See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241096978

Sustaining collaboration: English-as-a-second-

language, and content-area teachers

Article  in  Teaching and Teacher Education · February 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.016

CITATIONS READS
59 699

2 authors:

Faridah Pawan Jeremy H. Ortloff

Indiana University Bloomington 1 PUBLICATION   59 CITATIONS   
28 PUBLICATIONS   478 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Glocalization research in Yunnan View project

Inquiring into patterns of “learning presence” amongst online doctoral students View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Faridah Pawan on 20 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Feature Articles

ESL and Content Area Teacher

Responses to Discussions on
English Language Learner
Instruction
FARIDAH PAWAN
Indiana University

DANIEL A. CRAIG
Sangmyung University

The current study compares the responses and statements of

English as a second language (ESL) and content area teachers in
discussions about the instruction of English language learners
(ELLs). A study on how these two sets of teachers understand the
field is important because commonalities and differences in their
opinions may have an impact on the effectiveness of their
collaboration. Such collaboration has become essential given the
increasing number of ELLs in U.S. public schools. The findings of
the study highlight areas of commonalities that could serve as a
foundation for ESL and content area teachers to initiate their
collaboration. The findings also yield areas of differences in the
teachers’ responses, indicating clearly where support and bridge
building are needed for collaboration to be sustained. Based on
these results, recommendations are offered that aim to support
ESL and content area teacher collaboration in ways that can help
avoid problematic issues identified by teachers in the study.
These include the relegation of ESL teachers to the personal
assistant role, the sense of helplessness and isolation that content
area teachers experience when working with ELLs in their
classroom, and lack of advocacy efforts for ELLs.
doi: 10.5054/tj.2011.259956

Since 1994–1995, a rapid increase in the number of English

language learners (ELLs) enrolled in U.S. public schools has resulted
in 5.1 million of these students (‘‘Quality Counts,’’ 2009), presenting
TESOL Journal 2.3, September 2011 293
an increasing number of teachers in all disciplines with the challenge
of teaching ELLs. Very few teachers in K–12 content areas have been
prepared for this challenge. Only about 12.5% of teachers have had
8 hours or less of formal preparation for teaching ELLs (Gruber,
Wiley, Broughman, Strizek, & Burian-Fitzgerald, 2002).
The research described in this study focuses on English as a
second language (ESL) and content area teachers’ responses to each
other’s discussions on the instruction of ELLs. Given the rapid
mainstreaming of ELLs in classrooms, close collaboration between
ESL and content area teachers has become increasingly essential for
serving the needs of these students. The information derived from
this study suggests improvements that could be undertaken to
improve collaboration between the two sets of teachers.
Professional development (PD) programs that bring the two sets
of teachers together provide an opportunity for them to learn from
one another and for researchers to observe the interaction. The
Collaborative Teaching Institute (CTI)1 in a midwestern university,
where this research was undertaken, is one such federally funded
program. ESL and content area teachers jointly pursued seven
online courses on language teaching and assessment approaches for
a year and a half. These classes were interspersed with face-to-face
workshops over the course of six semesters, including the summer.
While engaged in this program, teachers often expressed to
program staff a belief that the main stumbling block to their
collaboration was their lack of knowledge of each other’s expertise
and practice. This is exemplified by the following comment:
I want to collaborate with my ESL and/or content area
colleagues, but I do not know how to because I do not know
what my colleagues know about the instruction of ELLs and
what they do for the learners.

In keeping with this sentiment, the main objective of the study

was to identify what ESL and content area counterparts believed
would facilitate their collaborative efforts. The research question thus
focused on the identification of responses and statements shared by
the teachers with regard to information and discussions about the
instruction of ELLs in a PD program. An understanding of how these
1
Pseudonyms are used for the institute and all participants mentioned in this study.

