Working Together to Prepare Teachers of Science and Language: Examining the Value of Collaboration Among Science and Language Faculty (2024)

(1)

Working Together to Prepare Teachers of Science and Language: Examining the Value of Collaboration Among Science and Language Faculty

Margarita Jimenez-Silva

Arizona State University, United States

Joi Merritt

Arizona State University, United States

Peter Rillero

Arizona State University, United States

Michael Kelley

Arizona State University, United States

Abstract

This qualitative study examines the change in a preserve program as our faculty members systematically work together to change the culture of our college to one in which everyone assists future teachers to work with ELLs. The iTeach ELL Systems Framework has promoted understanding of the interconnected nature of student learning, which includes: university/school partnerships designed to impact that learning through more effectively prepared teacher candidates, school and university organizational features, and state statutes and policy regulations. One focus of this work is to infuse problem-based learning (PBL) and ELL strategies into science methods courses. This qualitative study of efforts and approaches to reform science methods courses has identified three themes: a) Value of Agreeing on Terms (b) Value of Integrating Content and Language Learning (c) Value of Presenting a Unified Message. Successes and challenges for supporting pre-service teachers to develop knowledge of both PBL and ELL strategies are discussed.

Keywords: English language learners, problem-based learning, science education, elementary education, science teacher education,

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Margarita Jimenez-Silva, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, 7271 E. Sonoran Arroyo Mail Code 2680, Mesa, AZ 85212 Phone: 480-727-1534 Margarita.Jimenez-Silva@asu.edu

Introduction

(2)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

InTASC Standards, 2011). As educators of teachers of science, it is critical that we recognize that the teaching of science has many opportunities to develop language skills. As stated in the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)’s position statement titled Science for English Language Learners, “all students, including those identified as English language learners (ELLs), can and should have every opportunity to learn and succeed in science” (NSTA, 2009, p. 1). By understanding how teaching science can work seamlessly with the development of English language skills, we can help this distinctive student population achieve academically while simultaneously developing English language proficiency.

Through the generous support of a Teacher Quality Partnership grant from the U.S. Department of Education, the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College (Teachers College) at Arizona State University is preparing elementary teachers in content-based second language acquisition, beginning with a focus on science methods courses. In this paper, we report the findings of a qualitative study focusing on the perceptions of the value of the collaboration of two science methods professors and a second language acquisition professor.

Literature Review

English Language Learners

Students whose primary language is not English have been a part of the education landscape in the U.S. since the nation's earliest days (Crawford, 2004; Duran, 2008; Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1996; Lee & Luykx, 2005; Vaughn et al., 2006). Although most teachers have always had ELLs in their classrooms (even though students are not always labeled as such), the population of ELLs in schools has been increasing steadily for the last three decades (Shin & Kominski, 2010). From 1994 to 2010, the percentage of ELLs in the U.S. grew over 63% and has grown steadily since then (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2011). According to recent U.S. census data, nearly 40 million people, are foreign born and nearly 20% of the U.S. population report that they do not speak English well (Shin & Kominski, 2010). These data have important implications for schools and, consequently, for teacher education programs that prepare teachers who will meet the academic and linguistic needs of this growing population of students and their families.

The Arizona Context

(3)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu Table 1.

Arizona Students with Limited English Proficiency on NAEP

Achievement Year

Below

Basic Basic Proficient Advanced Mathematics

Grade 4

2015 61 34 5 0

Reading Grade 4 2015 88 12 1 0

Science Grade 4 2009 84 14 2 0

To further complicate matters, students in Arizona who are identified as not proficient in English are removed from most content classes for four hours each school day to receive English language instruction (Jimenez-Silva, Gomez, & Cisneros, 2014). While perhaps well intentioned, this policy results in the unfortunate consequence of ELL students having restricted access to the general curriculum, especially science content (Lillie, 2011). Many ELLs in Arizona are not provided access to science content classes in Arizona until their middle childhood or adolescent years, a situation that creates unique challenges to science teachers. Hence, ELLs in Arizona may struggle to acquire science content knowledge and skills due to a lack of access. This coupled with limited English proficiency may present a formidable barrier to a strong science education. A comprehensive approach to better prepare our preK-8 preservice teachers to teach mathematics and science and to meet the needs of ELLs is needed.

