tesol and early childhood collaborative inquiry: joining forces and crossing boundaries

This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]On: 21 November 2014, At: 20:05Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

TESOL and Early Childhood CollaborativeInquiry: Joining Forces and CrossingBoundariesLaura Baecher a & Abigail M. Jewkes ba Department of Curriculum & Teaching, Hunter College , CityUniversity of New York , New York , New York , USAb Department of Education , California State Polytechnic University ,Pomona , California , USAPublished online: 12 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Laura Baecher & Abigail M. Jewkes (2014) TESOL and Early ChildhoodCollaborative Inquiry: Joining Forces and Crossing Boundaries, Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducation, 35:1, 39-53, DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2013.874387

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2013.874387

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10901027.2013.874387

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2013.874387

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35:39–53, 2014Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher EducatorsISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10901027.2013.874387

TESOL and Early Childhood Collaborative Inquiry:Joining Forces and Crossing Boundaries

LAURA BAECHER1 AND ABIGAIL M. JEWKES2

1Department of Curriculum & Teaching, Hunter College, City University ofNew York, New York, New York, USA2Department of Education, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona,California, USA

Preparing early childhood educators to support effective instruction of Englishlanguage learners (ELLs) is an important dimension of teacher preparation programs,yet often difficult to enact. This article reports on a collaboration between early child-hood education (ECE) faculty and teachers of English to speakers of other languages(TESOL) faculty at an urban teacher preparation program in an effort to better under-stand and enhance ECE and TESOL candidates’ beliefs and understandings of ELLpedagogy. Over the course of a semester, one section of practicum teacher candidatesfrom these two programs met in person and online, as did their instructors, to identifycommon concerns and approaches from their respective discipline areas. Video recordsof teaching from early childhood classrooms with ELLs played a critical role in foster-ing collaborative inquiry. Implications for infusing the ECE curriculum to strengtheninstruction for ELLs are discussed.

Introduction

The number of English language learners (ELLs) in primary schools in the U.S. hasincreased over 200% in 16 states in the last decade (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney,2007), and the greatest percentage are children in preK to grade 5 (García, Jensen, &Scribner, 2009). Thus, a significant challenge for early childhood teacher educators ispreparing candidates to work with young children entering school with home languagesother than English.

Many teacher education programs under-prepare teacher candidates for differentiatingcurriculum, instruction, and assessment for the needs of ELLs (Ray, Bowman, & Robbins,2006). For example, a national study of early childhood teacher preparation curricular con-tent found that working with bilingual children was the least likely subject to be coveredas part of a practicum in any of the degrees offered (Maxwell, Lim, & Early, 2006). This isespecially problematic due to a tendency for teachers to hold negative attitudes about ELLs(Cutri & Johnson, 2010), along with the tremendous importance of high-quality early child-hood experiences for non-English speaking learners (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001;Bridges & Dagys, 2012). The role of teacher preparation in supporting ELLs’ learning

Received 6 March 2013; accepted 3 September 2013.Address correspondence to Laura Baecher, Department of Curriculum & Teaching, Hunter

College, City University of New York, 695 Park Ave., New York, NY 10065, USA. E-mail:[email protected]

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

40 L. Baecher and A. M. Jewkes

is critical since children whose home language is not English face linguistic, cultural,and social barriers to school achievement (Fry, 2007; Regalado, Goldenberg, & Appel,2001). Both administrators of early childhood programs (Buysse, Castro, West, & Skinner,2005) and teachers (Ryan, Ackerman, & Song, 2005) have identified limited professionalpreparation to work with ELLs as a major challenge.

In order to explore how these gaps could be addressed in teacher preparation, we asfaculty from an early childhood education (ECE) program and a teachers of English tospeakers of other languages (TESOL) program at the same school of education began byjointly conducting a mixed-methods investigation of existing coursework and teacher candi-dates’ belief and attitudes about teaching young ELLs. We then designed a series of in-classand online activities to bring together candidates from both programs and support theirrespective learning about instruction for young ELLs. In addition to our goal of learningmore about each other’s fields, we aimed to provide our teacher candidates the opportu-nity to do the same. Our joint inquiry was designed with replicability and relevance to allECE teacher preparation programs. Research questions guiding our investigation were: (a)To what extent are ELLs a focus in ECE teacher preparation coursework?; and (b) Whatwas the impact of collaborative inquiry into early childhood ELL pedagogy on ECE andTESOL candidates?

Preparing ECE Teachers to Address the Needs of ELL Children

Institutions of higher education are increasingly cognizant that graduates will need toaddress the learning needs of ELLs in the ECE classroom, and national teacher prepara-tion organizations are redesigning standards to address young ELLs (National Associationfor the Education of Young Children, 2010; National Council for Accreditation of TeacherEducation, 2008). Bredekamp (2002) points out that early childhood teachers need special-ized knowledge about preschool second-language acquisition and the role that adults playin early language acquisition. More specifically, Zepeda, Castro, and Cronin (2011), draw-ing on the professional knowledge base for teacher preparation, outline six areas that areessential for teachers of young ELLs: (a) an understanding of first- and second-languagedevelopment, (b) knowing the connection between language and culture, (c) using skillsand abilities to effectively teach ELLs, such as building on a child’s first language, (d)learning to use assessment in meaningful ways for ELLs, (e) developing a sense of pro-fessionalism and advocating for best practice, and (f) establishing strong communicationwith families to bridge home and school. In addition to preparing early childhood teachersin how to work with ELLs, ECE teachers also contribute to high-quality early childhoodexperiences, which promote young children’s successful learning and development (Castro,Garcia, & Markos, 2013). A strong early foundation, along with positive early school-ing experiences, are crucial to children’s continued interest, motivation, and success asthey progress through school, especially for children entering formal schooling as Englishlearners (Buysse, Castro, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2009).

