ŠĻą”±į>ž’ ZHž’’’EF\}[’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’čŚ é(€ąą€ ) ō פÓŗ6roles and responsibilities ŗRECIS 2008 Davison Workshop Activity 1.doc×|Óŗ$attached proforma ŗ<LangImpsAnalWkst ECIS 2008.DOC×°ÓŗBPoetry, Biology or World History ŗRECIS 2008 Davison Workshop Activity 2.docņč/Č 0ŅÕ·DTimes New Romanøš·”Š0ø:A 0ø·DGaramond Romanøš·”Š0ø:A 0ø ·DArialnd Romanøš·”Š0ø:A 0ø"0·DWingdingsRomanøš·”Š0ø:A 0ø@·DPMingLiURomanøš·”Š0ø:A 0øˆP·DPalatinoRomanøš·”Š0ø:A 0ø`·Dļƒ·^7QŖ‹[noRomanøš·”Š0ø:A 0øˆ¤€c’’„0.’©  @£n’ż?" dd@’’ļ’’’’’’  @@``€€_ä@åę,ŗwhoosh.wavŗ.WAV ŗ10ŗ103ēąRIFFÖWAVEfmt ++data²€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€~€€€€€€€€€€€~~€~€€€€~€~€€€€€~~~~~~~~€~€€€€€~~€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€~€€€€€€€€€€€~~€€~~~€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€~~~€€€€€€€‚‚€~|||~~~~€‚†ˆ†‚~zvtvxz|~‚ˆŒŽŒ‚zvrnlrv|„ˆ””Žˆ€|vtrpptz~€ˆŠ„€|xvtv|~~‚††„‚‚†ˆ†€zxvvvz|~‚„†Œ’ŽŠ‚xrlhntz‚Š’’ˆ€zvrrpprrx~ˆ’˜œŽ|j[QU_|œµ»«„ŽbICCY„£±·«ˆn[ICY~–«»±’zlnh]_r€’ž§£˜˜”|]SUSSjˆ†–”z|šˆ†„‚„x__l~˜©Æ˜v_]drŠ’†ŒŠnUb|‚–«±Žnfd_]„«³”„‚d]5=rr˜»«Œnj]jzŒœ”ˆ~”lMlŒšœ‚dr”ž˜Šx[[_f|„„œ‚YQfWK_’»§š”ˆxh[z”½žŽ–x[CIjˆ””„§˜zxx„dSQz±Å|_fI9WÆÓ¹ˆM;QnšĮÕęævK;OUx†~”½§xj]]YS~­Éµ§”lM?pƵ„lM;CGpµęŁµŒ[)Kh„¹Õß|% %;x»Łä½tKQS]žßęɖbGr|ŠlSnvzŽÆ”~nfS[nˆžĆ«x;Az”ÆæŽ=+AY’ÉŻ»|=/1rĒüņ¹_ ?|„Õę½„W5/Cz­ÓÕĆ£f)/pŽ”浞vbMQrˆž©”˜˜ŽŠ|O=O–³–tjdhjœÆ«·µ–lG?G_Œ¹ĆŃɊK3„ÓņלdQCMpŒ§³··«†pW;1SšŃŁÅ·AMš·ÕźŃz/#?bx„ĒĶ–SAM[hv’„³«”œˆhYp~~zˆžŠrv€€t[]pŒ˜«·žtWOUtŒš˜”‚xxd]vˆ~vvxž§Š€zd_xŽŒzh_n†–ž˜ˆ‚rSQlš”œŽtbdp†~_l„ˆˆœšrQ_l][Šµ³Žtf]W]~«·§‚hWfp|”š„fWhnh€Šˆˆ”£˜€bU[hzŒ£”–ˆlSCWŽÆ«£ž€bYbnx”„”pdhjvŒ©­ž†jM9Ot„”«»µš€]GQ[dpp~œ­Æ©š‚hhhdpx~†–œš”Œxh]Yn‚˜œŽŒ†€tnrŠšŽp]dlv–Æ«§†jQMb|Œš˜–’Švdjp€ŠˆŠ„zxzz‚Šˆ’–Štljr|ˆšž˜|_[r~‚œ˜˜’~jb_j|Œ˜£”z|xpp~~€’ž””Œv]Wh|ŠŽ’Ž|zx‚‚„Ž†|x|€„z€ˆ„zndhpxˆŒš­§Žr]YfntŠ˜–„€zjl|€z‚ŒŠ„||~„ˆ†‚vppnrz†ŒŽ”’„phrxz|„†€€€~‚†††„|xtrjjtv~ŠŽŽ”Ž~vz|z|€€|xrrv~ˆ„†ŒŠ€xrprtz„ŒŒ†‚€€|||vz‚€xvx|€†ˆˆ†ˆ„xtx~~~~~~~€„„‚€€zxxxx€†ŠŠ„€|zxz~~‚ŠŠ~rrz€~€„‚|xz~~€††„€|vtx|€„„‚‚€zxz|~~~€„†„€|€€|zx|||~€€€€‚€€‚€€~zz|zz~‚††„€~~~|~€€~||~€€‚ˆ†~||zz|€‚‚€~||z~~~„ˆŠŠ„~zxzz|~€€‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚€~~~|~~€„„‚€~|~€‚‚€‚„‚€||~~€‚‚‚‚€~€‚„‚~~~€€€€€€€‚‚‚‚€€~~~~€€„‚‚‚‚‚~~€‚~€€|||€‚‚‚€€€~€€€~€€€€€€~~€~~~~€€~€€€€€€€€€~~~~||~€‚‚‚€~||~||~€‚‚‚€~~~|||~~~€€€€€€€~||||~€€€~€€€~~€€~~||||~~~~~€€~~~~~~|~~~€€€‚‚€~|zz~€€€‚€~~~~~€~||||~€‚€€~||~~€€‚€€~~~|||~~~~€€‚‚€~|||~|~€‚‚€|~~~€~|z|~~~~€€€€€~~~|||~~€€€€€~~~~~~€‚„€||~~~~~€~€€€~~€ lšdšxßĶ5   #)!+  "$&(* >BEFGIHH\]^efghjluvxƒ š0ƒ†AæĄÅA’ńfĢ@ń÷š8ój€ók€Š-ČųQ Źš;xum8Źš;śwžż4LdLd ø:A 0Pū’’ø’’’pū pū@ pū <ż4!d!dLøź$ 0ˆ¹(-·<ż4ddddLøź$ 0ˆ¹(-·’ <ż4BdBdLø # 0ˆ¹ˆšŠŠŗ___PPT10‹°Ö˜·DPMingLiUˆ¹ˆ¹¤·Œ·”Š0¤·:A 0œ·ˆ·DArialiUˆ¹ˆ¹¤·Œ·”Š0¤·:A 0œ·" ĄĄŠŗŗ___PPT9‹œäÓäÓäÓ®4Ƭ€’’?Ł Ś%šķõóŸØ ”(ŸØyECIS 2008 Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: Bridging the gap Chris Davison, University of Hong Kong ”`zZ 6@b,b,,'Ŗ A .óŸ ~1. Background 2. The conceptualization (and mis- conceptualization) of collaboration 3. Key difficulties in implementing effective collaboration 4. Essential elements for more effective collaboration 5. An emerging framework to describe collaborative teaching and  levels of competence 6. Looking forward”$@? (Ŗ.ŸŖ óŸØ 1. Background”Ÿ ŒThe development of greater collaboration or  partnerships between ESL and mainstream/content-area teachers has long been advocated in TESOL The development of the Partnership Teaching model (Bourne, 1997) in England has been very influential, as have team-teaching approaches in Australia (Davison, 1992) Collaboration seen as essential to enhance the integration of ESL students into the mainstream classroom (Arkoudis, 2007) Most English-medium schools around the world have attempted to adopt some form of partnership or collaborative teaching in the last ten to fifteen years ”GPGŖœ£óŸ”(ŸØ¢There is a small but growing number of in-service education initiatives (e.g. KS 3 Literacy Across the Curriculum, ESL in the Mainstream and research However, most research and evaluation/in-service development focuses on methods and techniques to use in the classroom or on analysis of linguistic demands of content areas (Davison, 2007) Little attention given to researching the process of co-planning and co-teaching/evaluating the effectiveness of the partnership model for long-term English language development However, strong indications that partnership as a model of EAL delivery may need further development and support to be fully effective (Creese, 2000, 2002) ”¢PPN$½NŖó?:ŸØ02. Conceptualizations and mis-conceptualisations”11ŖŸ Ø  Partnership Teaching & builds on the concept of co-operative teaching (where a language support teacher and class or subject teacher plan together a curriculum and teaching strategies which will take into account the learning needs of all pupils) by linking the work of two teachers, or indeed a whole department/year team or other partners, with plans for curriculum development and staff development across the school (Bourne, 1997, p.83)  An active collaborative teaching partnership does not necessarily mean that the two teachers concerned are to carry out team teaching all the time, nor does it mean that the second language learner is expected to share the class tasks all the time (Leung & Franson, 1991) ”0ÕPŅŖÄ óŸ TYou are an ESL teacher ... You have studied a bit of history but not much and a long time ago. Suddenly you find yourself obliged to team teach (in History) ... You find out what is programmed for the junior classes and do a bit of reading - not in the uni library - remember you only have to know as much as the kids. All you have to do is devise ways to get this material across to the kids in such a way that they will be learning and using language in the process of learning History. Once you have devised a couple of strategies ... approach the (teacher) with some concrete suggestions for the class concerned which are tailored to meet the needs of the junior program & . ”,«©ŖŸ ólaŸ Result? She is impressed with your preparation and likes some of your ideas and is willing to try them. When one of them goes like a dream you offer to plan the next unit in consultation with her of course, although she is very busy with three unit Ancient history and may not have much time to spare. Do not be put off by this apparent lack of interest. The kids love the Barrier game and the role plays of the Sumerians were quite impressive - suddenly Margaret is talking about Year 8 next year. Your activities are not only language rich they are fun ... You could make yourself invaluable to this faculty and with the head on your side the other teachers may take you more seriously & (Davison, 2001) ”ÉÉŖ ©ó&&ŸØ Problems ???”  ŸØ Not partnership, but guerilla warfare (!) Not systematic language development, but technical support for content area Not integrated long-term curriculum development, but one-off lesson-level activities Not interaction of equals, but subordination of ESL to content” Z óŸØ;3. Key difficulties in implementing effective collaboration”<<Ÿ ÄDifferent (often conflicting) interpretations of the task  Content needs given priority over language needs Lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities Insufficient (and ineffective use of) time for liaison and planning Uncertain theoretical basis for the selection and sequencing of language input in a content-oriented curriculum Rigid and/or imposed program structures Unrealistic expectations (by co-teachers, heads, students and parents) and inadequate support/leadership ”"ćZāó ŸØ24. Essential elements for effective collaboration ”"31Ÿ Clear conceptualization of the task Incorporation of an explicit ESL focus into curriculum and assessment planning processes Negotiation of a shared understanding of mainstream and ESL teachers roles Implementation of common curriculum planning proformas and processes Experimentation with diversity as resource to promote effective learning for all students Development of articulated and flexible pathways for ESL learning support Establishment of systematic mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation and feedback ”^ZZ’ " Z[£Ŗö ó;7ŸØ9Essential element 1: Clear conceptualization of the task”::Ÿ öThe integration of curriculum: content-based ESL teaching and ESL-conscious content teaching Intervention, not just inclusion; development, not just differentiation Equal authority, responsibility and input !  Two teachers are better than one !!  Another pair of hands !!!  Initially I couldn t see much use for her (ESL) and she may have felt redundant ”ZP_PPPyó('ó50ŸØoEssential element 2: Incorporation of an explicit ESL focus into curriculum and assessment planning processes ”"pnŸØé Research (Skehan,1994; Swain, 1995; Davison & Williams, 2002) clearly shows: School-age English language learners move though distinct stages of English language development that are increasingly understood and well-documented Students need to notice and use language in increasingly complex but contextualized ways in order for language development to occur Language learning cannot occur simply through language immersion, no matter how comprehensible and rich the language input ”®NP•PPPPPā   cóNIŸŸØmParticular emphasis needed on significant aspects of ESL (cf. EMT) development: Cross-cultural communication strategies, including use of L1 Informal oral/aural communication, including control of phonological and paralinguistic system Sentence-level grammar Text structures Interpersonal and interactional language functions Learning how to learn in English ”œPZZZZZ5  Ŗ' :ó+(ŸØsEssential element 3: Negotiation of a shared understanding of ESL and mainstream teachers' roles/responsibilities ”"trŸØ®Example 1: Job descriptions ESL teacher Establish and nurture/ foster the collaborative process and maintain effective communication Establish clear language focus for unit”L(Z‡Zb c ‡a ŸØ˜Content teacher Establish and nurture/ foster the collaborative process and maintain effective communication Establish clear language focus for unit ”XZ†ZZc ‰aaóRMŸŸØšBring ESL issues to planning meetings and participate in planning and preparation as equals Negotiate flexible, regular teaching role in classroom Give priority to ESL identified students, but be willing to provide language support to all ”8šZZšaA Ÿ œParticipate in planning and preparation as equals Negotiate responsibilities for classroom overall management/direction of class Take responsibility for students overall development in the content area ”8ĶZZĪaAó/,ŸŸØ’Take an active role in monitoring and assessing the language development of all students and contributing to common assessment tasks/processes Identify language demands of content area, develop materials for language support/ participate in text selection” Ÿ Take responsibility for overall assessment and reporting of students progress in content, but negotiate nature of assessment tasks and language demands Identify language demands of content area, and contribute to development of additional language support materials ”& ZZ ócZŸ” Ÿ ž Activity 1: Look at the table of the roles and responsibilities of ESL and  content teachers. Talk to a partner. What areas do you find least problematic? What areas do you find most problematic? Why? ”6Š¾ņó B 0ß*EóA;Ÿ”Ÿ n BUT Clarifying the roles and responsibilities (of each teacher) solves only part of the problem Teachers have strong pedagogic beliefs and assumptions about their subject area and what good teaching (and learning) means to them, which are embedded within their sense of professional identity. thus  In negotiating the curriculum with the subject specialist so that language understanding is promoted in the mainstream and students English language is developed, the ESL teacher has to have a firm understanding of her own subject discipline (Arkoudis, 2007) ”¦P'PPPPHŪöŖ# óUPŸŸ  Example : Common planning conversations leading to development of shared understandings (Arkoudis, 2000) ESL:& I think that's a problem sometimes with ESL teachers talking to subject teachers (mm) because we don't have umm ... a sense of content in quite the same way like we're a bit indiscriminate in a way, like to me almost it doesn't matter what the content, (mm) I mean it does matter. I don't mean that but I mean the...the content is a vehicle whereas for you the content is obviously more primary. Is that right? ”˜j¤jcc>c¢cOccCŖZ­óVQŸŸØõCT: Well [pause - 3 secs] I find that a little bit difficult to accept in that ... you know ... I have a difficulty with the word CONTENT in what you're saying because REALLY content is something you must have an idea about otherwise you wouldn't really be able to structure anything ... I don't think. Now you have to sort of ask yourself what you're trying to teach? ESL: Yes ...I have linguistic aims and linguistic content you know == but CT:==They sound really vapid but I know they're not ”|õZZ€#6#<#!"  $ó3.