares information from student A

Interviewing supports language development in question formation Students participate in speaking and active listening This ensures participation by all students

Numbered Heads

Students number off within each group Teacher prompts or gives a directive Students think individually about the topic Groups discuss the topic so that any member of the group can report for the group Teacher calls a number and the student from each group with that number reports for the group

Group discussion of topics provides each student with language and concept understanding Random recitation provides an opportunity for evaluation of both individual and group progress

123

424 Table 4 continued Design Roundtable Description Teacher seats students in small groups around tables Teacher asks a question with many possible answers Each student around the table answers the question a different way

T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea

Benets and purposes Encouraging elaboration creates appreciation for diversity of opinion and thought Eliciting multiple answers enhances language uency

Think, Pair, Share

Students think about a topic suggested by the teacher Pairs discuss the topic Teacher strategically chooses certain students to individually share information from their discussion with the class

The opportunity for selftalk during the individual think time allows for the student to formulate thoughts before speaking Think time allows students to think about the concepts and the language before producing Discussion with a partner reduces performance anxiety and enhances understanding

Appendix 2: Peer Classroom Observation Protocol (PCOP)

CUSD PEER CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL (PCOP) Date:____________ Starting Time:__________ Ending Time:___________ District:________________ # of Students:___________ Grade Level:___ Class Level: ____ Course Subject:________________ Conducted by:______________

School Name:_____________________________ Observed Teachers Name:___________________

DIRECTIONS All information recorded on this form should remain confidential. Use this space to take notes and/or to record teacher talk or student-talk.

123

Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers

10 min. 15 min. 30 min. 35 min. 45 min. 50 min. 20 min. 25 min. 40 min. 55 min.

425
60 min.

Observation Category

Type of Classroom Involvement by Students Class Listening to Teacher Group Listening to Teacher Individual Listening to Teacher Student(s) Presenting to Class Student(s) Asking Questions Student(s) Answering Questions Student(s) Using Kinesthetic Movement Class Discussion w/ Teacher Group Discussion w/ Teacher Individual Discussion w/Teacher Students Discussion w/ Students Students Working Independently Students Working In Groups Students Reading Aloud Students Reading Silently Students Writing Students Taking an Exam Intended Cognitive Level of Task Memorization/ Comprehension Skills/Procedures Concepts Relational Knowledge Not applicable Level of Student Engagement (% of Students Engaged) Low (0%-33%) Moderate (34%-66%) High (67%-100%) Tools Used in Classroom Audio/visual media Manipulatives Pictures Realia (real objects) Textbooks Worksheets Other: _____________________ Not applicable Strategies Used by Teachers Administrative tasks/prep work Classroom management Context/orienting students Explaining Formative assessment Graphic organizers/ visuals Kinesthetic movement Lecture Listening/checking work Modeling/demonstrating/think aloud Positive reinforcement Questions: Higher order Questions: Lower order

5 min.

123

426
Random selection Reading aloud Rephrasing Review Wrap-up Questions 1.

T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea

Standard(s) Addressed: ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________

Overview of Lesson: 1) Content focus 2) New material or review 3) Sequence in unit ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ 3. Were the students participating at the cognitive level intended by the lesson(s)? (Circle One) YES NO Please explain: _______________________________________________________________________ 4. Any subject matter content errors? (Circle one) YES NO Please explain:_______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

2.

5.

Classroom learning climate: The physical classroom environment was conducive to student learning. The teacher provided appropriate and equitable praise and positive reinforcement. The teacher effectively managed classroom behavior. The teacher had clearly established routines for instruction. Students were courteous and respectful to one another.

YES YES YES YES YES

NO NO NO NO NO

Appendix 3: Semi-structured Interview Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Tell me about your experience in the SMILE PD program. What are the most valuable pieces of information that you are learning? Which aspects of the PD are the most useful to you? How are they useful? What do you like about the PD? What strategies have you been able to incorporate into your classroom teaching? Tell me about the language learning component. What have you taken away with you about how language development can be integrated with science or math? This year SMILE tried to incorporate student-talk strategies into the math and science lessons.

7.

(a) What did you learn from this? (b) Have you been able to incorporate this in your classroom? (c) If so, how? If not, why not?

Have you seen any benets from incorporating more student-talk? If so, how?

8.

In relation to our visit, we see that you are using XX strategy, lets talk about the professional development in relation to XX strategy.

123

Incorporating English Language Teaching Through Science for K-2 Teachers

427

9.

What course work have you done prior to SMILE in language acquisition or teaching ELLs?

References
Allison, P. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners (Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 332). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efcacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Bialystok, E. (2008). Second language learners in the science classroom. In A. Rosebery & B. Warren (Eds.), Teaching science to English language learners (pp. 107117). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientic literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. California Department of Education. (2008). DataQuest. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/. Chamot, A. U., & OMalley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Dick, B. (2005). Grounded Theory: A thumbnail sketch. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from http://www.scu.edu.as/schools/gem/ar/arp/grounded.html. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2000). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Fathman, A., & Crowther, D. (2006). Teaching English through science and science through English. In A. Fathman & D. Crowther (Eds.), Science for English language learners: K-12 classroom strategies. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. Fillmore, L. W. (1991). Second language learning in children: A model of language learning in social context. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing by bilingual children (pp. 4969). New York: Cambridge University Press. Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a nation sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915945. Garrison, L., & Amaral, O. (2006). Designing and using program-specic instruments. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(1). Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://ejse.southwestern.edu. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Guskey, T. (1988). Teacher efcacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 6369. Hampton-Brown, (2007). Avenues. California: Carmel. Hart, J., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 475501. Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Herrell, A. L. (2000). Fifty strategies for teaching English language learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hill, J. D., & Flynn, K. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English language learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Hinkle, D.E., Wiersma, W. & Jurs, S.G. (2003). Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifin. Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 1426. Kagan, S. (1995). We can talk: Cooperative learning in the elementary ESL classroom. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 382 035.

123

428

T. Shanahan, L. M. Shea

Lee, O., Deaktor, R., Enders, C., & Lambert, J. (2008a). Impact of a multiyear professional development intervention on science achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 726747. Lee, O., Lewis, S., Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., & Secada, W. G. (2008b). Urban elementary school teachers knowledge and practices in teaching science to English language learners. Science Education, 92(4), 733758. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Sherin, M. (2002). When teaching becomes learning. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 119150. Snow, C. (1999). Facilitating language development promotes literacy learning. In L. Eldering & P. Leseman (Eds.), Effective early education: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 141162). New York: Falmer Press. Snow, C., & Kurland, B. (1996). Sticking to the point: Talk about magnets as a context for engaging in scientic discourse. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 189220). New York: Cambridge University Press. Spira, E., Bracken, S., & Fischel, J. (2005). Predicting improvement after rst-grade reading difculties: The effects of oral language, emergent literacy, and behavior skills. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 225234. Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 664687. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: At step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371391. Williams, K., & Veomett, G. (2007). Launching learners in science, pre-K-5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Worth, K. (2008). Science talk and science writing: A view from the classroom. A presentation given at the Literacy Institute 2008, National Geographic School Publishing and Literacy Achievement Research Center.

123