Suggested strategies to improve ECE teacher preparation in cultural and linguisticcompetence include increasing faculty knowledge and willingness to adapt and respondto the diversity in early childhood education, requiring practica and internships in diversesettings, integrating issues of diversity into course content, and requiring TESOL coursesfor teachers (Daniel & Friedman, 2005). ECE teacher preparation programs also needto attract more bilingual and bicultural candidates in order to better connect with youngchildren and their families (Castro et al., 2013; Zepeda, Castro, & Cronon, 2011). However,although the requisite knowledge, skills, and dispositions have been outlined, the research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

TESOL and Early Childhood Collaborative Inquiry 41

base for this preparation is limited. One example from Buysse and colleagues (2009)described how a focus on research-based practices for ELL instruction led to improvedpedagogical decision-making and had a measurable impact on children’s first-languagedevelopment. Other examples of successful professional development have focused on thecapacity of ECE teachers to support ELLs via increasing communication with families(Hardin, Lower, Smallwood, Chakravarthi, Li, & Jordan, 2010), or pedagogical foci suchas enhancing vocabulary instruction within shared book reading for ELL preschoolers(Pollard-Durodola et al., 2012). An additional approach is to require preK teachersworking with young ELLs to have additional ESL or bilingual certification (Barnett,Carolan, Fitzgerald, & Squires, 2011).

An example from a professional development program targeted not for ECE teach-ers, but for teacher education faculty, showed that as a result of ELL-focused learningactivities, faculty developed their expertise. This knowledge, in turn, translated into courseinnovations and ECE teacher candidate reports of gains in their preparedness for work-ing with ELLs (McCrary, Sennette, & Brown, 2011). Similarly, Costa, McPhail, Smith,and Brisk (2005) demonstrated how adding ELL scholarship increased faculty knowledgeabout ELLs, which translated into syllabi and other curricular changes.

Another approach in preparing ECE teacher candidates to support ELLs is to matchprofessionals with expertise in teaching ELLs with ECE experts. Facilitating dialogueamong bilingual, TESOL, and ECE teachers is key to building personal capacity to workwith young ELLs (Riojas-Cortez, Alanís & Flores, 2013; Sakash & Rodriguez-Brown,2011). However, educators often have little time to collaborate across program bound-aries. ECE and TESOL/bilingual teacher education faculty may have limited time toobserve classroom teaching together or to share expertise (Pugach & Blanton, 2009), andtherefore lack the opportunity to develop common teaching practices (Robinson & Buly,2000). Collaboration between TESOL and general education faculty is often difficult toaccomplish. Ironically, while teacher educators encourage their candidates to collaborate,institutions of higher education tend to focus on the individual scholar rather than inte-grated programs of study (Blanton & Pugach, 2007; Tierney, 1999). Providing ECE teachercandidates the opportunity to collaborate while in their preparation programs may supportthem in working together upon graduation (Cramer, Liston, Nevin, & Thousand, 2010).While our review of the literature found no published reports of faculty collaborationbetween ECE and TESOL programs in teacher education, it has occurred in other educationdisciplines, such as between TESOL and English Education (DelliCarpini, 2009).

Methods

Research Context

Motivated by a desire to better prepare both groups of candidates for their future rolesas teachers of young ELLs, teacher educators from one college of education in TESOL(Author 1) and ECE (Author 2) designed a collaboration between their two programs. TheTESOL teacher educator had never taught early childhood aged children, while the ECEteacher educator had prior experience with ELLs in preK. Both had been teacher educatorsfor more than 5 years and had extensive observation experience in urban early childhoodsettings with high ELL populations.

The college of education is located in a large city in the northeast US, with the ECEand the TESOL teacher licensure programs each enrolling approximately 280 graduatestudents. Both programs lead to a master’s degree and state teaching certification, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


run between 29 and 42 credit hours. In both programs, at least half of the candidatesare in-service teachers—either in private nursery schools in the ECE program or inalternative licensure programs in the TESOL program. The ECE program prepares teach-ers for birth–2nd grade settings while the TESOL program prepares preK–12 teachers.TESOL candidates are both placed and later secure employment in self-contained, dual-language, and push-in/pull-out instructional models. TESOL candidates do not receive anycoursework specifically focused on early childhood education, but address these learnerswithin their methods and curriculum courses. ECE candidates take two courses focused onearly language and literacy development, while TESOL candidates take a second-languageacquisition course and a course in pedagogical linguistics. Both programs require exten-sive supervised experiences in classrooms with children from a wide range of diversebackgrounds and languages.