English Proficiency

Further complicating an already complex issue are varying definitions of English proficiency, both in Arizona and across the nation (Linquanti & Cook, 2013), with proficiency criteria often tied to communication ability rather than the ability to use language for learning. This can result in a situation where teachers create lessons to enable development of science content not realizing that these lessons also need to include opportunities for the authentic use of academic language. The challenges for ELLs in Arizona are not unique; such issues arise in a number of states that have similar policies and procedures to establish English proficiency in ELLs (Wright, 2010). The result is that ELLs in many of the nation’s schools often miss opportunities to acquire (a) science content knowledge and skills; (b) academic language skills required for learning (e.g., higher level vocabulary), and (c) higher level literacy skills (e.g., expository text comprehension) that are essential for academic success (Gándara & Orfield, 2010; Martinez-Wenzl, Pérez, & Gándara, 2010; Ríos-Aguilar, González-Canche, & Moll, 2010).

(4)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

science education as well as language and literacy skill development can benefit all students and should be part of every teacher’s knowledge and repertoire.

English Language Learners and Science Learning

Science and mathematics classrooms that are based on inquiry, projects, and problem- solving hold exceptional promise for supporting English language development and content knowledge acquisition in literacy and STEM areas (Shaw, Lyon, Stoddart, Mosqueda, & Menon, 2014). Success in science content courses require a broad range of academic language (Wright, 2010). For example, scientific inquiry and mathematical problem-solving have myriad opportunities to access expository text and talk that includes questions, explanations, hypothesis generation, debates, clarifications, elaboration, verification, and sharing of results. Certainly the language demands in such classes may be considerable, but the potential is strong for students to learn critical English language skills while also building their STEM and literacy knowledge base (August, Branum-Martin, Hagan, & Francis, 2009; Buxton & Lee, 2014; Crawford, 1995; Freeman & Freeman, 2008; Gómez, Kurz, & Jimenez-Silva, 2011; Jimenez-Silva & Gomez, 2010; Lee, 2004; Quinn, Lee, & Valdez, 2012; Rosebery & Warren, 2008).

Extensive reviews of the literature identified a number of program factors and instructional characteristics that promote the academic success of ELLs (Genesee, 2005). Aggregating across the corpus of research, Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, (2005) report programs that were relatively effective in improving the academic achievement of ELLs shared the following characteristics:

1) a positive school environment (Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997; Berman, Minicucci, McLaughlin, Nelson, & Woodworth, 1995; Montecel & Cortez, 2002),

2) a curriculum that was meaningful and academically challenging, incorporated higher order thinking (Berman et al., 1995; Doherty, Hilberg, Pinal, & Tharp, 2003; Montecel & Cortez, 2002; Tikunoff, 1985), was thematically integrated (Montecel & Cortez, 2002), established a clear alignment with standards and assessment (Doherty et al., 2003; Montecel & Cortez, 2002), and was consistent and sustained over time (Ramirez, 1992),

3) a program model that was grounded in sound theory and best practices associated with an enriched, not remedial, instructional model (Montecel & Cortez, 2002),

4) teachers in bilingual programs who understood theories about bilingualism and second language development as well as the goals and rationale for the model in which they were teaching (Berman et al., 1995; Montecel & Cortez, 2002), and

5) use of cooperative learning and high-quality exchanges between teachers and pupils (Berman et al., 1995; Calderón, Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Slavin, 1998; Doherty et al., 2003; Montecel & Cortez, 2002; Tikunoff, 1985).

(5)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

A College-Wide Effort to Prepare All Teachers on Content-based Second Language Acquisition

The Teachers College at Arizona State University set forth four goals to prepare elementary teachers on content-based second language acquisition. Goal One states that the Teachers College will implement a number of key reforms in PreK-8 certificate teacher preparation programs so our graduates will be measurably more successful in understanding and implementing strategies for teaching ELL students in mathematics and science content areas. Goal Two is re-designing methods courses in mathematics and science to include materials and instructional strategies that promote development of language (including academic language through science content instruction) and literacy skills. Goal Three focuses on using problem-based learning (PBL) pedagogy and design principles to establish knowledge and skills that teacher candidates can apply to classrooms. In Goal Four, we aim to integrate an understanding of evidence-based practice research related to the teaching and learning of ELL students including evidence-based assessment and data-driven decision-making within problem-based learning to improve content instruction that supports ELLs’ content and linguistic development. These goals are reinforced in a recently implemented one-year of student teaching model providing ample opportunity for teacher candidates to develop and implement PBL lessons with ELL methods.