294 TESOL Journal

two sets of teachers perceived the task of ELL instruction is important
because similarities and differences in their views may impact the
effectiveness of their collaboration. Shared understandings can serve
as a basis for initiating and strengthening collaboration. On the other
hand, differences in understandings can reflect complexities that,
unless resolved, may present stumbling blocks to collaboration.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Freeman and Johnson’s (1998) conceptualization of the tripartite
nature of the knowledge base of language teachers was used as a
foundation for understanding the ESL and content area teachers’
responses to ELL instructional information and discussions.
Freeman and Johnson’s framework helped to situate the teachers’
responses within the sociocultural context in which they worked.
What teachers know about their teaching is shaped through their
experiences as learners of teaching, as participants in the school
context in which they work and as classroom teachers. In this
framework, language teacher knowledge is based on (a) the
teachers as learners, (b) the nature of schools and schooling, and (c)
the nature of language teaching. Freeman and Johnson emphasize
that the three domains are in ‘‘constant and critical inter-
dependence’’ (p. 406) and operate jointly to influence and shape
teachers’ knowledge.
In the first domain, teachers as learners, Freeman and Johnson
(1998) point to the centrality of teachers’ prior knowledge and
background experiences in shaping their knowledge base. The
second domain addresses the influence of context on teachers’
knowledge base. In this regard, knowledge of the nature of schools
focuses on teachers’ understanding of the immediate physical and
sociocultural settings in which they work. Knowledge of schooling,
however, also refers to their perceptions over time of implicit
elements such as underlying values and hidden curricula. The third
domain of the framework is teachers’ understanding of the
pedagogical process, in particular their understanding of the types
of instructional activities and learners in their classrooms.
The current study utilizes Freeman and Johnson’s (1998)
framework to contextualize and understand ESL and content area

ESL and Content Area Teacher Responses to ELL Instruction 295

teachers’ responses as to how to undertake the instruction of ELLs
in their classrooms.

METHOD

Research Setting and Participants

The participants in this study were 45 in-service teachers from
seven school districts identified by the Department of Education in
the state where the CTI is located as those most highly impacted by
ELL enrollment. Twelve teachers taught ESL, and 33 taught content
areas. Together, they completed their coursework for ESL
certification in the 2007–2008 school year. They took seven online
courses combined with regularly scheduled face-to-face intensive
workshops. Table 1 provides a profile of the teacher participants in
the study.
The CTI classes were offered primarily online. The institute’s
objective was to locate and embed PD within teachers’ daily
contexts, without removing teachers from their classrooms and
workplaces. The participants received three graduate credits for
each class they took, and the credits counted toward ESL teacher
certification.

Data Collection and Analysis

The study involved gathering data from the participants’ online
discussions in a class on ELL instruction and assessment over the
course of 32 weeks, or two semesters. The participants were
expected to read materials assigned each week, ask questions, and
discuss the questions two to three times a week. Their participation
consisted of 40% of their grades.

TABLE 1. Participant Characteristics

Tea- Number Years Elem- Adult ESL
cher of partic- Fe- teach- entary Middle High edu- coordi-
role ipants Male male ing school school school cation nator
ESL 12 0 12 5–20 2 2 7 0 1
Content 33 7 26 5–20 15 6 11 1 0
area

296 TESOL Journal

 Prior to the beginning of the class, the participants were given a
syllabus that identified the course topics (see Table 2) and the list of
readings related to each topic.
Coding of data in the study occurred in two phases. In the first
phase, coders identified and analyzed the discussion questions that
the participants generated under each topic. The coders then
tabulated the number and percentage of the most frequently asked
questions in relation to other questions asked under each topic. In
the second phase, the coders focused on the most frequently asked
questions and identified the responses and the issues raised in those
responses.
The coders then undertook ‘‘check coding’’ (Miles & Huberman,
1984), in which they coded separately and later reviewed the data
together. There was 93% inter-rater reliability for the three coders.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Findings
The analyses yielded those questions that were most frequently
asked under each topic and were thus of greatest interest as
indicated by the percentages of responses. The analyses also
revealed which responses the ESL and content area teachers shared

TABLE 2. Topical Areas and Description

Topical areas Description
Advocacy for English language The people and means to assist ELLs
learners (ELLs)
Roles and responsibilities as The scope, nature, and extent of teacher
teachers of ELLs responsibilities toward ELLs
Conceptions of ELL literacy Types of literacies needed or to
be acquired by ELLs
Teaching approaches Various instructional approaches for
ELLs that are known, used, read,
and heard about respectively in
literature and meetings
Roles of assessment Various assessment roles identified
in the teaching of ELLs
Interdisciplinary collaboration Current practices, outcomes, and potentials of
interdisciplinary collaboration between
ESL and content area teachers

ESL and Content Area Teacher Responses to ELL Instruction 297

in common and which were unique to each set of teachers. Table 3
provides an overview of the questions and responses.
The findings provide an overall picture of the similarities and
differences in the responses of participating ESL and content area
teachers. The following section consists of a discussion of the
responses within the context of Freeman and Johnson’s (1998)
sociocultural framework of teacher knowledge.