Participants

Teacher candidates (n = 21) who participated in this study were enrolled in a practicumcourse for TESOL or ECE as part of their degree program. While all the ECE candi-dates were currently teaching or student teaching in early childhood classroom settings (seeTable 1), and some with significant numbers of ELLs, only about one quarter of the TESOLcandidates were in preK–2 classrooms; the remainder was teaching or student teaching ingrades 3–12. No TESOL teacher candidates had taught the early childhood grades (preK–grade 2). The total sample was almost equally divided between ECE (52%) and TESOLteacher candidates. The majority was employed as teachers at the time of the study (81%),although 91% reported that they did not hold teacher certification, which is a common prac-tice in our local school district for both ECE and TESOL candidates due to high staffingneeds. Of those teacher candidates who were currently teaching, 57% had been teaching5 years or less, and 33% had one to five ELL students in their classrooms. More than half(53%) of the teacher candidates spoke two languages. English was the most common firstlanguage (62%) followed by Spanish and Polish, and 71% had resided in a non-Englishspeaking country. Most teacher candidates reported taking ELL or ECE courses as part oftheir program (81%), but few had additional training beyond this (14%).

Research Design

The research study was made up of three phases, beginning with a review of existing ECEcoursework and moving to an initiative that was designed to enhance ECE candidates’understanding of ELL learning and pedagogy.

Phase 1: Syllabi analysis. The first part of the study consisted of collecting and ana-lyzing current syllabi from the ECE program to assess the extent to which ELLs wereaddressed in the program’s curricula. Instructors’ names were removed and replaced witha numerical code, and any other name references were removed as well.

Phase 2: Survey of ECE and TESOL candidates regarding ECE/TESOL practices.Both groups of teacher candidates completed a questionnaire to gauge their attitudestowards teaching ELLs, using an instrument adapted with permission by Reeves (2006).The first part captured demographic information about the participant, such as experienceteaching ECE or ELLs and whether they had received any prior training on ECE or ELLs(whichever was not their current preparation program area). The second part consisted

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Tabl

e1

Cha

ract

eris

tics

ofTe

ache

rC

andi

date

sby

Prog

ram

Cur

rent

lyte

achi

ngC

urre

ntly

cert

ified

Yea

rste

achi

ngE

LL

stud

ents

Lan

guag

esFi

rst

lang

uage

Liv

edno

n-E

nglis

hco

untr

y

Cou

rsew

ork

onE

LL/

EC

EO

ther

trai

ning

onE

LL/

EC

E

EC

E (n=

11)

100%

yes

82%

no82

%(1

–5ye

ars)

73%

(1–5

)64

%(2

)82

%E

nglis

h63

%ye

s10

0%ye

s82

%no

TE

SOL

(n=

10)

60%

yes

100%

no50

%(0

year

s)57

%(2

1–50

)60

%(3

orm

ore)

40%

Eng

lish

80%

yes

60%

yes

90%

no

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


of 12 Likert-scale items (ranging from 1 [strongly agree] to 5 [strongly disagree]) thatprompted the participants to evaluate statements related to their beliefs about languageteaching and learning, self-efficacy in working with ECE ELLs, and interest in teachingthis population.

Phase 3: Joint class session and online discussion. After reviewing the data and iden-tifying gaps in the literature and at our own institution, we designed a collaborative classsession and accompanying assignment for the ECE and TESOL teacher candidates, withthree goals in mind. First, we aimed to support ECE candidates in identifying key teach-ing practices that are known to be supportive of young ELLs’ learning and development.Second, we designed the study as a shared inquiry that provided professional learning forthe ECE teacher candidates and also supported those in the TESOL program who had littleexplicit focus on preK–2 learners. Third, we hoped to promote collaborative teaching prac-tices, as studies on the pedagogy of teaching suggest modeling, coplanning, and coteachingbetween faculty are important (Pugach & Blanton, 2009).

The authors then selected two video clips of teacher candidates from our institution’svideo teaching library that had been cross-tagged as both instruction of early childhood andELLs: one to view together in a joint class session, and one to post on the electronic coursemanagement site for independent viewing and discussion board exchange.

ECE and TESOL teacher candidates then participated in a joint class session that theauthors coplanned and cotaught. This joint class session took place midway through thesemester. Candidates were assigned table groups that purposefully mixed ECE and TESOLcandidates, and candidates participated in a jigsaw reading activity using a short article onteaching young ELLs (Lake & Pappamihiel, 2003). Next we showed a 4-minute video ofa science lesson being conducted in a preK classroom where the teacher is shown seatedwith four learners as they explore a small tub of water and the teacher prompts them tothink about whether the object will sink or float. The teacher’s purpose is to have studentsexperiment with dropping various objects to test their hypotheses about whether they willsink or float, and to discuss these predictions and outcomes in a small group with her. Afterviewing the clip, in small groups candidates brainstormed the instructional practices theyobserved as supportive of either young learners or ELLs. The authors then wrote thesestatements into a large Venn diagram at the front of the room. As a whole class, debateensued as to whether some practices were common to both fields, or pertained more toeither ECE or TESOL recommended practices. We as faculty also participated in opendiscussion, to model for the candidates how we viewed the practices.