Ÿ”"(ŸØ;ESL: (laughs) It doesn't matter whether ... you know ... that the ... that the content that I'm dealing with is, you know, what ever topic in Science or is in Science or is in History or is in whatever ... umm ... I'm still enabled to teach(mm) the same linguistic structures and features and FUNCTIONS and umm you know ... it's very easy to adapt == to different CT:== But don't you start out if you do a lesson, don't you start out by saying OKAY today is, you don't say it's adverbs, you don't say today it's conjunctions == It's quite random which is covered? ”ˆ<ZŽc cccc%cCóWRŸŸØŚESL:== N0 no no. It's not random at all umm... but probably [pause 3 secs] you know ... I'd think... you know ... of what are the particular language functions so not ... so not the structure so it's not adverbs and stuff like that. You wouldn't do that BUT that you want students to be able to describe or to explain or to umm ... justify or do you know THAT would be ... that would probably be ... you know probably come from more a functional we'd call it, in our terms we call it ... in ESL terms we'd call it a more functional sort of approach and that we would be looking at different umm text types that they would need to use, to understand ... to both understand and to produce, (mm) to be able to do that umm ... ”źŚZZccćc6cccc cucCc  ó,)ŸØZEssential element 4: Implementation of common curriculum planning proformas and processes”[[ŖC Ÿ *Research shows that incorporating language objectives into content lessons is challenging (Echevarria & Short, 1999) Content specialists immersed in the discourse of their discipline do not easily recognize language demands of curriculum, let alone language learning needs and opportunities ESL teachers struggle to  cover the content and easily lose direction and control, need stronger planning focus ”HuZ ZZu Ŗ[ 1óE@ŸØnExample: Common planning framework used in a large K-12 American international school (Hurst & Davison, 2005)”ooŸ Used in all subject areas and all levels Integrates mainstream and ESL teaching Creates curricular space for English language development Establishes specific teacher roles and responsibilities Provides focus for planning conversations/ on the job in-service ”Zó_WŸŸ Ś Activity 2: Look at the attached proforma used for collaborative planning between a secondary ESL teacher and a  content teacher in an international school (Hurst & Davison, 2005, p. 64-65). In pairs, choose a subject area that interests you - Poetry, Biology or World History - and note their expected outcomes and the resources to be used. Complete the missing information on the attached chart, then discuss the effectiveness of such planning documents in your own teaching context. ”Zī LŖ: Ė!Õņó B 0ß-ņó B 0ßųó-*ŸØsEssential element 5: Experimentation with diversity as a resource to promote effective learning for all students”0tg ŸØ~Research in a range of schools around the world increasingly demonstrates that Linguistic and cultural diversity can be exploited as a resource for all learners through the use of jigsaw and information gap activities and structured pair and group work which enhances the negotiation of meaning, conceptual understanding and the development of linguistic and cognitive flexibility Slower pace of lessons and greater classroom interaction can enhance academic standards and student engagement A stronger, more systematic focus on English language development can benefit English mother tongue students, often even more than ESL learners ”jOZ/ZZO,ó=9ŸŸ & Example: Evaluation of the effects of a  sheltered immersion partnership model on a large P-12 school (Davison, forthcoming) Enhanced teacher-student and classroom interaction More effective strategies and activities Slightly slower pace Increased academic effort Higher academic standards (and grades) Positive effects on English language development, especially for English mother tongue learners”B€ZZó"#ŸØWEssential element 6: Development of articulated and flexible pathways for ESL learning”XXŸØ Australian research (Cruikshank,1997) suggests School-based flexibility in program organization is critical The best programs employ a variety of delivery modes and have a structure of graded support for ESL students according to their length of time in Australia and language needs ”z1ķ=#& .DóYTŸŸØ^Integrated but separate ESL provision can be highly successful e.g. low SES students entering school at 15.4 years with no English achieved grade average norms in the final year of secondary school within 3.5 years through a clearly articulated continuum of ESL support, including an initial semester in an intensive language centre (Warwick 2000) ”D@@ó.+ŸØh Essential element 7: Establishment of systematic mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation and feedback ”$igŸØKThe establishment of effective collaborative approaches to EAL teaching takes significant time, between three to five years The most effective schools are those which are responsive to the changing needs of students, teachers and parents Monitoring, evaluation and feedback mechanisms are a key determinant of program effectiveness”fLZNM V*óŸ ąAn emerging framework to describe the evolution of collaborative teaching/ levels of competence (Davison, 2007)”qqŸØPurpose: For evaluating collaboration For setting realistic goals for professional development Describes quality of collaboration, not quality of individuals Five levels, four distinguishing characteristics (attitude, effort/investment, achievement, expectations of support)”˜ ZVZ“Z CVA ccccqcó`XŸŸ ų Activity 3: Look at the following quotes from different ESL(ESL) and primary  mainstream teachers (CT) who were working together in a large international school, then compare them with the framework for describing levels of collaboration. Try to match the teacher quotes to the different levels of collaboration, then discuss any implications for your own teaching/school. ”H} lóŸØ0Level 1: Pseudo-compliance or passive resistance”11 Ÿ ÖImplicit or explicit rejection of collaboration, preference for status quo e.g. Someone more experienced with ESL needs to take my place (CT3) Little or no real investment of time or understanding e.g. I expected her to tell me  how I needed to assist each student and provide me with modified versions of what we planned& instead of giving suggestions, give complete lessons that address specific needs that are seen (CT3) No positive outcomes (even counter-productive, i.e. entrenching existing negative attitudes) e.g. Too time consuming& schedule not suited to our needs (CT4) Expectation that  this too will pass e.g.  It seems obvious now that only classroom teachers with ESL training will feel comfortable in this role (CT3).”"KPKP7PåP]PAP&PvPKCJcC6Cä c C]C@cC&CvcóŸØLevel 2: Compliance ”"" "Ÿ ŽA positive attitude and expressions of  good intent , efforts made to implement roles and responsibilities but with limited understanding of implications, informing documents seen as external and/or imposed e.g.  It s best for the children (CT1);  Children learned best being immersed in classroom (CT6);  All the children benefit from having another person in the room (CT7). Dealing with challenges and/or conflict in roles is seen as part of the teacher s job, but it is a source of unhappiness, frustration and stress, teachers feel defensive and besieged by conflicting demands e.g.  The job description sheet & needs to be looked at so that all parties know what/where their responsibilities are. Someone needs to ensure roles are followed& Both teachers need to be responsible for planning, assessing and record keeping (CT1) ”|ĻZ®ZĻZüZĻcÆcĪcücó73Ÿ”b(Ÿ ā Achievements conceptualized as non-intrusive and very concrete (e.g. development of  ESL worksheets, adaptation of texts) e.g. There didn t appear to be any plans for the individual needs of the ESL learners other than what the classroom teacher did& Individual language needs must be addressed by both teachers (CT1). Expectation of high degree of practical and teacher-specific external professional development, teacher dependence on external sources of encouragement and reward. e.g. Large blocks of time are needed if proper planning is to take place (CT1),  There is insufficient planning time (CT7);  (The school) should provide more training  to all teachers involved (CT3),  More workshops for ESL teachers on best primary practices so that their teaching and understanding is in alignment with ours (CT 6);  I had too many classes in first semester (6) (ESL2) ”Ž}PĘP¤P‹P|ccĘc¤c‹cóŸØLevel 3: Accommodation”" Ÿ  A positive attitude and willingness to experiment e.g.  There are still many things I need to learn in working with this new model. There have been moments when things worked really well and I got a glimpse of how it can be successful (ESL1) Efforts made to accommodate to perceived co-teacher s needs but conflicts seen as unnecessary and avoidable if  model is correctly implemented by teachers, only limited understanding of theoretical base of collaboration and little critical examination e.g. I felt I had to take the initiative during the planning sessions. Originally& there was not a lot a focus and not the best use was being made of the immersion teachers time. Sometimes I feel there are differing philosophies and understandings of issues like learning styles, child and language development, behaviour management etc  (CT2);  I found myself struggling to find the balance between the content and language needs of the ESL students and often ended up with not enough time to address language needs adequately (ESL1) ”œ3PĆPżPP1ccĀccżccŖ. Śó84ŸŸ ÖAchievements conceptualized mainly at level of strategies and techniques e.g. I feel there has been a gap between my expertise as a classroom teacher and the ESL teachers knowledge& I thought that the ESL teacher would have a repertoire of strategies that would be appropriate for use in the mainstream class but this has not been the case and as I do not have the ESL strategies or understanding of the language structures, I am worried that the students may have missed out on some important skills/ understandings they need to develop. (CT2);  It was our hope that the ESL teacher would have language strategies to offer and assist in our planning. Unfortunately this is rarely the case (CT7); Expectation of high degree of program-specific external professional development, teacher dependence on external sources of encouragement but also some signs of intrinsic rewards from developing partnerships e.g. That essential agreements be developed for sharing of responsibilities etc (CT2),  Recruit classroom teachers who are willing to work with the model and whose teaching styles lend themselves to the model (ESL1) ”®IZuZŠZÜZZZIcucŠcÜcCóŸØ*Level 4: Convergence (and some co-option) ”"+)" "Ÿ 6A very positive attitude, embracing opportunities to learn from peers e.g.  I have enjoyed it and am convinced it is the way to go. I would like to develop an even more successful model and build my own knowledge and skills (CT2);  I felt included in the program (ESL3) Efforts made to engage with co-teacher s ideas and initiate dialogue and interaction/experimentation, high degree of respect for other evident, informing documents seen as fluid and subject to negotiation but conflicts still seen as dichotomous and requiring resolution i.e. simplifying alternatives and/or avoiding expression of contradictory views e.g. I always wanted to do more (ESL 3) ”¤FĶ^+FcĖccc^cc*có95Ÿ”"$Ÿ xAchievements conceptualized in terms of impact on content of lesson, not just delivery, but not always consistently, some co-option of other s ideas/strategies with still limited understanding of rationale and theoretical basis; e.g. The class teachers and I need to work on a more organized plan& this year, with no curriculum to peruse in advance, much of our scaffolding was last minute (ESL3) Increasing satisfaction from intrinsic rewards of collaboration, increasingly seeking opportunities for peer interaction, growing preference for action research and peer-directed professional development e.g. That class teachers are given PD in ESL strategies (and) immersion teachers given PD in classroom management and other examples of  best practice  guided reading, writing process , oral language activities (CT2) ”ÄęZŖZĪZŽZZęcŖccĢccÜccCó ŸØ#Level 5: Creative co-construction ”.$!" "Ÿ *A very positive attitude, collaboration normalized and seen as preferred option for ESL teaching; teachers roles become much more interchangeable, yet more distinct e.g. Teaching a sheltered immersion class has been one of the most successful experiences of my career. I benefited daily from the expertise of the ESL immersion teacher (CT5) High degree of trust of other evident, responsibilities and areas of expertise continually negotiated, informing documents seen as actively co-constructed and teacher-developed, conflicts in roles seen as inevitable, accepted, even embraced, as a continuing condition which will lead to greater understanding e.g. We are constantly trying different strategies to accommodate the various learning styles of the students in this class (CT5) ”ئZ³Z7Z†Z¦c±ccc6cc„có:6ŸŸ ģAchievements seen as impacting across whole curriculum e.g.  While I feel the language needs of the ESL learners are being met& I feel the situation can be improved by nailing down the thematic units ahead of time (CT5) Normalization of teacher-based PD such as action research and critical reflection, accompanied by extensive reading in area to extend understanding of specific theoretical concepts, possibly some formal study in each other s areas e.g.  