Discussions
As mentioned earlier, Freeman and Johnson’s (1998) framework
helped to situate the responses of the ESL and content area teachers
within the sociocultural contexts in which they worked. The
teachers’ responses reflected their own learning and experiences,
their understanding of the social processes of schools and schooling,
and their understanding of teaching and learning in their
classrooms.
Teachers’ own learning and prior experiences are reflected
under the topic of ELL Advocacy in responses from both sets of
teachers to the most frequently asked question regarding their
investment and engagement outside of school. Although both sets
of teachers agreed on the need to reach out to parents, content area
teachers also placed a priority on obtaining added professional
training and support for the instruction of ELLs. The following
quote from a content area teacher addresses the point directly:
I am like you in that I feel very isolated at times. Other than a few
workshops, I have never been trained in how to truly help my
students. I often feel like I am cheating my ELL students because
I don’t really know how I can best help them.

Additionally, the angst expressed by the following high school

teacher underscores existing limitations in his training background:
This is my dilemma! I am a history teacher. I have no language
education; I do not know Spanish, so it is very difficult for me to
communicate. I really want to help the ESL student in my class,
but she has little proficiency [in English]. I don’t know what to
do.

In contrast, under the same topic of ELL Advocacy and in

response to the same question, ESL teachers’ responses reflected
298 TESOL Journal
 TABLE 3. Questions and Responses
ELL advocacy
Most frequently asked ESL and content area teacher Content area teacher–only
question responses ESL teacher–only responses responses
What should be N Reach out to parents of English N Change mainstream N Seek native speaker help
teachers’ investment language learners (ELLs) perceptions of ELLs for ELLs
and engagement N Change mainstream policy N Seek help from bilingual
outside the toward ELLs assistants
classroom? (57.4%) N Advocate for modifications N Seek first language (L1)
N Advocate for sheltered materials
instruction N Seek training in ELL
N Correct misconceptions instruction and
N Defend ELL rights assessment
N Advocate for appropriate ELL
placement
N Train content area colleagues

Role as a teacher

ESL and Content Area Teacher Responses to ELL Instruction

What is the nature of N Empower and motivate students N Teach content
responsibilities in the (caretakers and nurturers)
classroom? (58.1%) N Maintain L1 language and culture
N Teach English language skills and
culture
N Teach survival and real-world life
skills
N Teach academic skills in school
(test preparation, standards,
academic language)

299
300
TABLE 3. Continued

Conceptions of ELL literacy

Most frequently asked ESL and content area teacher Content area teacher–only
question responses ESL teacher–only responses responses
Is there an academic/ N Cognitive academic language N English varieties should be
Standard English proficiency is a factor accepted
(SE)? (58.3%) N Social English and basic
interpersonal communicative
skills are factors
N SE should be used in professional
lives
N SE is important in communication
in school

Teaching approaches
Are student-centered N They have collaborative potential N Standards adherence in N ESL standards adherence in
approaches viable? N They are motivating approaches may approaches may adversely
(41.6%) N They should be used in disadvantage ELLs impact content standards
combination with other coverage
approaches
N They are dependent on availability
of resources

TESOL Journal
 TABLE 3. Continued

Alternative and standardized assessment

Most frequently asked ESL and content area teacher
question responses
What are the uses of N It enhances accuracy in tracking
alternative and documenting progress
assessment? (40.5%) N It has a positive affective impact on
learning
N It promotes reflection of true
abilities and learning process
N It provides immediate feedback to
teachers
Content area teacher–only
ESL teacher–only responses responses
N It enables teachers to N The process needs to be
accommodate for different transparent to aid
forms and types of understanding of all
learning constituencies
N Teachers can address N Assessment needs to
diverse learning styles demonstrate a comparability
of results
N There needs to be additional
development time
N There needs to be additional
implementation time