To further apply teacher candidates’ understandings beyond the class session, 2 weekslater, a 10-minute video clip of an early childhood classroom with ELLs was posted usingan online discussion board. This video also came from the video library at our school ofeducation, so was thus of a former teacher candidate in a local school setting. The videoshowed a class of 25 second graders engaged in a lesson on using the five senses to writepersuasively. The teacher is shown distributing and inviting learners at table groups of fiveto taste, smell, and touch peanut butter. The teacher’s content objective is to have studentsrecognize that advertisements utilize the five senses to capture people’s interest in a product.Her language goal is to have students use the sensory words they identify in their ownattempt to write a persuasive ad to buy their group’s peanut butter. The clip shows herintroducing the activity and instructing student groups to begin, and captures student talk atseveral tables. Candidates viewed the video and responded to two questions: (a) What didyou learn about working with ELLs from watching the video?; and (b) What did you learnabout working with early childhood students from watching the video? After writing theirown responses to these prompts, candidates were asked to respond to at least one classmatefrom the other program area.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Data Sources and Analysis

Data sources included: (a) ECE course syllabi; (b) ECE and TESOL candidates’ completedsurveys; and (c) archived discussion-board posts. These sources provided contextual knowl-edge about the curricular content of the ECE program relative to ELLs that the candidateswould have been exposed to, as well as background information about the participants. Thediscussion board provided insight into the impact of the treatment we had designed.

Analysis of syllabi. The first author coded each syllabus using a rubric specificallydesigned for the purpose of assessing the degree of attention made to ELLs in the syl-labus (modified from McGraner & Saenz, 2009), and a research assistant then cross-codedthem. Any discrepant scores were then negotiated by consensus. For each of 4 categories—sociocultural/bilingual foundations of education, second-language acquisition processes,instructional methods for teaching ELLs, and assessment modifications for ELLs—a syl-labus was evaluated on a scale of 0–3. A score of 0 indicated there was no evidence inthe syllabus that ELLs were addressed; 1 indicated that ELLs were mentioned in the syl-labus; 2 indicated that ELLs were mentioned and there was a related assigned reading;and a score of 3 indicated that ELLs were mentioned in syllabus, readings, and at leastone other area, such as observation assignments, journal responses, fieldwork, or specialprojects. Although syllabi cannot supply a complete sense of the activities or conversationsthat take place in a course, they provide a snapshot of what formal projects, clinical assign-ments, topics, and readings occur. Therefore syllabi review can offer some insight into thecurriculum.

Analysis of surveys. Surveys of teacher candidates’ beliefs regarding ELLs wereanalyzed for the full sample and then by each program area using SPSS. After descrip-tive statistics were run, given the small sample size, we calculated mean differencesbetween programs to determine similarities and differences in their ratings. While surveysoffer self-reported data, the prompts provided valuable background information about thelanguage-learning beliefs and experiences of participants.

Analysis of online discussion. Following the joint-class session, which is not includedin the data analysis, an online discussion ensued over a 2-week period among the ECEand TESOL candidates in reaction to the posted video clip. Discussion-board posts wereread, reread, and categorized using the constant comparative method to search for patternsand themes related to the research questions (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). At a first levelof analysis, the authors sorted raw data based on inductive codes brought to the data set.These inductive codes were generated by a review of relevant research literature and theauthors’ experiences as TESOL and ECE teachers in preK–12 and higher education set-tings. Examples of inductive codes included teacher practices in the areas of materials,instructions, and participation structures. At a second level of analysis, deductive codeswere applied to raw data to identify patterns that emerged outside of inductive codes. Forexample, TESOL and ECE teacher candidates’ relative attention to oral and written lan-guage development were examples of deductive codes. Both inductive and deductive codesgenerated larger themes, such as those aspects of practice that were surprising to ECE andTESOL candidates, and those practices they thought the teacher could have employed toenhance the lesson for ELLs. The authors then searched across the data record for exam-ples of raw data that were both typical and illustrative of themes generated by inductive anddeductive codes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Findings

Results of Syllabi Analysis

Scoring of the ECE syllabi (n = 19) revealed that a number of the courses did specifyreadings, assignments, projects, or clinical (field-based) assignments connected to ELLs.Out of a possible score of 12 (a score of 3 for each of the four categories) for each of the19 courses reviewed, which would result in 228 points, the analyzed syllabi resulted in34 total points (15%). Of those activities that were outlined in the syllabi, most (40%)fell into the areas of sociocultural foundations and techniques for teaching ELLs. Theother three categories, second-language processes, instructional methods, and assessmentof ELLs, received equal attention (17%). Not surprisingly, the course with the highest score(the maximum of 12) was the one focusing on ELLs and language and literacy. Similarly,the K–2 language and literacy course was the next highest rated with a score of 7. A handfulof the 19 syllabi revealed no evidence of attention to ELLs: child development, expressivearts, education technology, supervised practicum, and early childhood student teaching.However, these syllabi do not necessarily capture all course content, so this does not meanELLs were not discussed in these courses.

Teacher Candidates’ Perspectives on ELLs

As expected, candidates were very similar in the ratings of some statements, and divergenton others (see Table 2). Candidates’ orientation to ELLs was very positive, as reflected intheir ratings of the benefits of having ELLs in the classroom (see statements 1 and 2 inTable 2). ECE and TESOL candidates were almost identical in their ratings of two specificinstructional approaches: “It is a good practice to allow ELL students more time to completecoursework” (2.20 and 2.15; 1 = strongly agree), and “ELL students should avoid usingtheir native language while at school” (4.00 and 4.15; 5 = strongly disagree). However,there was a clear difference between candidates on simplifying the language demands incoursework for ELLs, with TESOL candidates more strongly agreeing with this idea thanECE candidates (3.10 vs. 1.85). There were similarly large rating discrepancies on candi-dates’ assessment of the time teachers have to address ELLs’ needs (3.86 for ECE, 1.89 forTESOL), and the point at which ELLs should be integrated into general education (4.77 forECE, 3.00 for TESOL). While ECE candidates fell right in the middle (3.00) of their train-ing to work with ELLs (keeping in mind this course was near the end of their programcoursework) both groups were open to receiving additional training.