Research has identified a number of potential obstacles to engaging faculty members in collaborative efforts attempting to develop teacher educators’ capacity to work together to prepare all teachers to work effectively with ELLs. These potential obstacles include (a) faculty members’ autonomy, (b) faculty members roles’ as experts, (c) limited time and scheduling challenges, (d) incentives, (e) available resources, and (e) differing levels of initial understanding and commitment (Costa, McPhail, Smith, & Brisk, 2005; Levine, Howard, & Moss, 2014; Nutta, Mokhtari, & Strebel, 2012). One suggestion by Levine, Howard, & Moss (2014) used in Project PREPARE-ELLs was to start small and capitalize on the power of peer coaching. The following recommendations they made for initiating and sustaining collective faculty professional development has informed our project work: (a) do a needs assessment and identification of learners’ hopes, (b) differentiate options and opportunities, (c) balance clear expectations with flexibility to accommodate the reality of multiple demands on faculty members, (d) gather ongoing input, (e) stay focused on the mission, (f) have a planning team streamline the work, (g) schedule and use meeting time strategically, and (h) craft the project to match some of the institutional incentives and mission.

Enhancing Language through Problem-Based Learning

Systems Framework and Theoretical Model

Our team adapted the National Institute for Urban School Improvement (NIUSI)

Systemic Change Framework (Ferguson, Kozleski, & Smith, 2005) as a way to demonstrate the interconnected aspects of student learning, university/school partnerships and organizational features, and state statues and policy regulations.

(7)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

to promote student effort and learning of science content knowledge and enhance linguistic development (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The iTeach ELL Systems Framework.

(8)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

The interactive nature of the elements within each of the model’s spheres are important variables to operationalize, measure, analyze, and more fully understand the differential effects on teacher and student success. Thus, for instance, what happens at the university level influences the district, school, and classroom levels due to the highly organized university/school partnerships that are in effect. The teacher candidates in all program areas are regularly engaged in numerous cycles of observations, assessments, and data feedback. These cycles of focused observations, assessments, and data discussions will be further enhanced with PBL Assessments that focus on the key elements of PBeLL and academic science content language use.

The School Organizational Effort and University Effort and Support levels share a culture of reciprocal influences where each entity is jointly focused on providing the resources, governance, and leadership to impact student effort and learning in science and mathematics via PBL strategies. PBL methodology combined with strong science academic content language require the university, district, schools, and classroom mentors and teacher candidates to rethink their curricular approaches and methods, how they structure classroom environments, and use of time within those classrooms. Clearly challenges and barriers exist that need to be investigated and understood in order to enhance sustainability of the iTeach ELL efforts. Research conducted on the iTeach ELL initiative will inform all of the partners as to the successes that are generated and celebrate a culture of renewal and improvement in closing the achievement gap for ELL children.

Finally, the state statutes and policy regulations that require instruction in English only within the K-12 environments influence all levels within the iTeach ELL Systems Framework. As noted earlier in this paper, children who enter school without proficiency in English are placed in English Language Development (ELD) 4-hour blocks, which are typically devoid of academic content language in science or math. Thus, these statutory and policy regulations limit many ELL children’s access and opportunity to engage in rich academic content language in their native language, while they build their vocabulary and understanding in a second language (Jimenez-Silva, Hernandez, & Thibault, 2016).

A Close-Up View of Collaboration

In this section, we will describe and discuss a study conducted in the first phase of our plan to prepare science teachers to meet the content and linguistic needs of ELLs. Through this study, we sought to answer the question, “What is the value of collaboration between science and language faculty members when implementing a college-wide reform effort?” based on qualitative data from three key participants in the collaborative efforts.

(9)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

about the value of collaboration than would be possible with a more superficial study of a larger group of participants (Matsumoto, 1991).

Setting

The Teachers College has one of the largest teacher preparation programs in the country, graduating approximately 1,500 new teachers each year. Situated in Arizona, a state where ELLs are among those with the poorest achievement outcomes (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013; Children’s Defense Fund, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2014), the Teachers College has the opportunity to address the significant challenges associated with education for ELLs. In doing so, Teachers College can become a model for other teacher preparation programs, which struggle to meet the needs of these students.