There has been insufficient time to plan for the language implications of the content we are teaching; for example, the development of grammatical progressions. This is because we are still developing thematic units the planning of which must precede attention to their language aspects (CT5) ”š7Z©ZēZ/ZZ7c©cēc/cCód[ŸØ6. Looking forward”Ÿ  Bridging the gap between ESL and content teachers in English-medium international schools requires the support and commitment from the various stake-holders involved. The following are some practical recommendations and strategies for the various key stake-holders: School administrators& Ensure that teaching standards are in place whereby teachers work toward developing expertise in making language accessible for all students in content classrooms; Budget for in-service programs dedicated to maintaining high standards and to meeting language needs of all students; Budget for appropriate staffing and class sizes to allow for no more than one-third  high-needs students per class; Communicate goals with community members on an ongoing, consistent basis. ”œ%PŪPP Łóh`Ÿ”Ÿ  Curriculum leaders& Establish action plans for all involved in the curriculum revision process; Encourage peer coaching and reflection as part of the school culture; Encourage teachers to evaluate and revise lessons on a daily basis to be able to meet students needs and changing conditions; Ensure common assessments are an integral part of all curriculum areas; Encourage teachers to seek out and apply best practices; Plan with administrators in implementing realistic, applicable, and timely in-service programs to include the basics of second language acquisition, cross-cultural understanding, and best practices; Utilize the expertise of the faculty in in-service programs without overburdening teachers; Consider implementing a Language Policy Across the Curriculum ”hPņPPń,óe\Ÿ”Ÿ `Content and ESL teachers& Establish a professional community allowing for genuine ongoing professional dialogue; Identify and develop a shared purpose; Establish an agreed protocol and meeting agendas; Define the language implications for each unit taught; Collaborate further and come to agreements on& who modifies texts where appropriate? who develops supplemental materials? who creates text/lecture outlines? who gives vocabulary practice? where to use native-language texts? & and on assessments & who modifies tests? who selects appropriate reference materials for class? who oversees the writing process? which learning strategies are taught where? where is language development realistically going to be assessed? when and how is formal grading to occur (and to what extent can it be postponed)? ”zPPPP’ói_Ÿ”Ÿ &Content and ESL teachers& Consider co-teaching options; Follow through on agreements based on curriculum analysis Who teaches what?; Assess agreed language implications; Keep data on student achievement to evidence successes; Communicate with and set out to educate and report to parents on an ongoing, consistent basis. ESL teachers & Communicate student needs; Realize content teachers are also differentiating for students with high levels of English language proficiency; Teach students language learning strategies and metacognition; Teach language systematically and meaningfully within an immersion context; Support the content teachers risk-taking; ”ŹP'PPBPPP:åBŖ  {óf]Ÿ”Ÿ ,Content teachers & Be willing to modify classroom practice, make appropriate accommodations incorporating best practices; Differentiate instruction: process and product (assessments); Use advanced organizers, outlines, etc. for direct instruction; Use cooperative learning strategies; Use effective inductive approaches to learning; Have students identify and apply learning strategies; Ensure all students can work independently and participate effectively; Teach language and cultural understandings explicitly where appropriate. ”fPPP ó%$Ÿ” Ÿ Ö  The rewards of bridging the gap between core and ESL classrooms can only benefit ESL learners & ESL teachers used to be anxious about why they were collaborating it seemed hit and miss, often unfulfilling, lacking follow-through and change. ESL teachers often found themselves caught up with day-to-day crisis management at the expense of much- needed professional dialogues. Now ESL teachers have a purpose and a sense of continuity - curriculum agreements based on solid outcomes. The interdependency of the ISB faculty, from teachers to administrators, has led to positive change. The high standards set by teachers has led to the school explicitly defining and disseminating those standards for the wider school community, giving all teachers a stronger sense of pride in their work and an understanding of what it means to be  ESL . (Donna Hurst, ISB, 2005) ”NkZZNóaYŸŸØ‰ Arkoudis, S. (2007). Collaborating in ESL education in schools. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching. Norwell, MA: Springer. Arkoudis, S., & Davison, C. (2002). Breaking out of the billabong: Mainstreaming ESL in Australia. In E. Cochran (Ed.), Case studies in TESOL: Mainstreaming. Alexandria, VI: TESOL. Bourne, J. (1997). The continuing revolution: Teaching as learning in the mainstream multilingual classroom. In C. Leung & C. Cable (Eds.), English as an Additional Language (pp. 77-88). York: NALDIC. Creese, A. (2000). The role of language specialists in disciplinary teaching: In search of a subject? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(6), 451-470. Creese, A. (2002). The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: language and subject specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 597-616. Davison, C. (1992). Look out! Eight fatal flaws in team and support teaching. TESOL in Context, 2(1). Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know we are doing it right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 454-475. Davison, C., & Williams, A. (2001). Integrating language and content: Unresolved issues. In B. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity (pp. 51-70). Harlow: Longman Pearson. Education Department of South Australia. (1991). ESL in the mainstream, Workshops 1-5. Adelaide, SA: Government Printer. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Cup of comfort or poisoned chalice? In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Changing teachers, changing times (pp. 186-211). London: Cassell. Hargreaves, A., & Macmillan, B. (1994). The balkanization of teaching: Collaboration that divides. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Changing teachers, changing times (pp. 212-240). London: Cassell. Hurst, D. & Davison, C. (2005). Collaboration on the curriculum: Focus on secondary ESL. In Crandall, J. & Kauffman, D. (Ed). Case Studies in TESOL: Teacher education for ESL and content area teachers. (pp. 41-66). Alexandria, VI: TESOL. Little, J. (1990). Teachers as colleagues. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now (pp. 165-193). London: Falmer. Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Mohan, B., & Lowe, M. (1995). Collaborative teacher assessment of ESL writers: Conceptual and practical Issues. TESOL Journal, 5(1), 28-31. Roth, W., & Tobin, K. (2004). Co-teaching: From praxis to theory. Teacher and teaching: Theory and practice, 10(2), 161-180. Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A tool for teacher-researcher collaboration and professional development. . Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Siskin, L. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. London: Falmer. Snow, C. M., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 201-219.”ŠŠ Pc 3 ’ % „ ! ‚ 9   ‹  \  o = – O X $ ¢ ! œ "   K j : 2    N - 2 y s > ©   Ŗź§x§6 b A _ Bˆ] Aŗ/šó*P’’’źų{ļ `š 3™’’’åå’™Ģ؆ą’Ģ’’Ģ`š ff™’’’>>\ßßéĢf’gšĶĢģ’ĢĢ’`š J”’’’*Tŗčŗ3Ģ3™Ģ™’3’’™`š QYm’’’ŻŻŻx~Š3™f’’t¶Š`š Œ’’’\ßŅ“’hE¾y`’’Ģ’Ģ`š Šcb÷óó^DDŲĮŗĢfĮ`Y’ĢĖµW`š æ¦s’’’g7ęćŖ’Ģ€€xGšr`š łšÓK%ļŽÆ¦•d’’ćææ§{mG©/`š ’’’€€€Ģģ’33™f’™£>’ż?" dd@’’ļ’’’’,£„’ż?nFdŲ@’’ļ’’’’  Ō  Š@ š` € £n’ż?" dd@’’ļ’’’’   @@``€€P£R    @ ` €`£<p£>€£> ŅšŹPšlšhš( š šlšŲ šl “ š6€8Ä©‡ƒæĄ’ #"ń æ`æšb `ŽšĆ © šFŸ *”0’ ųšŚ šl “ š6€ĢÉ©‡ƒæĄ’ #"ń æ`æš` `ŒšĆ © šHŸ *”0’ ŲšxšT š~Ū šl šˆ"ńæš~Ūšš\ šĄ¶{Ū šl šˆ"ńæšĄ¶{Ūšā šl c š¤BB C‡DEĮˆFĮ’€ƒšč‹¦’ŒdŽ—Įœ @æ’ ˆbbš’Õ “ „ śH ä É° ØT ›W6²VõŌĪ³˜w}\gFQ6<1++11 1L b6xQr£˜¹ÉĻ’äq ų6†\ķ}N ˜  ³ģ Ī- äc ś” “ Š 0ą Aė Qš gė ‚ą ˜Ź ³Ŗ É„ ßS ō į š 6N Kża¦wī¢ÓF bFyŒŁ”0ø—Ł ‡a‡*ņ½»ly7Łļ¢lE;ćuļżĪz ³ę ’B |Ž aŹ Fš 0 ! ’1 é< ŌB ¾< ’& l Lš 0Õ Õ ĘČ@¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬`€"ńæšĄT Ūšŗ šl c š|BėC+DEĮōFĮž€ƒšč‹y’ŒdŽ—Įœ @æ’ ˆ==š’ėgąLÕ6Ą¤cß¹°˜I}×\eAó&‡ åĆÄw˜6m!W<! &<W!r6ŽW®}Ļ³šōF6¢\}‘žķ³>Ļ…źĘ÷68QNlXˆ^£X¹HŌ8ź’÷Ń+S’„źÆŌŹ¾ą£ėˆėgėg|€@¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬`€"ńæšJo 5š šJ šl ƒ ščB! CÉDEĮ¤FĮ®€‚ƒšŃ„‹ŒŽ—Įœ @æ’ ˆ))š’\¾É‡É²³ć’*l{F×DéĮøN‚ėF™ WĪ%“ Wż ß! £!  Õ !Ÿ 6X L b» x_ “ż©/ßa˜F6bß}SśAׇ$Ī|äl\¾\¾TX@¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬`€s"ń*¢’’’’£’’’’¤ „Į§’’’’æ æšT  uŪš4 š l Ó šöBæ C%DEĮĢFĮÖ€æ’ ˆssš’“¹™Ś¤õ“Ź&QW}³ž¾‡ßłśkŻ6D Q  r÷ ˜8 ¾N Ōc ļt y y ;t Qi gS }8 ’ £ń øĘ É ŁT é śŅ :0Œ\ĪūĆ-Q4­*—%˜%ō‚Čv¼*oć(ėV}ŁŌ¾5¢žqĢ;š ÷ ļS ŌŖ ¾ö Ø< ’s }ž læ \æ g} \, LÕ ;n & š õĮ¾Zžž}§\[6 ōļ錎ɣ“Ž£ō}WF<!Ā õeå¼Õ “C ž }h mæ Wæ ] ė ,t B÷ Rķxkˆīžq®’Ź˜åAõ,æRÆgžƒ“ž“¹“¹čģ@¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬`€"ńæš¼ ¶{Ūšb š l ƒ šBąCDEĮ°FĮŗ€‚ƒšą„‹y’ŒŽ—Įœ @æ’ ˆ,,š’Lhƒž6“\ĻźĆ’Ō³źŌæˆ©ˆ“}m³WÉG &a½ź*Ֆæz™įˆCxšsąhą‰-&jG”]ć~‡Ž5žä“£Źgå6&LLZ\@¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬`€s"ń*¢’’’’£’’’’¤ „Į§’’’’æ æš• u( šś š l ƒ š˜BųC½DEĮ|FĮ†€‚ƒšŲ„‹y’ŒŽ—Įœ @æ’ ˆ__š’@Ö%š MōšŁ‚½¢|Żf4@{ ¬ō×Čķųfņ0ŻōĮÉ–˜`lAŲ‡źé˜}L\AÄ+Žh MBŚ6ww¹œ’Ż FJl{’”ø¼ŽĢ ×0ŅVĮ|¦{¾JŁōĶ  *5ŌKlGŒn­›ČĢć ²a*:ĪP“f\|6—²Ķī /6Kbf|đ§F½ ¢Ł†®k“P}5x}žé®ĶŌø¢VŒ§vaP@@ĄÄ@¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬`€s"ń*¢’’’’£’’’’¤ „Į§’’’’æ æšś => š š l c šÄBlCrDEĮFĮ"€ƒ‹ŒdŽ—Įœ@æ’ ˆš’rlrl@¬¬¬¬¬¬`€"ńæš~ššą š l “ š6€ąĪ©‡ƒæĄ’ "ńæš­ `}šĆ © šTŸØ Click to edit Master title style¢!Ŗ !šŚ šl “ š6€,Š©‡ƒæĄ’ #"ń æ`æš`°ŠŒšĆ  · šHŸ *”0’ śš$ šl ƒ š0€øÕ©ƒæĄ’ "ńæšš `šĆ © šžŸØRClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level¢!    Ŗ SšB šl s š*“ŽŸ‹”Ž½hæ’ ?š 3™’’’åå’™Ģ؆ą’Ģ’’Ģˆ‘Š‰ŗ___PPT10‹iė.œ Ą€u%.+Dń='ń ¹’’’’=ń @Bń + ŗ Streamīzļ € ‘š‰`špš'š( š špšxšT š~Ū šp šˆ"ńæš~Ūšš\ šĄ¶{Ū šp šˆ"ńæšĄ¶{Ūšā šp c š¤BB C‡DEĮˆFĮ’€ƒšč‹¦’ŒdŽ—Įœ @æ’ ˆbbš’Õ “ „ śH ä É° ØT ›W6²VõŌĪ³˜w}\gFQ6<1++11 1L b6xQr£˜¹ÉĻ’äq ų6†\ķ}N ˜  ³ģ Ī- äc ś” “ Š 0ą Aė Qš gė ‚ą ˜Ź ³Ŗ É„ ßS ō į š 6N Kża¦wī¢ÓF bFyŒŁ”0ø—Ł ‡a‡*ņ½»ly7Łļ¢lE;ćuļżĪz ³ę ’B |Ž aŹ Fš 0 ! ’1 é< ŌB ¾< ’& l Lš 0Õ Õ ĘČ@¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬`€"ńæšĄT Ūšŗ šp c š|BėC+DEĮōFĮž€ƒšč‹y’ŒdŽ—Įœ @æ’ ˆ==š’ėgąLÕ6Ą¤cß¹°˜I}×\eAó&‡ åĆÄw˜6m!W<! &<W!r6ŽW®}Ļ³šōF6¢\}‘žķ³>Ļ…źĘ÷68QNlXˆ^£X¹HŌ8ź’÷Ń+S’„źÆŌŹ¾ą£ėˆėgėg|€@¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬`€"ńæšJo 5š šJ šp ƒ ščB! CÉDEĮ¤FĮ®€‚ƒšŃ„‹ŒŽ—Įœ @æ’ ˆ))š’\¾É‡É²³ć’*l{F×DéĮøN‚ėF™ WĪ%“ Wż ß! £!  Õ !Ÿ 6X L b» x_ “ż©/ßa˜F6bß}SśAׇ$Ī|äl\¾\¾TX@¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬`€s"ń*¢’’’’£’’’’¤ „Į§’’’’æ æšT  uŪš4 šp Ó šöBæ C%DEĮĢFĮÖ€æ’ ˆssš’“¹™Ś¤õ“Ź&QW}³ž¾‡ßłśkŻ6D Q  r÷ ˜8 ¾N Ōc ļt y y ;t Qi gS }8 ’ £ń øĘ É ŁT é śŅ :0Œ\ĪūĆ-Q4­*—%˜%ō‚Čv¼*oć(ėV}ŁŌ¾5¢žqĢ;š ÷ ļS ŌŖ ¾ö Ø< ’s }ž læ \æ g} \, LÕ ;n & š õĮ¾Zžž}§\[6 ōļ錎ɣ“Ž£ō}WF<!Ā õeå¼Õ “C ž }h mæ Wæ ] ė ,t B÷ Rķxkˆīžq®’Ź˜åAõ,æRÆgžƒ“ž“¹“¹čģ@¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬`€"ńæš¼ ¶{Ūšb šp ƒ šBąCDEĮ°FĮŗ€‚ƒšą„‹y’ŒŽ—Įœ @æ’ ˆ,,š’Lhƒž6“\ĻźĆ’Ō³źŌæˆ©ˆ“}m³WÉG &a½ź*Ֆæz™įˆCxšsąhą‰-&jG”]ć~‡Ž5žä“£Źgå6&LLZ\@¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬`€s"ń*¢’’’’£’’’’¤ „Į§’’’’æ æš• u( šś š p ƒ š˜BųC½DEĮ|FĮ†€‚ƒšŲ„‹y’ŒŽ—Įœ @æ’ ˆ__š’@Ö%š MōšŁ‚½¢|Żf4@{ ¬ō×Čķųfņ0ŻōĮÉ–˜`lAŲ‡źé˜}L\AÄ+Žh MBŚ6ww¹œ’Ż FJl{’”ø¼ŽĢ ×0ŅVĮ|¦{¾JŁōĶ  *5ŌKlGŒn­›ČĢć ²a*:ĪP“f\|6—²Ķī /6Kbf|đ§F½ ¢Ł†®k“P}5x}žé®ĶŌø¢VŒ§vaP@@ĄÄ@¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬`€s"ń*¢’’’’£’’’’¤ „Į§’’’’æ æšś => š š p c šÄBlCrDEĮFĮ"€ƒ‹ŒdŽ—Įœ@æ’ ˆš’rlrl@¬¬¬¬¬¬`€"ńæš~ššę š p £ š<€td ‡æƒæĄ’ "ńæšF°Š šĆ   šTŸØ Click to edit Master title style¢!Ŗ !šŻ š p ƒ š0€g ƒæĄ’ "ń暐 ` ą šĆ   šWŸØ#Click to edit Master subtitle style¢$Ŗ $šŲ š p “ š6€¼k ‡ƒæĄ’ #"ń æ`æš` `ŒšĆ   šFŸ *”0’ ųšŚ šp “ š6€Üo ‡ƒæĄ’ #"ń æ`æšb°ŠŽšĆ    šHŸ *”0’ śšŚ šp “ š6€€r ‡ƒæĄ’ #"ń æ`æšd `šĆ   šHŸ *”0’ ŲšB šp s š*“ŽŸ‹”Ž½hæ’ ?š 3™’’’åå’™Ģ؆ą’Ģ’’Ģˆ‘Š‰ŗ___PPT10‹iė.œ Ą€u%.+Dń='ń ¹’’’’=ń @Bń +šśń€ 0 zšrPšDš š( š šDšČ šD ƒ š0€Ģl ƒæĄ’ šP šĆ    šPŸ *” łŖ šŹ šD ƒ š0€(r ƒæĄ’ š ą šĆ   šRŸ *” ųŖ šd šD c š$‡æ’ ?š°Š šĆ  š šD ƒ š0€ŒM ƒæĄ’ š° @ ŠšĆ   šžŸØRClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level¢!    Ŗ SšĪ šD “ š6€€z ‡ƒæĄ’ š`P€šĆ    šPŸ *” śŖ šŠ šD “ š6€×ƇƒæĄ’ š` ą€šĆ   šRŸ *” ŲŖ šH šD ƒ š0ƒ“Ž½h”ŽŸ‹æ’ ?š ’’’€€€Ģ™33ĢĢĢ’²²²ˆ8Š0ŗ___PPT10‹ė.KuČš_4×ī‹ļ €ł-K0 šš’0šš*š( š ššx š c š$€€iÆæ’ lšĖ­rBšĆ  Æ š žšr š S š€TjÆæ’lš °ŠššĆ Æ š žšH š ƒ š0ƒ“ŽŸ‹”Ž½hæ’ ?š ’’’€€€Ģ™33ĢĢĢ’²²²ˆŠyŗ___PPT10‹Y+Dń='ń ¹’’’’=ń @Bń +īļ € Fš>`šxšÖš( š šxšž šx S š€$ØÆæ’ lš€°Ššš<$ńD 0Ć  Æ š žšH šx ƒ š0ƒ“ŽŸ‹”Ž½hæ’ ?š ’’’’’™€€€’’™Ģ™33ĢĢĢ’²²²ˆŠyŗ___PPT10‹Y+Dń='ń ¹’’’’=ń @Bń +īÅļ € ģšäpšš|š( š ššž š S š€hÄÆæ’ lšĄšpš<$ńD 0Ć  Æ š žšž š S š€ ÅÆæ’lšpš š<$ńD 0Ć Æ š žšH š ƒ š0ƒ“ŽŸ‹”Ž½hæ’ ?š ’’’€€€Ģ™33ĢĢĢ’²²²ˆŠyŗ___PPT10‹Y+Dń='ń ¹’’’’=ń @Bń +ī×ļ € žšö€š\šŽš( š š\šŖ š\ s š*€’Ææ’ lˆš­ `Żš<$ńD 0Ć  Æ š žš¤ š\ c š$€€¦Ææ’lˆšĄ°Šąš<$ńD 0Ć Æ š žšH š\ ƒ š0ƒ“ŽŸ‹”Ž½hæ’ ?š ’’’€€€Ģ™33ĢĢĢ’²²²ˆŠyŗ___PPT10‹Y+Dń='ń ¹’’’’=ń @Bń +īĖļ € ņšźš(š‚š( š š(š¤ š( c š$€ĢĶÆæ’ lšš° š<$ńD 0Ć  Æ š žšž š( S š€ó®æ’lšŠ°ŠPš<$ńD 0Ć Æ š žšH š( ƒ š0ƒ“ŽŸ‹”Ž½hæ’ ?š ’’’’’™€€€’’™Ģ™33ĢĢĢ’²²²ˆŠyŗ___PPT10‹Y+Dń='ń ¹’’’’=ń @Bń +īMļ € tšl°šdšš( š šdšr šd S š€˜ æ’ lšP°ŠšĆ   š žš¤ šd ƒ š0€š ƒæĄ’ š °Šš šDŸ” ¦ųŲŌŠšš¦ šd ƒ š0€č ƒæĄ’ š°Š  šFŸ”  ¦ųŲŌŠššH šd ƒ š0ƒ“ŽŸ‹”Ž½hæ’ ?š ’’’’’™€€€’’™Ģ™33ĢĢĢ’²²²ˆŠyŗ___PPT10‹Y+Dń='ń ¹’’’’=ń @Bń +īSļ € zšr€šxš š( š šxšx šx c š$€Ų% æ’ lˆšP°ŠšĆ   š žš¤ šx ƒ š0€  ƒæĄ’ š °Šš šDŸ” ¦ųŲŌŠšš¦ šx ƒ š0€Š6 ƒæĄ’ š°Š  šFŸ”  ¦ųŲŌŠššH šx ƒ š0ƒ“ŽŸ‹”Ž½hæ’ ?š ’’’’’™€€€’’™Ģ™33ĢĢĢ’²²²ˆŠyŗ___PPT10‹Y+Dń='ń ¹’’’’=ń @Bń +īsļ € šš’Ąš(š*š( š š(šx š( c š$€?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~€‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’“”•–—˜™š›œžŸ ”¢£¤„¦§Ø©Ŗ«¬­®Æ°±²³“µ¶·ø¹ŗ»¼½¾æĄĮĀĆÄÅĘĒČÉŹĖĢĶĪĻŠŃŅÓŌÕÖ×ŲŁŚŪÜŻŽßąįāćäåęēčéźėģķīļšńņóōõö÷ųłśūüżž’ž’’’      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’DocumentSummaryInformation8’’’’’’’’’’’’4ō’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ŗ6roles and responsibilities ŗRECIS 2008 Davison Workshop Activity 1.doc×|Óŗ$attached proforma ŗ<LangImpsAnalWkst ECIS 2008.DOC×°ÓŗBPoetry, Biology or World History ŗRECIS 2008 Davison Workshop Activity 2.doc×|Óŗquotes ŗRECIS 2008 Davison Workshop Activity 3.docņč/Č 0ŅÕ·DTimes New Romanøš·”Š0ø:A 0ø·DGaramond Romanøš·”Š0ø:A 0ø ·DArialnd Romanøš·”Š0ø:A 0ø"0·DWingdingsRomanøš·”Š0ø:A 0ø@·DPMingLiURomanøš·”Š0ø:A 0øˆP·DPalatinoRomanøš·”Š0ø:A 0ø`·Dļƒ·^7QŖ‹[noRomanøš·”Š0ø:A 0øˆ¤€c’’„0.’©  @£n’ż?" dd@’’ļ’’’’’’  @@``€€_ä@åę,ŗwhoosh.wavŗ.WAV ŗ10ŗ103ēąRIFFÖWAVEfmt ++data²€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€~€€€€€€€€€€€~~€~€€€€~€~€€€€€~~~~~~~~€~€€€€€~~€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€~€€€€€€€€€€€~~€€~~~€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€~~~€€€€€€€‚‚€~|||~~~~€‚†ˆ†‚~zvtvxz|~‚ˆŒŽŒ‚zvrnlrv|„ˆ””Žˆ€|vtrpptz~€ˆŠ„€|xvtv|~~‚††„‚‚†ˆ†€zxvvvz|~‚„†Œ’ŽŠ‚xrlhntz‚Š’’ˆ€zvrrpprrx~ˆ’˜œŽ|j[QU_|œµ»«„ŽbICCY„£±·«ˆn[ICY~–«»±’zlnh]_r€’ž§£˜˜”|]SUSSjˆ†–”z|šˆ†„‚„x__l~˜©Æ˜v_]drŠ’†ŒŠnUb|‚–«±Žnfd_]„«³”„‚d]5=rr˜»«Œnj]jzŒœ”ˆ~”lMlŒšœ‚dr”ž˜Šx[[_f|„„œ‚YQfWK_’»§š”ˆxh[z”½žŽ–x[CIjˆ””„§˜zxx„dSQz±Å|_fI9WÆÓ¹ˆM;QnšĮÕęævK;OUx†~”½§xj]]YS~­Éµ§”lM?pƵ„lM;CGpµęŁµŒ[)Kh„¹Õß|% %;x»Łä½tKQS]žßęɖbGr|ŠlSnvzŽÆ”~nfS[nˆžĆ«x;Az”ÆæŽ=+AY’ÉŻ»|=/1rĒüņ¹_ ?