Themes in Teacher Candidates’ Electronic Discussion Board Postings

TESOL and ECE candidates’ responses to the video prompt questions generated lengthyinitial posts, in which they shared many of the same observations regarding the practicesthat appeared to support young ELLs in the classroom activity. The ECE candidates’ repliesto TESOL candidates’ posts focused mainly on their increased awareness of languagedevelopment opportunities, as had been suggested by TESOL candidates in their initialposts. TESOL candidates’ reply posts served mainly to reinforce practices they were famil-iar with from ELL pedagogy, as well particularly attending to the classroom managementpractices of ECE teachers. Both groups reported appreciation for the opportunity to viewand analyze teaching in an early childhood classroom with ELLs, and the realization thatthere are many effective teaching strategies shared by early childhood and TESOL. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 2Results of Teacher Candidates’ Perspectives on ELLs Survey

StatementTotal

M (SD)ECE

M (SD)TESOLM (SD)

Meandifference

1. The inclusion of ELL students inclasses creates a positiveeducational atmosphere.

1.81 (1.08) 1.55 (.688) 2.10 (1.37) 0.55

2. The inclusion of ELL students inclasses benefits all students.

1.76 (1.04) 1.45 (.522) 2.10 (1.37) 0.65

3. ELL students should not be includedin general education classes untilthey attain a minimum level ofEnglish proficiency.

3.98 (1.26) 4.77 (.518) 3.00 (1.22) 1.77

4. Teachers do not have enough time todeal with the needs of ELL students.

2.98 (1.44) 3.86 (1.23) 1.89 (.782) 1.97

5. I would welcome teachingELL/ECE students.

1.76 (1.45) 1.09 (.302) 2.50 (1.84) 1.41

6. It is a good practice to simplifycoursework for ELL students.

2.48 (1.27) 3.10 (1.20) 1.85 (1.06) 1.25

7. It is a good practice to lessen thequantity of coursework for ELLstudents.

3.24 (1.44) 3.78 (1.09) 2.75 (1.59) 1.03

8. It is a good practice to allow ELLstudents more time to completecoursework.

2.18 (1.23) 2.20 (1.14) 2.15 (1.78) 0.05

9. ELL students should avoid usingtheir native language while atschool.

4.07 (1.42) 4.00 (1.26) 4.15 (1.63) 0.15

10. ELL students should be able toacquire English within 2 years ofenrolling in U.S. schools.

3.53 (1.23) 3.13 (.991) 3.89 (1.36) 0.76

11. I have adequate training to workwith ELL/ECE students.

3.29 (1.06) 3.00 (1.095) 3.60 (.966) 0.60

12. I am interested in receiving moretraining in working with ELL/ECEstudents.

2.14 (1.39) 1.82 (.874) 2.50 (1.78) 0.68

13. It is easier to work with ECEstudents than older students.

– – 3.50 (1.18) –

1 = strongly agree. 5 = strongly disagree.

exchange that was captured in the discussion-board posts demonstrated a high level of inter-activity, as comments were added to as well as challenged. Themes in candidates’ posts arepresented below along with representative excerpts from their online discussion.

Concrete learning experiences. Both ECE and TESOL candidates remarked on the useof the experiential approach used by the teacher, but ECE candidates seemed to anticipate it(“First and foremost, the lesson provided the students with a concrete, hands-on experience,which is essential for both young children and English language learners”), while TESOLcandidates were more surprised by it (“It’s amazing how much the students loved touchingthe peanut butter!”)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Modeling of task. Both ECE and TESOL candidates commented on the teacher’sstrong modeling prior to asking students to engage in the activity: “Whenever possible,the teacher provided a visual demonstration of what students were expected to do, such aswhen she used the spoon to scoop the peanut butter and place it on the plate” (ECE candi-date), and “Importance of modeling is necessary for all learners, but especially the ELLswho can follow visual directions, even if they cannot follow verbal directions, because ofthe language barrier” (TESOL candidate). A TESOL candidate explained, “After watchingthe video I learned the importance of modeling for children who are both ESL and in theearly elementary levels.”