Participants

Three faculty members, co-authors of this article, were participants in this study. The first participant, Dr. Jimenez-Silva, taught mathematics and science in middle school to ELL students in a newcomer program prior to earning her masters and doctoral degrees in Human Development and Psychology with an emphasis in Language and Culture. She is currently in her 19th_{year of}teaching at the university-level and is an associate professor teaching courses on second language acquisition. She also serves as the program coordinator of the Bilingual/English as a Second Language Teacher Preparation program at the College.

The second participant, Dr. Rillero, began his career in science education in 1982 when he joined the U.S. Peace Corps and taught grades 8 to 10 in a rural school in Kenya for three years. He then taught high school physics, biology, and science research for four years in a public school in Bronx, NY, while earning a masters degree in science education and a masters degree in biology. After earning his doctoral degree in science education, he accepted a faculty position in science education at the Teachers College where he earned tenure. He is currently in his 21st year and teaches science methods at the elementary and secondary level.

Dr. Merritt began her teaching career as a high school chemistry and physics teacher. She received her bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering. She then worked as a management consultant, developing graphical user interfaces for major energy companies in the United States and in Canada. She is currently an Assistant Professor at the Teachers College after having received her doctoral degree in Educational Studies (Science Education). She currently teaches sections of the pre-service elementary science method course.

Procedures

(10)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

The core team, including the three faculty participants, met weekly throughout 2015. Detailed meeting notes documented the discussions among grant team members. In addition, Program Enhancement Team (PET) meetings, in which the three faculty members participated, were also documented through detailed notes. Furthermore, all meeting agendas and individual notes kept by the three faculty participants were collected. Materials including possible lesson plan templates for teacher candidates, lesson plans of PBeLL implementation with teacher candidates, and email exchanges were also collected and analyzed, as were artifacts from lessons taught by the participants in their respective courses.

Data Analysis and Coding

The analysis focused on the various meeting notes, individual notes, and other artifacts. We divided the analysis procedure into the five modes suggested by Marshall and Rossman (1999): (a) organizing the data; (b) identifying themes, patterns, and categories; (c) testing the emergent hypothesis against the data; (d) searching for alternative explanations of the data; and (e) writing the report.

Each set of notes and other artifacts were read multiple times. Through the course of each reading, the lead researcher analyzed the data for patterns and consistencies. Pattern matching was a method used to compare an observed pattern with a predicted one to strengthen or eliminate initial assumptions (Yin, 1984). The lead researcher then selected excerpts from the transcripts and placed them into broad categories in search of thematic connections within and among the transcripts (Seidman, 1998). Eight verification procedures for enhancing the trustworthiness of findings are discussed by Creswell (1998) and it is suggested that at least two of them are addressed by qualitative researchers in any given study. In this case study, four of the eight were addressed:

1. Triangulation. Multiple sources—meeting notes, individual notes, and lesson plans—were used and themes in the data were explored across data sources to check for convergence of information (Stake, 1994).

2. Member checking. Data, analysis, interpretations, and conclusions were reviewed with the other two faculty participants throughout the study.

3. Peer review or debriefing. Two colleagues, coaches on the grant, within the department in which the lead researcher is employed, served as peer debriefers and provided constructive feedback throughout the writing process.

4. Clarifying researcher bias. Peer debriefing and member checking provided multiple opportunities to check for and address researcher bias.

Findings

(11)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu Theme One: Value of Agreeing on Terms

Terminology played a major role in the discussions, particularly in the first few months of meetings. When conversations began, the differences between project-based learning and problem-based learning had to be discussed as these terms are often used in similar ways in various circles beyond the grant narrative. One of the first collaborative tasks was developing an operational definition of problem-based learning. Dr. Rillero and Dr. Merritt, as science faculty, led the development of a whitepaper that was distributed throughout the college and outlined the key characteristics of problem-based learning. Dr. Jimenez-Silva, the ELL faculty member with limited experience with problem-based learning, asked many questions as a novice to the concept. In her notes on various versions of the whitepaper, there were questions listed in the margins regarding each of the nine identified components, specifically in how they related to ELLs. For example, she had specific questions about how collaboration was defined and how it could be scaffolded for ELLs with limited English proficiency. She also had many questions about further distinctions between problem-based learning and inquiry models.