|„Õę½„W5/Cz­ÓÕĆ£f)/pŽ”浞vbMQrˆž©”˜˜ŽŠ|O=O–³–tjdhjœÆ«·µ–lG?G_Œ¹ĆŃɊK3„ÓņלdQCMpŒ§³··«†pW;1SšŃŁÅ·AMš·ÕźŃz/#?bx„ĒĶ–SAM[hv’„³«”œˆhYp~~zˆžŠrv€€t[]pŒ˜«·žtWOUtŒš˜”‚xxd]vˆ~vvxž§Š€zd_xŽŒzh_n†–ž˜ˆ‚rSQlš”œŽtbdp†~_l„ˆˆœšrQ_l][Šµ³Žtf]W]~«·§‚hWfp|”š„fWhnh€Šˆˆ”£˜€bU[hzŒ£”–ˆlSCWŽÆ«£ž€bYbnx”„”pdhjvŒ©­ž†jM9Ot„”«»µš€]GQ[dpp~œ­Æ©š‚hhhdpx~†–œš”Œxh]Yn‚˜œŽŒ†€tnrŠšŽp]dlv–Æ«§†jQMb|Œš˜–’Švdjp€ŠˆŠ„zxzz‚Šˆ’–Štljr|ˆšž˜|_[r~‚œ˜˜’~jb_j|Œ˜£”z|xpp~~€’ž””Œv]Wh|ŠŽ’Ž|zx‚‚„Ž†|x|€„z€ˆ„zndhpxˆŒš­§Žr]YfntŠ˜–„€zjl|€z‚ŒŠ„||~„ˆ†‚vppnrz†ŒŽ”’„phrxz|„†€€€~‚†††„|xtrjjtv~ŠŽŽ”Ž~vz|z|€€|xrrv~ˆ„†ŒŠ€xrprtz„ŒŒ†‚€€|||vz‚€xvx|€†ˆˆ†ˆ„xtx~~~~~~~€„„‚€€zxxxx€†ŠŠ„€|zxz~~‚ŠŠ~rrz€~€„‚|xz~~€††„€|vtx|€„„‚‚€zxz|~~~€„†„€|€€|zx|||~€€€€‚€€‚€€~zz|zz~‚††„€~~~|~€€~||~€€‚ˆ†~||zz|€‚‚€~||z~~~„ˆŠŠ„~zxzz|~€€‚‚‚‚‚‚‚‚€~~~|~~€„„‚€~|~€‚‚€‚„‚€||~~€‚‚‚‚€~€‚„‚~~~€€€€€€€‚‚‚‚€€~~~~€€„‚‚‚‚‚~~€‚~€€|||€‚‚‚€€€~€€€~€€€€€€~~€~~~~€€~€€€€€€€€€~~~~||~€‚‚‚€~||~||~€‚‚‚€~~~|||~~~€€€€€€€~||||~€€€~€€€~~€€~~||||~~~~~€€~~~~~~|~~~€€€‚‚€~|zz~€€€‚€~~~~~€~||||~€‚€€~||~~€€‚€€~~~|||~~~~€€‚‚€~|||~|~€‚‚€|~~~€~|z|~~~~€€€€€~~~|||~~€€€€€~~~~~~€‚„€||~~~~~€~€€€~~€ lšdšxßĶ5   #)!+  "$&(* >BEFGIHH\]^efghjluvxƒ š0ƒ†AæĄÅA’ńfĢ@ń÷š8ój€ók€ŠMČųQ Źš;xum8Źš;śwžż4LdLd ø:A 0Pū’’¦’’’pū pū@ pū <ż4!d!dLøź$ 0ˆ¹(-·<ż4ddddLøź$ 0ˆ¹(-·’ <ż4BdBdLø # 0ˆ¹ˆŗŠŠŗ___PPT10‹°Ö˜·DPMingLiUˆ¹ˆ¹¤·Œ·”Š0¤·:A 0œ·ˆ·DArialiUˆ¹ˆ¹¤·Œ·”Š0¤·:A 0œ·" ĄĄŠŚŗ___PPT9‹¼äÓäÓäÓäÓ®4Ƭ€’’?Ł Ś%šIöóŸØ ”(ŸØyECIS 2008 Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: Bridging the gap Chris Davison, University of Hong Kong ”`zZ 6@b,b,,'Ŗ A .óŸ ~1. Background 2. The conceptualization (and mis- conceptualization) of collaboration 3. Key difficulties in implementing effective collaboration 4. Essential elements for more effective collaboration 5. An emerging framework to describe collaborative teaching and  levels of competence 6. Looking forward”$@? (Ŗ.ŸŖ óŸØ 1. Background”Ÿ ŒThe development of greater collaboration or  partnerships between ESL and mainstream/content-area teachers has long been advocated in TESOL The development of the Partnership Teaching model (Bourne, 1997) in England has been very influential, as have team-teaching approaches in Australia (Davison, 1992) Collaboration seen as essential to enhance the integration of ESL students into the mainstream classroom (Arkoudis, 2007) Most English-medium schools around the world have attempted to adopt some form of partnership or collaborative teaching in the last ten to fifteen years ”GPGŖœ£óŸ”(ŸØ¢There is a small but growing number of in-service education initiatives (e.g. KS 3 Literacy Across the Curriculum, ESL in the Mainstream and research However, most research and evaluation/in-service development focuses on methods and techniques to use in the classroom or on analysis of linguistic demands of content areas (Davison, 2007) Little attention given to researching the process of co-planning and co-teaching/evaluating the effectiveness of the partnership model for long-term English language development However, strong indications that partnership as a model of EAL delivery may need further development and support to be fully effective (Creese, 2000, 2002) ”¢PPN$½NŖó?:ŸØ02. Conceptualizations and mis-conceptualisations”11ŖŸ Ø  Partnership Teaching & builds on the concept of co-operative teaching (where a language support teacher and class or subject teacher plan together a curriculum and teaching strategies which will take into account the learning needs of all pupils) by linking the work of two teachers, or indeed a whole department/year team or other partners, with plans for curriculum development and staff development across the school (Bourne, 1997, p.83)  An active collaborative teaching partnership does not necessarily mean that the two teachers concerned are to carry out team teaching all the time, nor does it mean that the second language learner is expected to share the class tasks all the time (Leung & Franson, 1991) ”0ÕPŅŖÄ óŸ TYou are an ESL teacher ... You have studied a bit of history but not much and a long time ago. Suddenly you find yourself obliged to team teach (in History) ... You find out what is programmed for the junior classes and do a bit of reading - not in the uni library - remember you only have to know as much as the kids. All you have to do is devise ways to get this material across to the kids in such a way that they will be learning and using language in the process of learning History. Once you have devised a couple of strategies ... approach the (teacher) with some concrete suggestions for the class concerned which are tailored to meet the needs of the junior program & . ”,«©ŖŸ ólaŸ Result? She is impressed with your preparation and likes some of your ideas and is willing to try them. When one of them goes like a dream you offer to plan the next unit in consultation with her of course, although she is very busy with three unit Ancient history and may not have much time to spare. Do not be put off by this apparent lack of interest. The kids love the Barrier game and the role plays of the Sumerians were quite impressive - suddenly Margaret is talking about Year 8 next year. Your activities are not only language rich they are fun ... You could make yourself invaluable to this faculty and with the head on your side the other teachers may take you more seriously & (Davison, 2001) ”ÉÉŖ ©ó&&ŸØ Problems ???”  ŸØ Not partnership, but guerilla warfare (!) Not systematic language development, but technical support for content area Not integrated long-term curriculum development, but one-off lesson-level activities Not interaction of equals, but subordination of ESL to content” Z óŸØ;3. Key difficulties in implementing effective collaboration”<<Ÿ ÄDifferent (often conflicting) interpretations of the task  Content needs given priority over language needs Lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities Insufficient (and ineffective use of) time for liaison and planning Uncertain theoretical basis for the selection and sequencing of language input in a content-oriented curriculum Rigid and/or imposed program structures Unrealistic expectations (by co-teachers, heads, students and parents) and inadequate support/leadership ”"ćZāó ŸØ24. Essential elements for effective collaboration ”"31Ÿ Clear conceptualization of the task Incorporation of an explicit ESL focus into curriculum and assessment planning processes Negotiation of a shared understanding of mainstream and ESL teachers roles Implementation of common curriculum planning proformas and processes Experimentation with diversity as resource to promote effective learning for all students Development of articulated and flexible pathways for ESL learning support Establishment of systematic mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation and feedback ”^ZZ’ " Z[£Ŗö ó;7ŸØ9Essential element 1: Clear conceptualization of the task”::Ÿ öThe integration of curriculum: content-based ESL teaching and ESL-conscious content teaching Intervention, not just inclusion; development, not just differentiation Equal authority, responsibility and input !  Two teachers are better than one !!  Another pair of hands !!!  Initially I couldn t see much use for her (ESL) and she may have felt redundant ”ZP_PPPyó('ó50ŸØoEssential element 2: Incorporation of an explicit ESL focus into curriculum and assessment planning processes ”"pnŸØé Research (Skehan,1994; Swain, 1995; Davison & Williams, 2002) clearly shows: School-age English language learners move though distinct stages of English language development that are increasingly understood and well-documented Students need to notice and use language in increasingly complex but contextualized ways in order for language development to occur Language learning cannot occur simply through language immersion, no matter how comprehensible and rich the language input ”®NP•PPPPPā   cóNIŸŸØmParticular emphasis needed on significant aspects of ESL (cf. EMT) development: Cross-cultural communication strategies, including use of L1 Informal oral/aural communication, including control of phonological and paralinguistic system Sentence-level grammar Text structures Interpersonal and interactional language functions Learning how to learn in English ”œPZZZZZ5  Ŗ' :ó+(ŸØsEssential element 3: Negotiation of a shared understanding of ESL and mainstream teachers' roles/responsibilities ”"trŸØ®Example 1: Job descriptions ESL teacher Establish and nurture/ foster the collaborative process and maintain effective communication Establish clear language focus for unit”L(Z‡Zb c ‡a ŸØ˜Content teacher Establish and nurture/ foster the collaborative process and maintain effective communication Establish clear language focus for unit ”XZ†ZZc ‰aaóRMŸŸØšBring ESL issues to planning meetings and participate in planning and preparation as equals Negotiate flexible, regular teaching role in classroom Give priority to ESL identified students, but be willing to provide language support to all ”8šZZšaA Ÿ œParticipate in planning and preparation as equals Negotiate responsibilities for classroom overall management/direction of class Take responsibility for students overall development in the content area ”8ĶZZĪaAó/,ŸŸØ’Take an active role in monitoring and assessing the language development of all students and contributing to common assessment tasks/processes Identify language demands of content area, develop materials for language support/ participate in text selection” Ÿ Take responsibility for overall assessment and reporting of students progress in content, but negotiate nature of assessment tasks and language demands Identify language demands of content area, and contribute to development of additional language support materials ”& ZZ ócZŸ” Ÿ ž Activity 1: Look at the table of the roles and responsibilities of ESL and  content teachers. Talk to a partner. What areas do you find least problematic? What areas do you find most problematic? Why? ”6Š¾ņó B 0ß*EóA;Ÿ”Ÿ n BUT Clarifying the roles and responsibilities (of each teacher) solves only part of the problem Teachers have strong pedagogic beliefs and assumptions about their subject area and what good teaching (and learning) means to them, which are embedded within their sense of professional identity. thus  In negotiating the curriculum with the subject specialist so that language understanding is promoted in the mainstream and students English language is developed, the ESL teacher has to have a firm understanding of her own subject discipline (Arkoudis, 2007) ”¦P'PPPPHŪöŖ# óUPŸŸ  Example : Common planning conversations leading to development of shared understandings (Arkoudis, 2000) ESL:& I think that's a problem sometimes with ESL teachers talking to subject teachers (mm) because we don't have umm ... a sense of content in quite the same way like we're a bit indiscriminate in a way, like to me almost it doesn't matter what the content, (mm) I mean it does matter. I don't mean that but I mean the...the content is a vehicle whereas for you the content is obviously more primary. Is that right? ”˜j¤jcc>c¢cOccCŖZ­óVQŸŸØõCT: Well [pause - 3 secs] I find that a little bit difficult to accept in that ... you know ... I have a difficulty with the word CONTENT in what you're saying because REALLY content is something you must have an idea about otherwise you wouldn't really be able to structure anything ... I don't think. Now you have to sort of ask yourself what you're trying to teach? ESL: Yes ...I have linguistic aims and li‚ƒ„…†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’“”•–—˜™š›œžŸ ”¢£¤„¦§Ø©Ŗ«¬­®Æ°±²³“µ¶·ø¹ŗ»¼½¾æĄĮĀĆÄÅĘĒČÉŹĖĢĶĪĻŠŃŅÓ?ÕÖ×ŲŁŚŪÜŻŽßąįāćäåęēčéźėģķīļšńņóōõö÷ųłśūüżž’nguistic content you know == but CT:==They sound really vapid but I know they're not ”|õZZ€#6#<#!"  $ó3.Ÿ”"(ŸØ;ESL: (laughs) It doesn't matter whether ... you know ... that the ... that the content that I'm dealing with is, you know, what ever topic in Science or is in Science or is in History or is in whatever ... umm ... I'm still enabled to teach(mm) the same linguistic structures and features and FUNCTIONS and umm you know ... it's very easy to adapt == to different CT:== But don't you start out if you do a lesson, don't you start out by saying OKAY today is, you don't say it's adverbs, you don't say today it's conjunctions == It's quite random which is covered? ”ˆ<ZŽc cccc%cCóWRŸŸØŚESL:== N0 no no. It's not random at all umm... but probably [pause 3 secs] you know ... I'd think... you know ... of what are the particular language functions so not ... so not the structure so it's not adverbs and stuff like that. You wouldn't do that BUT that you want students to be able to describe or to explain or to umm ... justify or do you know THAT would be ... that would probably be ... you know probably come from more a functional we'd call it, in our terms we call it ... in ESL terms we'd call it a more functional sort of approach and that we would be looking at different umm text types that they would need to use, to understand ... to both understand and to produce, (mm) to be able to do that umm ... ”źŚZZccćc6cccc cucCc  ó,)ŸØZEssential element 4: Implementation of common curriculum planning proformas and processes”[[ŖC Ÿ *Research shows that incorporating language objectives into content lessons is challenging (Echevarria & Short, 1999) Content specialists immersed in the discourse of their discipline do not easily recognize language demands of curriculum, let alone language learning needs and opportunities ESL teachers struggle to  cover the content and easily lose direction and control, need stronger planning focus ”HuZ ZZu Ŗ[ 1óE@ŸØnExample: Common planning framework used in a large K-12 American international school (Hurst & Davison, 2005)”ooŸ Used in all subject areas and all levels Integrates mainstream and ESL teaching Creates curricular space for English language development Establishes specific teacher roles and responsibilities Provides focus for planning conversations/ on the job in-service ”Zó_WŸŸ Ś Activity 2: Look at the attached proforma used for collaborative planning between a secondary ESL teacher and a  content teacher in an international school (Hurst & Davison, 2005, p. 64-65). In pairs, choose a subject area that interests you - Poetry, Biology or World History - and note their expected outcomes and the resources to be used. Complete the missing information on the attached chart, then discuss the effectiveness of such planning documents in your own teaching context. ”Zī LŖ: Ė!Õņó B 0ß-ņó B 0ßųó-*ŸØsEssential element 5: Experimentation with diversity as a resource to promote effective learning for all students”0tg ŸØ~Research in a range of schools around the world increasingly demonstrates that Linguistic and cultural diversity can be exploited as a resource for all learners through the use of jigsaw and information gap activities and structured pair and group work which enhances the negotiation of meaning, conceptual understanding and the development of linguistic and cognitive flexibility Slower pace of lessons and greater classroom interaction can enhance academic standards and student engagement A stronger, more systematic focus on English language development can benefit English mother tongue students, often even more than ESL learners ”jOZ/ZZO,ó=9ŸŸ & Example: Evaluation of the effects of a  sheltered immersion partnership model on a large P-12 school (Davison, forthcoming) Enhanced teacher-student and classroom interaction More effective strategies and activities Slightly slower pace Increased academic effort Higher academic standards (and grades) Positive effects on English language development, especially for English mother tongue learners”B€ZZó"#ŸØWEssential element 6: Development of articulated and flexible pathways for ESL learning”XXŸØ Australian research (Cruikshank,1997) suggests School-based flexibility in program organization is critical The best programs employ a variety of delivery modes and have a structure of graded support for ESL students according to their length of time in Australia and language needs ”z1ķ=#& .DóYTŸŸØ^Integrated but separate ESL provision can be highly successful e.g. low SES students entering school at 15.4 years with no English achieved grade average norms in the final year of secondary school within 3.5 years through a clearly articulated continuum of ESL support, including an initial semester in an intensive language centre (Warwick 2000) ”D@@ó.+ŸØh Essential element 7: Establishment of systematic mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation and feedback ”$igŸØKThe establishment of effective collaborative approaches to EAL teaching takes significant time, between three to five years The most effective schools are those which are responsive to the changing needs of students, teachers and parents Monitoring, evaluation and feedback mechanisms are a key determinant of program effectiveness”fLZNM V*óŸ ąAn emerging framework to describe the evolution of collaborative teaching/ levels of competence (Davison, 2007)”qqŸØPurpose: For evaluating collaboration For setting realistic goals for professional development Describes quality of collaboration, not quality of individuals Five levels, four distinguishing characteristics (attitude, effort/investment, achievement, expectations of support)”˜ ZVZ“Z CVA ccccqcó`XŸŸ ų Activity 3: Look at the following quotes from different ESL(ESL) and primary  mainstream teachers (CT) who were working together in a large international school, then compare them with the framework for describing levels of collaboration. Try to match the teacher quotes to the different levels of collaboration, then discuss any implications for your own teaching/school. ”H} lŖ$%Mņó B 0ß%,óŸØ0Level 1: Pseudo-compliance or passive resistance”11 Ÿ ÖImplicit or explicit rejection of collaboration, preference for status quo e.g. Someone more experienced with ESL needs to take my place (CT3) Little or no real investment of time or understanding e.g. I expected her to tell me  how I needed to assist each student and provide me with modified versions of what we planned& instead of giving suggestions, give complete lessons that address specific needs that are seen (CT3) No positive outcomes (even counter-productive, i.e. entrenching existing negative attitudes) e.g. Too time consuming& schedule not suited to our needs (CT4) Expectation that  this too will pass e.g.  It seems obvious now that only classroom teachers with ESL training will feel comfortable in this role (CT3).”"KPKP7PåP]PAP&PvPKCJcC6Cä c C]C@cC&CvcóŸØLevel 2: Compliance ”"" "Ÿ ŽA positive attitude and expressions of  good intent , efforts made to implement roles and responsibilities but with limited understanding of implications, informing documents seen as external and/or imposed e.g.  It s best for the children (CT1);  Children learned best being immersed in classroom (CT6);  All the children benefit from having another person in the room (CT7). Dealing with challenges and/or conflict in roles is seen as part of the teacher s job, but it is a source of unhappiness, frustration and stress, teachers feel defensive and besieged by conflicting demands e.g.  The job description sheet & needs to be looked at so that all parties know what/where their responsibilities are. Someone needs to ensure roles are followed& Both teachers need to be responsible for planning, assessing and record keeping (CT1) ”|ĻZ®ZĻZüZĻcÆcĪcücó73Ÿ”b(Ÿ ā Achievements conceptualized as non-intrusive and very concrete (e.g. development of  ESL worksheets, adaptation of texts) e.g. There didn t appear to be any plans for the individual needs of the ESL learners other than what the classroom teacher did& Individual language needs must be addressed by both teachers (CT1). Expectation of high degree of practical and teacher-specific external professional development, teacher dependence on external sources of encouragement and reward. e.g. Large blocks of time are needed if proper planning is to take place (CT1),  There is insufficient planning time (CT7);  (The school) should provide more training  to all teachers involved (CT3),  More workshops for ESL teachers on best primary practices so that their teaching and understanding is in alignment with ours (CT 6);  I had too many classes in first semester (6) (ESL2) ”Ž}PĘP¤P‹P|ccĘc¤c‹cóŸØLevel 3: Accommodation”" Ÿ  A positive attitude and willingness to experiment e.g.  There are still many things I need to learn in working with this new model. There have been moments when things worked really well and I got a glimpse of how it can be successful (ESL1) Efforts made to accommodate to perceived co-teacher s needs but conflicts seen as unnecessary and avoidable if  model is correctly implemented by teachers, only limited understanding of theoretical base of collaboration and little critical examination e.g. I felt I had to take the initiative during the planning sessions. Originally& there was not a lot a focus and not the best use was being made of the immersion teachers time. Sometimes I feel there are differing philosophies and understandings of issues like learning styles, child and language development, behaviour management etc  (CT2);  I found myself struggling to find the balance between the content and language needs of the ESL students and often ended up with not enough time to address language needs adequately (ESL1) ”œ3PĆPżPP1ccĀccżccŖ. Śó84ŸŸ ÖAchievements conceptualized mainly at level of strategies and techniques e.g. I feel there has been a gap between my expertise as a classroom teacher and the ESL teachers knowledge& I thought that the ESL teacher would have a repertoire of strategies that would be appropriate for use in the mainstream class but this has not been the case and as I do not have the ESL strategies or understanding of the language structures, I am worried that the students may have missed out on some important skills/ understandings they need to develop. (CT2);  It was our hope that the ESL teacher would have language strategies to offer and assist in our planning. Unfortunately this is rarely the case (CT7); Expectation of high degree of program-specific external professional development, teacher dependence on external sources of encouragement but also some signs of intrinsic rewards from developing partnerships e.g. That essential agreements be developed for sharing of responsibilities etc (CT2),  Recruit classroom teachers who are willing to work with the model and whose teaching styles lend themselves to the model (ESL1) ”®IZuZŠZÜZZZIcucŠcÜcCóŸØ*Level 4: Convergence (and some co-option) ”"+)" "Ÿ 6A very positive attitude, embracing opportunities to learn from peers e.g.  I have enjoyed it and am convinced it is the way to go. I would like to develop an even more successful model and build my own knowledge and skills (CT2);  I felt included in the program (ESL3) Efforts made to engage with co-teacher s ideas and initiate dialogue and interaction/experimentation, high degree of respect for other evident, informing documents seen as fluid and subject to negotiation but conflicts still seen as dichotomous and requiring resolution i.e. simplifying alternatives and/or avoiding expression of contradictory views e.g. I always wanted to do more (ESL 3) ”¤FĶ^+FcĖccc^cc*có95Ÿ”"$Ÿ xAchievements conceptualized in terms of impact on content of lesson, not just delivery, but not always consistently, some co-option of other s ideas/strategies with still limited understanding of rationale and theoretical basis; e.g. The class teachers and I need to work on a more organized plan& this year, with no curriculum to peruse in advance, much of our scaffolding was last minute (ESL3) Increasing satisfaction from intrinsic rewards of collaboration, increasingly seeking opportunities for peer interaction, growing preference for action research and peer-directed professional development e.g. That class teachers are given PD in ESL strategies (and) immersion teachers given PD in classroom management and other examples of  best practice  guided reading, writing process , oral language activities (CT2) ”ÄęZŖZĪZŽZZęcŖccĢccÜccCó ŸØ#Level 5: Creative co-construction ”.$!" "Ÿ *A very positive attitude, collaboration normalized and seen as preferred option for ESL teaching; teachers roles become much more interchangeable, yet more distinct e.g. Teaching a sheltered immersion class has been one of the most successful experiences of my career. I benefited daily from the expertise of the ESL immersion teacher (CT5) High degree of trust of other evident, responsibilities and areas of expertise continually negotiated, informing documents seen as actively co-constructed and teacher-developed, conflicts in roles seen as inevitable, accepted, even embraced, as a continuing condition which will lead to greater understanding e.g. We are constantly trying different strategies to accommodate the various learning styles of the students in this class (CT5) ”ئZ³Z7Z†Z¦c±ccc6cc„có:6ŸŸ ģAchievements seen as impacting across whole curriculum e.g.  While I feel the language needs of the ESL learners are being met& I feel the situation can be improved by nailing down the thematic units ahead of time (CT5) Normalization of teacher-based PD such as action research and critical reflection, accompanied by extensive reading in area to extend understanding of specific theoretical concepts, possibly some formal study in each other s areas e.g.  There has been insufficient time to plan for the language implications of the content we are teaching; for example, the development of grammatical progressions. This is because we are still developing thematic units the planning of which must precede attention to their language aspects (CT5) ”š7Z©ZēZ/ZZ7c©cēc/cCód[ŸØ6. Looking forward”Ÿ  Bridging the gap between ESL and content teachers in English-medium international schools requires the support and commitment from the various stake-holders involved. The following are some practical recommendations and strategies for the various key stake-holders: School administrators& Ensure that teaching standards are in place whereby teachers work toward developing expertise in making language accessible for all students in content classrooms; Budget for in-service programs dedicated to maintaining high standards and to meeting language needs of all students; Budget for appropriate staffing and class sizes to allow for no more than one-third  high-needs students per class; Communicate goals with community members on an ongoing, consistent basis. ”œ%PŪPP Łóh`Ÿ”Ÿ  Curriculum leaders& Establish action plans for all involved in the curriculum revision process; Encourage peer coaching and reflection as part of the school culture; Encourage teachers to evaluate and revise lessons on a daily basis to be able to meet students needs and changing conditions; Ensure common assessments are an integral part of all curriculum areas; Encourage teachers to seek out and apply best practices; Plan with administrators in implementing realistic, applicable, and timely in-service programs to include the basics of second language acquisition, cross-cultural understanding, and best practices; Utilize the expertise of the faculty in in-service programs without overburdening teachers; Consider implementing a Language Policy Across the Curriculum ”hPņPPń,óe\Ÿ”Ÿ `Content and ESL teachers& Establish a professional community allowing for genuine ongoing professional dialogue; Identify and develop a shared purpose; Establish an agreed protocol and meeting agendas; Define the language implications for each unit taught; Collaborate further and come to agreements on& who modifies texts where appropriate? who develops supplemental materials? who creates text/lecture outlines? who gives vocabulary practice? where to use native-language texts? & and on assessments & who modifies tests? who selects appropriate reference materials for class? who oversees the writing process? which learning strategies are taught where? where is language development realistically going to be assessed? when and how is formal grading to occur (and to what extent can it be postponed)? ”zPPPP’ói_Ÿ”Ÿ &Content and ESL teachers& Consider co-teaching options; Follow through on agreements based on curriculum analysis Who teaches what?; Assess agreed language implications; Keep data on student achievement to evidence successes; Communicate with and set out to educate and report to parents on an ongoing, consistent basis. ESL teachers & Communicate student needs; Realize content teachers are also differentiating for students with high levels of English language proficiency; Teach students language learning strategies and metacognition; Teach language systematically and meaningfully within an immersion context; Support the content teachers risk-taking; ”ŹP'PPBPPP:åBŖ  {óf]Ÿ”Ÿ ,Content teachers & Be willing to modify classroom practice, make appropriate accommodations incorporating best practices; Differentiate instruction: process and product (assessments); Use advanced organizers, outlines, etc. for direct instruction; Use cooperative learning strategies; Use effective inductive approaches to learning; Have students identify and apply learning strategies; Ensure all students can work independently and participate effectively; Teach language and cultural understandings explicitly where appropriate. ”fPPP ó%$Ÿ” Ÿ Ö  The rewards of bridging the gap between core and ESL classrooms can only benefit ESL learners & ESL teachers used to be anxious about why they were collaborating it seemed hit and miss, often unfulfilling, lacking follow-through and change. ESL teachers often found themselves caught up with day-to-day crisis management at the expense of much- needed professional dialogues. Now ESL teachers have a purpose and a sense of continuity - curriculum agreements based on solid outcomes. The interdependency of the ISB faculty, from teachers to administrators, has led to positive change. The high standards set by teachers has led to the school explicitly defining and disseminating those standards for the wider school community, giving all teachers a stronger sense of pride in their work and an understanding of what it means to be  ESL . (Donna Hurst, ISB, 2005) ”NkZZNóaYŸŸØ‰ Arkoudis, S. (2007). Collaborating in ESL education in schools. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching. Norwell, MA: Springer. Arkoudis, S., & Davison, C. (2002). Breaking out of the billabong: Mainstreaming ESL in Australia. In E. Cochran (Ed.), Case studies in TESOL: Mainstreaming. Alexandria, VI: TESOL. Bourne, J. (1997). The continuing revolution: Teaching as learning in the mainstream multilingual classroom. In C. Leung & C. Cable (Eds.), English as an Additional Language (pp. 77-88). York: NALDIC. Creese, A. (2000). The role of language specialists in disciplinary teaching: In search of a subject? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(6), 451-470. Creese, A. (2002). The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: language and subject specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 597-616. Davison, C. (1992). Look out! Eight fatal flaws in team and support teaching. TESOL in Context, 2(1). Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know we are doing it right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 454-475. Davison, C., & Williams, A. (2001). Integrating language and content: Unresolved issues. In B. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity (pp. 51-70). Harlow: Longman Pearson. Education Department of South Australia. (1991). ESL in the mainstream, Workshops 1-5. Adelaide, SA: Government Printer. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Cup of comfort or poisoned chalice? In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Changing teachers, changing times (pp. 186-211). London: Cassell. Hargreaves, A., & Macmillan, B. (1994). The balkanization of teaching: Collaboration that divides. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Changing teachers, changing times (pp. 212-240). London: Cassell. Hurst, D. & Davison, C. (2005). Collaboration on the curriculum: Focus on secondary ESL. In Crandall, J. & Kauffman, D. (Ed). Case Studies in TESOL: Teacher education for ESL and content area teachers. (pp. 41-66). Alexandria, VI: TESOL. Little, J. (1990). Teachers as colleagues. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now (pp. 165-193). London: Falmer. Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Mohan, B., & Lowe, M. (1995). Collaborative teacher assessment of ESL writers: Conceptual and practical Issues. TESOL Journal, 5(1), 28-31. Roth, W., & Tobin, K. (2004). Co-teaching: From praxis to theory. Teacher and teaching: Theory and practice, 10(2), 161-180. Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A tool for teacher-researcher collaboration and professional development. . Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Siskin, L. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. London: Falmer. Snow, C. M., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 201-219.”ŠŠ Pc 3 ’ % „ ! ‚ 9   ‹  \  o = – O X $ ¢ ! œ "   K j : 2    N - 2 y s > ©   Ŗź§x§6 b A _ Bˆ] Aŗ/šó*P’’’źīļ € ¦šžŠš š6š( š š š~ š  s š*€tB æ’ lˆšP°Š€šĆ    š žšx š  c š$€HC æ’lˆš°°ŠPšĆ   š žšH š  ƒ š0ƒ“ŽŸ‹”Ž½hæ’ ?š 3™3’’’€€€’’’Ģ™33ĢĢĢ’²²²ˆŠyŗ___PPT10‹Y+Dń='ń ¹’’’’=ń @Bń +r¤`† õXm€ #lÆčõé(€ąą€ ) x פÓŗ6roles and responsibilities ŗRECIS 2008~~~€~|z|~~~~€€€€€~~~|||~~€€€€€~~~~~~€‚„€||~~~~~€~€€€~~€ lšdšxßĶ5   #)!+  "$&(* >BEFGIHH\]^efghjluvxƒ š0ƒ†AæĄÅA’ńfĢ@ń÷š8ój€ók€ŠMČųQ Źš;xum8Źš;śwžż4LdLd ø:A 0Pū’’ø’’’pū pū@ pū <ż4!d!dLøź$ 0ˆ¹(-·<ż4ddddLøź$ 0ˆ¹(-·’ <ż4BdBdLø # 0ˆ¹ˆŗŠŠŗ___PPT10‹°Ö˜·DPMingLiUˆ¹ˆ¹¤·Œ·”Š0¤·:A 0œ·ˆ·DArialiUˆ¹ˆ¹¤·Œ·”Š0¤·:A 0œ·" ĄĄŠŚŗ___PPT9‹¼äÓäÓäÓäÓ®4Ƭ€’’?Ł Ś%šdöóŸØ ”(ŸØyECIS 2008 Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: Bridging the gap Chris Davison, University of Hong Kong ”`zZ 6@b,b,,'Ŗ A .óŸ ~1. Background 2. The conceptualization (and mis- conceptualization) of collaboration 3. Key difficulties in implementing effective collaboration 4. Essential elements for more effective collaboration 5. An emerging framework to describe collaborative teaching and  levels of competence 6. Looking forward”$@? (Ŗ.ŸŖ óŸØ 1. Background”Ÿ ŒThe development of greater collaboration or  partnerships between ESL and mainstream/content-area teachers has long been advocated in TESOL The development of the Partnership Teaching model (Bourne, 1997) in England has been very influential, as have team-teaching approaches in Australia (Davison, 1992) Collaboration seen as essential to enhance the integration of ESL students into the mainstream classroom (Arkoudis, 2007) Most English-medium schools around the world have attempted to adopt some form of partnership or collaborative teaching in the last ten to fifteen years ”GPGŖœ£óŸ”(ŸØ«There is a small but growing number of in-service education initiatives (e.g. KS 3 Literacy Across the Curriculum, ESL in the Mainstream, and related research However, most research and evaluation/in-service development focuses on methods and techniques to use in the classroom or on analysis of linguistic demands of content areas (Davison, 2007) Little attention given to researching the process of co-planning and co-teaching/evaluating the effectiveness of the partnership model for long-term English language development However, strong indications that partnership as a model of EAL delivery may need further development and support to be fully effective (Creese, 2000, 2002) ”«PPN$½NŖ>~ ųó?:ŸØ02. Conceptualizations and mis-conceptualisations”11ŖŸ Ø  Partnership Teaching & builds on the concept of co-operative teaching (where a language support teacher and class or subject teacher plan together a curriculum and teaching strategies which will take into account the learning needs of all pupils) by linking the work of two teachers, or indeed a whole department/year team or other partners, with plans for curriculum development and staff development across the school (Bourne, 1997, p.83)  An active collaborative teaching partnership does not necessarily mean that the two teachers concerned are to carry out team teaching all the time, nor does it mean that the second language learner is expected to share the class tasks all the time (Leung & Franson, 1991) ”0ÕPŅŖÄ óŸ TYou are an ESL teacher ... You have studied a bit of history but not much and a long time ago. Suddenly you find yourself obliged to team teach (in History) ... You find out what is programmed for the junior classes and do a bit of reading - not in the uni library - remember you only have to know as much as the kids. All you have to do is devise ways to get this material across to the kids in such a way that they will be learning and using language in the process of learning History. Once you have devised a couple of strategies ... approach the (teacher) with some concrete suggestions for the class concerned which are tailored to meet the needs of the junior program & . ”,«©ŖŸ ólaŸ Result? She is impressed with your preparation and likes some of your ideas and is willing to try them. When one of them goes like a dream you offer to plan the next unit in consultation with her of course, although she is very busy with three unit Ancient history and may not have much time to spare. Do not be put off by this apparent lack of interest. The kids love the Barrier game and the role plays of the Sumerians were quite impressive - suddenly Margaret is talking about Year 8 next year. Your activities are not only language rich they are fun ... You could make yourself invaluable to this faculty and with the head on your side the other teachers may take you more seriously & (Davison, 2001) ”ÉÉŖ ©ó&&ŸØ Problems ???”  ŸØ Not partnership, but guerilla warfare (!) Not systematic language development, but technical support for content area Not integrated long-term curriculum development, but one-off lesson-level activities Not interaction of equals, but subordination of ESL to content” Z óŸØ;3. Key difficulties in implementing effective collaboration”<<Ÿ ÄDifferent (often conflicting) interpretations of the task  Content needs given priority over language needs Lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities Insufficient (and ineffective use of) time for liaison and planning Uncertain theoretical basis for the selection and sequencing of language input in a content-oriented curriculum Rigid and/or imposed program structures Unrealistic expectations (by co-teachers, heads, students and parents) and inadequate support/leadership ”"ćZāó ŸØ24. Essential elements for effective collaboration ”"31Ÿ Clear conceptualization of the task Incorporation of an explicit ESL focus into curriculum and assessment planning processes Negotiation of a shared understanding of mainstream and ESL teachers roles Implementation of common curriculum planning proformas and processes Experimentation with diversity as resource to promote effective learning for all students Development of articulated and flexible pathways for ESL learning support Establishment of systematic mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation and feedback ”^ZZ’ " Z[£Ŗö ó;7ŸØ9Essential element 1: Clear conceptualization of the task”::Ÿ öThe integration of curriculum: content-based ESL teaching and ESL-conscious content teaching Intervention, not just inclusion; development, not just differentiation Equal authority, responsibility and input !  Two teachers are better than one !!  Another pair of hands !!!  Initially I couldn t see much use for her (ESL) and she may have felt redundant ”ZP_PPPyó('ó50ŸØoEssential element 2: Incorporation of an explicit ESL focus into curriculum and assessment planning processes ”"pnŸØé Research (Skehan,1994; Swain, 1995; Davison & Williams, 2002) clearly shows: School-age English language learners move though distinct stages of English language development that are increasingly understood and well-documented Students need to notice and use language in increasingly complex but contextualized ways in order for language development to occur Language learning cannot occur simply through language immersion, no matter how comprehensible and rich the language input ”®NP•PPPPPā   cóNIŸŸØmParticular emphasis needed on significant aspects of ESL (cf. EMT) development: Cross-cultural communication strategies, including use of L1 Informal oral/aural communication, including control of phonological and paralinguistic system Sentence-level grammar Text structures Interpersonal and interactional language functions Learning how to learn in English ”œPZZZZZ5  Ŗ' :ó+(ŸØsEssential element 3: Negotiation of a shared understanding of ESL and mainstream teachers' roles/responsibilities ”"trŸØ®Example 1: Job descriptions ESL teacher Establish and nurture/ foster the collaborative process and maintain effective communication Establish clear language focus for unit”L(Z‡Zb c ‡a ŸØ˜Content teacher Establish and nurture/ foster the collaborative process and maintain effective communication Establish clear language focus for unit ”XZ†ZZc ‰aaóRMŸŸØšBring ESL issues to planning meetings and participate in planning and preparation as equals Negotiate flexible, regular teaching role in classroom Give priority to ESL identified students, but be willing to provide language support to all ”8šZZšaA Ÿ œParticipate in planning and preparation as equals Negotiate responsibilities for classroom overall management/direction of class Take responsibility for students overall development in the content area ”R3ZZ™ZZĪaAó/,ŸŸØ’Take an active role in monitoring and assessing the language development of all students and contributing to common assessment tasks/processes Identify language demands of content area, develop materials for language support/ participate in text selection” Ÿ Take responsibility for overall assessment and reporting of students progress in content, but negotiate nature of assessment tasks and language demands Identify language demands of content area, and contribute to development of additional language support materials ”& ZZ ócZŸ” Ÿ ž Activity 1: Look at the table of the roles and responsibilities of ESL and  content teachers. Talk to a partner. What areas do you find least problematic? What areas do you find most problematic? Why? ”6Š¾ņó B 0ß*EóA;Ÿ”Ÿ n BUT Clarifying the roles and responsibilities (of each teacher) solves only part of the problem Teachers have strong pedagogic beliefs and assumptions about their subject area and what good teaching (and learning) means to them, which are embedded within their sense of professional identity. thus  In negotiating the curriculum with the subject specialist so that language understanding is promoted in the mainstream and students English language is developed, the ESL teacher has to have a firm understanding of her own subject discipline (Arkoudis, 2007) ”¦P'PPPPHŪöŖ# óUPŸŸ  Example : Common planning conversations leading to development of shared understandings (Arkoudis, 2000) ESL:& I think that's a problem sometimes with ESL teachers talking to subject teachers (mm) because we don't have umm ... a sense of content in quite the same way like we're a bit indiscriminate in a way, like to me almost it doesn't matter what the content, (mm) I mean it does matter. I don't mean that but I mean the...the content is a vehicle whereas for you the content is obviously more primary. Is that right? ”˜j¤jcc>c¢cOccCŖZö_Ą‘ć:8ō° chris chris­óVQŸŸØõCT: Well [pause - 3 secs] I find that a little bit difficult to accept in that ... you know ... I have a difficulty with the word CONTENT in what you're saying because REALLY content is something you must have an idea about otherwise you wouldn't really be able to structure anything ... I don't think. Now you have to sort of ask yourself what you're trying to teach? ESL: Yes ...I have linguistic aims and linguistic content you know == but CT:==They sound really vapid but I know they're not ”|õZZ€#6#<#!"  $ó3.Ÿ”"(ŸØ;ESL: (laughs) It doesn't matter whether ... you know ... that the ... that the content that I'm dealing with is, you know, what ever topic in Science or is in Science or is in History or is in whatever ... umm ... I'm still enabled to teach(mm) the same linguistic structures and features and FUNCTIONS and umm you know ... it's very easy to adapt == to different CT:== But don't you start out if you do a lesson, don't you start out by saying OKAY today is, you don't say it's adverbs, you don't say today it's conjunctions == It's quite random which is covered? ”ˆ<ZŽc cccc%cCóWRŸŸØŚESL:== N0 no no. It's not random at all umm... but probably [pause 3 secs] you know ... I'd think... you know ... of what are the particular language functions so not ... so not the structure so it's not adverbs and stuff like that. You wouldn't do that BUT that you want students to be able to describe or to explain or to umm ... justify or do you know THAT would be ... that would probably be ... you know probably come from more a functional we'd call it, in our terms we call it ... in ESL terms we'd call it a more functional sort of approach and that we would be looking at different umm text types that they would need to use, to understand ... to both understand and to produce, (mm) to be able to do that umm ... ”źŚZZccćc6cccc cucCc  ó,)ŸØZEssential element 4: Implementation of common curriculum planning proformas and processes”[[ŖC Ÿ *Research shows that incorporating language objectives into content lessons is challenging (Echevarria & Short, 1999) Content specialists immersed in the discourse of their discipline do not easily recognize language demands of curriculum, let alone language learning needs and opportunities ESL teachers struggle to  cover the content and easily lose direction and control, need stronger planning focus ”HuZ ZZu Ŗ[ 1óE@ŸØnExample: Common planning framework used in a large K-12 American international school (Hurst & Davison, 2005)”ooŸ Used in all subject areas and all levels Integrates mainstream and ESL teaching Creates curricular space for English language development Establishes specific teacher roles and responsibilities Provides focus for planning conversations/ on the job in-service ”Zó_WŸŸ Ś Activity 2: Look at the attached proforma used for collaborative planning between a secondary ESL teacher and a  content teacher in an international school (Hurst & Davison, 2005, p. 64-65). In pairs, choose a subject area that interests you - Poetry, Biology or World History - and note their expected outcomes and the resources to be used. Complete the missing information on the attached chart, then discuss the effectiveness of such planning documents in your own teaching context. ”Zī LŖ: Ė!Õņó B 0ß-ņó B 0ßųó-*ŸØsEssential element 5: Experimentation with diversity as a resource to promote effective learning for all students”0tg ŸØ~Research in a range of schools around the world increasingly demonstrates that Linguistic and cultural diversity can be exploited as a resource for all learners through the use of jigsaw and information gap activities and structured pair and group work which enhances the negotiation of meaning, conceptual understanding and the development of linguistic and cognitive flexibility Slower pace of lessons and greater classroom interaction can enhance academic standards and student engagement A stronger, more systematic focus on English language development can benefit English mother tongue students, often even more than ESL learners ”jOZ/ZZO,ó=9ŸŸ & Example: Evaluation of the effects of a  sheltered immersion partnership model on a large P-12 school (Davison, forthcoming) Enhanced teacher-student and classroom interaction More effective strategies and activities Slightly slower pace Increased academic effort Higher academic standards (and grades) Positive effects on English language development, especially for English mother tongue learners”B€ZZó"#ŸØWEssential element 6: Development of articulated and flexible pathways for ESL learning”XXŸØ Australian research (Cruikshank,1997) suggests School-based flexibility in program organization is critical The best programs employ a variety of delivery modes and have a structure of graded support for ESL students according to their length of time in Australia and language needs ”z1ķ=#& .DóYTŸŸØ^Integrated but separate ESL provision can be highly successful e.g. low SES students entering school at 15.4 years with no English achieved grade average norms in the final year of secondary school within 3.5 years through a clearly articulated continuum of ESL support, including an initial semester in an intensive language centre (Warwick 2000) ”D@@ó.+ŸØh Essential element 7: Establishment of systematic mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation and feedback ”$igŸØKThe establishment of effective collaborative approaches to EAL teaching takes significant time, between three to five years The most effective schools are those which are responsive to the changing needs of students, teachers and parents Monitoring, evaluation and feedback mechanisms are a key determinant of program effectiveness”fLZNM V*óŸ ąAn emerging framework to describe the evolution of collaborative teaching/ levels of competence (Davison, 2007)”qqŸØPurpose: For evaluating collaboration For setting realistic goals for professional development Describes quality of collaboration, not quality of individuals Five levels, four distinguishing characteristics (attitude, effort/investment, achievement, expectations of support)”˜ ZVZ“Z CVA ccccqcó`XŸŸ ų Activity 3: Look at the following quotes from different ESL(ESL) and primary  mainstream teachers (CT) who were working together in a large international school, then compare them with the framework for describing levels of collaboration. Try to match the teacher quotes to the different levels of collaboration, then discuss any implications for your own teaching/school. ”H} lņó B 0ß%,óŸØ0Level 1: Pseudo-compliance or passive resistance”11 Ÿ ÖImplicit or explicit rejection of collaboration, preference for status quo e.g. Someone more experienced with ESL needs to take my place (CT3) Little or no real investment of time or understanding e.g. I expected her to tell me  how I needed to assist each student and provide me with modified versions of what we planned& instead of giving suggestions, give complete lessons that address specific needs that are seen (CT3) No positive outcomes (even counter-productive, i.e. entrenching existing negative attitudes) e.g. Too time consuming& schedule not suited to our needs (CT4) Expectation that  this too will pass e.g.  It seems obvious now that only classroom teachers with ESL training will feel comfortable in this role (CT3).”"KPKP7PåP]PAP&PvPKCJcC6Cä c C]C@cC&CvcóŸØLevel 2: Compliance ”"" "Ÿ ŽA positive attitude and expressions of  good intent , efforts made to implement roles and responsibilities but with limited understanding of implications, informing documents seen as external and/or imposed e.g.  It s best for the children (CT1);  Children learned best being immersed in classroom (CT6);  All the children benefit from having another person in the room (CT7). Dealing with challenges and/or conflict in roles is seen as part of the teacher s job, but it is a source of unhappiness, frustration and stress, teachers feel defensive and besieged by conflicting demands e.g.  The job description sheet & needs to be looked at so that all parties know what/where their responsibilities are. Someone needs to ensure roles are followed& Both teachers need to be responsible for planning, assessing and record keeping (CT1) ”|ĻZ®ZĻZüZĻcÆcĪcücó73Ÿ”b(Ÿ ā Achievements conceptualized as non-intrusive and very concrete (e.g. development of  ESL worksheets, adaptation of texts) e.g. There didn t appear to be any plans for the individual needs of the ESL learners other than what the classroom teacher did& Individual language needs must be addressed by both teachers (CT1). Expectation of high degree of practical and teacher-specific external professional development, teacher dependence on external sources of encouragement and reward. e.g. Large blocks of time are needed if proper planning is to take place (CT1),  There is insufficient planning time (CT7);  (The school) should provide more training  to all teachers involved (CT3),  More workshops for ESL teachers on best primary practices so that their teaching and understanding is in alignment with ours (CT 6);  I had too many classes in first semester (6) (ESL2) ”Ž}PĘP¤P‹P|ccĘc¤c‹cóŸØLevel 3: Accommodation”" Ÿ  A positive attitude and willingness to experiment e.g.  There are still many things I need to learn in working with this new model. There have been moments when things worked really well and I got a glimpse of how it can be successful (ESL1) Efforts made to accommodate to perceived co-teacher s needs but conflicts seen as unnecessary and avoidable if  model is correctly implemented by teachers, only limited understanding of theoretical base of collaboration and little critical examination e.g. I felt I had to take the initiative during the planning sessions. Originally& there was not a lot a focus and not the best use was being made of the immersion teachers time. Sometimes I feel there are differing philosophies and understandings of issues like learning styles, child and language development, behaviour management etc  (CT2);  I found myself struggling to find the balance between the content and language needs of the ESL students and often ended up with not enough time to address language needs adequately (ESL1) ”œ3PĆPżPP1ccĀccżccŖ. Śó84ŸŸ ÖAchievements conceptualized mainly at level of strategies and techniques e.g. I feel there has been a gap between my expertise as a classroom teacher and the ESL teachers knowledge& I thought that the ESL teacher would have a repertoire of strategies that would be appropriate for use in the mainstream class but this has not been the case and as I do not have the ESL strategies or understanding of the language structures, I am worried that the students may have missed out on some important skills/ understandings they need to develop. (CT2);  It was our hope that the ESL teacher would have language strategies to offer and assist in our planning. Unfortunately this is rarely the case (CT7); Expectation of high degree of program-specific external professional development, teacher dependence on external sources of encouragement but also some signs of intrinsic rewards from developing partnerships e.g. That essential agreements be developed for sharing of responsibilities etc (CT2),  Recruit classroom teachers who are willing to work with the model and whose teaching styles lend themselves to the model (ESL1) ”®IZuZŠZÜZZZIcucŠcÜcCóŸØ*Level 4: Convergence (and some co-option) ”"+)" "Ÿ 6A very positive attitude, embracing opportunities to learn from peers e.g.  I have enjoyed it and am convinced it is the way to go. I would like to develop an even more successful model and build my own knowledge and skills (CT2);  I felt included in the program (ESL3) Efforts made to engage with co-teacher s ideas and initiate dialogue and interaction/experimentation, high degree of respect for other evident, informing documents seen as fluid and subject to negotiation but conflicts still seen as dichotomous and requiring resolution i.e. simplifying alternatives and/or avoiding expression of contradictory views e.g. I always wanted to do more (ESL 3) ”¤FĶ^+FcĖccc^cc*có95Ÿ”"$Ÿ xAchievements conceptualized in terms of impact on content of lesson, not just delivery, but not always consistently, some co-option of other s ideas/strategies with still limited understanding of rationale and theoretical basis; e.g. The class teachers and I need to work on a more organized plan& this year, with no curriculum to peruse in advance, much of our scaffolding was last minute (ESL3) Increasing satisfaction from intrinsic rewards of collaboration, increasingly seeking opportunities for peer interaction, growing preference for action research and peer-directed professional development e.g. That class teachers are given PD in ESL strategies (and) immersion teachers given PD in classroom management and other examples of  best practice  guided reading, writing process , oral language activities (CT2) ”ÄęZŖZĪZŽZZęcŖccĢccÜccCó ŸØ#Level 5: Creative co-construction ”.$!" "Ÿ *A very positive attitude, collaboration normalized and seen as preferred option for ESL teaching; teachers roles become much more interchangeable, yet more distinct e.g. Teaching a sheltered immersion class has been one of the most successful experiences of my career. I benefited daily from the expertise of the ESL immersion teacher (CT5) High degree of trust of other evident, responsibilities and areas of expertise continually negotiated, informing documents seen as actively co-constructed and teacher-developed, conflicts in roles seen as inevitable, accepted, even embraced, as a continuing condition which will lead to greater understanding e.g. We are constantly trying different strategies to accommodate the various learning styles of the students in this class (CT5) ”ئZ³Z7Z†Z¦c±ccc6cc„có:6ŸŸ ģAchievements seen as impacting across whole curriculum e.g.  While I feel the language needs of the ESL learners are being met& I feel the situation can be improved by nailing down the thematic units ahead of time (CT5) Normalization of teacher-based PD such as action research and critical reflection, accompanied by extensive reading in area to extend understanding of specific theoretical concepts, possibly some formal study in each other s areas e.g.  There has been insufficient time to plan for the language implications of the content we are teaching; for example, the development of grammatical progressions. This is because we are still developing thematic units the planning of which must precede attention to their language aspects (CT5) ”š7Z©ZēZ/ZZ7c©cēc/cCód[ŸØ6. Looking forward”Ÿ  Bridging the gap between ESL and content teachers in English-medium international schools requires the support and commitment from the various stake-holders involved. The following are some practical recommendations and strategies for the various key stake-holders: School administrators& Ensure that teaching standards are in place whereby teachers work toward developing expertise in making language accessible for all students in content classrooms; Budget for in-service programs dedicated to maintaining high standards and to meeting language needs of all students; Budget for appropriate staffing and class sizes to allow for no more than one-third  high-needs students per class; Communicate goals with community members on an ongoing, consistent basis. ”œ%PŪPP Łóh`Ÿ”Ÿ  Curriculum leaders& Establish action plans for all involved in the curriculum revision process; Encourage peer coaching and reflection as part of the school culture; Encourage teachers to evaluate and revise lessons on a daily basis to be able to meet students needs and changing conditions; Ensure common assessments are an integral part of all curriculum areas; Encourage teachers to seek out and apply best practices; Plan with administrators in implementing realistic, applicable, and timely in-service programs to include the basics of second language acquisition, cross-cultural understanding, and best practices; Utilize the expertise of the faculty in in-service programs without overburdening teachers; Consider implementing a Language Policy Across the Curriculum ”hPņPPń,óe\Ÿ”Ÿ `Content and ESL teachers& Establish a professional community allowing for genuine ongoing professional dialogue; Identify and develop a shared purpose; Establish an agreed protocol and meeting agendas; Define the language implications for each unit taught; Collaborate further and come to agreements on& who modifies texts where appropriate? who develops supplemental materials? who creates text/lecture outlines? who gives vocabulary practice? where to use native-language texts? & and on assessments & who modifies tests? who selects appropriate reference materials for class? who oversees the writing process? which learning strategies are taught where? where is language development realistically going to be assessed? when and how is formal grading to occur (and to what extent can it be postponed)? ”zPPPP’ói_Ÿ”Ÿ &Content and ESL teachers& Consider co-teaching options; Follow through on agreements based on curriculum analysis Who teaches what?; Assess agreed language implications; Keep data on student achievement to evidence successes; Communicate with and set out to educate and report to parents on an ongoing, consistent basis. ESL teachers & Communicate student needs; Realize content teachers are also differentiating for students with high levels of English language proficiency; Teach students language learning strategies and metacognition; Teach language systematically and meaningfully within an immersion context; Support the content teachers risk-taking; ”ŹP'PPBPPP:åBŖ  {óf]Ÿ”Ÿ ,Content teachers & Be willing to modify classroom practice, make appropriate accommodations incorporating best practices; Differentiate instruction: process and product (assessments); Use advanced organizers, outlines, etc. for direct instruction; Use cooperative learning strategies; Use effective inductive approaches to learning; Have students identify and apply learning strategies; Ensure all students can work independently and participate effectively; Teach language and cultural understandings explicitly where appropriate. ”fPPP ó%$Ÿ” Ÿ Ö  The rewards of bridging the gap between core and ESL classrooms can only benefit ESL learners & ESL teachers used to be anxious about why they were collaborating it seemed hit and miss, often unfulfilling, lacking follow-through and change. ESL teachers often found themselves caught up with day-to-day crisis management at the expense of much- needed professional dialogues. Now ESL teachers have a purpose and a sense of continuity - curriculum agreements based on solid outcomes. The interdependency of the ISB faculty, from teachers to administrators, has led to positive change. The high standards set by teachers has led to the school explicitly defining and disseminating those standards for the wider school community, giving all teachers a stronger sense of pride in their work and an understanding of what it means to be  ESL . (Donna Hurst, ISB, 2005) ”NkZZNóaYŸŸØ‰ Arkoudis, S. (2007). Collaborating in ESL education in schools. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching. Norwell, MA: Springer. Arkoudis, S., & Davison, C. (2002). Breaking out of the billabong: Mainstreaming ESL in Australia. In E. Cochran (Ed.), Case studies in TESOL: Mainstreaming. Alexandria, VI: TESOL. Bourne, J. (1997). The continuing revolution: Teaching as learning in the mainstream multilingual classroom. In C. Leung & C. Cable (Eds.), English as an Additional Language (pp. 77-88). York: NALDIC. Creese, A. (2000). The role of language specialists in disciplinary teaching: In search of a subject? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(6), 451-470. Creese, A. (2002). The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: language and subject specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 597-616. Davison, C. (1992). Look out! Eight fatal flaws in team and support teaching. TESOL in Context, 2(1). Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know we are doing it right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 454-475. Davison, C., & Williams, A. (2001). Integrating language and content: Unresolved issues. In B. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity (pp. 51-70). Harlow: Longman Pearson. Education Department of South Australia. (1991). ESL in the mainstream, Workshops 1-5. Adelaide, SA: Government Printer. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Cup of comfort or poisoned chalice? In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Changing teachers, changing times (pp. 186-211). London: Cassell. Hargreaves, A., & Macmillan, B. (1994). The balkanization of teaching: Collaboration that divides. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Changing teachers, changing times (pp. 212-240). London: Cassell. Hurst, D. & Davison, C. (2005). Collaboration on the curriculum: Focus on secondary ESL. In Crandall, J. & Kauffman, D. (Ed). Case Studies in TESOL: Teacher education for ESL and content area teachers. (pp. 41-66). Alexandria, VI: TESOL. Little, J. (1990). Teachers as colleagues. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now (pp. 165-193). London: Falmer. Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Mohan, B., & Lowe, M. (1995). Collaborative teacher assessment of ESL writers: Conceptual and practical Issues. TESOL Journal, 5(1), 28-31. Roth, W., & Tobin, K. (2004). Co-teaching: From praxis to theory. Teacher and teaching: Theory and practice, 10(2), 161-180. Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: A tool for teacher-researcher collaboration and professional development. . Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Siskin, L. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. London: Falmer. Snow, C. M., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 201-219.”ŠŠ Pc 3 ’ % „ ! ‚ 9   ‹  \  o = – O X $ ¢ ! œ "   K j : 2    N - 2 y s > ©   Ŗź§x§6 b A _ Bˆ] Aŗ/šó*P’’’źī×ļ € žšö€š\šŽš( š š\šŖ š\ s š*€’Ææ’ lˆš­ `Żš<$ńD 0Ć  Æ š žš¤ š\ c š$€€¦Ææ’lˆšĄ°Šąš<$ńD 0Ć Æ š žšH š\ ƒ š0ƒ“ŽŸ‹”Ž½hæ’ ?š ’’’€€€Ģ™33ĢĢĢ’²²²ˆŠyŗ___PPT10‹Y+Dń='ń ¹’’’’=ń @Bń +īķļ € š  šœš¤š( š šœšx šœ c š$€“* æ’ lš­ `ŻšĆ    š žšr šœ S š€ˆ+ æ’lšš° `šĆ   š žšr šœ S š€\, æ’lšš `šĆ   š žšH šœ ƒ š0ƒ“ŽŸ‹”Ž½hæ’ ?š 3™3’’’€€€’’’Ģ™33ĢĢĢ’²²²ˆŠyŗ___PPT10‹Y+Dń='ń ¹’’’’=ń @Bń +rI#F2R%5õm%#8lÆRoot Entry’’’’’’’’d›OĻ†źŖ¹)čPr[Œ~Č@Current User’’’’’’’’’’’’2SummaryInformation(’’’’’’’’ čTPowerPoint Document(’’’’^8ž’’’      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYž’’’fż’’’ż’’’^_`abcdež’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’J     !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’@ABCDŌż’’’ż’’’’’’’ž’’’’’’’KLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|~ż’’’€ž’ÕĶ՜.“—+,ł®DÕĶ՜.“—+,ł®œXˆØ“¼ÄĢ Ō Üä ģōü  öéżOn-screen Showin-s^8B1{ 9Times New Roman GaramondArial Wingdings PMingLiU PalatinočÆåŗ·å„·é›…宋Stream D1. Background 2. The conceptualization (and mis- conceptualization) of collaboration 3. Key difficulties in implementing effective collaboration 4. Essential elements for more effective collaboration 5. An emerging framework to describe collaborative teaching and ā€œlevelsā€ of competence 6. Looking forward1. BackgroundSlide 412. Conceptualizations and mis-conceptualisations­You are an ESL teacher ... You have studied a bit of history but not much and a long time ago. Suddenly you find yourself obliged to team teach (in History) ... You find out what is programmed for the junior classes and do a bit of reading - not in the uni library - remember you only have to know as much as the kids. All you have to do is devise ways to get this material across to the kids in such a way that they will be learning and using language in the process of learning History. Once you have devised a couple of strategies ... approach the (teacher) with some concrete suggestions for the class concerned which are tailored to meet the needs of the junior program ā€¦. ĖResult? She is impressed with your preparation and likes some of your ideas and is willing to try them. When one of them goes like a dream you offer to plan the next unit in consultation with her of course, although she is very busy with three unit Ancient history and may not have much time to spare. Do not be put off by this apparent lack of interest. The kids love the Barrier game and the role plays of the Sumerians were quite impressive - suddenly Margaret is talking about Year 8 next year. Your activities are not only language rich they are fun ... You could make yourself invaluable to this faculty and with the head on your side the other teachers may take you more seriously ā€¦ (Davison, 2001) Problems ???<3. Key difficulties in implementing effective collaboration34. Essential elements for effective collaboration :Essential element 1: Clear conceptualization of the task Slide 12pEssential element 2: Incorporation of an explicit ESL focus into curriculum and assessment planning processes Slide 14tEssential element 3: Negotiation of a shared understanding of ESL and mainstream teachers' roles/responsibilities Slide 16 Slide 17 Slide 18 Slide 19 Slide 20 Slide 21 Slide 22 Slide 23[Essential element 4: Implementation of common curriculum planning proformas and processesoExample: Common planning framework used in a large K-12 American international school (Hurst & Davison, 2005) Slide 26tEssential element 5: Experimentation with diversity as a resource to promote effective learning for all students Slide 28XEssential element 6: Development of articulated and flexible pathways for ESL learning Slide 30i Essential element 7: Establishment of systematic mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation and feedback uAn emerging framework to describe the evolution of collaborative teaching/ā€œlevelsā€ of competence (Davison, 2007) Slide 331Level 1: Pseudo-compliance or passive resistanceLevel 2: Compliance Slide 36Level 3: Accommodation Slide 38+Level 4: Convergence (and some co-option) Slide 40$Level 5: Creative co-construction Slide 426. Looking forward Slide 44 Slide 45 Slide 46 Slide 47 Slide 48 Slide 49  Fonts UsedDesign Template Slide Titles1X 8@ _PID_HLINKSéżA*ECIS 2008 Davison Workshop Activity 1.docLangImpsAnalWkst ECIS 2008.DOC*ECIS 2008 Davison Workshop Activity 2.doc*ECIS 2008 Davison Workshop Activity 3.docDocumentSummaryInformation8’’’’’’’’’’’’]ō’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’