Joyful learning. ECE and TESOL candidates noted that that the children in the videoappeared to enjoy greatly the lesson due to the teacher’s choice to engage students in anumber of ways:

The activity allowed the children to learn but at the same time have fun. I thinkthat it is important when working with early childhood to create lessons like thisone, lessons that engage the children. If the children are engaged and havingfun, they will most certainly learn better. (ECE candidate)

Most importantly, the students learned how to use their senses with things suchas peanut butter, which made the lesson fun for them by working with a “fun”food. (TESOL candidate)

Teacher-directed. ECE candidates made note that the lesson did not induce student-ledexploration, but was highly controlled by the teacher:

The lesson was very teacher directed. All the steps were instructed one at atime. The only time I noticed she asked the students to help drive the lessonwas when she asked them to name the senses they used and which two weremissing. Even then she told them how to use the last two senses. This couldbe because of where the children were in the unit, or perhaps it was becausethey were ELLs and needed slightly more structure when a lesson is not in theirnative language. (ECE candidate)

Interestingly, none of the TESOL candidates critiqued this directly, although there werecomments where the limited student-to-student talk was seen as an area for improvement:“What I found surprising was the fact that after the activity was concluded, students werenot asked to discuss their experience with their group.” In contrast to the ECE candidates,TESOL candidates praised the teacher’s high level of control, especially in the area ofproviding step-by-step instructions.

Step-by-step instructions. ECE and TESOL candidates commented on the way theteacher in the video provided a model (“The teacher was very clear with her instructionsand she modeled what the students were supposed to do,” described one ECE candi-date) and only instructed students as to what they needed to do incrementally, rather thangiving students the whole series of steps: “The teacher was walking around the class-room and observing the students to see if they were finished with each step. The teacherwould wait till everyone had completed that particular step before moving on to the next

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


direction” (ECE candidate); and “The teacher modeled exactly what she wanted the stu-dents to do while slowly repeating the steps and directions” (TESOL candidate). TESOLcandidates were not used to seeing this deliberate delivery of instructions, and many com-mented that they realized their typical approach to instructions would potentially confuseyoung ELLs.

Peer-to-peer interaction for social versus language learning. In the back-and-forthexchanges on the discussion board both ECE and TESOL candidates addressed specificaspects of children’s learning:

I find your perspective [referring to a TESOL candidate’s posting] on thechildren’s seating arrangements to be very interesting. It is true that the chil-dren are speaking to each other and helping each other with their work,allowing the children to not only build on their language skills but on thesocial skills as well. The setup in this classroom allows children to becomemore confident more quickly and moving the English speaking process along.(ECE candidate)

In this comment we see the ECE candidate moving from just valorizing the peer groupingfor its benefits for socialization to recognizing its value for language production. In the nextstatement, from a TESOL candidate, the comment illustrates how the participant is seeingnot just linguistic benefits, but also developmental and cognitive:

Piaget, Vygotsky, and Krashen would definitely applaud the clustered seatingarrangement of the students . . . collaborative discussions and negotiation ofmeaning are not only beneficial for language development; they are also ben-eficial for the cognitive development of the students . . . children and ELLsalike. (TESOL candidate)

Recognition of common strategies. Several ECE candidates commented that they weresurprised to find out that there were ELLs in the lesson they watched, somehow perceivingthat this would have been particularly noticeable. “I think what I learned most from thevideo is that working with ELLs is a lot like working with early childhood students” (ECEcandidate). In response to an ECE candidate’s posting that she would not have knownthe classroom was one of ELLs if it weren’t for it being specified, a TESOL candidateresponded:

Like you, I also thought it was hard to notice that a percentage of the studentswere ELLs from our position as an outside audience. I thought the teacherspoke normally or maybe just a little bit slower and used basic language likemany teachers do at the elementary school level in hope of being understoodby the students.

These prominent themes in the candidates’ discussion-board postings highlight the similar-ities and differences in what they noticed in the video, while opening their eyes to aspectsof the teacher, children, or classroom that would have been overlooked had it not been forthe perspective of a teacher candidate from another field.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Discussion and Implications for Teacher Educators

Teacher Candidates’ Learning From One Another

Findings from this study revealed that teacher candidates recognized the importance offocused attention to language development for young ELLs, as well as how collabo-ration across disciplines may support future teaching of ELLs. Candidates found thecross-program interactions to benefit them as a unique and valuable experience. While can-didates’ ratings of survey items and their discussion-board postings showed the similaritiesand differences in ECE and TESOL perspectives regarding ELLs, candidates from bothprograms were unanimous in their agreement that collaboration between ECE and TESOLteacher candidates was beneficial and would ultimately be supportive of developing theirreadiness for ELL pedagogy. This clear impact on ECE candidates’ perspectives points tothe potential for the deepening and broadening of their knowledge through additional jointclass sessions and collaborative assignments, along with additional training focused onELLs, which ECE candidates were receptive to based on their survey responses. Throughthis greater understanding, they may feel better prepared and more confident when workingwith young ELLs.

Benefits for ECE Faculty

This investigation was equally educative for the teacher educator authors, who had rarelyhad the occasion to discuss how the ECE and TESOL programs may collaborate. The pro-cess of designing and implementing the study, and then reviewing candidates’ perceptionsand discussion-board postings across program boundaries created an opportunity that didnot exist otherwise. Through our conversations, we learned about the similarities and dif-ferences between our fields; for example, the common emphasis on fostering language inboth ECE and TESOL, and the divergent ideas about teacher- and child-directed instruction.We were pleased to see how easily the students related to and learned from one another bothin our joint class session and in their electronic discussion-board postings, along with theirpraise for having such an opportunity. The importance of having candidates interact withELLs (directly or virtually) as part of a supervised practicum was reinforced, especiallyconsidering the diverse, urban context where they were teaching. In addition, reviewingthese interactions through video-recordings and subsequent reflections captured throughthe online exchange served as a reminder of the preconceptions about ELLs that ECE can-didates may bring to their teaching. These data, in conjunction with the syllabi analyses, canthen be used to improve existing coursework by addressing teacher candidates’ perspectivesat the beginning and throughout their teacher preparation program.