Interdisciplinary collaboration

ESL and Content Area Teacher Responses to ELL Instruction

How receptive are N Camaraderie with ESL and N Low numbers of content N ESL teachers are needed in
teachers to content area teachers is needed area teachers work with content area teachers’
collaboration? (49.3%) ESL teachers classrooms
N Few content area teachers N ESL instruction should
initiate collaboration support content instruction
N ESL teachers are often in a N Content area and special
personal assistant role education teacher
involvement is needed also

301
their understanding and active involvement in the school and
schooling processes that are important in Freeman and Johnson’s
(1998) framework. The responses focused on persuading colleagues
of the need for a more empathetic environment for ELLs in their
schools. This undertaking was evident in the ESL teachers’ efforts in
changing mainstream policy and perception regarding ELLs,
defending the learners’ rights, advocating for their appropriate
placement, and mentoring content area colleagues. Here is an ESL
teacher’s description of what she did to advocate for ELLs:
Around the middle of first semester, I discovered that the head of
our guidance department had scheduled my ELL kids into
‘‘repeater English’’ classes—placing them with students who had
already failed Freshman English the first time around. This
placement is disastrous for ELLs. I had to speak up!

As Freeman and Johnson (1998) note, over time and through

observations, teachers’ understanding of the processes of schools
and schooling enable them to see deeply embedded elements such
as hidden values in schools and the communities in which they are
situated. This understanding can lead teachers such as the one who
made the previous comment to take action.
On the topic of Role as a Teacher, it is clear that the roles both
sets of teachers articulated for themselves reflect their knowledge
and efforts to identify and connect what was happening in the
classroom to what they know is valued in their community. In
addition to their emphasis on teaching academic, school-based
subjects, the teachers’ responses reflect the importance they give to
finding ways to instill pride in students in their language and
cultural heritage. A quote from a content area teacher is illustrative:
Because somewhere between discouragement, frustration, and
feeling overwhelmed, I’m going to find something that will help
me figure out how best to positively impact my students (even
the ones who don’t want to admit that they care), helping
students see value in their language and stories, using those as
inroads.

The teachers’ responses to the question about academic/

Standard English, on the topic of Conceptions of ELL Literacy,
demonstrate their joint knowledge of not only differences between
302 TESOL Journal
social and formalized forms of English, but also their respective
roles in the success of students in school and in society at large. The
issues raised specifically reflected the teachers’ belief that informal
Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills and formal Cognitive
Academic Language Proficiency in English are required for ELL
success (Cummins, 2000). In addition, responses from both sets of
teachers identified the importance of striving for the functional and
practical proficiency in Standard English. Here is how one content
area teacher put it:
Each student is proud of his or her neighborhood and language
typical of that area. But in their areas of employment and further
education, each will need to adapt to the dominant language
spoken.

The ESL teachers’ responses to the question of Standard English

also included the additional call to accept students wherever their
developmental stage of English learning might be. As one ESL
teacher put it, this is part of the challenge of her job:
I feel an obligation to support my students’ English acquisition,
whatever their English level is or what kind it is, in a way that
helps them find their place in our community, without
abandoning their heritage—this is not easy.

Freeman and Johnson’s (1998) position that what teachers know

is anchored in their knowledge of the teaching and learning
processes in their classroom (p. 407) was reaffirmed in responses to
questions on the topics of Teaching Approaches and Alternative
and Standardized Assessment. Responses to the question about the
viability of student-centered approaches demonstrate ESL and
content area teachers’ joint awareness of the potential for these
approaches to motivate students’ engagement in the classroom. In
addition, responses also suggest that there is a constant search for
ways to compliment the strengths and attend to the weaknesses of
student-centered approaches. This quote from a content area
teacher is illustrative:
I think that a combination of approaches is the answer always.
There are times when passive absorption of knowledge is needed
before active construction can take place. Individual learning

ESL and Content Area Teacher Responses to ELL Instruction 303

 may also be needed before social interaction can take place. I
think good teaching really is a variety of methods to help all
students learn. It seems to me that we are coming back to the
same consensus in earlier weeks, that is, a variety of approaches
is needed.

In response to a question about the uses of alternative

assessment, the responses of both sets of teachers reflect what they
thought ELLs were capable of in the classroom. They understood
the need for alternative types of ELL assessment to more accurately
track, document, and reflect students’ abilities and learning
processes in the classroom. The responses also show that ESL and
content area teachers understood the equally important use of
student assessment to inform teaching. Additionally, there was also
a jointly held belief that standardized testing was not always
capable of assessing the complete range of students’ abilities and
outcomes. This is evident in what one ESL teacher had to say:
I am so tired of saying to students I can help them when I often
feel I can’t. We use tests, we overtest our ELLs, we use multiple-
choice, standard[ized] tests that don’t show what we can do in
class. . . . How can they show anything when all students do is
choose answers somebody else thinks are correct?

Teachers’ knowledge of teaching and of the learners in their

classes is also evident in the differing responses of ESL and content
area teachers on the topics of Teaching Approaches and Alternative
and Standardized Assessment. In terms of student-centered
approaches, both sets of teachers brought forth the issue of
standards as a constraining factor. However, they problematized
standards differently. The ESL teachers who raised the issue
focused on the potential for standards to disadvantage ELLs, as
evidenced in the following comment:
[Although] we ask that students achieve standards at all grade
levels and in all academic areas . . . I think students should be
pushed to meet the standards, but we should not be surprised
when it takes them a long time to get there. . . . Those are not
standards developed for them.

On the other hand, the content area teachers who responded to

the same question focused on the primacy of content area standards
304 TESOL Journal
in classroom instruction. The following is the expressed position of
a content area teacher:
It may not be the most stimulating or meaningful type of
teaching, but if the goal is to cover the standards, then textbook-
driven instruction would get that accomplished. Constructivist
and student-centered activities go to the back burner. We
struggle as it is already.

Thus, although standards were mentioned in responses from

both sets of teachers, there were differing perspectives as to how the
standards impacted instruction.
Also under the topic of Alternative and Standardized
Assessment, the differences in the teachers’ responses pertain to
equity and equality in classroom teaching. ‘‘Equity stresses fairness
as it pertains to tailoring assessment to meet the needs of individual
circumstances’’ (Lam, 1995, p. 3) and can be seen in reference to the
use of alternative assessment to accommodate differences in types
of learning. One ESL teacher’s observation is demonstrative of the
situation:
I asked an administrator one time if I should flunk all of my ESL
students because they did not meet the requirements of the 10th-
grade curriculum, and he told me this: ‘‘You must judge them on
what they CAN do.’’ But how am I going to do that with the tests
we have now?

Whereas equity stresses accommodating individual differences,

equality standardizes the assessment method and content for all
individuals (Lam, 1995). Content area teachers’ responses stress the
need for alternative assessment tools to be transparent and their
results comparable to assessment information obtained elsewhere
and through other means. However, there are problems inherent in
this position, as acknowledged by one of the content area teachers:
If they [ELLs] are not proficient in English, all the types of
assessment in the world are not going to put them on equal
footing with native speakers. This seems like a no-win situation
for the students.

Additionally, the content area teacher responses point to time as

a complicating factor in developing and implementing alternative
ESL and Content Area Teacher Responses to ELL Instruction 305
assessment in content classes for ELLs. The following comment
from a content area teacher provides an illustration:
I’m sure I’m not the only one . . . but 9 of my ELLs are placed in a
class of 23 native speakers and 4 of my ELLs are in a class of 28
native speakers. Most of my ELLs are at a Level 2, but I do have
some Level 1 students as well. Our 40-minute classes leave me
with little time to deal with the issues of the native speakers, let
alone to work on special assessments for my ELLs.

Clearly the responses of ESL and content area teachers reflect

their lived experiences and knowledge of the processes of learning
and teaching in their classrooms.
The responses also reflect the teachers’ acute awareness of the
demands and expectations that either supported or challenged their
efforts at collaboration. This is evident in the teachers’ receptivity to
the topic of Interdisciplinary Collaboration. ESL and content area
teachers alike acknowledged that they needed to work together as
well as with other colleagues to serve their students. A content area
teacher put the rationale for the collaboration in the following way:
Many of my ELLs come in my math ‘‘English-speaking’’
classroom without any background whatsoever in the English
language. . . . It would be as if they were thrown into a classroom
in China and told to participate in classroom activities. I could
not, and many of my ELLs cannot. It is impossible to do this all
by myself.

This position was supported by her ESL colleague:

I feel lucky to be next door to Mrs. Abrams, the language arts
teacher. We talk every day in the hallway about what the kids are
doing. I do not know what I would do without her so close.

Additionally, to the following content area teacher, the

consistency of ESL teacher support was critical. His statement could
also be interpreted as a preference for the integrated approach over
the pull-out approach whereby ELLs are removed from content
classes to receive segregated ESL instruction.
The amount of instruction ESL students receive from this ESL
teacher is inconsistent. . . . I would much rather have her coteach

306 TESOL Journal

 with me in the classroom and help the students with language
skills they need to understand content.

Even though there was agreement overall that ESL and content
area teachers should work together, the differing responses brought
to the surface deeply embedded challenges to that collaboration.
The ESL teachers who responded to the question of receptivity in
collaboration pointed to an imbalance in the collaborative
relationship whereby few content area colleagues took the lead in
working together with their ESL counterparts. More important, the
‘‘personal assistant’’ issue raised in the ESL teachers’ responses
provided a troubling view of their supportive role as perceived by
their content area colleagues. An illustration of this issue can be
derived from this ESL teacher’s observation:
If I had my ‘‘realistic model,’’ we would have collaboration every
week with each department. I do not want to be given a copy of a
content teacher’s lesson plan only for translation. I want to help
the teacher learn how to ‘‘teach’’ it. . . . I often find that all the
content teachers want is for me to do their job for them.

This quote puts ESL teachers in the service category, being

considered partners only when a crisis is evident. Successful
collaboration requires the participation of parties who consider one
another as equals. Without this, collaboration deteriorates into an
unequal and dependent relationship.
Freeman and Johnson’s (1998) tripartite framework provides a
basis for understanding and contextualizing the similarities and
differences in ESL and content area teacher responses. The two sets
of teachers can build upon areas of commonality outlined in the
responses as a foundation for their collaboration in ELL instruction.
The differences in their responses signal areas in which support and
bridge-building are needed for sustained collaboration to occur.

LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings in this study are not comprehensive; they are confined
to questions with the highest percentage of responses under a
particular topic. Also, the percentage of responses leaned more
heavily toward those of content area teachers in the study because
there were more of them (33 versus 12 ESL teachers). In addition,
ESL and Content Area Teacher Responses to ELL Instruction 307
the findings do not demonstrate how the teachers might have
influenced one another’s positions.
Nevertheless, the study lends itself to several recommendations
for enhancing long-term teacher collaboration. PD programs that
bring together ESL and content area teachers can, for example, help
to mitigate problems such as the inadvertent relegation of ESL
teachers to the personal assistant role and the sense of helplessness
and isolation that content area teachers experience when working
with ELLs in their classrooms. PD programs should also address,
particularly for content area teachers, ways to advocate for ELLs.
With regard to enhancing ESL and content area teacher
collaboration, PD programs should include a continuum of
curricular models that are able to provide guidelines about how the
two sets of teachers can work jointly and models that enable them to
seek help from one another when they have to teach ELLs in their
classrooms. For example, because Snow, Met, and Genesee’s (1989)
content-based instruction (CBI) model pertains to integrated
classrooms, it can be of use as a practical guide for ESL and content
area teacher collaboration in teaching ELLs. Through CBI, both
groups can see that their collaboration could involve identifying,
planning, and teaching language that is essential for understanding
and discussion of a particular topic or concept (content-obligatory
language). Content-compatible language objectives can be attained
when the two collaborate by focusing on language that is not
content specific but rather supports student communication and
engagement in the content classroom.
On the other hand, sheltered instruction (SI; Echevarria, Vogt, &
Short, 2000) models are effective in making transparent the major
elements involved in scaffolding the teaching of ELLs. These
models can provide a systematic guide as to areas in which ESL and
content area teachers can seek each other’s help (e.g., building
students’ background knowledge, providing comprehensible input,
sustaining content and language teaching objectives in ELL
instruction). The other contribution of models such as SI is that they
can be nonthreatening. Rather than replacing teaching methods and
strategies already in place, SI seeks to complement them while at
the same time providing new approaches to add on to teachers’
existing instructional repertoires.
308 TESOL Journal
 By providing ESL and content area teachers with guidelines on
where to seek help and how to collaborate with each other, PD
programs assist both sets of teachers in filling in gaps in ELL
instructional knowledge. More important, guidelines can provide
teachers with ways to acknowledge each other’s area of expertise
and thus make it easier for them to be more open and more
receptive to collaboration.
This study’s findings also suggest the need to build school-based
professional communities for these teachers. These communities are
groups of people who come together either voluntarily or as part of
their professional obligation to help address issues of isolation and
perceived imbalances in teaching roles and areas of expertise
(Levine, Irizarry, & Bunch, 2008). For example, the teachers in a
California school studied by Levine and colleagues developed and
consistently used discussion protocols to prompt reflections and the
sharing of ideas. In another study (Pawan & Ward, 2007), a school
in northern Indiana focused on sustaining its ESL and content area
teacher professional community by prioritizing and focusing on in-
house and teacher-generated ideas through regularly scheduled
share-fairs. The relevancy of the share-fairs stemmed from the fact
that ideas are grounded in the daily experiences of both groups of
teachers. The teachers also saw the fairs as regular opportunities to
network and mentor each other in their own school setting.
Finally, this study’s findings, particularly under the topics of
Conceptions of ELL Literacy and ELL Advocacy, highlight the
advocacy roles that ESL teachers play, suggesting that content area
teachers were not as engaged in assuming these roles because they
were more focused on establishing an ELL instructional knowledge
base. Thus PD programs and teacher communities should also
involve immersing content area teachers in the fundamentals of
teacher advocacy for ELLs. According to Athanases and Martin
(2006), such advocacy involves ‘‘casting all aspects of school as
problematic rather than given’’ (p. 628) and using one’s own
expertise rather than merely relying on others to intercede on
students’ behalf. In order to do so, it may be necessary to look at
elements in teacher preparation programs that have been successful
in helping teachers learn about advocacy. This includes coursework
that provides opportunities for teachers to observe the modeling of
ESL and Content Area Teacher Responses to ELL Instruction 309
equitable teaching practice, to engage in simulations and role-
playing, and to undertake inquiry projects that focus on individual
learners and their communities (Athanases & Martin, 2006).
Overall, the findings presented here can be used as a basis for
planning action to enhance ESL and content area teacher
collaboration. They lay the groundwork for conversations about
ELL instruction across disciplines. If the conversations are sustained
over an extended period of time, there will be a shared history of
engagement and learning between ESL and content area teachers
that can lead to new modes of collaboration in ELL instruction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank all the teachers in the study for their collaboration. We
also thank the anonymous reviewers for their guidance and
suggestions.

