E- Excites

As a first year EAL teacher, I am excited to be pushing into classes and supporting the language development of EAL students. I have been a classroom teacher for many years and have appreciated the collaborative partnerships with teachers that I’ve worked with in the past. Something I've learned is that co-planning is key so the responsibility for teaching and learning is shared. Discussions together throughout the unit looking at student data helps keep the learning on track so it's intentional and targeted to student needs. I’m excited to work with my colleagues throughout the teaching and learning cycle to help identify language goals and develop scaffolds together to give students the tools they need to communicate effectively. I’m also excited to explore the different co-teaching models together.

W- Worries- 

I am a little worried about how teachers will transition to a more collaborative model and some may not want the EAL teacher in the classroom. I know how important co-planning is for an effective co-teaching environment and am concerned about being able to manage my participation at all the key meetings to make sure we have a common understanding of the language requirements needed to access the content of the unit. I know I can do this on my own but talking it through with the class teachers ensures that we are all on the same page with respect to the purpose of both the content and language structures needed. 

N- Need To Know

I need to:

S- Stance/ suggestion to move forward

Next Steps:

1. Take time to get to know my new team, students and the class dynamics.

2. Ask for an invitation to planning meetings before the beginning of units.

3. Reach out to teachers who are willing to explore co-teaching models

4. Share success and areas for growth/ other teachers may be more willing to join

5. Ask for suggestions from administrators to help facilitate this process.

 

I love how SFL helps students anchor language understanding in meaning rather than on abstract grammar terms (making language concrete and visible for all learners).  

 

It helps students understand how language works in particular social functions (ie: Register of a text) and within different text-types.  

 

Functional grammar allows teachers to integrate content and language in ways that reduces the language demands of tasks without reducing the cognitive challenge.  

 

 

W = Worrisome

 I have been teaching writing through a genre-based approach the last 4 years.

I am moving to a new school that uses the writer’s workshop model and I am concerned about how to merge the workshop model with the genre-based approach. 

 

S = Stance 

  - I plan on looking for ways to embed SFL within the workshop units of study. 

 - Build relationship with my new colleagues and discuss the different ways writing is taught. 

N = Need to Know

I need to take the time to get to know the school context, culture, students, and teachers. How is writing taught?  What do we already do? I also need to continue to develop my understanding of language across the different genres so I can better support my language learners. 

 

 

It seems to me that this paradigm goes hand in hand with some other paradigms. For example, the integration of content and language learning highlights the need for all educators to be responsible for the teaching of academic language. I could go further and add a connection to another paradigm: the shift from pull-out instruction to co-teaching. Co-teachers collaborate to integrate language and content, and to teach the academic language (oral and written) associated with that specific area. I am hopeful that by focusing on the BICS x CALP paradigm, I’ll also be able to reflect upon the need for CLIL and collaboration.

N /Needs to Know:

Many schools/teachers believe that students must acquire a certain level of social language before learning academic language. However, research shows that students benefit from learning both social and academic language simultaneously.

I am moving to a new school, and I need to take the time to understand the school’s perspective on that subject, and to find out how different teachers address the need for explicitly teaching academic language.

W /Worrisome:

When promoting CALP, it is important to shift the focus to language usage, rather than teaching only academic vocabulary. Within their specific area, content teachers can teach reading comprehension, can scaffold discussions using academic vocabulary, and can teach any kind of writing associated with their subject. In any of those cases, academic language is being taught explicitly, and with a focus on production (both oral and written).

If the idea is to scaffold first, then let them acquire the language and practice multiple times, how do teachers make sure that the stress does not fall too heavily on language? It seems that the heavy practice would be more feasible in a pull-out context, but then does that take away from the authenticity of practicing the academic language within the content area session?

S / Stance or Suggestion for Moving Forward:

It would be very interesting to dedicate some time to identify the different opportunities and strategies for teaching academic language across multiple grade levels. How does that look like in Kindergarten, 2nd grade, 5th grade, for example? I’d love to have the time and tools to create a shared resource that teachers could refer to when searching for tools to use.

What excites me most about this paradigm shift is that research would be applied and utilized in the classroom. The end goal of research is to eventually implement the results in real-life and improve and/or reframe current practices. Teachers all need to be aware of systemic functional linguistics, translanguaging and other effective practices. 

Content teachers and language teachers alike need to be aware of how second languages are acquired and keep up with SLA theories. So what worries me most is the extent to which teachers would be able to get professional development training. The EAL specialist can always share their knowledge but it is not always received positively and mainstream teachers are often most comfortable using strategies they are already familiar with, which leaves the EAL teacher advocating for a shift to newer practices. 

Learning about the language acquisition process, the developmental stages and the best practices would be a prerequisite for this shift to be realized. Language and content teachers need to be given enough time to plan together, collaborate and set the EAL learners up for success. Time needs to be found to agree on the nature and amount of language work done within the content lessons. The question remains if teachers are willing to invest the time in learning about the learning process and apply what they have learned in their classrooms. 

During collaboration and planning time, teachers could get together and discuss the best ways to teach certain things. 

EAL specialists may offer peer-PD for content teachers to get a better understanding of SLA.

A big step forward would also be to get admin support on this. 

As a new EAL teacher, the difference between Language Learning and Language Acquisition is a new concept to me. Previously, I assumed that when someone learned a new language, it had to be formal, such as using drills, memorizing vocabulary words and repetition (Language Learning). The thought of learning a new language naturally, without repetition or rote memorization, such as is the case with Language Acquisition, would be so much more enjoyable for EAL learners, as well as for the teacher. 

W - Worrisome

Since this is new to me, I am concerned about how EAL learners will learn the rules for grammar since they are not formally taught. Also, since I am not sure if my new school requires students to learn a language through the more formal Language Learning method, how can I integrate the Language Acquisition model in my own teaching, but continue to follow the school's policy?

N - Need to know

I need to study more about Language Acquisition and discover natural strategies for how to interact in the most meaningful way with EAL students so they can learn not only how to communicate effectively, but also how to read and write. 

S - Stance or Suggestion for Moving Forward

I will be teaching at a new school in the fall. I need to talk with the other EAL teachers at my school and find out the school’s stance on Language Acquisition. Hopefully I will be able to collaborate with the other teachers on the best strategies for promoting Language Acquisition, while still adhering to the school's policy.

W- Implementing CLIL seems to require a lot of collaborative planning time. I’m moving to a new school and although the school already has a co-teaching model in place, I’m worried about the logistics. When will we plan together? Does my team have a shared philosophy and approach to language acquisition? 

N- CLIL is new to me and I need to look into the what and how of it.

S- I need to learn more about my new team’s beliefs regarding CLIL/approach to teaching language, what structures/systems they already have in place, and what supports already exist for the students at the early stage of English acquisition. 

E = Excited: What excites you about this idea or propositions? What’s the upside?

The exciting part of working more with the collaborative push in model means we have the chance to plan more meaningful and purposeful instruction with co-teachers.  This will help us to meet students where they are, and pinpoint and provide specialized language instruction and strategies.  I also believe that by using the collaborative push in model we can help to support more positive self-image amongst ELLs, where pull out instruction can lead to negative feelings and anxiety.

W = Worrisome: What do you find worrisome about this idea or proposition? What’s the downside?

The part that worries me is when rigid scheduling makes it difficult to move or alter instruction in ways to provide different forms of push-in collaboration.  I also worry that with rigid scheduling that the EAL instructor might only see students for “language” courses only, instead of being able to provide instruction and strategies within other subjects.  

N = Need to Know: What else do you need to know or find out about this idea or proposition? What additional information would help you to evaluate things?

I need to know more about which co-teaching models are most effective depending on the instructional situation.  I feel that I have experience in team teaching, alternative teaching, and one teach and one support, but still wonder which is most effective.  I would also like to find more information on effective, meaningful co-planning.  I think this area needs structure,time, and routine to be most effective, therefore I would like to find additional information within these areas.

S = Stance or Suggestion for Moving Forward: What is your current stance or opinion on the idea or proposition? How might you move forward in your evaluation of this idea or proposition?

I think that moving more towards collaborative push-in instruction leads to just as much academic gains without the negative feelings and connotations of being pulled out of the homeroom for special instruction.  That being said I do still think that there can be a place for some types of pull out instruction: specifically thinking of learning interventions.  I feel that to move forward I need to see more research about what makes collaborative push in instruction effective, and what strategies help the most in co-planning, co-developing, and co-teaching. 

W = Worrisome

N = Need to know

S = Stand or Suggestion for Moving Forward

I really like that scaffolding is a focus on ensuring that learners are still being challenged at the appropriate level academically, not being hindered by language. By focusing of scaffolding up, I think the mindset is one that appreciates the assets of another language instead of a deficit of not having the language of instruction and is a more inclusive way to teaching and learning. 

 

W = 

I worry that scaffolding techniques might be mixed up with modification. I think there can be a fine line between the two, depending on the task, and sometimes it can be difficult to know how to scaffold up appropriately for different tasks, in order to ensure multilingual learners can work as independently as possible. I think this is especially hard at the beginning stages of language acquisition, where learners have no prior knowledge of the instructional language. I’d also worry about the ability to provide these scaffolding techniques across the curriculum to the different specialist teachers, so that multilingual learners are supported in all their mainstream classes. 

 

N =

What are appropriate scaffolding techniques for learners of different levels? How can we provide scaffolds to teachers across subjects that we aren’t sure about ourselves (e.g, music)? What if multilingual learners have learning support needs? If then, would modification be more appropriate? 

 

S =

My current stance is that scaffolding is a more effective technique than modification for multilingual learners so that they can continue to be academically challenged and don’t ‘fall behind’ in their learning unnecessarily. I’d like to research more into scaffolds so that I can ensure I am appropriately scaffolding for all levels of learners and not falling into modification habits, as well as being able to advocate for scaffolds to the mainstream teachers. However, I’d also like to look into EAL learners with possible learning support needs, because then modification might be more necessary.