The analysis of ECE program syllabi highlighted the fact that attention to ELLs was notlimited to a language and literacy course focused on ELLs, but addressed in many coursesand in various ways. However, as activities that were not outlined in the syllabus werenot accounted for, future investigations may need to include interviews or focus groupswith ECE faculty in order to obtain a more complete picture of how ELLs are includedin our ECE program. In comparison to other teacher preparation programs within ourschool of education (Baecher, 2012), ELLs were addressed more comprehensively in ECEcoursework than in other programs. Yet, we see the possibility for improvement, especiallyconsidering our urban, multilingual context, along with the growing numbers of youngELLs in the U.S.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Recommendations for ECE Teacher Preparation Programs

Collaborative, cross-departmental alliances may offer rich opportunities for ECE teachercandidates to learn more about young ELLs’ learning and development, how to build onthese understandings to improve their teaching practices when working with young ELLs,and ways to collaborate with other education professionals. Based on our findings, we rec-ommend the following collaborative approaches to better prepare ECE teacher candidatesto work with young ELLs:

1. Teacher educator coplanning. Bringing together the expertise of TESOL and ECE fac-ulty might begin simply through common time being set aside to learn about andidentify shared perspectives for teacher preparation, and exchange resources, such askey readings, online learning modules, videos, and other materials that can readily beincorporated into course syllabi. Encouraging a culture of collaboration within highereducation can lead to interclass visitation, shared online course activities, and commonassignments that lay the groundwork for subsequent cross-program collaborations.

2. Joint class sessions/coursework. By physically (or virtually) bringing together ECE andTESOL teacher candidates, teacher educators can model collaboration, jointly reviewand debrief classroom video, create small-group and partner activities that invite can-didates to pool their expertise, and use these meetings as a springboard for follow-upactivities, such as collaboratively constructed lesson plans. Rather than a one-time occur-rence, ongoing opportunities using an array of approaches and materials could build onour initial positive findings, and perhaps result in coursework that purposefully integratesECE and TESOL teacher candidates.

3. ELL video cases and collaborative video review. Creating a video library of ECE class-rooms with ELLs can provide models for discussion and review for teacher candidates(both within the ECE program and with TESOL peers), with the added benefit of teachereducators being able to screen, select, control for, and anticipate key findings of partici-pants, possibilities which do not exist in regular fieldwork. Since candidates within ourschool of education created this video resource, the examples are contextually relevant.

4. Common clinical experiences. If school sites can be used to place both TESOL and ECEteacher candidates, then teacher educators can develop assignments that involve obser-vations, materials review, case-studies, and coteaching experiences that involve ELL andnon-ELL classrooms. Where possible, direct experiences, in which teacher candidatesare matched and placed in classrooms where they can observe ECE classroom teachersand TESOL teachers collaboratively provide content-based language instruction, andalso practice collaborative teaching themselves, should be sought out. When personnel,geographic location, and institutional structures bar this from occurring, online interac-tions may be a more feasible option. By harnessing the temporally and geographicallyunrestricted environment of online communication, ECE teacher preparation has noexcuse not to move in the direction of collaborative and interactive clinical experiences.

The graduates of ECE teacher preparation programs will go on to secure positions,more than likely bringing them into daily contact with young ELLs and their families.To effectively ready early childhood teachers for the critical work they need to do inour increasingly diverse schools, several factors need to come together in early child-hood teacher preparation programs. First, faculty should conduct honest assessments ofcurrent program coursework, using a consistent measure of ELL integration rather thanrelying only on self-report data. Second, candidates and faculty should share their cur-rent practices and have an opportunity to reflect on what they believe to be core skills

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


and knowledge and how these can be distributed throughout a program rather than beingcentered on one or two classes. Third, innovations using video, virtual fieldwork, andcross-departmental collaborations may be explored to ensure that expertise on ELLs is con-tinually constructed—for candidates and faculty alike. Lastly, collaborations between ECEand TESOL faculty, as well as planned collaborations between ECE and TESOL teachercandidates may foster interest in their respective domains of expertise that will continuewhen they are in the field. Whether ECE teachers work with TESOL pull-out or push-inteachers, as coteachers, or as colleagues “down the hall,” an openness and an expectationfor collaborative practice can only benefit students. Our young ELLs depend on institutionsof teacher education—we can no longer consider their education as marginal to the teacherpreparation agenda.

References

Baecher, L. (2012). Examining the place of English language learners within the teacher educationcurriculum. Journal of Curriculun and Teaching, 1(2), 8–20.

Barnett, W. S., Carolan, M. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Squires, J. H. (2011). The state of preschool 2011:State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

Blanton, L. P., & Pugach, M. (2007). Collaborative programs in general and special teacher educa-tion: An action guide for higher education and state policymakers. Washington, DC: Center forImproving Teacher Quality, Chief State School Officers.

Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bredekamp, S. (2002). Language and early childhood programs. In C. Adger, C. Snow, & D. Christian(Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp. 55–70). McHenry, IL: Center for AppliedLinguistics & Delta Systems.