Agreement on terminology went beyond the defining of the main approach of PBeLL. Each member of the team brings different strengths from their varying backgrounds to meeting the goals of the grant. Different education areas (mathematics, science, literacy, etc.) have different approaches for supporting student learning. With these approaches come different terminologies. For example, in science the phrase, “science for all” is used to encapsulate addressing the needs of all students when teaching science. However, other fields (including those focused on meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students) name the specific student populations (e.g. ELL, diverse learners). The ELL faculty member used the terms “science teacher” and “teachers of science” interchangeably in the groups’ first collaborative article. The science educators explained the distinction of the term to her and she proceeded using the appropriate term depending on the context. Thus, it was important to not only understand the terminology we are supporting in the grant, but also the terminology and norms of the different areas the grant is aiming to address.

Theme Two: Value of Integrating Content and Language Learning

Early on, academic language was identified as an important aspect for supporting students, especially ELLs, in learning content. We identified content language objectives as an approach for supporting ELLs in developing language specifically in science. This was for two reasons: 1) teachers are required to include language objectives in instruction and 2) the need to support ELLs in learning science. This emerged from several discussions.

The initial PBeLL template did not include language objectives. Through discussions during various meetings, it was realized that in order to support ELLs in mathematics and science classes, there is language that students will be learning as a result of teaching, but also there would be language that students would need in order to engage in an experience. Thus we identified two types of vocabulary: (a) operational vocabulary –language needed to introduce an experience and (b) conceptual vocabulary–language developed from the experience. The ELL faculty member consistently brought up the need to include sharing strategies for helping students to practice the language they were learning in meaningful and purposeful ways.

(12)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

current iteration of the PBeLL template, we included a content-language objective. By including content-language objectives, teacher candidates would have to be able to identify how students would be using language (e.g. writing, speaking, listening or reading), and the supports for aiding student development of language.

Hence, it was important to develop approaches for supporting science methods instructors to implement content-language objectives in their courses. For one of the science methods faculty members, the weekly meetings included discussions of how to write content-language objectives and methods for modifying lessons to include supports for the practice of language.

In developing a sample PBeLL experience for teacher candidates, the ELL faculty member insisted on including numerous techniques to the experience, which was concerning to one of the science methods professor who wanted to keep it as a science experience with some ELL enhancements. Since it was the latter professor’s course, this approach is what prevailed. However, the experience was later implemented in an eighth-grade high ELL classroom with an ELL coach as the lead and significant input from the ELL faculty member. This provided an opportunity to try out other enhancements and explore interplays between science and language.

Value of Presenting a Unified Message

Since the reforms we are implementing are for all science and mathematics methods courses, it was important to present a unified message. Thus, the core team needed to come to agreement on not just terminology, but also how to communicate this information to faculty members. We identified the creation of whitepapers that explain our definition of specific terminology as one approach. Thus far, a whitepaper on problem-based learning has been completed and distributed to all early elementary and elementary methods instructors and two others are in progress, one on PBeLL and one on our Systems Model.

We also recognized the need to support faculty members, teacher candidates, and mentor teachers in implementing these reforms. Opportunities for supporting implementation of these reforms could take many different forms. The core team identified modules as an approach for supporting these different groups. The use of modules provides an opportunity to not only explain terminology, but also to show what these reforms look like. Moreover, it provides the opportunity to provide supports that they can develop and use in their classrooms. A unified message also is important because we have been tasked with providing professional development to faculty members in different forums. Before each opportunity to present to faculty members, core team prepared, in part, by agreeing to the content of the presentation. In addition, we intentionally reminded ourselves of the value of our collaboration, mutual respect, and the common goal of preparing all teachers to provide access to science content and develop English language skills for their ELLs.

Discussion

(13)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

linguistic development. In order to proceed with this step, we as core faculty members also needed to first develop a common understanding. Findings from our data analysis demonstrated that this has been an ongoing effort throughout our meetings.