THE AUTHORS
Faridah Pawan is an associate professor in the Department of
Literacy, Culture, and Language Education in the School of
Education at Indiana University. She teaches courses in second and
foreign language teacher education. Her research interests include
ESL and content area teacher collaboration, content-based language
instruction, and computer-mediated communication.

Daniel A. Craig is currently an assistant professor at Sangmyung

University and a PhD candidate at Indiana University. His research
interests include instructional technology, distance education,
computer-assisted language learning, and teacher education and
professional development.

REFERENCES
Athanases, S. Z., & Martin, K. J. (2006). Learning to advocate for
educational equity in a teacher credential program. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 22, 627–646. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.03.008
Cummins, J. (2000). Academic language learning, transformative
pedagogy, and information technology: Towards a critical
balance. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 537–548. doi:10.2307/3587742

310 TESOL Journal

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2000). Making content
comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the
knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL
Quarterly, 32, 397–417. doi:10.2307/3588114
Gruber, K. J., Wiley, S. D., Broughman, S. P., Strizek, G. A., &
Burian-Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999–
2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and
Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and secondary schools (NCES
2002-313). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Lam, T. C. (1995). Fairness in performance assessment. Greensboro,
NC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED391982)
Levine, T. H., Irizarry, J., & Bunch, G. (2008). Beyond open houses:
School promotes cross-cultural understanding among teachers
and language minority families. Journal of Staff Development,
29(1), 29–33.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. Z. (1984). Qualitative data analysis:
A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pawan, F., & Ward, B. (2007). Integrated curriculum development
through interdisciplinary collaboration between ESL and
content area teachers. In F. Pawan & G. B. Sietman (Eds.),
Helping English language learners succeed in middle and high schools:
Collaborative partnerships among ESL and classroom teachers (pp. 5–
30). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Quality counts: Portrait of a population. (2009). Education Week,
28(17), 1–54.
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual
framework for the integration of language and content in
second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201–
217. doi:10.2307/3587333

ESL and Content Area Teacher Responses to ELL Instruction 311

View publication stats