Bridges, M., & Dagys, N. (2012). Who will teach our children? Building a qualified early childhoodworkforce to teacher English-language learners (New Journalism on Latino Children Brief, 1–6).Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley Institute of Human Development.

Buysse, V., Castro, D. C., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2009). Effects of a professional development pro-gram on classroom practices and outcomes for Latino dual language learners. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 25, 194–206.

Buysse, V., Castro, D. C., West, T., & Skinner, M. (2005). Addressing the needs of Latino children:A national survey of state administrators of early childhood programs. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 20, 146–163.

Castro, D. C., Garcia, E. E., & Markos, A. M. (2013). Dual language learners: Research informingpolicy. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill.

Costa, J., McPhail, G., Smith, J., & Brisk, M. E. (2005). Faculty first: The challenge of infusing theteacher education curriculum with scholarship on English language learners. Journal of TeacherEducation, 56, 104–118.

Cramer, E., Liston, A., Nevin, A., & Thousand, J. (2010). Co-teaching in urban secondary schooldistricts to meet the needs of all teachers and learners: Implications for teacher education reform.International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6(2), 59–76.

Cutri, R., & Johnson, C. (2010). Overcoming deficit thinking toward English language learners:Technological possibilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, Special Online Edition. Retrieved fromhttp://teqjournal.org/cutri_johnson.html

Daniel, J., & Friedman, S. (2005). Taking the next step: Preparing teachers to work with culturallyand linguistically diverse children. Beyond the Journal. Young Children on the Web. Retrievedfrom http://www.naeyc.org/yc/pastissues/2005/november

DelliCarpini, M. (2009). Enhancing cooperative learning in TESOL teacher education. ELT Journal,63(1), 42–50.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Fry, R. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Los Angeles,CA: PEW Hispanic Center.

García, E. E., & Jensen, B. T., & Scribner, K. P. (2009). The demographic imperative. EducationalLeadership, 66(7), 8–13.

Hardin, B. J., Lower, J. K., Smallwood, G. R., Chakravarthi, S., Li, L., & Jordan, C. (2010).Teachers, families, and communities supporting English language learners in inclusive pre-kindergartens: An evaluation of a professional development model. Journal of Early ChildhoodTeacher Education, 31(1), 20–36.

Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N., & Macartney, S. E. (2007). Children in immigrant families—The U.S.and 50 States: National origins, language, and early education. Albany, NY: Center for Socialand Demographic Analysis, University at Albany, SUNY.

Lake, V. E., & Pappamihiel, E. (2003). Effective practices and principles to support English languagelearners in the early childhood classroom. Childhood Education, 79(4), 200–203.

Maxwell, K. L., Lim, C.-I., & Early, D. M. (2006). Early childhood teacher preparation programsin the United States: National report. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina FPG ChildDevelopment Institute.

McCrary, D. E., Sennette, J., & Brown, D. L. (2011). Preparing early childhood teachers for Englishlanguage learners. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32, 107–117.

McGraner, K. L., & Saenz, L. (2009). Preparing teachers of English language learners. Washington,DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.tqsource.org/pdfs/PreparingTeachersofELLsprelim%20ed.pdf

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2010). Standards for initial & advancedearly childhood professional preparation programs. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008). Professional standards for theaccreditation of teacher preparation instruction. Washington, DC: Author.

Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Gonzalez, J. E., Simmons, D. C., Taylor, A. B., Davis, M. J., Simmons, L.,& Nava-Walischowski, M. (2012). An examination of preschool teachers’ shared book readingpractices in Spanish: Before and after instructional guidance. Bilingual Research Journal, 35(1),5–31.

Pugach, M. C., & Blanton, L. P. (2009). A framework for conducting research on collaborative teachereducation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 575–582.

Ray, A., Bowman, B., & Robbins, J. (2006). Preparing early childhood teachers to successfullyeducate all children: The contributions of four-year undergraduate teacher preparation programs.Chicago, IL: Erikson Institute.

Reeves, J. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language learners inmainstream classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 131–142.

Regalado, M., Goldenberg, C., & Appel, E. (2001). Reading and early literacy (Policy Brief no.11).Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities.

Robinson, L., & Buly, M. (2000). Breaking the language barrier: Promoting collaboration betweengeneral and special educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 83–94.

Riojas-Cortez, M., Alanís, I., & Flores, B.B. (2013). Early childhood teachers reconstruct beliefs andpractices through reflexive action. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 34, 36–45

Ryan, S., Ackerman, D. J., & Song, H. (2005). Getting qualified and becoming knowledgeable:Preschool teachers’ perspectives on their professional preparation. Unpublished manuscript.Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Sakash, K., & Rodriguez-Brown, F. (2011). Fostering collaboration between mainstream and bilin-gual teachers and teacher candidates. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguisticallydiverse classrooms (pp. 143–159). New York, NY: Routledge.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory: Procedures andtechniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tierney, W. G. (1999). Faculty productivity and academic culture. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Facultyproductivity: Facts, fictions, and issues (pp. 39–54). New York, NY: Falmer Press.

Zepeda, M., Castro, D. C., & Cronin, S. (2011). Preparing early childhood teachers to work withyoung dual language learners. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 10–14.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 2

0:05

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

tesol and early childhood collaborative inquiry: joining forces and crossing boundaries

Documents