In the 2014-2015 school year, we created PBeLL teams comprised of mathematics and science faculty members alongside experts in second language acquisition. A series of professional development opportunities were provided with various encouraging results. Through surveys, it was determined that faculty members were generally enthusiastic about integrating PBL and strategies for supporting ELLs. Furthermore, through collaborative efforts, a PBeLL lesson plan template was developed and several science education faculty members wrote PBeLL lesson plans integrating strategies for supporting ELLs recommended by second language experts. Moreover, syllabi for science methods courses have been revised to deliberately include PBeLL as a means of supporting ELLs’ science content and linguistic development. An intentional impact of these efforts is to create a culture in our college that embraces the idea that we are all language teachers, regardless of content expertise. As teachers of science, our students will have an opportunity through PBeLL to “effectively help language learners in science classrooms simultaneously gain language proficiency and conceptual understanding,” as stated in a recent call for chapters for an upcoming Association for Science Teacher Education monograph titled Science Teacher Preparation in Content-Based Second Language Acquisition (Oliveira & Weinburgh, 2015).

In the second theme from our data, valuing the integration of content and language learning, we identified and discussed a shift in culture that needs to happen as we see all faculty members as models of how to teach content and language. In preparing for this shift in the culture of the college regarding how we view our roles in supporting ELLs in content classes, a larger framework for systematically changing the college culture and taking into account all of the stakeholders both within and outside of the college had to be put in place. Thus, it is critical that we address the third theme that arose, presenting a unified message. Returning to our Systems Framework, it is critical that as faculty participants we keep in mind how our roles impacts all other aspects of the Framework. Our agreement on key concepts, mutual respect of each of our areas of expertise, a shared responsibility of teaching content and language, and presenting a unified message are all critical aspects of meaningfully impacting teacher education in our college and ultimately, across the state.

Purposeful Partnerships

(14)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

semester to: (a) establish a culture of change; (b) understand academic vocabulary, literacy and language acquisition strategies; (c) develop PBeLL lessons; and (d) share experiences in developing and implementing PBeLL lessons. Thus, through the PET meetings, faculty members have been able to model PBeLL lessons for pre-service teachers. These opportunities have been developed keeping in mind the suggestions made by Levine, Howard, and Moss (2015) for initiating and sustaining collective faculty member professional development.

Furthermore, to aid in implementing these reforms, we added enhanced expertise in the form of coaches. Ultimately, we plan to hire coaches to support faculty members in development of skills in relationship to the two key features of the reform – practices for English language learners and problem-based learning. Thus far, we have brought on two coaches with expertise in ELLs. Along with their involvement in the PET meetings, the coaches are also working with faculty members to infuse ELL strategies for supporting ELLs. Moreover, they have co-taught with our college’s faculty members in targeted science method courses, as well as other research related support. In the future, coaches will co-teach with site coordinators who teach and supervise teacher candidates in partner schools. Finally coaches will support faculty members and students in the implementation and evaluation of these practices.

Next Steps

The goal of our college is to infuse PBeLL experiences and methods throughout pre-service education. Because PBeLL is a natural fit for mathematics and science education, the mathematics methods course, science methods course, and mathematics content courses were targeted with the initial PBeLL infusion. A PET consisting of instructors in the aforementioned areas, as well as ELL methods instructors, course coordinators, student-teacher supervisors, and ELL coaches are meeting approximately four times each semester to (a) share ideas and results for PBeLL experiences and (b) to improve methods for preparing our students to work with ELLs. This work has spread PBeLL into mathematics and science methods and content courses.

To be fully effective the PBeLL experience needs to be an important part of our one-year student teaching program. All faculty members involved with teacher education participated in a PBeLL experience with bears and foil boats. All student teaching coordinators additionally participated in the PBELL pendulum experience. The production of online modules in ELL methods and PBeLL has begun. Summer plans include working with teachers who accept student teachers from our partner districts. The goal is to have our student teachers implement PBeLL in their student teaching experience with the support of their mentor teachers and university supervisors.

Conclusion

(15)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

of change for the Teachers College, starting with the key faculty participants and then taking shape through the formation of the PET. Piloting of ELL strategies in science methods courses has also helped to identify strategies for supporting preservice teachers to develop knowledge of PBeLL strategies. In addition, we have identified challenges that remain, such as the time it takes to implement these lessons and additional supports needed for preservice teachers to write objectives. The hiring of ELL coaches has also helped to further this progress, as they have played a vital role in helping to identify strategies, support members in implementing these strategies, and identifying where additional supports are needed.

Acknowledgments. This work was supported in part by a U.S. Department of Education Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) grant titled “Integrating STEM, Literacy, and Language to Prepare All Teachers to Teach English Language Learners: iTeach ELLs.”

References

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2013). Kids count data book: Profiles by state. Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/sld/index.jsp

Arizona Department of Education. (2013). 2012-2013 State Report Card. Retried from http://www.azed.gov/research-evaluation/files/2011/07/state-report-card-2013-final.pdf Arizona Department of Education. (2015). 2013-2014 State Report Card. Retried from

http://www.azed.gov/research-evaluation/files/2015/01/state-report-card-2014_final.pdf August, D., Branum-Martin, L., Hagan, E., & Francis, D. (2009). The impact of an instructional

intervention on the science and language learning of middle grade English language learners. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 345-376.

Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 3-12). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychology, 32(3), 137-151.

Berman, P., Minicucci, C., McLaughlin, B., Nelson, B., & Woodworth, K. (1995). School reform

and student diversity: Case studies of exemplary practices for LEP students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husten & T. N.

Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 3–27). Oxford, England:

Pergamon Press.

Buxton, C. & Lee, O. (2014). English language learners in science education. In Norman G. Lederman and Sanda K. Abell (Eds.). Handbook of research on science education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Calderón, M., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Slavin, R. (1998). Effects of bilingual cooperative integrated reading and composition on students making the transition from Spanish to English. The Elementary School Journal, 99(2), 153-165.

Children's Defense Fund. (2014). The state of America’s children handbook. Washington, DC: Author.

(16)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu Learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(2), 104-118.

Council of Chief State School Officer (InTASC). (2011). Model Core Teaching Standards: A Resource for State Dialogue. Washington, DC: CCSSO.

Crawford, J. (1995). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services.

Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Education Services.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. London, UK: Collier Macmillan.

Doherty, R. W., Hilberg, R. S., Pinal, A., & Tharp, R. (2003, Winter). Five standards and student achievement. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1(1), 1-24.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.) (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Duran, R. P. (2008). Assessing English-language learners’ achievement. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 292-327.

Ferguson, D.L., Kozleski, E.B., & Smith, A. (2005). On transformed, inclusive schools: A framework to guide fundamental change in urban schools. Tempe, AZ: The National Institute for Urban School Improvement.

Freeman, Y., & Freeman, D. (2008). English language learners: Who are they? How can teachers support them? In Y. Freeman, D. Freeman & R. Ramírez (Eds.), Diverse learners in the mainstream classroom: Strategies for supporting all students across content areas (pp. 31-58). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gándara, P., & Orfield, G. (2010). A return to the “Mexican room”: The segregation of

Arizona’s English learners. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project, University of California. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/language-minority-student/a-return-to-the-mexican-room-the-segregation- of-arizonas-english-learners-1/gandara-return-mexican-room-2010.pdf

Genesee, F. (2005). The capacity of the language faculty: Contributions from studies of simultaneous bilingual acquisition. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad & J. MacSwan (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 890-901). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of the empirical evidence research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gómez, C., Kurz, T., & Jimenez-Silva, M. (2011). Your inner English teacher. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 17(4), 239-243.

Gould, K., & Sadera, W. (2015). Evaluation of health profession student attitudes toward an online nutrition education problem-based learning module. International Journal on E-Learning, 14(2), 181-198.

Jiménez, R. T., Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90–112.

Jimenez-Silva, M., & Gomez, C. (2010). Developing language skills in science classrooms. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 48(1), 23-28.

(17)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

Flores v. Arizona in educating K-12 English language learners. Journal of Latinos and Education, 13(3), 181-195. doi:10.1080/15348431.2013.849600

Jimenez-Silva, M., Hernandez, J., & Thibault, M. (2016). Preparing for a cultural shift: Integrating STEM, literacy, and language to prepare all teachers to teach English language learners. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu, HI.

Kim, H. K., VanTassel-Baska, J., Bracken, B. A., Feng, A., Stambaugh, T., & Bland, L. (2012). Project Clarion: Three years of science instruction in title I schools among k-third grade students. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 813-829.

Lee, O. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy instruction with English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 65-93.

Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2005). Dilemmas in scaling up innovations in elementary science instruction with nonmainstream students. American Educational Research Journal, 42(5), 411-438. Levine, T., Howard, E., & Moss, D. (Eds.). (2014). Preparing classroom teachers to succeed with

second language learners: Lessons from a faculty learning community. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lillie, K. E. (2011). Giving the students a voice: Surveying students about Arizona’s structured English immersion restrictive language policy. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.) Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

Linquanti, R., & Cook, H. G. (2013). Council of Chief State School Officers common definition of ELL issue brief. Washington, D.C.: CCSSO.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. R. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Martinez-Wenzl, M., Pérez, K., & Gándara, P. (2010). Is Arizona’s approach to educating its ELLs superior to other forms of instruction? Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/language-minority-students/is-arizonas-approach-to-educating-its-els-superior-to-other-forms-of-instruction/martinez-wenzl-is-arizona-approach-superior-2010.pdf

Matsumoto, C. S. (1991). Changing the way we teach: A descriptive analysis of elementary teachers attempting to make changes in their science teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education (5th ed.). New York:

Longman.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). The case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Montecel, M. R., & Cortez, J. D. (2002). Successful bilingual education programs: Development

and the dissemination of criteria to identify promising and exemplary practices in bilingual education at the national level. Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 1-22.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (2011). The growing number of English learner students 2009 – 2010. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/uploads/9/growing_EL_0910.pdf

National Science Teachers Association. (2009). NSTA position statement: Science for English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/ell.aspx

Nutta, J. W., Mokhtari, K., & Strebel, C. (2012). Preparing Every Teacher to Reach English Learners: A Practical Guide for Teacher Educators. Cambridge, MA Harvard Education Press.

(18)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition. Retrieved from http://www.aaal.org/events/event_details.asp?id=651192

Oliveria, A.W., Wilcox, K.C., Angelis, J., Applebee, A.N., Amodeo, V., & Snyder, M.A. (2013). Best practice in middle-school science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(2), 297-322).

Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdes, G. (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to Next Generation Science Standards for English language learners: What teachers need to know. Understanding Language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Quinn, K., & Albano, L. (2008). Problem-based learning in structural engineering education. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 134(4), 329–334. Ramirez, J. D. (1992). Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and

late-exit transitional bilingual education program for language-minority children (Executive Summary). Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 1–62.

Rico, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2015). Examining the role of the instructor in problem-centered instruction. TechTrends, 59(4), 96-103.

Rillero, P. (2015). Problem-based learning and its components. Phoenix, AZ: Integrating STEM, Literacy, and Language to Prepare all Teacher to Teach English Language Learners: iTeach ELLs grant, funded by the US Department of Education.

Ríos-Aguilar, C., González-Canche, M., & Moll, L. (2010). Implementing structured English immersion in Arizona: Benefits, costs, challenges, and opportunities. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project, University of California. Retrieved from http:// civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/language-minority-students/

implementing-structured-english-immersion-sei-in-arizona-benefits-costs-challenges-and-opportunities/AZ-ELC-Study-7-7.pdf

Rosebery, A. S., & Warren, B. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching science to English language learners: Building on students’ strengths. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Shaw, J., Lyon, E., Stoddart, T., Mosqueda, E., & Menon, P. (2014). Improving science and

literacy learning for English language learners: Evidence from a pre-service teacher preparation intervention, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(5), 621-643.

Shin, H. B., & Kominski, R. A. (2010). Language use in the United States: 2007. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acs-12.pdf.

Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stetser, M., & Stillwell, R. (2014). Public high school four-year on-time graduation rates and event dropout rates: School years 2010–11 and 2011–12. First Look (NCES 2014-391). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

Sudman, S. (1976). Applied sampling. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Tikunoff, W. (1985). Applying significant bilingual instructional features in the classroom. Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED338106)

(19)

Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Teacher shortage areas. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html

Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Hagan, E. C., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English intervention for English- language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 449–487.

Wright, W. (2010). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy, and practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.

Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. New York, NY: Sage.

http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/sld/index.jsp http://www.azed.gov/research-evaluation/files/2011/07/state-report-card-2013-final.pdf http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/language-minority-student/a-return-to-the-mexican-room-the-segregation- of-arizonas-english-learners-1/gandara-return-mexican-room-2010.pdf http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/language- minority-students/is-arizonas-approach-to-educating-its-els-superior-to-other-forms-of-instruction/martinez-wenzl-is-arizona-approach-superior-2010.pdf http://www.ncela.us/files/uploads/9/growing_EL_0910.pdf http://www.aaal.org/events/event_details.asp?id=651192 om http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acs-12.pdf.om http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch