Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Collaborative planning to integrate language and content instruction : a case study Dempsey, Janet L. 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-0216.pdf [ 2.68MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0099128.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099128-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099128-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099128-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099128-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099128-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099128-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

COLLABORATIVE PLANNING TOINTEGRATE LANGUAGE AND CONTENT INSTRUCTION:A Case StudyByJANET L. DEMPSEYB.Ed., University of British Columbia 1978A THESIS SUBM1TTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Faculty of English Education)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAAPRIL 1994© Janet L. Dempsey, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.____________Department of ENE IDThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate 22 , /g941DE-6 (2/88)11AbstractRapid growth in school ESL populations has led to increased mainstreaming of ESLstudents in the regular classroom. These students require long term support to beable to reach a level of competence where they can successfully handle academiccontent. Thus content teachers are required to further expand their role to includetaking responsibility for language development as well as content knowledge.However, research has highlighted the lack of positive attitudes on the part ofcontent teachers towards changing instruction for the ESL student. This thesisexamines the emerging process of collaborative planning between an ESL Resourceteacher and content teachers with the aim of helping the classroom teacher adaptteaching processes for ESL learners in a way which is developmental, contigent andowned by the classroom teacher. A shared frame of reference of the need tointegrate language and content instruction was the basis of this collaboration. Datais qualitative and includes observation, document collection and tape recordingsmade by the researcher who was a participant! observer. The particulars of thisdevelopmental process and the contextual factors which affected implementationare presented.Table of Contents iiiAbstract iiTable of Contents iiiList of Figures viDedication viiAcknowledgements viii1. introduction I1.1 Purpose of the Study 11.2 Research Question 11.3 Significance of the Study 21.4 Background of the Study 31.41 ESL Pilot Project 31.42 School Setting 41.43 Study Population 51.44 Critical Features of the Innovation 61.5 Explanation of Key Terms 72. Review of Literature 92.1 Introduction 92.2 Integrating Language and Content 102.21 The Need To Integrate Language and Content 112.22 Mainstream Teachers’ Responses 122.23 Approaches To Integrate Language and Content 132.24 Support For Teachers To Integrate Language and Contentinstruction 192.3 The Change Process in Schools 232.31 Factors Affecting Change 232.32 Teaching Cultures 252.33 Individualism: Inhibiting Change 262.34 Collaborative Culture: Fostering Change 27iv2.4 Collaborative P1ang .312.41 Collaborative Planning Defined 312.42 Other Models 322.43 Key Components 362.5 Collaborative Planning to Integrate Language and ContentInstrudion 403. Methodology 423.1 Introduction 423.2 Restatement of Problem 423.3 Nature of the Study 433.31 Role of the Researcher 433.32 Site and Subject Selection 443.4 Sources of Data 453.41 Documents 453.42 Verbatim Accounts of Planning Sessions 493.5 Analysis of the Data 513.6 Criteria For Judging The Adequacy of The Study 534. Discussion of Findings 544.1 Introduction 544.2 Collaborative Planning --- Part of the Innovation 544.3 Factors Affecting Implementation 554.31 New Processes and Roles 554.32 Not Part of the School Culture 584.33 Support of the Principal 594.34 Professional Development for Staff in Year One 624.35 Professional Development for Pilot Staff 67V.4.4 My Initial Beliefs About Collaborative Planning 694.5 Building Participation 714.51 Resource Teacher Reports 724.52 Staff Input 774.6 Developmental Process 794.7 The Model of Collaborative Planning Which Emerged 814.71 In Comparison With Collaborative Consultation 814.72 An Exchange of Expertise 844.73 To Support and Build Trust 874.74 Task Design Includes the Teacher 904.75 Student Results 944.76 Taking Credit 964.8 Work of Continual Improvement 994.81 Start From the TeachertsAgenda 1014.82 Offer Choices 1044.83 Developing Teacher Ownership 1054.84 A Creative Process 1104.85 Joint Ownership 1114.86 Team Teaching 1174.9 Teacher Comments on the Process 1224.10 Summary 1295. Conclusion 1315.1 Introduction 1315.2 Conclusions 1315.3 Implications of the Research 1495.4 Directions for Further Research 1506. References 154vi.List of Figures1. The Knowledge Framework 182. Collaborative Consultation and Cooperative Planning 353. Developmental Aspects 804. School Consultation! Collaborative Planning 835. Case Subjects 846. Roles in Collaborative Planning 867. Teacher 6 918. Teacher 1 929. Summary Sheet 119viiDedicationThis thesis is dedicated to the memory of my mother, Sybil Georgina Dempsey.Her unconditional love provided me with the support and strength to believe inmyself.viiiAcknowledgementsTo my husband, David Wilson, and my family for their unending support.To Dr. Bernard Mohan whose theories had such a profound impact in practice.To Dr. Margaret Early for sharing her joy and wonder in the workings of youngminds.1Chapter One: Introduction1.1 Purpose of the StudyThis study documents the first two years of the implementation of a curriculum andteacher development innovation to establish collaborative planning as a process tointegrate language and content instruction. It describes the nature of thecollaborative process developed and the context within which it occured.1.2 Research QuestionIn this study the question asked is:‘What forms and within what context does the emergent process of collaborationwork actually take, between classroom teachers and an ESL Resource teacher, towardthe goal of integrating language and content instruction?”21.3 Significance of the StudyRecently, there has been a rapid growth in the English as a Second Language (ESL)population within the public school systems in many countries. (Crandall,1993,Bourne,1989). The response to this continued growth has been an increase inmainstreaming of these students into regular content classes. It has been shown byCollier (1989) and Cummins (1984) that it can take upwards of 5 to 8 years forstudents to reach a level of competence in their new language to be able to fully copewith academic language demands found in regular content classes. These studentsthus require long term support. One form of this support is through specificcurriculum adaptation (Early ,1989) in the regular classroom.Previously, ESL teachers were thought to be solely responsible for languageteaching, while regular classroom teachers were responsible for content and processteaching. Students cannot ethically be withheld from the opportunity to growcognitively until they have acquired a level of language proficiency that wouldallow teachers to focus on content, since this process can take as long as 5 to 8 years.Thus the presence of growing numbers of ESL students has created a new role formainstream teachers, requiring them to take responsibility for ESL students’language development as well as content knowledge. This involves a change inbeliefs as well as teaching practices for the regular classroom teacher. Fullan andHargreaves (1991) note that change is a difficult personal and social process and that3teachers need to be supported through the implementation of a change. There is aneed then, to assist mainstream teachers in systematically integrating language andcontent teaching.Collaboration between ESL teachers and mainstream teachers is an attractive option.Collaboration between teachers in general, is viewed as being supportive of changein schools that is long lasting (Little 1990, Rosenholtz, 1989). It has also been notedthat collaboration does not just naturally occur. By examining what happened in aparticular situation where one ESL teachers principle role was to collaborate withclassroom teachers around the joint goal of improving instruction for ESL studentsthrough integrating language and content instruction, insight is gained into theprocess which emerged and also the context within which it occurred.1.4 Background to the Study1.41 ESL Pilot ProjectThe Vancouver School Board ESL Pilot Project was developed in response to theincreasing numbers and diversity of English as a Second Language (ESL) students inthis urban district’s schools. The purpose was to identify the optimal support tomeet the academic and social! integration needs of ESL students at all levels oflanguage and culture acquisition. The stated criteria for selection of six elementaryschools and four secondary schools was in part, the willingness of a staff: to4support a collaborative planning and teaching model; to form a steering committeeto help support implementation at the school level; to commit the major portion oftheir allotted professional development to pilot objectives. As well, the selectedschools were to represent the varying ESL populations and geographic areas in thecity. The District would offer support to those selected schools with additionalstaffing, staff development programs to focus on strategies and techniques toimprove joint teaching of language and content and collaborative consultation andadditional curricular resources.1.42 School SettingThe elementary school where this study was located was one of the six selected forthe Pilot Project. It has a student population of about five hundred and thirty-onefull time equivalent (F.T.E.) teaching positions. Amongst the student population,kindergarten to grade seven, there are twenty home languages and twenty-eightcountries of birth (including Canada) represented. The students come fromfamilies with a wide range of educational backgrounds and income levels. Themajority though, are working class. This school has a relatively stable population,where most families remain in the neighbourhood for extended periods of time.The transfer rate is <10%. In 1990, according to the Ministry of Education Form 1701,76.8% of the student population is ESL. This is higher than the district average of45% ESL. Prior to the Pilot, specialized services for ESL students included a Districtreception class for students in grades four to seven at the beginning level of L25acquisition and a Special Needs position providing a pull-out program for gradesone to seven mainstreamed ESL students. During the Pilot, in addition, staffingincluded a primary reception class for beginning level students in grades one tothree, a Support teacher, who serviced grade one to three students in the regularclasses in a pull-out and team teaching program, and a Resource teacher whoprovided collaborative planning, development of materials and on-siteprofessional development. This Resource teacher was also the researcher.1.43 Study PopulationThe study population was generally all of the regular enrolling classroom teachers atthis school. Although participation and frequency of collaborative planning variedamongst this population, all were involved to some degree. As such, they becamethe population of observations and field notes. Of the twenty regular class teachers,four were male and sixteen were female. Their teaching experience ranged fromtwo years to more than thirty years. Sixty percent had been at this school for morethan ten years, while forty percent had joined the staff within five years of the timeof this study. Prior to being selected as a Pilot school, the staff had participated inprofessional development activities which introduced the theories and somestrategies which were the basis of the Pilot. Minimal changes in staff meant thatonce the Pilot began, eighty percent of the staff had had this previous training.6The more in-depth part of this study involved six of the regular classroom teachers,who taught grades two to seven. Two were male and four were female. Theirteaching experience ranged from four to twenty years. Three had been at the schoolfor more than ten years and the other three, less than five years. All were part of thepre-Pilot training, and one of the subjects had had previous collaborative experiencewith the teacher-librarian.1.44 Critical Features of the InnovationThe innovation examined in this study has four critical features. Integration oflanguage and content teaching is the underlying focus of the program. Throughprofessional development activities, the staff became aware of the need for long-term support for ESL students and the effectiveness of strategies which linkedlanguage, content and concept development. Secondly, Mohan’s KnowledgeFramework is used as an organizational tool for understanding both contentconcepts and academic language, by categorizing information into six knowledgestructures which are common elements in all subject areas. The third featureinvolves use of Key Visuals to make graphically explicit the relationship betweenthe underlying concepts in content and its underlying organization, as well as toteach the specific language structures necessary for the academic task at hand.Together, Key Visuals and the Knowledge Framework also assist in developinghigher level thinking skills. The fourth feature involves an explicit expectation ofcollaborative planning between the content teachers and the ESL Resource teacher7towards the goal of integrating language and content teaching by adapting currentstrategies and curriculum using the Knowledge Framework and Key Visuals. Thereis also an assumption that this type of curricular adaptation will be beneficial notonly for ESL students, but for all learners in the regular content classes.1.5 Explanation of Key TermsCollaboration: Direct interaction between at least two co-equal parties voluntarilyengaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal.ESL students: Students who are learning English as a second or additional language.Li: A persontsfirst language or native languageL2: A language spoken by a person which is other than their native languageAcademic Language: According to Cummins (1984) this is language which iscontext-reduced and cognitively demanding. It is the language which becomes themedium of instruction to explain concepts, to discuss and debate ideas, and is foundin texts to present information.8Resource teacher: A non-enrolling teacher on the staff of one school whose job it isto collaboratively plan with classroom teachers to integrate language and contentteaching by adapting curriculum and teaching strategies.Content teacher: A regular classroom teacher who may be responsible for teachingall subjects or who may have responsibilities for specific academic subjects.9Chapter Two: Review of Literature2.1 IntroductionOne of the goals of the Vancouver School Board ESL (English as a Second Language)Pilot Project was to assist classroom teachers in the integration of language andcontent instruction for mainstreamed ESL and Li students. This goal was to befacilitated in part through creating the role of ESL Resource Teacher, whose job itwas to collaboratively plan teaching units and design and develop tasks whichintegrated language and content teaching and learning, with content classroomteachers. Another function of collaborative planning was to facilitate teacherdevelopment around issues arising from the linguistic and cultural diversity inregular classrooms. What forms does the integration of language and contentactually take in the emergent collaborative work of a classroom teacher and an ESLresource teacher? This chapter will be a selective review of the literature examiningthree areas which impact on this study. The first will explore current thinkingaround the need to integrate language and content learning and the approacheswhich have addressed this need. Since this is an innovation in the schools, ideas onthe change process in schools will be examined. Finally, current practice and viewsabout collaboration as a planning process for teachers will be looked at.102.2 Integrating Language and ContentChanges in demographics in many countries have resulted in school populationswhich are increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse (Crandall 1993, Reyes &Molnar, 1991). In response, educators and researchers have been looking at ways tomeet the diverse needs of this changing and growing population. In her review ofthe literature, Crandall (1993) suggests that many of the program models whichhave been developed to meet those needs, “involve the integration of language andcontent instruction provided by the language teacher, the content! regular classroomteacher, or some combination of the two” (p.lll). Mohan (1991) specifies anddefines integration of language and content(ILC) as:mutual support and cooperation between language teachers andcontent teachers for the educational benefit of LEP ( Limited EnglishProficient) students. Language development and content development arenot regarded in isolation from each other and there is a focus on theintersection of language, content and thinking objectives. (p. 113)He makes an important distinction from other types of content-based languageteaching which use content solely as a means of language instruction whileomitting content and thinking objectives.112.21 The Need to Integrate Language and ContentAs Mohan (1991) states, “language is the major medium of learning” (p.1l4) andhence an educational aim must be to offer language support to both Li and L2students to allow them academic success. One question researchers have explored isthe length of time required for ESL students to master a second language forschooling. Cummins (1984,1992) noted that these ESL students, depending upontheir age at arrival, length of residence and age at testing, require between five andseven years to approach grade norms in L2 academic skills, yet show peer-appropriate L2 conversational skills within about two years of arrival. He suggeststhat one major reason for the longer time required to master academic language isthat “native speakers are not standing still waiting for minority students to catchup” (p.l35) Collier (1987) also examined the length of time necessary for ESLstudents to attain the 50th percentile on content area, standardized tests in relationto age and found that on average four to eight years would be necessary. She alsoconcluded that students’ academic learning could not be put on hold until theybecame proficient at the academic language necessary for school success.Therefore, if students are withheld from content for extended periods of time, theywill inevitably drop behind their native speaker peers in content knowledge,regardless of how much previous content knowledge they may have had in theirfirst language. On the other hand, if they are thrown into a native speakerenvironment in a content class, without appropriate support to themselves or to the12classroom teacher, there may be little hope of survival. Mohan (1991) thusidentifies the need “for approaches to teaching LEP students which incorporatecontent goals and integrate language and content” (p.115).2.22 Mainstream Teachers’ ResponseAs the population of ESL students in the schools increases, more ESL students arebeing mainstreamed into content classes. A growing number of teachers of allsubjects will have experience teaching language minority students. How do theyapproach the situation of teaching both content and language? In Gunderson’s(1985) survey of content teachers, he found that 88% responded that they did notmodify instruction for ESL students. Many of these teachers felt that, “English abilityshould be a prerequisite for their classes “(p.49). Of the 12% that indicated they didmodify instruction, teaching language skills related to their content area was notlisted as a strategy they employed. Winrnngham’s (1990) study of five ESL studentsin regular content classes also found that language skills were not specifically taught.Rather “intuitive behaviors” such as talking slower and using gestures were used bycontent teachers to aid comprehension (p.7). Langer and Applebee(1987) found thatcontent teachers were reluctant to devote time to writing activities unless theypromoted learning of their content. In fact, they felt that writing activities in theirclasses would be work to support the English teacher, rather than their own subject.Other researchers such as Penfield (1987) have identified lack of specific ESL trainingas a factor influencing content teachers ability and willingness to integrate language13and content teaching for minority language students. From a survey of contentteachers she found a need was expressed for training in how to teach content to ESLstudents.This body of research highlights several implications. Firstly, given the length oftime required to become proficient in the academic language necessary for contentarea learning, one or two years in a segregated reception class or pull-out program isnot enough to prepare the students to be independently successful in mainstreamedcontent classes. Language support will need to be long term. Secondly, support forboth the ESL student and the content teacher will be required to meet thesestudents’ academic, language and integration needs.2.23 Approaches to Integrate Language and ContentMany researchers are thus beginning to recognize the need to find approaches tointegrate language and content learning. In England, the National Curriculumrequires all students, regardless of their language backgrounds to follow the fullrange of subjects in the mainstreamed classroom. In examining the implications ofthis requirement, Leung and Franson (1991) conclude:We need to develop an approach that will provide genuine language learningopportunities in the mainstream subject classroom, so that learners areengaged in content and language learning at the same time. For all intentsand purposes, the subject syllabus is the language learning syllabus. (p.121)14Currently, there are several approaches that attempt to deal with integratinglanguage and content instruction. For some researchers, content based languageinstruction is represented by three programs; theme-based, sheltered and adjunct.Other researchers have examined task as a connection between language andcontent teaching. Specific learning strategies are viewed by others as the focus.Finally, some researchers offer knowledge structures as a means of connectinglanguage learning, content instruction and thinking skills.Content-oriented instructional models for integrating the language curriculumwith the academic interests of students have been examined by Brinton, Snow &Wesch (1989). The three models discussed are theme-based, sheltered and adjunct.Similar features of these programs are the “fact that content is the point of departureor organizing principle of the course” (p.17) and that there is an underlying attempt“to help students process the content materials “(p.17). However, differences areidentified in terms of primary purpose of the program and instructional format.The primary purpose of the theme-based program is to “help students develop L2competence within specific topic areas” (p.18). This is an ESL course using contentmaterials. The focus for the sheltered program is to “help students master contentmaterial” (p.l8) and is a content course taught to segregated learners. The adjunctprogram has the dual purpose to “help students master content material andintroduce students to L2 academic discourse and develop transferable academicskills “(p.19).15In terms of integration of language and content, these researchers view the threemodels as points on a continuum between a typical language class and amainstream class, with the theme-based model closest to the language class and theadjunct model closest to the mainstream class. While in the adjunct model theaims of language and content learning are given equal importance, this model islinked and complementary instruction between two courses--a language course anda content course. As such, it is still a step away on the continuum, from addressingthe need for integration of language and content learning in a systematic way as partof the mainstream, content class.In his review of the research, Mohan (1991) contends that:the integration of language and content should relate languagelearning, content learning and the development of thinking, andshould aim to find systematic connections among them (p.1l3)He suggests two main themes in literature which offer possibilities for systematicconnections: student tasks and knowledge structures. Doyle and Carter (1984)analyzed academic tasks in content classrooms. This focus was a departure fromwork in the past on teacher activity. For the purposes of their research, they viewtask as a school-based activity or assignment which a student must complete. In theanalysis of academic tasks, it becomes possible to identify and instruct students intask specific strategies.16Analysis of task has also been identified by researchers as an important unit fordesigning language curriculum (Prabhu 1987, Breen & Cadlin 1980). Crookes andLong, ( 1987) in evaluating task-based syllabuses, have identified Task BasedLanguage Learning as the one model which stresses the role of needs analysis toidentify target tasks that “are undertaken as part of an educational course or atwork.”(Crookes, 1986:1) As Mohan (1991) points out, tasks then can become acommon unit of analysis between content and language work, since student tasksare “the units of student work in both language and content classrooms” (p.l13)An example of a program, relating to task, is the Cognitive Academic LanguageLearning Approach (CALLA). Chamot and O’Malley (1987) have developed aprogram whose intent is to incorporate language instruction, content instructionand learning strategies for transitional ESL students preparing to enter themainstream content classes. CALLA has three main components: a curriculumwhich relates to the mainstream content, language activities for academic learning,and explicit instruction of learning strategies.In her review of integrated language and content instruction, Crandall (1993)highlights four instructional strategies which she believes “increase attention toacademic language learning, contribute to content learning, and encourage thedevelopment of thinking and study skills.” (p.117). The four reviewed arecooperative learning, task-based learning, whole language strategies and graphicorganizers. Instructional strategies focus on student tasks or activities. Reyes and17Molnar (1991) believe content teachers need alternative ways of working with ESLstudents in their classes. These authors reviewed strategies which they contend willassist ESL learners to comprehend and learn from content materials inmainstreamed classes. Their selected strategies were classified as background-building strategies, writing-to-learn activities and cooperative learning approaches.The criteria used for selection was that the strategies contain the characteristics ofintegrated language and content instruction, problem solving activites, thatactivities are scaffolded and can be introduced to both Li and L2 students inmainstreamed content classes.The second topic/theme that is useful in helping to make systematic connectionsbetween language learning, content learning and the development of thinking isknowledge structures (KS) (Mohan 1986, 1991). He explains how information can becategorized into a schema of six groupings: classification, description, principles,sequence! temporal, choice and evaluation. He also suggests that all situations ortasks have both a specific or particular aspect and a general or theoretical aspect. Forexample, you can note the dates that the particular family of swallows arrive tobuild their nest under your eaves and when they leave and you can understand thegeneral principles of migration.18CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPLESEVALUATION ORVALUEDESCRIPTIONTEMPORAL CHOICE ORSEQUENCE DECISION MAKINGSpecific or particular knowledge(Mohan 1986,1991)In an analysis of social studies and science curricula conducted by Early, Thew andWakefield (1986) they found that the listed “thinking skills” and objectives could bereadily matched to Mohan’s six knowledge structures. KS were found to becommon elements in different subject areas and at all grade levels. They arerealized both in graphic form and linguistically in texts. Each KS has distinctlanguage features and “well-known graphic conventions for representing it”(Mohan 1991, p.120).Using graphics which represent KS, Key Visuals, can organize and simplify contentwhile lowering the language barrier for ESL students. Separate studies by Early(1990), Early, Mohan and Hooper (1989) and Tang (1989) found that explicitlyteaching ESL students about structural patterns or knowledge structures and theirFigure 1 The Knowledge FrameworkGeneral or theoretical knowledRe19forms in graphics and text, facilitated their comprehension and production ofacademic language. Mohan (1991) concludes that KS graphics can be a systematiclink between language and content.“KS graphics can become the visible language, a common currencyand a bridge between the language teacher and the contentteacher, a visible basis for integration and cooperation”(p.131)2.24 Support for Teachers to Integrate Language and Content InstructionThe preceding selection of research reflects a growing interest in ways to integratelanguage and content instruction to meet the learning needs of mainstreamed ESLstudents. However, as was previously noted, support is also required for the contentteacher to be able to adapt instruction to integrate language and content. Crandall(1993) points to teacher development as a pressing issue. She notes that to meet thediverse and changing student needs, “content-area teachers need to learn how to“shelter” their instruction, and language teachers need to learn how to integratebetter academic language and content in their classrooms.” She goes on to point toinnovations in teacher education that bring together the language and the contentteacher (p.i19) Reyes and Molnar (1991) selected strategies for linguistically diversemainstreamed classrooms to help address the situation where content area teachersmust share the responsibility for the academic success of ESL students whilerecognizing that “Although willing, they may lack knowledge of strategies toaccommodate these students in the context of regular, meaningful instruction”20(p.lO2). In Britain, there is an explicit national policy that bilingual students’language needs are to be met within the mainstream. In her study of the levels andtype of support offered to these students by six schools in Britain, Bourne (1989)concludes that though rarely seen in practice, it is important for both language andclassroom teachers to take responsibility for the planning, preparation andorganization of the whole class (p.94) “If co-operative strategies are to be adopted, itis a matter of priority to develop programs of curriculum development whichinvolve both language support teachers and their mainstream partners”(p.95). Theneed for collaborative work is recognized, however, the focus or content of thiscollaboration is left unaddressed. Mohan (1990) addresses this content! focusquestion in his recommendations that:cooperating language and content teachers should:-- agree on target tasks which can be both language and contentgoals. These will often be tasks essential to content classrooms-- agree on knowledge structures common to both language andcontent goals and identify common graphic conventions forrepresenting these KSs and use these in content coursematerial and create graphic overviews of difficult material.(p.146)Thus language and content teachers can focus their collaboration around designingstudent tasks which take into account knowledge structures using graphics to bridgelanguage, content and thinking skills development. This would involveestablishing an innovative relationship for participating professionals involving21collaborative planning, as well as developing and implementing innovativeteaching and learning approaches to integrate language and content instruction. Assuch it is important to look at factors affecting change in school in general and thechange toward a collaborative climate in schools in particular.2.3 The Change Process in SchoolsThe notion of affecting change in schools has moved from the implementation ofsingle innovations towards a recognition for the need for systemic change. Thesucceeding sections will examine research into the complex nature of continuousteacher and school development. The role of context or teacher cultures will bepresented as an influence upon change. Specific school cultures which inhibit orpromote change will then be explored.2.31 Factors Affecting ChangeIn his review of the theories and practice of implementing change in schools overthe past four decades, Fullan (1993) reports that although there has been adevelopment in the understanding of the change process, there has been acomplementary growth in the complexity of change that is required to be put intopractice (117). He notes that in the 1970s there was a focus on implementation ofsingle innovations. At this time, research about change looked at factors or steps toimplement an innovation. He cites his work with Promfret (1977) as example of22identifying 14 key factors to implementation. Other researchers at the time werefocusing on the steps and processes for successful implementation. Hall andLoukes’ (1978) Concerns-Base Adoption Model (CBAM) is one such example. Fromthe stress on multiple innovations of the 1980s, Fullan sees this decade as reflectinga move toward systemic educational change to meet complex problems (p.124).“Rather than develop a new strategy for each new wave of reform, we must usebasic knowledge about the do’s and don’ts of bringing about continuousimprovement” (Fullan and Miles 1992, p. 745). FuIlan (1993) sets out eight lessonsthat he believes are in tune with systemic change toward the goal of continuousimprovement. Each of these lessons is described briefly.1.You Can’t Mandate What MattersReferring to McLaughlin (1990), Fullan argues that you cannot mandate whatmaffers,”because what really matters for complex goals of change are skills, creativethinking, and committed action” (p.l2S). In essence, it is not possible to forcepeople to act or think differently.2. Change is a Journey, Not a BlueprintSince reforms based on restructuring are complex, then “solutions for particularsettings cannot be known in advance” (p.126). Rather than trying to produceunwieldy, complex implementation plans, it is preferable to develop an ongoingplan that is continually shaped and reshaped.233. Problems Are Our FriendsIt is in the seeking out of real problems that real solutions are creatively developed.The absence of problems may mean that little in the way of change is beingattempted. “Problems are the route to deeper change and deeper satisfaction”(ibid.).4. Vision and Strategic Planning Come LaterIt takes time for visions to evolve. People need what Fullan refers to as reflectiveexperience that develops from action (p.127). Shared vision, an important part ofsuccessful change, can only occur as the members interact, over time, in an open-ended manner.5. Individualism and Collectivism Must Have Equal PowerChange must involve both the individual and the group. While noting thenegative aspects of teacher isolation that results in resistance to innovation(Lortie,1975), Fullan cautions against unthinking acceptance, “it becomesgroupthink--uncritical conformity” (p.l28) His point is to value bothindividualism and collectivism at the same time if schools are to be productive.6. Neither Centralization Nor Decentralization WorksAlthough this sounds like a paradox, it is in fact a suggestion to include a two-way,top-down, bottom-up approach. Centralization alone is mandated change (seelessoni), and although individual schools can become collaborative, it is difficult tostay that way without centralized support. “Two-way solutions are needed in which24schools and districts influence each other through a continually negotiated processand agenda”(ibid.).7. Connection With the Wider Environment Is Critical For SuccessIt is important that schools work at not only internal development but also respondand contribute to educational issues and policies. Referring to Rosenholtz’s (1989)“moving schools”, Fullan notes that “ ‘Learning’ schools know that there are farmore ideas ‘out there’ than ‘in here’ “(p.129) and seek advice from both inside andoutside.8. Every Person Is a Change AgentNo one person can understand all the complexities of change, nor can change bebrought about by a few leaders. Only when individuals take action to alter theirown environments is there any chance for deep change” (p.130).Fullan’s eight lessons for systemic change overlap and can be seen as themes thatform a set. Rather than focusing just on structure, policy, and regulations, they lookat the culture of the system. For Fullan, “change cultures” encourage continuousteacher development and continuous school development. Fullan’s eight lessonsperhaps set out the ideal. In the section which follows, teaching cultures will bedefined and four broad forms of cultures will be looked at in relation to change.252.32 Teaching CulturesAs Fullan sets out, everyone is a change agent. However, teachers do not developtheir strategies and styles of teaching alone. Hargreaves (1992) believes that teacherdevelopment cannot be viewed narrowly as only arising from the demands andconstraints of their individual contexts, but also from their cultures of teaching.For him, the cultures of teaching “provide a vital context for teacherdevelopment”.(p.221) For the purposes of this study, Fullan and Hargreaves’ (1991)definition of teaching cultures will be used: “the guiding beliefs and expectationsevident in the way a school operates, particularly in reference to how people relate(or fail to relate ) to each other”(p.37). Hargreaves (1992) puts forth that the notionof teacher cultures needs to be further demarcated into content and form. By‘content’ of teacher cultures he means, “what teachers think and say and do,”(p.222)or their beliefs and practices. This is the area where he sees the most culturaldiversity among teachers. The ‘form’ of teacher cultures is the “the particulararticulation of relations between teachers and their colleagues” (ibid.). He arguesthat this distinction is important since creating change in beliefs and actions(content) is dependent upon changing the pattern of relationships (form) of teachercultures (p.223). Hargreaves isolates four broad forms of teacher culture:1. Individualistic culture-- the dominant school culture whereisolation and uncertainty foster educational conservatism and workagainst change262. Balkamzed culture-- a culture comprised of separate groups (based on suchfactors as curricular divisions, grade and ages taught, language of instruction)who compete for power, prestige and resources, making “the definition andpursuit of common goals across the whole school very difficult, if notimpossible”(p.235).3. Collaborative culture--an informal, evolutionary culture whichfosters trust and support of the individual, while sharing broad educationalvalues, to create continuous improvement4. Contrived Collegiality--is a formal, specific, bureaucratically mandated setof planning procedures to assist implementation of externally developedtechniques or forms of working together which at best can be “. . .a usefulpreliminary phase in the move towards enduring collaborativerelationships” (p.233).The topic of this thesis looks at both change in teaching practice as well as change inteacher relationships. The following sections will focus initially on the form ofteacher culture which presents factors most likely to inhibit developing thesechanges, and subsequently on the form of teacher culture most likely to supportthese changes.2.33 Individualism: Inhibiting ChangeIndividualism is still the most dominant form of teacher culture. (Hargreaves,1992,Fullan 1993, Lortie 1975). It can be argued that there are many factors whichcontribute to its dominance. Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) point out that on the one27hand, isolation offers a measure of safety and protection for teachers to exercise theirown discretionary judgment, removed from criticism. However they receive littleadult feedback on their value or worth as professionals, cutting off sources of praiseand support. But beyond the immediate effects for individual teachers, there arenorms and conditions of the teaching job itself which help maintain the status quoof individualism. The physical or architectural features of schools has beenrecognized by many researchers as one of the structural conditions that promoteindividualism. (Lortie 1975, Goodlad, 1984, Fullan and Hargreaves, 1991). Teachersspend most of their day alone in individual classrooms, with little collegialinteraction.Beyond physical features are traditional norms of teaching. Fullan and Hargreaves(1991) point out that teachers’ first experience with having another adult in theirclassrooms is for the purpose of their own evaluation. “Isolation andindividualism are their armour here , their protection against scrutiny andintrusion” (p.41). These authors suggest a second root cause is the high expectationsthat teachers impose upon themselves. Some of this is in response to externalmounting pressures and expanding responsibilities for which they have no control-mainstreaming special needs students, growing ESL populations, a role shift toencompass identification and support of students’ social and emotional needs. Theparameters and expected outcomes of these growing responsibilities are not clearlydelineated for teachers. “Goals and expectations defined and understood in suchdiffuse terms become difficult, indeed impossible to meet with any certainty” (p.42).28Unrealistically high expectations and uncertainty have two consequences whichreinforce individualism. Teachers feel they do not have time for collaboration,which would take time away from the demands of their class and collaborating witha colleague is too risky. “Under these circumstances it is hard to have confidence inone’s expertise and to be perceived by others as having something to offer” (p.43).Whether individualism stems from attitudes and beliefs or is rooted in theconditions and norms of teaching, it is a teacher culture which nurtures educationalconservatism and inhibits change. (Lortie 1975, Rosenholtz, 1989, Hargreaves, 1992).2.34 Collaborative Culture: Fostering ChangeIn referring to collaborative culture, it is important to look beyond the actions of afew individuals who may be practising collaborative forms of work, to a broader,school-wide cultural context. As was previously stated, teacher cultures arecomprised of the actions, beliefs and expectations of how a school operates and theways in which teachers relate to their colleagues. Researchers such as Rosenholtz(1989) have found that in effective, or learning enriched schools, collaboration isthe norm and is linked with opportunities for continuous improvement, “It isassumed that improvement in teaching is a collective rather than individualenterprise, and that analysis, evaluation, and experimentation in concert withcolleagues are conditions under which teachers improve”(p.73). Little (1990), who29identified four types of collegial relations among teachers, also identified the notionof collective commitment to improvement as being part of “joint work”, thestrongest form of collaboration.Nais, Southworth & Yoemans, (1989) in intensive case studies, researched whatcollaborative cultures look like in practice. Rather than bureaucratic procedures ofmandated collaboration for a single event, the characteristics that these researchersfound were qualities and attitudes of trust, help, support and openness. Fullan andHargreaves (1991) conclude that at the center of these cultures is a valuing ofindividuals as people and as teachers (p.50). There also appears a balance ofopposites: between valuing individuals and interdependence; between requiringbroad agreement on educational values, and within that context, to encouragingdisagreement (ibid.).These cultures of affirmation do not just emerge on their own nor are theysustained alone. They need support and encouragement. Referring to Nias etaL,1989, Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) point out that “the development ofcollaborative schools where they do exist has depended heavily on the actions of theprincipals in those schools” (p.51). As Hargreaves (1992) suggests, it is a form ofleadership by example,” through frequent praise, . . . by showing caring andthoughtfulness, and through principals having high visibility and revealing aninterest in what is going on... “and where responsibility is shared (p.228) that acollaborative culture is sustained. Other researchers such as Little (1987) also30recognize the supportive role principals need to play. Principals and others inpositions of influence promote collegiality by declaring that they value team effortsand by describing in some detail what they think that means” (p.508). In this waythey are reiterating the collaborative culture of the school.Given the characteristics of a collaborative culture, it would appear as the antidote tothe problems of fostering change in an individualistic teacher culture. Hargreaves(1992), points out that calling for the creation of cultures of collaboration goesbeyond countering isolation and a lack of willingness to change on the part ofindividual teachers. He contends that the changing context of teaching requires it.“The integration of special education students, the direct involvement of libraryresource teachers in programming and the growth of curriculum co-ordination andspecialization.. . created increased needs for staff collaboration andcoordination . . .“ (p.230). However, he notes that existing research suggests theculture of collaboration is a rarity (p.230).The context of teaching on the one hand may require collaboration but also restrictthe possibility and scope of implementation by serious constraints on time tocollaborate during school hours, and a mandated curriculum which isolatescurriculum development from teacher development. (p.231) As long as teacherand curricular development are separated, there is little of significance to talk about.31The factors which maintain and foster individualism, are also factors which impedethe cultures of collaboration from being developed and sustained. ‘The preferredculture of teaching is just not compatible with the prevailing context of teachers’work” (p.23O)2.4 Collaborative PlanningAs was previously noted,there is a growing recognition that the changing, everexpanding job of teaching may require more collaboration between teachers andtheir colleagues. Whether from curricular demands or the changing nature of themainstreamed regular classroom, collaboration is recognized by researchers invarious fields of education, as fulfilling a needed, supportive role for classroomteachers. (Mohan, 1991, Bourne, 1989, Wideen, 1989,Fullan & Hargreaves,1991).Simply putting two teachers together to collaborate invokes positive images ofcolleagial decision making and breaking down the barriers of isolation. It may notbe that simple. The following sections will briefly review the literature to look atcurrent models of collaborative planning and characteristics and factors necessaryfor successful collaboration to occur.2.41 Collaborative Planning DefinedIn the Vancouver School Board ESL Pilot Project, part of the role of the ESLResource teacher was to jointly work with classroom teachers to share the planning,design and adaptation of instruction to integrate language and content learning for32the benefit of all students. A goal of this process was both curricular developmentand teacher development. For the purposes of this study, the definition ofcollaboration proposed by Friend and Cook (1992) although general, is useful:“..collaboration is a style for direct interaction between at least twoco-equal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they worktoward a common goal” (p.4).Other researchers define collaboration firstly with reference to solving mutuallydefined problems (Idol, Paolucci-Whitcomb & Nevin, 1986, Wideen 1989, ). Aproblem! solution focus may imply short-term implementation rather than anongoing developmental relationship. However, this focus on problem solving maybe an outcome of the genesis of the models these definitions represent. Thefollowing section will look at two collaborative planning models that have a historyof practice in North America.2.42 Other ModelsIn the field of Special Education, the roles of the special service professionals havechanged in response to a shift from segregated instruction of students with specialneeds to mainstreaming in regular classrooms. The role of the special educationspecialist has correspondingly changed from providing segregated, direct service forstudents to direct consultative service for regular class teachers (West & Idol ,1987,DeBoer, 1986, Friend&Cook,1992). The literature from this field often uses the term“collaborative consultation” to describe this role. (West and Idol 1987, p. 389) The33focus of their consultative work is around the learning problems of individualspecial needs students. Although there has been a move away from expert-noviceto parity in the roles in this process, the need to consult arises from the perceptionthat a problem needs addressing. Hence, the roles begin as help-seeker, and help-giver (ibid.). The process or steps in this model are generally to begin at establishingtrust, then assessing or identifying the problem, next, to create solutions or goals,followed by a period of implementation, and finally a follow up evaluation of theintervention (West& Idol 1987, DeBoer, 1986). This process points out the time-bounded, implementation focus of this model. Researchers in this field haverecognized the need to develop communication and interpersonal skills ascompetencies and strategies for effective collaborative consultation. DeBoer (1986),in her book, “The Art Of Consultingt,presents four basic interpersonal-cognitivestyles. She believes, “if you can recognize people’s styles, as well as your own, youare likely to experience success influencing them in a positive way” (p39). Thesefour styles are referred to when developing skills and strategies for effectivecommunication, understanding human behavior, and strategies for influencingothers. For DeBoer, successful consulting is “How you get people to do what is ineveryone’s best interests that they wouldn’t do without your influence “ (p.7).More recently, researchers such as Friend and Cook (1992) have also explored theinterpersonal skills and strategies needed by special education professionals forsuccessful collaboration, which includes the goal of influencing others. Theysuggest that a focus on task and relationships are “both critical to the success of your34collaboration” (p.43). These researchers offer four approaches to conceptualizingpersuasion which “offer many strategies for addressing resistance” (p.l52)Teacher-librarians in the schools are the second group whose roles andresponsibilities include what they term, “cooperative planning”. This has been amajor role shift in the past decade from determining what the student is to do in thelibrary, to cooperatively planning and teaching, with the classroom teacher, topicsand units of work. There are two main goals of cooperative planning for teacher-librarians. The first desired outcome is “the integration of media research and studyskills with classroom instruction” (Driscoll et al. l986,p.26). The second goal is to“promote the use of human and material resources of the school resource centreand its facilities” (ibid. p.24). In implementing these goals of cooperative planning,teacher-librarians have also recognized the importance of developing interpersonalskills. (Austrom et al. 1989, p.12) Although parity of ideas and shared expertise andwork is part of cooperative planning, the role expected for the teacher-librarian is asthe change agent or “leader in building a stronger instructional team and anexcellent instructional program” (ibid., p. 13). Following is a chart comparingfeatures of cooperative planning and collaborative consultation.35Figure 2 Collaborative Consultation and Cooperative PlanningProgram Collaborative CooperativeFeatures Consultation PlanningSpecial Education Teacher-librariansFocus Remedial problem Research skillssolving for one student development andlibrary useProgramImplemenation / program progrTeacher dev. implementation implementationRoles shared expertise shared expertisestated but a stress on stated but leadershipParity influencing the role for teacher-classroom teacher librarianFormal /Informal Formal Formal orInformalTime: Bounded--for length ofbounded or intervention Bounded for lengthon-going implemenation of teaching unit ortopicReferring back to Hargreaves (1992) four broad forms of teacher cultures,collaborative consultation and cooperative planning would seem, in their featuresof mandated planning procedures to assist specific program implementation, to fallinto the category of ‘Contrived Collegiality”. This does not mean, of course, thatthese mandated planning procedures might not develop towards a collaborativeculture.362.43 Key ComponentsIn reviewing the literature, from the examination of collaborative culture to specificmodels for teachers working together, common themes have emerged. Following,is a summary of six key components or guidelines for successful collaboration. Ingeneral, these components can be seen as attempting to address or counter structuraland professional isolation, the culture of individualism, as well as pragmatic issuesof resources, all obstacles to collaboration.1. Voluntary in NatureCollaboration must be voluntary. As was previously stated by Fullan(1993) in his first of eight lessons, you cannot force people to act or do thingsdifferently. Friend and Cook (1992) note ,“there is no such thing as collaboration bycoercion” (p.6). Even if a change is mandated, collaboration can only occur if thedecision to participate rests with the classroom teacher.2. Shared Broad GoalsIt is important that those engaged in collaboration share common broad goals. AsFriend and Cook (1992) suggest, this does not imply agreement on all goals, “justone that is specific and important enough to maintain their shared attention”(p.7).Bailey, Dale & Squire (1992) surveyed sixty language teachers to learn aboutattitudes towards collaborative work. An item that generated notable agreement37stated to the effect that serious problems could arise if the collaborative teachershave different goals ( mean of 4.3 out of 5) (p.176).3. Parity in Roles and ResponsibilityIt is often noted that parity between the participants is important for collaboration tooccur. Friend and Cook (1992) believe that “each person’s contribution is equallyvalued, and each person has equal power in decision making” (p.6) or collaborationcannot occur. For Little (1990), shared responsibility is one aspect implied in acollaborative culture. In a study, based on narrated experiences of collaborativework by twenty-five teachers, Shannon and Meath-Lang (1992) observed that thesuccessful team members recognized the gifts, skills and expertise of the partnerwithout feeling denigrated or in any way less skillful (p.l3l). They found thecorollary in respondants to their research who were reluctant to collaborate with acontrolling person;. “As one participant said: ‘do not work with a prima donna; I’veseen people do that; some can’t share the spotlight, or the power” (p.132). Part ofsharing responsibility for decision making is the development of mutualownership. Wideen (1989) points out that, “we know from the work onimplementation that ownership is the key ingredient to successfulimplemerttation”(p.6).384. BenefitsAs was stated previously, the cultural factors of individuality and isolation makecollaboration an unsafe venture. It also takes valuable time away from the focus onthe immediate concerns of the classroom and may also raise sensible doubts aboutthe validity of what teachers are being asked to do (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1989 p.41-43). Collaboration then, must be seen as a it fits into what they are doing, and how it relates to thearray of models they see coming and going? Are the new skillspractical and desirable? Will they work in my classroom?” (ibid.p.21)When working collaboratively results in positive outcomes for teachers andstudents, “the risks taken seem small in comparison to the rewards” (Friend &Cook,1992, p.9).5. Organizational SupportThere are also pragmatic factors which must be considered. Organizational supportis listed by Fullan &Miles (1992) as one of their seven propositions for successfulreform. Nunan (1992) concurs that for collaboration to be successful, “teachers needappropriate training and support. It is insufficient simply to throw teachers togetherwithout giving them opportunities for developing the skills they need forsuccess”(p.6). Important resources also include space, and material support(Friend& Cook,1992, Fullan&Miles,1992). The body of research examined stressesthe vital importance of time as a crucial resource for collaboration to be successful.39(Friend& Cook, 1992, Fullan&Miles,1992, Nunan, 1992,Bailey et a!., 1992) “Everyanalysis of the problems of change efforts that we have seen in the last decade ofresearch and practice , concluded that time is the salient issue”(Fullan &Miles,l992,p.75O). Finding time during school hours, since teachers have a full workload,is difficult enough. Finding shared time for collaboration becomes an even moredifficult issue. Results from the Vancouver School Board English As A SecondLanguage Pilot Project evaluation (in press) found that lack of release time was mostfrequently cited by teachers as the main obstacle to implementing the pilot.6. Trust and Mutual RespectThese final components of successful collaboration, trust and respect, althoughnecessarily present at the onset, also emerge and grow from successful collaboration.“At the outset, enough trust must be present for professionals to be willing to beginthe activity, but with successful experiences the trust grows”( Friend & Cook, 1992p.9) As was previously stated, collaboration is about relationships in the uncertaincontext of change. It is therefore not surprising that many researchers have foundtrust and respect to be a condition and an outcome of successful collaboration.Shannon & Meathe (1992) in their survey found that, “Trust and ‘intimacy’,specifically mentioned, were recurring needs voiced by team teachers andcollaborators intent on developing their relationships” (p.136). Other researcherssuch as Bailey et al. (1992)( who used a Likert scale questionnaire format toadminister twenty-seven questions about collaboration to sixty teachers ) report that40“the item that generated the strongest agreement was ‘It is only in an atmosphere oftrust and mutual respect that teacher partnerships can achieve their full potential”.It had the highest mean (4.6 out of 5) and the lowest standard deviation (.07).(p.175). Thus if collaboration is “risky business” it needs trust and mutual respect ifteachers are willing to participate in this change in relationships. If the componentsare there that characterize and support collaboration, then trust and mutual respectwill grow.2.5 Collaborative Planning to Integrate Language and Content InstructionThe literature clarifies the reasons for the need to look at how to integrate languageand content instruction for mainstreamed ESL students. Students learning newcontent and concepts, cannot be put on hold for the length of time it would take toacquire academic language. Nor can those students be expected to succeed in contentclasses without long term support. Initial research results indicate that analyzingknowledge structures found in content area material, teaching students theacademic language which corresponds to these knowledge structures and usinggraphics as a bridge between language learning, content instruction and thedevelopment of thinking skills, may address the needs of mainstreamed ESLstudents. However, issues have been raised regarding the added responsibility thisplaces on content teachers. Collaboration between content teachers and ESLspecialist teachers has been suggested as a way to implement the integration ofcontent and language instruction.41This would mean a change, both in relationships and teaching practice. Theresearch on change highlights the complexity of the issues involved withimplementing change and suggests characteristics of teacher cultures which eitherinhibit or encourage change. Collaboration offers promise as a “change culture”.The literature highlights the need to change human relationships if change inpractice is to occur. Another common theme is the need to develop sharedcommon goals for successful collaboration to be realized. This study has chosen toexamine what forms and in which context the emergent collaborative work betweena classroom teacher and an ESL specialist actually take, towards the mutual goal ofintegrating language and content instruction.42Chapter Three: Methodology3.1 IntroductionThis chapter outlines the methods used in collection and analysis of the data for thisstudy. Initially, the purpose of the study will be restated. The nature of the study,including the selection of methodology, the researchers role and subject! siteselection process will be described. Sources of data will be presented and finally,how this data was analyzed to obtain the findings, which are presented in thefollowing chapter, will be explained.3.2 Restatement of the Purpose of the StudyAs was stated in Chapter One, the purpose of this study was to examine the formsand in which context the emergent collaboration work actually took, betweenclassroom teachers and an ESL resource teacher, toward the goal of integratinglanguage and content instruction.433.3 Nature of The StudyAn attempt was made to match the topic to be researched to an appropriate researchmethodology. The focus of the study was to describe actual working relationships,occurring in their natural setting and to understand the patterns of a developingform of social and professional interaction. The design would emerge as this formof collaboration emerged. Thus, a qualitative approach was selected since it offeredthe researcher tools conducive to studying a natural setting and allowedexamination of processes and events, rather than seeking the relationship betweenspecific, measurable variables.3.31 Role of the ResearcherThis study examines one aspect of the Vancouver School Board ESL Pilot Project atone site. I was a member of a Pilot team at one of six elementary Pilot schools. Therole of the researcher was as a participant, since the job of Resource Teacher (RT) inthe Pilot, was in part, to collaboratively plan with classroom teachers to adaptinstruction to integrate language and content. Another function of the RT was todevelop on-going school-based forms of evaluation of this pilot project. Thus, theprocess of collecting data began from the start of the Pilot Project, more than a yearbefore the topic of this study was selected. The researcher was well known to thestaff, having taught in the school for eleven years prior to the Pilot. The credibilityof the researcher as a teaching colleague may have been established in my previous44staff roles as a regular classroom teacher, a Learning Assistance teacher and an ESLteacher. Personal and professional relationships had already thus been established.However, it must be noted, that the role of RT was new both to the staff and tomyself and thus new forms of relationships were being forged as well. The processof collaborative planning was also new to all involved, and not clearly defined.Although broad goals of integrating language and content instruction were shared,the specific form joint planning was to take was initially unknown. As aparticipant, my involvement had the benefit of being naturally occurring. On theother hand, the scope of observations were limited by the restrictions of the roleitself. I attempted self-conscious awareness, but recognize the difficulty of observingthe familiar with new eyes or treating the familiar culture of this school as“anthropologically strange” (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983, Delamont, 1992).3.32 Site and Subject SelectionThe site and the subjects were selected pragmatically or by opportunity. The site wasselected as a Pilot school at the district level and this was the school where I wasworking. It was also one of the sites for the Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Grant being led by Drs. Mohan and Early. This study is part of thatresearch proposal. The subjects for initial observation became any teacher whocollaboratively planned with me. Since participation in this work was voluntary,the element of self-selection must be noted. However, by the end of the first year ofthe Pilot, all staff had participated in collaborative planning at least once.45From field notes and observations, the focus for this study emerged. Theobservations were too general on their own and during the second year of the pilot,more detailed notes were kept. It was decided to tape record actual planningsessions to be able to examine the process in more detail. This occurred in the lastfour months of the second year of the Pilot. The criteria for selection of the sixsubjects, for the more detailed examination, was based on two factors: theirpermission and on-going collaborative planning participation so that the nature ofhow the process developed could be examined. Others volunteered but may onlyhave had one planning session so were not included in the scope of this study.This sampling of population by opportunity and self-selection is not meant torepresent a wider teacher population. Rather it represents the teachers in oneschool who chose to collaboratively plan with the RT. As such, the results cannotbe generalized to a broader population.3.4 Sources of Data3.41 DocumentsCollection of field notes began prior to selection of this topic. As was previouslystated, some of this data gathering was in response to job requirements. Monthlyreports were submitted to the District office. The content of these reports involvedlisting school based meetings about implementation of the Pilot, visitors to view thePilot in action, collaborative strategies being used, materials and units or productsof collaboration, my reflective concerns and also areas where I felt the school was46experiencing success. Both to fulfill the requirement of writing these reports and apersonal desire to record my observations and impressions in a new role, a personaldiary was also kept. This dairy included my activities for the day, thoughts andreflections about collaboration as it was developing, and any pertinent quotes fromteachers. This allowed a general look at the process with individual teachers over aperiod of two years. A more formal log was also kept to record each unit that wascollaboratively planned, the number of planning sessions, the participants, as wellas observational notes regarding the process, outcomes and development of bothcollaboration and / or language and content strategies. This log was organized by theteacher. Weekly sign-up sheets for collaborative release time were keptchronologically and specified the name of the person wishing to collaborate and thetopic on which they wished to work. These sheets were used as a schedule for theteacher providing release time and for myself.To understand the context in which the process of collaboration was developing,notes regarding implementation of the Pilot at the school level were kept over thesame two year period. As part of the Pilot, the school formed a Steering Committeeto develop implementation suggestions to be taken to the staff. This committeewas comprised of the principal, the RT, the teacher-librarian, two ESL supportteachers and a classroom teacher. Minutes from these meetings were kept and showsome of the problems encountered and the suggested solutions. Notes were alsokept from the biweekly Teacher Advisory Committee (staff) meetings when theagenda included items involving the Pilot. At a district level, the Resource47Teachers from the six pilot schools met monthly for mutual support and to sharesuggestions. Notes from these meetings proved helpful to put the experiences andobservations from one school into a broader perspective.There was a district goal to carry out on-going evaluation of the Pilot. Copies ofthese more formal evaluative measures were also copied and kept for analysis.Some of these measures were developed at the site. For example, at the beginningof the second year of the Pilot, the staff were given a questionnaire to complete basedon the Concerns Based Model of innovation implementation ( Hall and Loukes,1979). In it they were to rate their own level of use and understanding of“collaboration”, “The Knowledge Framework”, “Key Visuals” and “Integration ofLanguage and Content”. Completion of this rating scale was voluntary andanonymous. (100% return rate). A second set of questions was given to the staff tocomplete at the end of the second year. Again, the responses were both voluntaryand anonymous. The instructions were to list the three most important outcomesor goals they thought the Pilot was trying to achieve. They were told that thepurpose of this was to “determine the degree of consensus that we share concerningthe goals of our project.” The second set of questions asked the respondants toidentify their three main concerns. (Eight components were suggested to help focustheir concerns: Goals, Involvement, Planning, Resources, Staff Development,Program-in use, Outcomes or General.) The purpose was to assist the Steering48Committee in developing implementation strategies to meet staff needs and addressconcerns. The staff responses were collated and a composite list of their goals andconcerns was returned to the staff for discussion.Data for evaluation was also developed and analysed by the district. A formalevaluation of the ESL Pilot Project was undertaken mid-way through the secondyear of the project. At the elementary school level, the six Pilot schools weresurveyed and questionnaires were given to all teachers, pilot team members,administrators and Grade 7 students. The over-all goal of this evaluation was todetermine the effectiveness of the pilot during its first year of implementation andto provide information for future planning concerning ESL needs in the district. ALikert scale format was used for sixty questions and ten open questions were alsoincluded. Copies of the anonymous responses were requested by the principal andmyself to aid in school-based evaluation of the Pilot. The staff felt strongly thatresponses should be anonymous by individual, but should be coded by schools.They felt important differences in implementation amongst the six elementary sitesshould be analysed. The District decision was against this school identification. Thestrong point of view expressed by many staff in opposition to this decision, mayhave impacted on their willingness to have their responses copied for a “school set”.493.42 Verbatim Accounts of Planning SessionsOver time, from self reflection and collecting data, the focus for this study emerged.Models of collaboration had been presented to the Pilot teams, and although parts ofthese models were useful, they seemed too technical to describe what wasdeveloping at this site. From personal field notes and public documents, fromreflecting on the school context and the specific process of collaboration, I felt thedata which had been collected highlighted the scope of the study but was lacking insufficient detail to alone describe this process of collaboration. I was relying on myimpressions and recording general field notes from memory. It was important to beable to get more accurate details of interactions, of the content and process ofcollaborative planning and the ideas developed to integrate language and contentinstruction. It was then decided to tape record planning sessions during the last fourmonths of the second year of the pilot.The staff were all informed of what I wished to do and why, and the voluntarynature of the taping was stressed. It was explicitly pointed out that willingness to betape recorded was not a new prerequisite to collaborative planning andapprehension to taping was understood. As was previously stated, the subjectsended up being self selected. The presence of a tape recorder ensures accuracy butmay have had the initial effect of formalizing interactions. After numerousrecording sessions this effect may have dissipated somewhat. All participants in thetape recorded collaborative planning sessions were given access to and encouraged50to freely use the “pause” button at their discretion. This was important to ensure alevel of control, comfort and trust. However, what was gained in trust, was lost ininformal or personal interactions which were eliminated by use of the pause button.The recording sessions were in forty minute periods, corresponding to the timeframe of collaborative plamMng and the constraints of the school timetable. Thelocation of these sessions was dependant upon the past practice of each participant.The different locations may have had an effect on the content and form of the tapedinteractions. One participant always met with me in my very small and crampedoffice, with the door closed. This location offered privacy very difficult for teachersto find in this school building. Some chose the staffroom. This “adult” room oftenwould have other teachers sitting at nearby tables doing their own work duringtheir regularly scheduled preparation periods. Having non-participants listening inmay have put constraints on some interactions. The third location was the library.Although more private than the staffroom, in the sense of other adults observingwhat we were doing or saying, there were many interruptions from students. Thepresence of students would likely also affect teacher -to- teacher interactions.Not only the location of recording, but also the number and composition ofparticipants was dependant upon on-going practice. Some met only with me.Others met with myself and the teacher-librarian. While a third, larger groupingconsisted of the teacher-librarian, two classroom teachers teaching the same gradeand content, and myself. Undoubtedly, the interactions, process, content and51complexity of collaboration would be affected by the composition and size of thegroup. The more people who are involved, the more personal perspectives andcontexts have to be considered.The number of taped sessions varied for each participant, and matched the naturallyoccurring timeline of planning, teaching, planning. The minimum number ofsessions recorded by individual was four and the maximum was eight. Eachparticipant was recorded on separate tapes. For each individual, a running recordsheet was completed at the end of each taping session. The date, the participants,the tape recorder counter numbers at the start and end of recording and a briefsummary of content, integration of language and content strategies and orcomment and issues to be noted were part of this record sheet.3.5 Analysis of the DataPreliminary analysis of the field notes and documents began as they were beingcollected. It was a process of continually focusing and refining themes and trends,looking for similarities and differences amongst the participants. During thisprocess, the concepts of collaboration presented by Special Education acted as a foil,since differences from that model appeared to be developing. As well, the regularmeetings with the Resource Teachers from the other five Pilot sites showed thateach site was implementing the ideas in a unique way. This led to an interpretiveanalysis of the documents that highlighted features of the school context which52impeded or encouraged collaboration. Since the more formal types of data collected,such as questionnaires, were anonymous, it was possible to obtain a general pictureof the staff responses. However, the beliefs and attitudes of individuals could not becompared to their actual collaborative planning experiences.The tape recordings were not transcribed in total. Analysis of the recordings did notbegin until all recording was completed. I was concerned, as a participant, thatpreliminary analysis may have further influenced my interactions and directed myresponses. At the completion of recording, the tapes were reviewed in a series, byindividual or planning group. A running description of the general events for eachsession was documented, with reference to the tape counter numbers. Thisdescriptive process was then expanded to include direct quotes from the sessions.The selection of quotes was to illustrate both the process and content of collaborativeplanning. Initial comments were then added as to the significance of the quotes.Thus the analysis moved from descriptive, what was said and done, to interpretive,what the discourse and interactions revealed about the larger context ofcollaboration. The transcript! summaries were coded densely, using manydescriptive and interpretive themes. A numerical Post-it-note” coding system wasused on single copies. Themes emerged from grouping codes and furtherinterpretive analysis. This was a process of working Hup from the data as well asworking down” from a few themes or theories I had developed from documentanalysis. These themes included the recognition of differing levels of ownership ofthe ideas, that teachers were learners and collaborative planning seemed to be53developmental, not technical. The use of tape recording allowed me, as aparticipant to observe my own interaction patterns as well. Finally, it should benoted that my analysis of the data may have been affected by my personal interestsin the continuation of this new role.3.6 Criteria For Judging Adequacy of the StudyCuba and Lincoln’s (1989) criteria for judging the adequacy of a research study areinvoked in this analysis. In particular their Parallel (trustworthiness) Criteria areused. This study set aside the criteria of Prolonged Engagement, during the two yearduration of data collection and Persistant Observation of many different individualsin different contexts. Peer Debriefing was accomplished by presenting ideas thatappear in this study at professional workshops and conferences. Negative CaseAnalysis, a process of revising my working hypothesis, as a case of hindsight wasestablished until it accounted for all known cases. Progressive Subjectivity, ormonitoring my own developing conceptions, was accomplished through review ofdata, including personal reflections, collected prior to the selection of this topic andchecked against what I was finding. Feedback from Peer Debriefing was alsoweighed against my own perceptions. Finally, Members Checks occuredcontinuously at Steering and Staff meetings and informally from colleagues’comments, several of whom were used as an ongoing perception check.In the chapter which follows, a discussion of the findings obtained through bothdescriptive and interpretive analysis of the data is presented.54Chapter Four: Discussion of Findings4.1 IntroductionBased on data collected through observation, field notes and tape recording ofongoing work with teachers, this chapter describes a form of teacher collaborationthat developed to provide support and on-site inservice for teachers implementingnew teaching strategies to integrate language and content instruction for both ESLand native speaking students. Firstly, factors affecting implementation of theinnovation in its first year will be discussed. Secondly, I will set forth my initialbeliefs about teacher collaboration. The process of building participation will beaddressed. Thirdly, the features of this form of collaborative planning will beexamined in light of being a developmental long-term process.4.2 Collaborative Planning--Part of the InnovationCollaborative Planning was both an innovation in itself as well as being a structureand process to support the implementation of other critical features of the PilotProject. One of the criteria and considerations for selection as a Pilot school was thewillingness of the staff to support a collaborative model of instructional planningand teaching. The stated role of the ESL Resource Teacher was also a new conceptfor both the district and the school. As such, teachers were being offered the55opportunity to collaboratively plan their curriculum with support on instructionalstrategies integrating language and content. Students with higher levels of languageproficiency would have their needs addressed through adapted curriculum andteaching strategies. Due to population size and limited staffing, these were thestudents, working below their potential, who had not received assistance in the past.These were also the students, some of whom may speak without an accent, whotraditionally were not perceived by classroom teachers to need help with Englishsince they were beyond the stage of learning English for communication. It isimportant to note, in the year prior to the implementation of the Pilot, the entirestaff participated in a three day, school-based staff development program, “AFramework For Teaching and Learning”, designed to introduce the theoreticalconcepts and practical applications of the Knowledge Framework and Key Visuals.During this program, the staff gained a better understanding of the length of timerequired to learn academic English, which led to a common recognition of the needto integrate language and content instruction. However, amongst the staff therewere varying degrees of recognition of this need and willingness to attempt changein teaching practices.4.3 Factors Affecting Implementation4.31 New Processes and RolesThis model of collaborative planning was innovative. It incorporates sharedplanning of teaching units through adaptation of materials, methodology,56assignments, assessment, strategies and environment to integrate language andcontent teaching to ensure successful learning. Although a type of cooperativeplanning had been offered by the teacher-librarian, few staff members hadparticipated, due largely to lack of experience. Also, extra release time toaccommodate this planning was not available. Planning with the teacher-librarianhad involved team teaching lessons or units in the library with the classroomteacher. The focus for this planning was on the use of the varied resources offeredin the library and particularly on teaching research and study skills. This form ofcooperative planning was short-term, for the length of teaching one unit, ratherthan on-going. The new model had its focus on support for teachers to enable themto incorporate specific new teaching and learning strategies to integrate languageand content, not only for the ESL students but for the benefit of all their students.This planning was not content specific, but encouraged joint planning in allacademic subject areas over time.Since this model of collaborative planning was new, with a full-time Resourceteacher assigned to this role, new processes and procedures had to be established andcommunicated to the staff. The Pilot Steering Committee had a decisive role in thedevelopment of both general and specific goals for the Pilot in the School. In MarkTwain’s words,”Make haste slowly”, was the implementation motto of the SteeringCommittee. At the initial meetings staff roles and processes were discussed. Thebiggest obstacle to implementing collaborative planning was lack of time forteachers. Time is the common factor in our ability to live with changes on the57personal level and time, is one of the key elements for effective change in schools.(Fullan, M., & Miles, M. 1992, p. 750) From the first Steering Committee meeting,the goal was not only wide staff participation, but internalization and developmentof new teaching strategies and methods. To encourage staff involvement,collaboration would have to be viewed as a benefit and not an extra burden. Toaccomplish this, it was recognized that collaborative release time needed to beprovided for the staff during school hours.At the end of September 1990, when student enrollment was finalized, it was thenpossible through administrative “creative staffing” (by taking small portions oftime from other staffing allotments: e.g. integration, Special Needs, classroom time)to hire a teacher for 40% to provide collaborative release time. This proposal wastaken to the Teacher Advisory Committee and was approved by the staff. TheSteering Committee decided that teacher participation must be voluntary.Collaborative planning could not be mandated, but the release time was in place tohelp foster and facilitate it. The release time would be on Tuesday and Thursday, toaccommodate part-time teachers. The staff could sign up for collaborative releasetime in forty minute periods, one week in advance. On the sign-up sheet theteacher would indicate the topic to be discussed---ie. a specific unit, development ofkey visuals for a text, collaboration on preparing a lesson or student tasks. Thesesign-up sheets would be kept in the Resource teacher’s office so that somepreliminary discussion could occur about topic and the organization of teaching. If58the classroom teacher was willing to team teach in the classroom or in the library,then the Support teacher for primary grades, the ELC teacher for intermediategrades, or teacher-librarian would be contacted to be part of the collaborativeplanning. This process for sign -up and the purpose of the release time wasdiscussed at a staff meeting. At this point, none of us knew what collaborativeplanning would look like, but we had some idea of a common purpose.The teacher-librarian and I met at this time to clarify how our roles might overlap,since both involve an expectation of collaborative planning. We decided that in factour roles could complement each other. When teachers signed up for release time, Iwould encourage that using the library be part of their plan. The teacher-librarianwould encourage any teacher who contacted her to work in the library, to includeme in the planning. I became an advocate for utilizing the resource centre and theteacher-librarian became an advocate for including the integration of language andcontent strategies.4.32 Collaborative Planning New to the Culture of the SchoolIt should be noted again, that the staff had little or no experience with collaborativeplanning or team teaching. They did not know exactly what it would look like orwhat was expected of them. This school was not unique in the prevalence of teacher59isolation and individualism. “The most common state for the teacher is not acollegial one. It is a state of professional isolation; of working alone, aside formone’s colleagues” (Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. 1991, p. 38). These had been thenorms of this school’s history and culture, in my experience in the years I hadworked there. To work collaboratively may have made teachers feel that their ownteaching practices would be opened up for inspection. Collaboration could be risky.As well, change is a “difficult personal and social process of unlearning old ways andlearning new ones. Deeper meaning and social change must be born over time: onemust struggle through ambivalence before one is sure for oneself that the newversion is workable and right...” (Fullan 1982: p.63) A combination of risk andambivalence are not attractive states of being. Consequently, things began slowly,with much of the available release time left un-booked for the first few months.4.33 Role of the PrincipalFrom the beginning, the support and encouragement of the Principal had been animportant factor in successful implementation. The development of collaborativeschools has depended heavily on the actions of the principals. (Fullan & Hargreaves1991, p. 84 Leithwood and Jantzi, 1990, p. 25). The Principal stated to the staff thatimplementation of the Pilot was to be a goal and priority for the school. Thissupport was implicit in his attention to organizational concerns by creatingcollaborative release time for the staff and a willingness to allocate materials andschool resources to the Pilot. His involvement was visible in attending all60professional development activities with the staff and thus becoming aknowledgeable advocate for the need to integrate language and content in theclassrooms. This advocacy expanded beyond the school to the district level. Aschairperson of the Steering Committee, he was instrumental in the planning,implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Pilot and related professionaldevelopment.There has also been explicit on-going support. The Pilot is an agenda item at everyTeacher Advisory Meeting. This is not only used for information sharing andprogress updates, but to encourage and praise the staff and results to date. At thesemeeting, teachers who have put into practice using key visuals to integrate languageand content are invited to share their materials or ideas. This sharing has created avery positive school climate and helps to reduce some of the ambiguity regardingparticipation. On the other hand, the principal has many times exerted “positivepressure” by stating an expectation that all staff members would take advantage ofthe benefits of the Pilot. In January 1991, at a Teacher Advisory Meeting, heexpressed the belief that all staff members would have worked with the team tocollaboratively plan at least one unit by Easter. His comments had an impact, andall staff met his expectations by June.He also continued in the second year to make the implementation of the Pilot agoal. At the first Professional Day of the year, on Sept. 20, 1991, the principal beganby setting the context or giving a “pep talk” and explaining his expectations for the61coming year. The points he covered were:How successful the Pilot had been last year“We are still in the beginning phases of implementation”“The need is growing in the school to come to grips with this questionsince there has been a visible increase in new ESL students registering in our schoolthis year”As part of a school board interviewing committee during the summer, heinterviewed 36 new teachers applying for positions in Vancouver. Only oneapplicant had ESL training. He found this shocking.“Other schools are requesting help from our school to deal with theproblem of an ever growing ESL population”“We have just begun, it takes a long time and a lot of practice for newmethods to become a part of you--part of your ongoing practice.”“This is your last chance---we are rich in extra staff, collaborative planningrelease time, and expertise to help you put these new ideas into practice.”“The writing is on the wall, the skills the staff are acquiring are inincreasing demand. In a competitive situation for openings in other schools, theskills you are gaining through the Pilot are becoming vital.”(notes taken directly from his speech.)The Principal was actively and enthusiastically supportive of implementing thePilot at this school. This went beyond verbal support and praise to enabling and62empowering the staff through structural and bureaucratic means as well.4.34 Professional Development for Staff in Year OneFullan (1982) comments on the difficulties caused by differing understandings andideas about an innovation. Different people may understand a new developmenton different levels, ranging from misconceptions about the need and practice tounderstanding of the strategies and how they are to be used, through tounderstanding of the philosophical foundations of the concept and the personal andprofessional implications. Collaborative planning around learning new strategies toteach language and content is a complex innovation which requires knowledge atmany different levels of understanding. Staff inservice becomes an important wayto begin to address differences in knowledge, experiences, and beliefs about theneeds of ESL students.As part of the Pilot requirements for school participation, district ESL staff organizedand presented three professional development sessions for the staff in the first year.This was an interactive process where the staff had input about the general areas offocus. Thus support and professional development was both top-down from thedistrict and bottom-up from the school. The first session occurred on September 28,1990. The Steering Committee felt it was important to begin information sharing asquickly in the year as possible. This day the staff was presented with theoretical andpractical information regarding the long-term support which is necessary for ESL63students to be successful with academic language demands and the need for teachersto link instruction of language and content. During the same session, the goals ofthe Pilot were presented. The KWL (Know, Wonder, Learned) strategy to build onprior background knowledge of a topic, was introduced and used to discuss aspects ofthe Pilot. First individually, then in the whole group, the staff shared theirpersonal background knowledge about ESL students, specific strategies for contentand language instruction, collaborative planning and team teaching. The secondphase of this exercise asked them to look at what they wondered about the abovetopics, their questions and concerns. Both parts to the exercise were informativeabout peoples’ level of understanding and acceptance of the Pilot. This informationwas also valuable in determining future inservice needs as well as alerting me tobecoming sensitive to individual differences when beginning collaborativeplanning. Finally, this activity allowed peoples’ concerns to be expressed publicly.In school cultures which promote collaboration, broad agreement on educationalvalues is required, but within that context, individual disagreement and differencesmust be tolerated and even encouraged (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991, p. 48).The second professional development session offered by the district staff was onJanuary 14, 1991. At this time, a jigsaw activity, as a type of co-operative learningstrategy, was presented as an added way to develop integration of language andcontent. This strategy was linked explicitly to both use of Key Visuals and theKnowledge Framework (Mohan, 1986), and as such, gave staff further opportunities64to see these strategies and ideas put into practice. The final district session, onMarch 22, 1991, examined the topics of what collaboration is (and is not), anddifferent learner profiles. It might have been very helpful to have had the topic ofcollaboration dealt with earlier in the year, since the concept was so new to so many.However, it did give staff an opportunity to approach the theories after developingsome practice. It is unfortunate that staff responses to the posed question, “What iscollaboration?” were not kept. Finally on that day, staff were asked to anonymouslyevaluate the professional development sessions that had taken place. Theirresponses were collated by district staff and a summary was returned to the school.The responses varied considerably. A few examples of the range of responses:“Pilot challenges us to recognize and meet the needs of ESL students” to“Not really helping me meet the needs of my children”“Would like to go further with Key Visuals--any more strategies?” to“The Key Visual overview was too repetitious”“Further development of the Knowledge Framework and the ‘whys” to“Less theory and more strategies and practical activities”The variety and difference in responses may reflect the developmental nature ofthe change process. However, a much repeated response was about the positivenature of having time to share what individuals had accomplished. “I’ve enjoyedour times “the group” shared. I think we are more comfortable with it so it seemsbetter each time.” Sharing what teachers had been doing in their classrooms was65not part of this school’s practice before the Pilot. It appeared to develop anatmosphere of trust, where the staff was requesting more time to do this type ofsharing the following year.Part of the role of the Resource Teacher is to provide on site inservice about thetheory and practice of integrating language and content. Additional school basedinservice was planned by the Steering Committee. As a follow up to the September28, 1990 session, I presented further information about research findings supportingthe need to integrate language and content instruction. This occurred during aTeacher Advisory Meeting on October 17, 1990. At this time, teachers were asked toquickly estimate the percentage of ESL students in their class. Then they were giventheir own class lists and asked eight questions to determine the actual number ofESL students in their class. Many staff members expressed surprise that theproportion was higher than their initial prediction. The purpose of this exercise wasto increase awareness of the specific ESL needs in their classes and to perhapsreinforce a need for them to participate in collaborative planning.During a professional day on November 1, 1990, I prepared a workshop for all theintermediate grade teachers. Having the teachers in the role of students, theyparticipated in activities to demonstrate the need to develop background knowledge.Schema Theory (R.C. Anderson (1985) was presented to reinforce their experience.A sample science unit was used to demonstrate the Academic Task Model (Early &Hooper, 1988). This is a three step model for instruction, originating in the content66area of reading research, which looks at (1) Building Background Knowledge; (2)Thinking Through Reading, Viewing or Listening; and (3) ReconstructingKnowledge. They were then invited to bring teaching materials they were currentlyworking on with their classes to develop Key Visuals using the KnowledgeFramework for a lesson to be used the next day. This was also an opportunity forthem to try these ideas in practice, with my assistance. I felt some hesitation inpresenting a workshop to the staff, since I was encouraging the notion ofcollaborative planning as an exchange of expertise, rather than as an “expert” to“novice”. Therefore, I was concerned that the workshop might reinforce somepeoples’ views of myself as the expert and themselves as the novices.The final school based professional development day, on May 27, 1991, asked thestaff to evaluate the implementation of the Pilot at the end of its first year. The staffwere divided into groups by the grades they taught. Non-enrolling and support staffwere included in these groups. The directions were to brainstorm and then recordways to improve the Pilot for its final year. The results were collated and discussedby the Steering Committee and then presented to the staff for comment. So that allstaff have a sense of ownership of the process, this built-rn time for reflection andevaluation seems important. “ . . . people need a good deal of reflective experiencebefore they can form a plausible vision. Vision emerges from, more than it67precedes, action. . . shared vision, which is essential for success . . .takes tim&’(Fullan, M. 1993 p. 127). The specific recommendations will be discussed later inthis paper.4.35 Professional Development for Pilot Staff in Year OneAs the previous English Language Center teacher and member of the Funds ForExcellence Project ( a District research project prior to the Pilot, involving ESL andmainstream teachers using the Knowledge Framework and Key Visuals to createcurricula and resource materials for ESL students to enhance their academiclearning), I had experience putting into practice the ideas and strategies I would beencouraging others to use during collaborative planning. Also, as a member of stafffor a number of years, I already had credibility as a teacher, not an outside expert.However, like the rest of the staff, I had very limited experience with collaborativeplanning. I felt a personal need for professional development in this area. The ESLdistrict staff planned and presented five workshops on the topic of “CollaborativeConsultation” during the first year for the Resource and Support teachers in thePilot. This series of workshops began at the end of September 1990, and concluded atthe end of March 1991. The stated goals for these workshops were as follows:681. Knowledge of collaborative consultation2. Knowledge of communication skills necessary for collaborativeproblem solving3. Knowledge of the problem-solving process4. Practice using communication skills5. Practice using the problem-solving process6. Knowledge of teaching strategiesThe work of Anita L DeBoer (1986), “The Art of Consulting” and Chalfant and VanDusen Pysh (1989), “Teacher Assistance Teams”, became the basis of many sessions.The communication strategies and practice were particularly useful. In fact thegoals for these sessions were met. However, the theoretical basis of these twoapproaches was in the area of Special Education, rather than ESL. The underlyingassumption in Special Education collaborative consultation, is that all students willbe integrated into the mainstream and that classroom teachers will view this as aproblem with which they need help. Therefore, the focus must be on sharing adefinition and solution to the problem. Conversely, with an ESL studentpopulation beyond the level of English for basic social interactions, teachers may notview their students as having a problem. As well, they may not see that theyrequire any assistance or need to change their teaching strategies. Although thereare similarities, there are also many differences when approaching teachers forcollaboration in these two situations.694.4 Initial Beliefs about Collaborative PlanningAt the completion of the first session I recorded what I felt I needed to knowimmediately to be able to begin collaborative planning. The list from September 27,1990, is as follows:To know more teaching / learning strategies to share during planningsessionsTo develop systems and organization for beginning collaborative planningand for its evaluationTo develop skills to make sure others feel ownership of both the processand the strategiesTo know how to handle the different levels of acceptanceTo make sure that staff feel things are better and not just more work withcollaborative planning.Collaborative planning had to begin at the school prior to my own professionaldevelopment on the topic. I believed it was important to recognize the differingdegrees of acceptance and understanding amongst the staff and thus to begin workwhere people were, rather than have an end goal of where I wanted everyone to be.This was necessary so that one could view participation as steps forward and growth,rather than as failures for slowness in implementation and internalization of the70ideas. I felt that the new strategies and techniques of integrating language andcontent instruction must be seen as simple, practical and immediately useful for allstudents in the class.The most fundamental belief I held about collaborative planning was that it must bean exchange of expertise, rather than an expert! novice relationship. I viewed theteacher as the content and resource expert and I would contribute expertise in thearea of teaching strategies to integrate language and content. I did not feel it waspossible to be the expert in all curricula from kindergarten to grade seven.Acknowledging the teacher’s expertise in content matters would also reinforce jointownership of the process and products. I assumed that teachers would knowspecifically what they wanted to teach, and what knowledge gains they expected fortheir students. I expected that the roles of expertise would be clearly defined. Ithought that I was responsible for the new strategies and they were responsible forthe content and student goals. This was not the case. Nor was it what emerged overtime. Often teachers did not arrive with specific content and detailed goals. Manypeople would have a very broad, general topic, ie “Animals”. Others would comewith very broad student goals. When I responded to this lack of specification, Ifound that there exists a fine line between asking questions to make people elaborateand yet not being seen as unhelpful. I found that it was useful to have read the textbeing used or have searched out resources before each collaborative planningsession. This way I would have some background of the content and some specificsuggestions about strategies to link language and content. Again, this could be a71recognition of the levels of development amongst the staff and the correspondingdifferences in the amount of assistance that is required. It is important at all levelsthat participants feel positive about the process and what they have to contribute.4.5 Building ParticipationParticipation in collaborative planning began very slowly at the end of September1990. It began with the one teacher who had co-planned units with the teacher-librarian the previous year. The first planning sessions involved the classroomteacher, the teacher-librarian and myself. The next person to participate had been amember of the Funds for Excellence team, with both a high level of acceptance andunderstanding of the ideas. Also, a first year teacher was initially willing toparticipate, asking quite openly for “help with everything”. At this initial stage thevoluntary nature of participation was important. People who were most willingand comfortable with the process were the first to try it out. Others could thenobserve what had occurred. The sharing sessions at the staff meetings helpedencourage others. It was their colleagues who were endorsing this new process, notthe members of the Pilot team. As people met to plan units or lessons, their namesand their topics were entered on a chart in the staffroom. Ostensibly this was toinform other staff members of materials that were available as they were produced.It may have had other results as a reminder and prodder of gentle peer pressure.During the year, I would also solicit participation by asking people what they were72planning on working on in the future and “wouldn’t it be fun to work on ittogether”. This was effective for some people who were hesitant to jump in.As participation grew, classroom teachers who had collaboratively planned once,often were the ones to suggest participation to their colleagues. One way in whichthis occurred was joint planning of units by grade. For example, a grade two teacherwho had worked collaboratively with me, suggested that the other grade twoteacher join to plan a unit which they would teach together. This planning by gradehappened in the primary grades only. The intermediate teachers are restricted by arigid timetable to accommodate heavy platoomng of classes to take advantage ofsubject specialists.4.51 Resource Teacher ReportsParticipation and repeat participation steadily grew during the year. All Resourceteachers in the Pilot were required to submit monthly reports. Two of the categoriesthat were to be addressed were “collaborative strategies” and “successes”. Inretrospect, it is interesting to look at my comments over the course of Year One ofthe Pilot to get a sense of the growth of participation. What follows are quotes fromthose reports beginning in October 1990, when collaborative planning began:73October 1990“A collaborative release time teacher has now been hired for 40%.The sign-up schedule and planning forms seem to be working well.Specific suggestions to expand the planning team beyond theResource teacher are now being made when teachers sign up forcollaborative planning, while keeping in mind teacher comfort and trust.Teachers are reporting that when using key visuals students seem veryenthusiastic, “It’s fun”, It’s easy”. The trickle of participation has turnedinto a steady, if slow, stream as more teachers are signing up forcollaborative planning.November! December 1990“Having our collaborative release time teacher has been crucialto the growing expansion of participation by most staff. Itsbeginning to snowball. Teachers who have planned with the pilotteam are requesting more time. Many others have given usspecific planning topics and requests for January. Teachers havereported taking ideas and key visuals from one unit and applyingthem to topics as they arise (internalization is beginning).Teachers are also noting student responses. One grade two childhas begun making her own “key visuals”. In general, teacherscontinue to report on students’ enthusiasm.”74January 1991For many collaborative planning sessions the Resource teacher,Support or ELC teacher, teacher-librarian and classroom teacherare all involved. This expansion of the planning group becomespossible when classroom teachers have more experience with themethod of collaborative planning. We are all very experienced atworking alone. Working as a group is part of the process ofchange. The trickle turned into a stream and is becoming a floodwhich is difficult to maintain. 97% of the staff have beeninvolved in collaborative planning to date. This is not just an ESLPilot, it has become a school project. “Key Visuals” trip offpeople’s tongues with more regularity and no longer sound like aforeign phrase. There is a very wide range of use, acceptance,understanding and internalization but everyone is moving ahead.”February 1991“We have begun a formalized unit evaluation by building incollaborative release time at the completion of a unit. Offering reflectivetime to analyse the work done, is something teachers rarely experience.We expect this new process will not only benefit the Pilot, but also will behelpful to participating teachers. We continue to build steam.Collaboration, as a process, seems easier and more natural for all the staff.The roles of the classroom teacher and support staff seem to have jelled75(a report in March was not required due to the Spring Break)April 1991“The fact that the “collaboration steamroller” isn’t slowing down,make one feel part of a tidal wave rushing towards June. (Noneof us even have time to inflate the water wings!). Teachers arereporting higher scores on unit summation tests for theirstudents. This is the kind of positive reinforcement to which allteachers can respond. One teacher believes that her class is notonly better able to understand and remember the content, but sheis most excited that they are “learning how to learn”. In general,teacher perceptions of students are changing. They haveincreased their expectations of student cognitive abilities, and aremaking fewer assumptions about student language proficiency.”May 1991“The teacher-librarian and the Resource teacher are in the process ofdeveloping a new planning! evaluation form including a pre-collaborativecheck list for teachers. This is a step towards encouraging increasedresponsibility by classroom teachers, as we head into the final year of thePilot. From the responses at the professionals day of brainstorming ideasfor the Pilot next year, many positives have been noted. In general, therewas an excitement for what can be accomplished next year. Many76teachers are thrilled with the academic performance,participation and motivation of their students as an outcome ofcollaboratively planned units.”June 1991“Over-all, it has been a very successful year----outstripping myown hopes and goals for Year One of the Pilot. All of the staffparticipated in collaborative planning at least once. We all need abreak and a rest now, but people are enthusiastic about September----wanting more collaborative planning and more team teaching.The success to date is due to many factors; a supportiveadministrator, an exceptional team, an open staff and all the helpfrom the District ESL people.”Teachers’ initial participation may have been due to suggestions from peers,expectations of the administrator, social pressure, curiosity and wanting to frysomething new or even the hope that there might be a reduction in a large workload. However, for people to return for more collaborative planning, could havebeen due to the fact that the strategies being implemented were simple for theteachers to put into practice and that there was an impact on student performance--itwas working. As can be noted from the excerpts of my monthly reports, teachers77began seeing results with their students. It began with noticing an increase inmotivation and ended with improved student performance and a change in teacherexpectation and perception of students’ cognitive and linguistic abilities. Forteachers, I believe that this is the most significant motivator for continuedparticipation.4.52 Staff InputAs was mentioned previously, at the end of the first year of the pilot, the staff wereasked, at a professional day, for ways to improve the pilot for its final year. The staffwere grouped for this discussion by grade level. There were general similaritiesamongst the groups. All groups stated the importance of collaboration release timeand asked for this time to be increased. Some of the suggestions concerned thePrimary Reception class, integration of ESL students, timetabling and materials.Those that concerned collaborative planning included the following:-The request that we continue to develop new teachingunits, rather than just replicating what we had done inthe first year.-Collaborative planning time should also includeevaluation at the end of teaching a unit-The development of a Key Visual file which wouldinclude generic blank visuals and be available to the staff78-A goal for teachers to become more independentpreparing Key Visuals-A chart in the staffroom to alert staff to what units arein the planning process so that others may be interestedin joining in or have materials to contribute-More team teaching(taken from a collated list of brainstormed suggestions, presentedto the staff for further discussion in June 1991)Most of the ideas for improvement were implemented the following year. As aresult of the unanimity of the staff regarding the importance of collaborative releasetime, in the second year of the pilot this time was increased from 40% to 60%. Thismeant that the staff could now sign up for collaborative planning on three days aweek instead of two. A new staff member was hired to provide this release time.Since one purpose of this release time was to ensure that collaborative planning wasnot an added burden to classroom teachers, it was important that teachers did nothave the added task of leaving prepared lessons for the release teacher. To this end,the release teacher offered a multicultural program, focusing on cultural similaritiesand seasonal festivals or events. This program was viewed as enrichment by thestaff and as such offered an added incentive for collaborative planning.794.6 A Developmental ProcessParticipation in collaborative planning was a goal successfully accomplished at theend of the first year of the pilot. In the process I was also developing backgroundknowledge necessary to continue the main goal of retraining and support for thestaff in putting into practice new strategies to link language and content teaching. Iwas gaining more knowledge about each teacher; as professionals, their taskpreferences and styles; as learners, their understanding and level of acceptance ofthe new ideas; and as people.The ultimate goal with any implementation of change is ownership, so that theideas are part of the teacher, are theirs to use as part of their teaching repertoire andto continue to develop on their own. If the main concern initially was participation,this changed into one of ownership and moving people along their owndevelopmental continuum. Some of the developmental aspects aroundcollaborative planning that emerged are presented in the following chart:Terms used: ILC--Integrating Language and ContentCALP--Cogmtive Academic Language ProficiencyKV---Key VisualsKF---Knowledge FrameworkRT ---Resource Teacher80Figure 3 DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECTSParticipation Ownership of ideasusing KV to present ILC strategiesideasRT making most of Shared developmentthe Key Visuals and of materials and useusing the KF of the KFPlanning an entire On-going planningunit before teachingCovering content ComprehensionArriving to plan with Bringing own ideasonly a topicAdding KV but not giving Changing tasks to ILCup conflicting methodsConcern about whether Belief in effectivenessit would workHesitant to try new Willing to try newstrategies strategiesUnderstanding long term nature of CALPBelief in the need to adapt curriculum and teaching andlearning strategies to ILC814.7 This Model of Collaborative Planning4.71 In Comparison With Collaborative ConsultationInto the second year of the Pilot, collaborative planning as a developmental process,as part of the innovation was in place. As a participant I observer, through fieldnotes and transcriptions of taped collaborative planning sessions with six teachers,there have emerged key themes that differentiate this model from othercollaborative consultation models. The key differences are in the nature of thereasons for collaborating which in turn create different focuses for each model(Figure 4). As was mentioned previously, the reason for collaborative consultation,coming out of Special Education, is problem based so the focus is on sharing adefinition and solution to a problem. The role of the classroom teacher is to bringthe problem and receive the tools to fix it. What is implied is that what the teacherwas doing wasn’t working. With input from the teacher, a program or strategy isoffered for a specific child or group of children. Students are the focus of the goals ofconsulting and its outcomes, the tasks which are designed. There is a set sequenceof steps to guide and formalize this process. Since a specific problem is beingaddressed, collaborative consultation is not an on-going process. These factors createa technical, prescriptive model. It fulfills its purpose, serves a function and fills aneed within schools as teachers face the mainstreaming of special educationstudents in their regular classes.82The purpose for collaborative planning, on the other hand, is to support teachers tolearn and implement teaching and learning strategies which integrate language andcontent. Teachers are not told to throw out what they have been doing, rather, tointegrate new strategies to make learning more efficient. This is not an add-on forone group of students, but methodology useful for the entire class. Since one goalof this model is the re-training of teachers, the process is long term and on-going.As well as the students, the teacher is considered when designing tasks. The teacheris viewed as an important part of the process--an active agent constructing what willbe going on in the class. Hence the development of student tasks is a joint venture,with joint ownership of the ideas being one outcome. Being a developmentalmodel means that the steps in the actual process of collaboratively planning must beresponsive to each teacher. To help facilitate this, an informal atmosphere that isenjoyable and non-threatening has been encouraged.83Figure 4SCHOOL CONSULTATIONif coming to solve a problemif Deficit-- what the teacher isntdoing,if What the teacher was doing wasn’tworkingif I have the answers and ideas, theteacher implements themif a program or strategy is offered for aspecific child or group of children--an add onif Mechanical processif Formalif short termif focus only on students whendesigning tasksif Role of the teacher--brings theproblem, receives the tools to fix itif Goals are student focussedif Steps in the process:1. Setting the stage2. Analyse problem3. Establish goals4. Explore options5. Develop intervention plan6. Design monitoring systemCOLLAB PLANNING TO ILCif coming to work on ILC strategiesif Here’s some new ideas to tryif Teaching style is working, let’s makeit betterif We will both generate ideas and Iwill offer support withimplementationif Strategies beneficial for all studentsin the classif Developmental processif Informalif on-going long termif consideration for the role of theteacher as well when designing tasksif Teacher is an important part of thecontext--an active agent constructingwhat is going on in the classif Goal is to re-train the teachers sothat there will be a positive impact onstudentsif Steps in the process:1. Personal contact and interest inindividual2. Development of ideas, plan,follow-up, goals, proceeds in a uniquesequence based on factors involvingteacher as individual and as learner844.72 An Exchange of ExpertiseHow collaborative planning works in practice and what it looks like will bediscussed using examples from the taped transcripts of planning sessions with sixteachers. These teachers represent different grade levels, subject! content interests,concerns, and different levels of acceptance and understanding of the innovation.Their grade levels and subject concerns for collaborative planning are as follows:Figure 5 SubjectsTeacher Grade level Subject ConcernTeacher A grade 2 SS & Sc.Teacher B grade 3/4 SS,Sc. LATeacher C grade 4/5 SS, LATeacherD grade 5/6 LATeacher E grade 6 LATeacher F grade 7 LA & SSTB, TC and the Teacher librarian(SS) grade 3 / 4! 5 SSTeacher Librarian (TL)Resource Teacher (RT)Subjects:SS- Social Studies Sc.- Science LA- Language ArtsIn my view, being a developmental process means taking into account what thelearner knows and how the learner develops, their strengths, weaknesses and85preferences. The teacher as learner, the teacher as professional, the teacher asperson, must always be taken into consideration when collaboratively planning. Itis not the meeting of two technicians, but two human beings, who are professionals,in the context of a particular school. Because the developmental nature ofimplementing new strategies through collaborative planning has been stressed, itmust also be noted that my role is to support teachers in this change process. Theroles must be that of exchange of expertise, not expert and novice. Although thespecifics of collaborative planning with each teacher shows individual differences,general roles have emerged which reinforce this notion of the working together asequals. (See Figure 6)Everyone has something to offer. As our experience with collaboration grew, so didour knowledge of what each of us brought to the process. Although it is importantto stress the collegial nature of collaborative planning, the final decisions mustalways rest with the classroom teacher. The decision to participate in the first placeis voluntary. The teacher decides on the topic, whether the unit will involve teamteaching and if it will occur in the library, thus with the teacher librarian as part ofthe planning team. In teaching, the burden of all the decisions are usuallyshouldered by the individual; decisions about what to teach, how to teach it,organization and time. However, once the collaborative planning begins, decisionsare shared and thus the responsibility is also shared.86Figure 6CLASSROOM TEACHERknowledge of studentscurricular contentteaching and learning strategiesteam teachingZNESL RESOURCE TEACHERspecific strategies to link languageand content teachingteaching and learning strategiesteam teachingTEACHER UBRARIANresources / contentteaching and learning strategiesteam teachingESL SUPPORT TEACHERteaching and learning strategiesteam teaching874.73 To Support and Build TrustSince collaborative planning is a process to support teachers put new strategies intopractice, it means helping teachers as they take ownership of the changes andinnovations. It has become a truism to say that change takes time. To supportchange, collaborative planning is thus a long term process, not a one shot, quick fix.It must become institutionalized within the school (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991,p.49) To be an on-going process it must be useful to teachers, but also enjoyable andnon-threatening (Fullan & Miles, 1992, p. 750). Change can be a little frightening. Itis thus important to create an environment that feels safe enough to allow one totake risks and know you and your ideas will not be criticized, but valued (Fullan &Hargreaves, 1991, p.48).One feature of collaborative planning that emerged is the need for and importanceof encouraging personal contact time. This has become a common feature with allthe staff. At first people felt they should be more formal and efficient and wouldalways apologize for wasting time. Not any more. This time has become part of theritual. It was important for me to both make plarming enjoyable and informal andto continue to develop my relationship with and knowledge of the teacher. Topicswe discuss could be personal or professional. Although everyone approached wasopen to having our collaborative planning sessions tape recorded, we had equal88access to the “pause” button. Teachers always chose to “pause” during thesepersonal contact times and hence, this aspect does not show up on thetranscriptions.This contact time also validates the teacher as a person. Teaching can be verystressful and perhaps it helps to relieve the stress by having someone to talk to--someone who shows interest in what you think and feel. This might sound strangesince we work in schools which are buildings full of people with whom we mustrelate. Yet much of our time is spent relating to children, not adults. We relate asteachers, not people. At lunch or recess, there seems to be too many people who areall too busy for anything other than a quick anecdote.Although the topics may involve anger and frustration, most commonly, humouris what seems to bring us closer together. The tapes of the planning sessions are alldotted with the sounds of laughter.“Life’s like that here---we’ve got to have fun while we’redoing it .“ (T6)Over my desk, a photograph of collaboration shows the participants howling withlaughter. Under this, the caption states, “Collaboration is serious business”. Itwould not sound that way to anyone observing the process. We are not necessarilywitty in our humor. We laugh at our understanding of the content:(T3)”I remember two years ago when we were doing the Inuit I89said, You know, every time they go out to hunt its like life anddeath. Why don’t they move?(lots of laughter). You know itseems to me they should go south. You know the caribou do it.We laugh at ourselves and perhaps teaching blunders:(RT) “Can I suggest that prior to doing that, because I rememberlast year, they couldn’t think of what the seasons are and whatthe months are and match months to seasons.”(T3)”Good idea” (much laughter at remembering what a difficulttime the students had last year with this task without checking andbuilding their background knowledge) “Cause they hadn’t a clue”(TL)”Also we should compare it to our daylight hours--and I don’tthink we did that last year--like how many hours in a day.”(RT)”OK let’s think about some background knowledge here,because that’s what was missing last year (Everyone startslaughing again)(TL) “It was funny”(T3) “It was hilarious” (S.S.)We laugh at something amusing a student has done in class, since you don’t wantto laugh at the child. It seems that we giggle and chortle over things that don’tsound or read as amusing --- a “you had to be there” situation. It may not illustrate90our comedic talents, but it does illustrate that people feel relaxed and comfortabletogether as we collaboratively plan. “In addition to building respect amongprofessional colleagues, collaborative planning is “fun” (Hurren, 1993, p.12).4.74 Task Design Includes The TeacherWe come together to plan units or lessons by designing tasks. In other models ofcollaboration the focus of task design is entirely on the students. Here the studentsare certainly central; their knowledge, strengths, weaknesses, what we want them tolearn and what skills do they need to be able to successfully complete a task, aresome of the factors which are taken into account. However, the teacher must beconsidered too. They must be comfortable using and teaching the strategies. Thisrequires knowing the teacher well; their level of experience with and acceptance andunderstanding of the new ideas. Following are examples of two teachers and theirdevelopment along the continuum to own the ideas and strategies to link languageand content teaching (Figures 7 & 8). This is not a value laden judgment, with sinon one side, moving forward to a state of grace on the other side as new ideas areaccepted, but meant to be a developmental process.Terms used: ILC--Integrating Language and ContentKF--Knowledge FrameworkKy--Key VisualsCP--Collaborative Planning91Figure 7 Teacher 6KV used only to summarizeinformationLanguage as grammarKF-organizing toolfor teachersNo modellingBuilding backgroundtakes too much timehesitant to take thetime to CF so 1 or 2CF for a few ideasConcern the teachingstrategies to ILC willtake too much timeNo team teachingEvery piece of writingmust go through 3 draftsEvaluation by quizzes andprojectsKV used pre, during, postto write from, reviewILC- teaching languageas part of all subjectsKF used for task type,language, KV, teaching KFto the studentsModelling language fororal and written workRecognizes its importanceand does it independentlyon-going CPImpressed with outcomes:increased comprehensionincreased qualityRequesting team teachingReader Response JournalsEvaluation including KVand writing92Figure 8 Teacher 1brought no ideas to CP joint! creative processjust accept or reject mineskepticism about practice more acceptanceKV for presenting new plus student use forinformation recording and writingKy the only strategy adding languageKF as a lock step sequence as a planning tool for ILCof KVsCP as part of grade group individual CP as welllibrary planningNo team teaching requesting team teachingfor introduction of newstrategy or language point93This knowledge of teachers must be continually gauged, often from their responsesto my task design suggestions. A negative response will not be given as a blatantNo”. A lack of enthusiasm, uncertainty or rejection of the idea might be expressed:in hesitation to respond or a lukewarm tone of voice,”Ya, I guesswe could.”(Tl)as time constraints,”I only have one period to do all this.”(T4)as knowledge about the students,”Do they have enoughinformation to do this?” (T5)as concern about task type,”They haven’t done anything like thisbefore.” (T3)as wanting to see the results,”Well let’s see how this one goes first, thenmaybe we could...” (T5)I must “read”, watch and sensitively listen to teachers’ responses, based on my priorand developing knowledge of my colleagues as teachers and people. Designingtasks is not the final outcome of collaboration. The culmination of the processoccurs when the teachers teach the tasks and when student learning occurs. So it isas important to recognize the total person who will be teaching this task, as well aswho will have to perform it.“Know Your StuffKnow who you are stuffingAnd stuff them elegantly”(comment from an anonymous teacher at a workshop)94Collaborative planning is not mechanical. Teachers are not a homogeneous group.Teaching cannot be standardized, so nor can collaborative planning bestandardized. Rather it is being diagnostic and perceptive about each person.Knowing what each teacher can do, what they like to do, what they’re ready to do,what are their strengths. It means being professionally respectful, informal yetfocused.“Collaboration feels unstructured, open-ended but focused withan underlying purpose. The unstructured part lets me bring in mystuff, but at the end you’ve brought it all into focus.” (T6)4.75 Student ResultsAs was mentioned previously, participation was one of the initial goals, a “Try it,you might like it” approach. The greatest impact on teachers’ decisions to continueto work together developing new strategies, was the efficacy of the changes. Theteachers themselves felt there had been an improvement in learning outcomes forthe students. That is what sustains our sense of value and worth as teachers.“Another thing. I’m so pleased with this program that we’redeveloping this year.... It would be nice to have them for the twoyears and really build up with this. I can really see it with the writing.Because so much of it is all paragraphs. We’re not doingcreative writing with all this story stuff. They’re concentratingon the language. And the organization of their writing. From95September to now I don’t even have to mention some of thesethings. They automatically put a topic sentence, a closing sentence andsequence the ideas. I really am pleased. One thing I would like to knowfrom______is if he notices things in their other subject areas. Like ifthey’re doing stuff in Science or Socials if they’re using it in their writing.”(T5)This teacher speaks with enthusiasm about the student gains she sees fromSeptember to May. She also indicates a sense, that for her, these gains have been sostrong that she expects that her students will be able to generalize their knowledgeand skills to other teachers in other subject areas.When the results can be seen as an improvement, a betterment for our students,then spending the time to collaboratively plan and coping with the stress of changehas paid off. The following example comes from a teacher who in the first year ofthe Pilot was willing to try it but very concerned about the time it took him awayfrom his class.“The Resource Teacher has to show a passionate commitment.That’s what won me over. At first I had one eye open, one eyeclosed. I didn’t want to jump in unless you could prove it wasgoing to work.” (T4)96Spending time also relates to the context of teaching. If one is spending classroomtime on new tasks and activities, will there be time to cover the content. There’snever enough time for teachers to do all that they would like to do. Student resultsjustify their decisions to allocate class time in new ways.Look at even my vocab strategies when I go over it, I’veassigned it and they’d do it and we’d go over it all in fifteenminutes. Now I’m spending more time on it. You know me nowalways worried about time, justification, how much time I’mputting in here, am I taking away from this. So but the results arephenomenal. So I don’t worry about it as much or I worry about it a lotless than I did in September. So what I’m saying is we may spend a periodjust talking about vocab but the discussion, the discussion that happens isat a very high level and then the writing that eventually comes from that.You’ve seen it. You know. So for me there’s-no question about justifyingthat. So I’m not feeling this pressure inside like I use to. (more laughter)(T6)4.76 Taking CreditDiscussion about the results at first did not seem to come naturally to teachers. Weusually don’t have the luxury of enough time to become involved in discussionsabout evaluating what we have done--what worked and why. During the first yearof the Pilot, it was presented to the staff that we would be meeting at the end of97teaching a co-planned unit to evaluate what had gone on. Over time, and as ourplanning became on-going rather than completely plarming a unit before it wastaught, the evaluation became on-going as well. Most planning sessions includethis type of discussion. With individual teachers where I am not currently teamteaching, I always ask how things have gone, and teachers then explain in detail,what they’ve done, how they’ve done it, and the student responses. This is achance for me to share the enthusiasm, as well as to learn from both the successesand the problems. It is acceptable in this forum ( a forum not often found) to talk indetail and at length about what you do and get excited about it. In the culture ofindividualism in schools, occasional anecdotes about individual student’s excellentperformance are acceptable. However, as Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) point out,teachers are afraid to share their ideas and successes for fear of being perceivedas blowing their own horns. . . “(p.40). If a teacher brought a pile of essays into thestaffroom and said,”Look at this. This is great!” In my view, it would be perceivedby others that what the teacher was really saying is, “Aren’t I great”. So teachersdon’t do this. However, it is acceptable to do this with me, since what is implied isthat we have shared developing the ideas, which were tried, so we are now sharingthe results.It seems difficult for teachers to take the credit for successes their students make.Teachers have such high expectations for themselves. As Fullan and Hargreaves(1991) note, “it is hard to have confidence in one’s expertise and to be perceived byothers as having something to offer.” (p.43) It becomes important to elicit “play98back” from teachers. Following is an example from a transcription:The teacher shows me the class’ first draft of writing.“This is really good for a first attempt. They’ve tried to actuallyuse what you’ve taught them” “Its impressive, “ “Itswonderful” “Its exciting” (RT)I try to elicit feedback about student performance and give teachers positivereinforcement for what they’ve accomplished. This might sound effusive on thetape, but my enthusiasm is genuinely felt. Positive student results also give valueand worth to my job as well. Having someone else as excited as you feel, thenseems to give the teacher permission to say, “Its excellent, Its really good”. (T5)In fact, as she got more comfortable with the idea that it is all right to “brag” shethen was suggesting, “These really need to go on display in the hall.” (T5)Asking to have copies of student work for a workshop presentation also validateswhat the teacher has done and then becomes a focus for our discussion about whatto do next--the hows and the whys.When the work has been team taught, and all have been witness to the results,evaluation in general is still important but one might not think that this type ofdiscussion, this “blowing our own horns” would be as necessary. Perhaps becausewe are trying new ideas and creating the practice together, that groupcongratulations are an affirmation of our common quest for continualimprovement. This goal of continual improvement of our teaching means we are99never finished. We give each other the confirmation and reassurance to continue.Following is an excerpt from a session involving four teachers who had beenworking on Social Studies curriculum which was being team taught in the library.Many adaptations to student tasks had occurred this year through collaborativeplanning and the positive results are shared.(T4)”With my class we did everything, didn’t we.”(TL) “Its so much better this year. It really is. Its just great. Theycould all understand. They practically all got the words right.(T4) “They’re much quicker at highlighting. They have a good idea aboutwhat they’re doing. And the charts really help to clarify. The jigsaw was agood idea to do it before the charts were done. It was good.”(RT)”So that’s what you did, the environment with the permafrost andall that stuff. Because that was difficult last year.”(T3) “Yes it was”4.8 The Work of Continual ImprovementBuilding a trusting and open atmosphere and sharing the successes of jointplanning is not the end goal of collaborative planning. It does create the security onwhich to base the work of continual improvement. In many ways it would be easierto be satisfied with what Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) call “ comfortablecollaboration”, where the study of the “wider purpose and value of what is being100taught and how”(p.55) is never addressed. In discussing teachers’ purpose, Fullanand Hargreaves (1991) explain a dilemma that I have faced from the beginning ofcollaborative planning. “On the one hand, we want teachers to question their ownexisting practices, and be open to new ideas and potentially better ways of doingthings. On the other hand, we need to respect and build on the knowledge andideas that teachers already have, or we run the risk of by-passing existing valuablepractices, and alienating teachers as we do S0 (p.20).So here is the tight-rope I walk between acknowledging and respecting who theteacher is, both personally and their professional experiences and judgment, whiletrying to make teachers open to new expectations and ideas. How to push with onehand, while supporting with the other. One of the obstacles to upping the ante isthe problem of false clarity. This is when people have a narrow view of what theinnovation means. In this case, it most often was a teacher successfullyimplementing a part of one strategy, for example using Key Visuals to presentinformation, and not yet understanding there were broader issues aroundintegrating language and content; thinking that implementing the one strategy wasthe total innovation. In my opinion, too often with educational change, it is a oneshot, one practice idea. Learn it and go on to the next, or wait and it will pass101like all of the others. This has been many teachers’ experience in the past (Fullan &Hargreaves, 1991, p. 27). So learning one strategy must be it and now let’s get on tothe next topic. Since collaborative planning is long term and developmental in thesupport it offers to integrate language and content, it is innovative in its depth ofpurpose.4.81 Start From the Teacher’s AgendaSo for myself, upping the ante became a goal. This meant offering suggestions thatexplicitly dealt with the language component in the content, “Pushing” people togo beyond with what we had already been successful, while remembering thatsupport and trust were equally important. Taking small manageable steps forward,while building ownership of the process and the product by the teachers. It wouldcertainly be more “comfortable” to just pool our ideas and share materials than totry and extend and create new ideas.The beginning of each collaborative planning session belong to the teacher. Eachteacher brings a different agenda, different goals and expectations as well as differentstyles of planning. Some teachers arrive with a broad topic. For example oneteacher wanted to do something on the Moans and Planetarium, since those werethe shows she was taking her class to see at the Children’s Festival. She thendecided to start with the Maoris, comparing them to us. Perhaps this focus was102because we had just completed a unit on winter clothing where the language focushad been on comparing and contrasting and she was happy with the work that hadbeen done.Others may bring a broad student goal, “I’d like to challenge them to go beyondsurface things---a deeper meaning of thought with this next novel.”(TF) Someteachers have very specific things they want to cover. It might be a specific languageor knowledge structure which we haven’t worked on yet or specific content andstudent tasks“I want them to do an oral report and I’d like North AmericanAnimals in the content for their oral report. I want them to make a KeyVisual or something to go with it which they have to producethemselves.”(T2)The following teacher began a series of collaborative planning sessions by bringinga general topic which she wanted her class to study, “Dogs” and some specificstudent tasks which she wanted included. These tasks were those to support ILCand over time were now part of her own teaching practice. These she stated firstbefore we began to jointly develop content and language goals and tasks:“I’ll do brainstorming with my class first to see what they already knowabout dogs and put it on charts like I did with the Deer Unit. They’re gettingreally good at comparing and contrasting. I showed you the one they did on103an ungulate versus me? So this time it could be comparing dogs and deersince they’ve just done deer. And we’ll do parts again. So I need a simpledog picture to make a chart. “(Ti)With the Teacher-librarian, we then look through books about “Dogs” to first find adog picture that would lend itself to labelling. As we go we discuss “dog facts” as welook at different resources, which we would like to include in the content, andusing the Knowledge Framework, decide on student tasks, Key Visuals anddiscourse structures to include. This teacher likes her primary students to learninteresting and unique facts about the animal and to learn challenging newvocabulary.“We’ve got to teach the classification again cause they all use “ungulate”all the time now. They like using hard words and they’re the ones theyremember. What is it for dogs? So they can learn muzzle and hocks anddewclaw.” (Ti)If the planning is on-going while a unit is being taught, teachers usually begin witha review of what has happened in the class and then may offer suggestions forfuture tasks. These are just some of the variations amongst teachers and how theybegin planning. What is the same for each is that they have the ultimate choice ofwhat they will do and how they will do it, when standing in front of a class. “Wehave two themes to work on now and I think that’s enough.” (T4)1044.82 Offer ChoicesFullan and Hargreaves (1991) point out how important it is to understand that oneaspect of teachers professionalism is their capacity to make “informed discretionaryjudgements in the rapidly shifting environment of the classroom.” (p.19) Increating ownership while extending ideas, it is important to keep this fact in mindand recognize the necessity of giving teachers opportunities for exercising theirdiscretionary judgment. It also shows professional respect. It means offeringchoices and suggestions, not saying how you want it done.In listening to the tapes of collaborative planning with different teachers,predictably, offering choices and suggestions always sounded like:”Perhaps wecould..” “We might..” “I’m wondering if..” and never: “You should..” “Wemust...” “We will...”. It might involve suggestions about what type of graphic touse. In one planning session I offered two types of Key Visuals which had beendeveloped with other teachers on staff and explained what the students have to doand how we could build on the specific language skills needed. The choice was thenhers as to which she felt comfortable with or if she wanted to change or reject thewhole or parts of the ideas.(RT)”I’m not sure which way you’d like to go with this. —found, having done a lot with comparing and contrasting first too, thatthis one was easier.”105(T3)” Ya . That’s right. If this then that. Actually I think for thegrade fours, I think this might work out a little better.”(RT) “This is an important thinking skill. This is fine.” (pointing toEffect on one of the Key Visuals)(T3)”Its that that’s the problem” (pointing to Cause)4.83 Developing Teacher OwnershipIn offering choices or suggestions teachers often rephrase to clarify meaning and it isa way to build ownership. Rephrasing also allows the teacher to make adjustmentsto the idea, to make it fit themselves and the particular conditions in theirclassrooms. I learn from this also, as we create and fine tune task design. With oneteacher who wanted the students to write personal opinions about issues aroundthe Olympics, I offered some examples of how to organize this type of writing usingexamples from Martin’s (1985) genre writing. She took what made sense for herand her class and added subtle changes that matched her understanding of the taskand also her comfort with the task type.“Actually, I wouldn’t mind just a partial thing like this. It wouldn’t haveto be quite as detailed. But just for how to organize this. The topicsentence would state the issue, give a preview if necessary, and then evenif they didn’t give the points against, but just gave the points for.” (T5)106Developing a sense of ownership by the classroom teacher means that I must resistthe temptation to take control. The job of teaching requires that we are in control.It feels like an ingrained response but it must be fought against if long term changeis to be accomplished. The control must be theirs. An example of this was groupcollaborative planning of the grade four Social Studies curriculum. These were thefirst teachers to participate in collaborative planning in the first year of the Pilot.The teacher-librarian and a grade four classroom teacher had decided to team teachSocial Studies, for all the grade four students and half a class of grade fives. TheInuit was to be the focus of study for the year. Teaching would occur in the libraryfor double-blocked periods twice a week with two groups. I became involved at theinitial stages of collaborative planning and continued to be part of this planningteam as the unit developed and was adapted the following year.There were many aspects of this situation that were uniquely positive regardingcollaborative planning in this school. These teachers had successfully workedtogether prior to the pilot, so team teaching and collaborative planning were notnew concepts for them. The teacher-librarian was part of the Funds For ExcellenceProject in its last year. This gave her background knowledge and understanding ofthe concepts of Key Visuals and the Knowledge Framework. Also, she was part of aspecial interest group of school librarians who were working on these concepts. Theclassroom teacher had taken part in professional development activities with thestaff the previous year, examining the concept of teaching language and content by107using key visuals. Her response to the concept was very positive. She was stillconcerned about the consequences and impact on her students though.At the initial planning meeting the teacher-librarian presented a unit developed byanother school which used a stations approach. Both teachers were enthusiasticabout using it right away, without adapting it. I felt that the tasks requiredbackground knowledge that the students would not necessarily possess -- especiallyabout life in the arctic. Professing no expertise in teaching this subject, I presentedthem with the Academic Task Model and we discussed the background knowledgestudents would need to be able to comprehend the topics and ideas the teacherswanted to cover. Both were very open to suggestions and willing to discuss ideas asa team. Some of the suggested adaptations were accepted, but not all.My agenda became working on developing background information and teachingthe use of Key Visuals so that when stations were introduced, independent or groupwork would be accomplished successfully by the students. Over time our roles andrelationships took shape in terms of collaborative planning. Even though theprocess appears to be one of indistinguishable roles without experts, we recognizedeach others’ knowledge base. The teacher-librarian has more input about resources.The classroom teacher is the recognized “expert” about what content she wants toteach and the students’ needs and abilities. My role was to focus on the AcademicTask Model and introducing the use of Key Visuals.108In collaborative planning with these teachers, my goal was not to produce theperfect Knowledge Framework unit. Rather, the goal of increased skill, internalizeduse and ownership of these methods by the teachers so that they could successfullyuse these methods with all their students. This meant focusing on the people andprocess, not on the product. It meant being aware of personalities, level ofunderstanding and commitment, and their own teaching styles. Change and actionmust occur at an individual level. It must be cumulative--like the erosion causedby dripping water, not made in one giant step. Over the initial ten sessions, theownership for using and producing key visuals became shared, with more andmore suggestions coming from the classroom teacher.In terms of these over-all goals, collaborative planning on this unit was successful.However, I remember the frustration I felt at not taking control. Task as an activity,is a combination of background knowledge and action, of process and product, oflanguage and content. All of these elements may not be taken into account if one isnot going to use the “expertt’model, but rather share and encourage ownership. Ifelt slight frustration at including tasks, materials and information that I wouldnot have necessarily selected, while other tasks that I felt were important to includewere omitted. Many of the tasks required student knowledge of task type, ratherthan comprehension of content. The struggle with residual twinges of wanting totake over the product has lessened, over time, for me as I witness its effectiveness.In the second year of the Pilot, as collaborative planning continued with theseteachers, the work we had done the first year was reviewed and adapted before being109taught. The exciting part for me, was that it was now the classroom teachers whowere suggesting tasks and approaches that I would have wanted included in the firstyear. There was direct instruction before children worked in cooperative groups.The focus was on comprehension. Developing background knowledge for thestudents had become part of their consciousness. I was no longer the only personsuggesting teaching specific language both orally and then moving into morewriting. The ideas now belonged to them.The process of developing tasks collaboratively means taking the lead from theteacher. Using their ideas and suggestions and adding to, adjusting, taking smallsteps in developing knowledge, understanding and practice. Or taking somethingthey feel has been successful and expanding it. This reflects the developmentalnature of the process. To illustrate this, one teacher had tried using the KWL (Whatdo you Know, Wonder about, What have you Learned) strategy to accessbackground knowledge on a topic with her class. She was impressed with theresults and began bringing me sheets and sheets of chart paper filled withinformation from the children. In the next unit I had suggested taking thebrainstormed information and classifying it. The next small step of giving someheadings to direct the brainstorming was added. Each successive suggestion feltmanageable for the teacher.1104.84 A Creative ProcessThis is a respectful two-way process. Ideas are offered by one, adjusted by the other,further adjusted. Back and forth, building, tinkering, refining. By trying to increaseour skills and knowledge about integrating knowledge and content what isultimately created together, I believe, is better than anything we could have createdalone. One example of how the building process works occurred with a teacherwhen planning about teaching the Olympics. We had just finished a discussionabout our attitudes towards the cost of the Olympics. The teacher felt very strongly“Maybe that’s a good question for us to use. Are the Olympicsfor the wealthy. Is it possible from poor families to end up in theOlympics?”(T5)“Yes. That’s a really good one” (RT)“But would they have enough background knowledge forsomething like that?” (T5)I then offer some suggestions for tasks to build background knowledge to be able toanswer the question. To try and facilitate a question that is important to the teacher.To take the lead from the teacher and add to it. “How about...” Do you think theycould...”The teacher clarifies my meaning about how it would actually look. This is one wayto build ownership and not just clarify meaning. ‘That sounds OK. Yes, we coulddo that”2. (T5)111Then we automatically now, look at the language needed to do the writing tasks andthen how to teach that. In this instance it meant brainstorming the language theyknow first and then building, adding to it, with oral practice in using it. We havediscussions about exactly what language we want to present. Included in this iswhat the students are expected to do. and this might even include developingexamples for the teacher to use.Ideas are built up. As this teacher agrees to a task and as we both clarify it, in thatprocess new ideas and refinements emerge. There is not one way to do a task orstrategy. My role as the Resource Teacher is to include strategies that integratelanguage and content teaching, but these strategies must not be mechanical andfixed. What has emerged is a creative process where together we build on eachothers ideas. Together we are developing what the ideas will look like in practice.4.85 Joint OwnershipIt is not only an attempt to develop ownership of new ideas, but joint ownership ofthe process, the responsibility, and the decisions. As was previously stated, theultimate decisions rest with the teacher. After all, it would be easy enough to agreein a collaborative planning group, but behind the closed door of the classroom putyour lack of acceptance into practice. However, sharing this burden of decisionmaking and responsibility is part of the benefit of joint work. One teacher112connnented that when planning on her own, it was not a lack of ideas thatconcerned her, rather, the difficulty in knowing what to include, and what to dofirst. (Ti)Decisions are reached by consensus and through the process of fine tuning taskdesign. We tend to record the details of tasks and activities as consensus is reached.In some cases, everyone records the decisions and both meaning and intent arefurther clarified by this activity. In other instances, one person records the sharedoutcomes, while the other adds comments for clarification or detail. This is also atime when the production of teaching materials is shared. Over two years, thedistribution of material production has become more equitable. Sharing theproduct also builds joint ownership. In the initial stages of collaborative planning Ifelt that I should offer to do most of this work, since the ideas were new and so thatpeople would feel the benefits and not any added burdens of deciding to participate.Initially, I believed that I would not have any input about content, that the teacherwould take on this responsibility in its entirety. This has not been the case. In fact,in listening to the tape recordings of planning sessions, I was surprised how muchtime was devoted to detailed discussion about our own understanding andknowledge of the content. Whether its a unit on Birds for grade ones or discussingthe notion of Epiphany in a novel study for grade sevens, all of the participantshave expressed their own growth in personal knowledge through this process. Italso seems to be a first step in our on-going decisions about what we want the113students to learn. It is important that collaborative planning extends beyondsharing materials and ideas to the wider purpose and value of what is being taughtand how. These are issues that go beyond the technical to the professional.(T5)”I would like to know from_____is if he notices things intheir other subject areas. Like if they’re doing stuff in science orSocials if they’re using it in their writing.”(RT)”He was talking about that, because in Social Studies they just use it!For the kids too. You know you learn stuff in school like about Early Manand what they were called. You don’t use it anywhere else. But can use it in Social Studies, in Language Arts”(T5) “And for the rest of your life. It doesn’t matter if you forgetalgebra, but you have to remember how to write. (laughter)Another teacher, when discussing adding more new tasks in June wascommenting on this wider purpose of what had been done so far:(T6) “I’m just excited about some of the things they might have tosay. Cause we’ve done a lot of the other, but there’s so much more wecould do. We’ve done a lot of the writing things where its been laidout. There’s been creativity but they’ve really improved on theirmechanical writing skills. That was our goal. Give them thelanguage, when to use it, how to use it, in what circumstances, inwhat context, for what reasons. I think we’ve accomplished thatthis year. So now we’re giving them a sense of really114(RT) “Of using it”(T6)”Use it, be free with it, be creative with it... Enjoy language!”Joint sharing does mean sharing the technical, the details as well. It is not justdeciding on general content and task type but specifically what does it look like.These decisions may even involve the exact wording of what to present to thestudents. It is not offering some general ideas to the teacher who has to then go andfine tune it alone. The whole process is worked on together. Teaching not onlyinvolves broader issues of what to teach and why. It also involves the details ofhow to teach it. When discussing the specifics of tasks some of the concerns areabout: students’ background knowledge and how to build on it--for both languageand content; direct teaching, individual work and cooperative work; the time eachtask will take versus the time needed to complete the overall topic; what type ofKnowledge Structures, key visuals and writing are wanted. This may not be thethrilling ground breaking work, but it is the time consuming work of teaching. It issharing the burden of long-term improvement. It is also a way that ideas areclarified and shared when translated into specific practice. The lengthy transcriptionfrom the Social Studies group collaborative planning which follows, shows thisprocess of sharing decisions.(T4)”How are we doing this? Are they working in table groups?Are they each just working on one? Are they moving around in115stations so they each get to each artifact? -- so they end up doingall artifacts?”(T4)”I mean how many questions do they fill out --for one artifactor for all the artifacts?(TL)”I wonder since we have a lot of them. We could make it thatthey are anthropologists on a particular site and this is what theyfound and that’s what they found. And they do maybe two or three attheir one table and then they report”(RT) “That’s a good idea”(T3) “Then they have their anthropologists’ conference and report it”(T4) “That’s good”(TL)”Are they going to work in table groups and are they all goingto fill in one? Like they all fill in ‘What is it made of?” I think theyall should discuss it and then go on to number two .“(T4) “Or do they each do their own at the table group?”(TL) “I think its better to discuss it.”(T3) “Ya, cause last time they did quite a lot of discussing. Causesome of them couldn’t figure out what it was. And someone elsewould say.. and it was really quite good as far as discussion went.”(T4) “Couldn’t they all discuss, but each have their own report tofill out.”2. “Oh ya, they have their own report and maybe we only put oneartifact and when they’re finished that and there’s consensus and116then they come back and you’ve discovered this one now.(‘T4) “Are we going to do any lead up to this ‘What an artifact is?’‘What an anthropologist is?’ a little bit of background”(RT) “I think that would be an excellent plan”(laughter at my enthusiasm over the suggestion to includebackground knowledge)(T4) “Here’s an artifact, go to it”(RT) “To show them, are we going to go through the plan ofpicking something from today that future anthropologists mightwonder about?”(T3) “Stapler’s a really good one” (laughter)(RT). “And actually go through”(T3) “the steps of the chart”(T4) “What do you mean again by that?”(T3) “We all do the stapler as an artifact and discuss it. This is used in ourpresent day culture and we go through the questions on the chart, usingthe stapler.”(TL)”You make it like we’re years down the road. you know, in thefuture, and this is what we’ve discovered.”(T3) “Actually,____,you could bury your stapler, cause it doesn’twork anyway” (lots of laughter)(TL) “Does anyone have sandboxes anymore?”(T3) “ Yes. and then they really get the idea that these things are117found, not just lying on top of the ground somewhere, millions ofyears down the road”(TL) ‘That would be fun”(FL) “Who says it doesn’t works occasionally .“(laughter)4.86 Team TeachingFinally, in discussing development of teacher ownership and joint ownership, ifyou teach something, you own it. Team teaching has become part of our joint work.However, it was not part of the culture or history of this school. Isolation was thenorm. Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) explain the causes of teacher isolation as,“Architecture often supports it, The timetable reinforces it. Overload sustains it.History legitimates it.” (p.6) It is also safe. Since the staff had such limitedexperience with team teaching, it has taken many forms and developed slowly. Formost, it began with joint work in the library. It has included the Support Teacherfor most of the collaboratively planned primary units taught in the library. TheEnglish Language Centre teacher, on the other hand, has team taught with someindividual teachers in their intermediate classes.In planning with classroom teachers and the teacher librarian, it was an expectationthat lessons would be team taught in the library. Yet it took many forms. Somepeople let the teacher librarian do all the teaching and they acted as an assistant,118handing out papers to students. The teacher librarian felt this might have been dueto peoples view of the library as her room. (Perhaps our isolation has also made usterritorial). If the Support Teacher or myself was involved, we would team teachand the classroom teacher would watch. This was a step in modelling new practice.However, at some point they had to do it to own it. I developed a summary sheetfor these situations that included the Academic Task Model (Early & Hooper, 1988)as a reminder of this three step model of instruction and sections for taskdescription, material production, and teaching responsibility (Figure 9).Figure 9 Summary SheetACTIVITY WHO MATERIALS WHO GRAPHIC/VISUALS WHO119BuildingBackgroundKnowledgeThinkingThrough:Rd. ListenViewingReconstructingKnowledge120It can be threatening to have others watch you teach. This may come from ourexperience of evaluation by administrators as the only time having someone watchus teach has occurred in our career. Just like collaborative planning, team teachingtook time to evolve and develop the necessary trust. The common method whichhas emerged is of different people taking responsibility to teach different segmentsof one lesson. People now feel free to interrupt one another, to interject withinformation. The person teaching might ask for input from their colleagues partway through. This had added a feeling of relaxed informality, rather than a sensethat by joining in on team teaching, you would have to be willing to perform. Noone is on stage. Not only is the task design a creative process, so is the teaching,adapting as we go along. This adapting, this making discretionary judgementswhile we teach, is what teachers do alone. Team teaching has become to meansharing those decisions. It also means having another adult with whom to sharethe experience of teaching, to knowingly share eye contact in response to a situationin the class.Team teaching can also be viewed as developmental. The staff are at different stageswith both experience and acceptance of this, from watching others teach, toformalizing and organizing who teaches what, to offers and requests to team teach.It began with group team teaching, but with this successful experience, mostteachers began to request team teaching with me in their classes. These requestswere also affected by the individuals understanding and knowledge of integratinglanguage and content strategies. For some, it was sharing the responsibility and the121fun of teaching. For others, it was specific requests when a new strategy or idea wasbeing introduced. Again, once you have pushed for the growth, be there to supplythe support.(T6) “Maybe we could also do this together”(RT) “It would be fun.”(T6) “It would be necessary. I want you to come in and introduce it-- thewhole thing” (lots of laughter)People wanted to see what it looked like in practice, before they tried to teach itthemselves. So it has evolved that I will often teach the new strategies, and theteacher will teach the strategies that they know.(T4)”I feel I’m trying to teach someone how to drive a car and Idon’t know how to drive, but you do.”(RT) “We’ll play at this together.”This becomes joint modelling. I have learned so much from team teaching, newstrategies and methods, that I can now share with other colleagues on staff.1224.9 Teacher Comments on The ProcessDuring collaborative planning some teachers reflected upon this process ofimplementing strategies to integrate language and content instruction. Thefollowing quotes, gathered from many planning sessions, illustrate some aspeds ofthis developmental process from their point of view and perhaps highlight thoseaspects which are most important for them.(T2) “For me personally, I have more of a repertoire of ways to presentinformation, you know, on my own, individually. Without working withsomeone else I wouldn’t have been able to do it, without collaboration andworking together on it”(T6)” If you came in and did four Pro D days, with how busy I am. I just thinkabout it. I’m sure you can take a course in the Framework, if it really interestsyou, at U.B.C. But, come on, the theoretical stuff is not my bag. You know,like we said, teachers, we deal in the practical world. We wanna see whatkind of works. Try it, if it doesn’t work, fine, put it aside and try this.”(T6)”When we started, I think it was theory, and there was no practical”(RT) “The only practical bits I think, were Key Visuals, and then they didn’tknow why they were practical”(T6)”What do you mean we’re going to get writing from this? We can change123a childs’ [writing]? I didn’t understand. And even when the Pro Ds werebeing done, you know I sat there. I was really skeptical. I really thought“what the hell is this?’ I think I’m pretty good at what I do. Most teachersthink that way. Imagine if, and I’m a pretty young teacher. Imagine someonewho’s done this for twenty years. Change is difficult. So you need not only aknowledgeable person but you need someone who understands people. Youneed people skills, to understand change. And I recall seeing what I thoughtwas theory. I can speak from experience. And now, I don’t have any ESLbackground in coursework and I now have reams of student examples that Ican use to show, Hey, look it. And the process--I can describe it. And thestudents’ work is the proof of the pudding.”(T6Y’The one thing that was most frustrating, was lack of time. The sincerelack of time, that I thought that we were able to share and I don’t know howwe combat that. And I’ll explain myself. O.K. so here I am and I guess every,you can’t have the perfect world, but you try to get it as perfect as you can.OK, so I taught phys ed five to seven and we tried to stay away from puttingcollab times during that time because the kids really look forward to that PEtime so you try and respect that. Then, you know this is, and another wayI’ve changed. You know that leaving my class was very hard for me. I can’tdescribe how hard it was for me to leave my children. But, I eventually,eventually saw and realized the benefits for the children and that’s, and that’swhen it clicked. Because initially, it was Key Visuals and I really wasn’t sure124where we were going with this and I was always in my mind, like. I’m awayfrom my class. But the patience was there, we team taught together so thatreally made it easy. Like, I felt really at ease ‘cause I know you knew what youwere doing. And I did too, but, with the Framework, initially I didn’t. Andwhen you saw the kids, like last year when they were producing someincredible things, you thought. And then I wanted more. But it was reallydifficult. So much so, look we had to collab Monday mornings. We’d findtimes to collab. We got to the point where we team taught a lot. The amountof hours in a day just wasn’t enough.... It would be great if you and I taughttogether all week for the whole year. What does that mean. Double salary,hire another three thousand teachers (laughter).”(16)”What got me over the hump of thinking all this was just Key Visualsand any picture was a Key Visual. I think it was my willingness to take achance. Putting a little bit of my ego, my confidence. No, confidence isn’t theright word. My trust in another person. Willing to take a bit of a risk. Youknow before that, what I taught in the classroom, I knew the kids were goingto high school well prepared. And I thought I was doing the best job I could,not to put a flower in my cap. You know, you think, I’m doing a good job, doI really want to change this because what about, what if this is all BS and I’vewasted a term with the kids. And that, I think, is a very realistic fear. And afear I know you really respected with me, and with everyone. You gave meall the rope I could have. I mean that I wanted to take.125(T6)”Here’s a topic. Compare and contrast two sub-civilizations ofMesopotamia. Choose three characteristics between the two subcivilizations.... How I described it wasn’t probably that coherent, but I knowwhen we assigned it it was coherent, because we made sure it was. But givethat same assignment to a grade 12 today, and just lay it on the table. Say,O.K. you can do the research. We’ll give you two weeks. Put together acompare and contrast. I’ll bet money that maybe their spelling might be a bitbetter, a few grammatical things might be a bit better. But, the content, andthe writing, the organization and uh, you know, how things are, make senseand are put together logically: that there’s a beginning, an introductorystatement, and then there’s a comparison between these two facts.Comparison, comparison, comparison, contrast, contrast contrast, conclusion.And, you know, there wasn’t even a bat of the eye. That’s what you want usto do? Fine. Off you go and do it. And that’s empowering.”(T6)”The kids learn content. You know, what do you want them to know.O.K. they have to learn some things about Egypt, some things about plant andanimal cells. But at the end of it all, what is it I want the kids to truly want toknow. In a year, in five years, in ten years. I’m not going to be so concernedthat they know, these are the parts of an animal cell. What I’m concernedwith is that they can take two things and compare and contrast in anorganized, coherent manner and that someone else can read and make senseof. The Framework really gave each child, you know I use the word126weaponry or arsenal, academic language arsenal to really tackle difficult text,and to pull out from text those that are the most important facts. Because upto a certain point as a teacher you read the text with the kids, help themdecide what’s the important points and their relationships. Well these kidsdid it themselves.... They decyphered the text. They pulled out what wasimportant. They put the relationships together. Some did it a little bit betterthan others. But they all got it. And they all did a wonderful job. Inempowering them to do that, all of a sudden it didn’t become importantwhether they got, you know, marks really weren’t, it was doing a really goodquality job. Even for myself, it wasn’t, marks all of a sudden weren’t apriority.... This allows kids at all levels to write with confidence, to organizetheir thoughts and to read with confidence. I mean that’s the kicker.”(T3) “There isn’t a finished point and then you’re done with it. You keep ongoing with it. But it’s becoming more second nature to see something youwant to teach and you say, let’s do it this way or that way, from all the ideaswe’ve created together. Which has been great.”(T6)”It’s a vehicle to learn English, and not only put language together andstructure it in a coherent, organized manner. So that you can use thelanguage verbally in an oral presentation, or in a written form, in an essay, orin a paragraph, or in a short answer, or in a story, a creative story. The key isit transcends all subject areas. It’s not restricted to uh. When I started this127whole process, it was key visuals, and it was labelling. And I said how hardcan it be to label. You know I’ve been doing, I do label things. But its beyondthat. And that’s where I’ve changed a great deal too. It’s getting writing fromthat. And that’s the key. That’s what I didn’t understand initially. But Iwasn’t supposed to. How can you learn. This is a very progressive, its aprocess oriented thing that we’ve done here and there’ll never be an end.It is continuous. That’s the beauty of it.”(T6)” One area we didn’t do yet that project I’ve done for years. You know thesix parter the kids do on ancient Egypt. And although this year they weregiven some instructions with the Knowledge Framework, to incorporate itand that. We didn’t at the beginning of the year really get around to lookingat the assignment and designing to really fit. And because I do assign it morein February and March, it would be perfect timing because they’d have reallya good foundation to apply it because there’s a lot of report writing, oralpresentations. It would really lend itself. So it allows for continual change. Idon’t think you’d ever want to be stuck in the same thing ever again with theKnowledge Framework. Because it is so easy to apply.(T2) “Teachers now have, we’ve done a lot of units together. Teachers havebuilt up some strategies, too. So now that the teachers have built up theirown strategies maybe to branch off a bit more and do things to do with thelanguage. Might be, to take it in a new direction, or just add to it.128(T6YThat’s what I was saying in terms of empowering the children. Andwhen we gave them an assignment, and said, write a descriptive essay, orwrite a compare and contrast essay, write and essay or a paragraph thatoutlines the process you took to accomplish that task, with an introductoryand concluding statement to boot. You know, like I said, I call it a languageweaponry, the tools they can go out and accomplish a variety of academictasks in every subject area. Not just English, Socials, Science, ‘cause ittranscends all subjects. They’re all connected. They’re all connected by, inmy, I don’t know, maybe some professor might think of some other thing.To me they’re all connected by language. Maybe that’s obvious... Now, thenumber of bricks in the Great Pyramid and this and that is different thanwhat’s in an animal cell. There’s different language, there’s different wordsthat they use to describe, you know, how a cell develops and how a pyramiddeveloped are two different things. But the language we use to describe it, theKnowledge Framework allows one to describe how they come about in termsof process and sequence and how they develop uh, and allows one to use, todescribe that process for anything. Be it a cell developing or a group of peopleconstructing the pyramids. The language allows them to look at thesituation, the content, pull it out, and write it in such a way that its, like I said,organized, coherent and it is sequentially arranged and it is descriptive. Youknow, to me that’s amazing.”1294.10 SummaryThis chapter began with an overview of the conditions and factors which affectedthe implementation of collaborative planning to integrate language and contentinstruction. Although this form of planning was innovative in both process andstructure within the school, support at both the school and district level enhancedits implementation. Building support both for and by teachers was an importantelement; as was the focus on encouragement and recognition and removal ofidentified barriers to change, such as lack of time for planning.The actual form of this type of collaborative planning emerged over time. From thedata collected, it was discovered to be a developmental rather than technical processthat stressed teacher and curricular development in the area of language andcontent integration. This went beyond the simple attractive notion that anycollaboration between teachers must in and of itself be a positive arrangement andthus produce positive results. In this case, there was a shared focus of integratinglanguage and content instruction to increase the academic achievement of allstudents in mainstream classrooms. The model for this type of planning thatactually came about in practice, recognized the importance in establishing new andtrusting relationships and in valuing and respecting the teacher as a professional, asa learner and as a person.130In the following chapter, the conclusions from this study are presented. In addition,some of the implications of these findings are discussed and further researchdirections are suggested.131Chapter Five: Conclusion5.1 IntroductionThis chapter will discuss the findings presented in the preceding chapter andconnect these with arguments set forth in the literature review. Again, reference ismade to the contextual factors which affected implementation of this innovationand the particular form of collaborative planning to integrate language and contentinstruction that developed at this site. Some of the broader implications of thesefindings are then set forth. Finally, suggestions are presented for possible areas offurther research.5.2 ConclusionsThis study set out to determine what forms and within what context does theemergent process of collaboration work actually take, between classroom teachersand an ESL Resource teacher, toward the goal of integrating language and contentinstruction? The aim of this research is to contribute to a reflective awareness aboutcollaborative planning to integrate language and content instruction. The resultsand conclusions from observation and document collection over a two year periodinvolving the entire staff and from tape recordings of actual planning sessions withsix teachers over a four month period, are presented as an aid to this reflective132awareness. This case study is of a process at one particular elementary school. Assuch, the limitations are clear. It is not possible to generalize from the themes,behaviors or thoughts presented. Rather, it serves as a description, not aprescription.The review of the literature is useful in providing broad, general themes thatpertain to this study. In Vancouver, schools range from having about 30% to 99% oftheir student population made up of students who have either recently immigratedto Canada or who were born in Canada, but who speak a language other thanEnglish as a first language. The response to this continued rapid growth has beenan increase in mainstreaming of these students into regular content classes. It hasbeen shown by Collier (1989) and Cummins (1984) that it can take upwards of five toeight years for students to reach a level of competence in their new language to beable to fully cope with the academic language demands found in regular contentclasses. These students thus require long term support.Researchers are suggesting the integration of language and content as the basis forprogram models to meet the long term needs of ESL students in the mainstreamedclassroom. This is in opposition to the idea that by segregating ESL students fromthe mainstream, they can be taught sufficient English, as an isolated subject, toreturn to the regular classroom in a year or two and be fully able to successfully copewith the demands of regular content instruction and material. There existstheoretical support for the integration of language and content learning. Krashen’s133Monitor Model (1985) has as its central tenet that second language learning shouldfocus on meaning, not form and that input must be comprehensible. In themainstream classroom, meaning comes from the content. This has been helpful toincrease content teachers’ awareness of how they are presenting the meaning oftheir material to ESL students in the target language. Another theoretical point ofview that is supportive of language and content instruction is Cummins’ LanguageProficiency Model (1989). Both Li and L2 proficiency are considered in this modelwhen examining the development of both social language and academic language.Although there is no academic agreement on the meaning or definition of academicdiscourse (Mohan, 1991, p.1l7), the differences in difficulty, formality, and length ofacquisition time between social language and academic language do seem to makesense at the level of practice, for teachers actually working with these notions. Thepreceding theories, though helpful, have as their focus language learning and donot directly address the content goals of the mainstream classroom. It has thus beenfurther recognized that it is important to go beyond the goals of second languageacquisition, even academic language acquisition. to language socialization whichincludes learning language, content and culture. This means going beyond usingacademic content merely as a new syllabus for the language classroom, to includingthe development of thinking skills and making systematic connections betweenlanguage, content and concept learning (Mohan, 1991 , Early, 1990, Crandall, 1993).134Previously, ESL teachers were thought to be solely responsible for language teaching,while regular classroom teachers were responsible for content and process teaching.Students cannot ethically be withheld from the opportunity to grow cogmtivelyuntil they have acquired a level of language proficiency that would allow teachers tofocus on content, since this process can take as long as five to eight years. Thus thepresence of growing numbers of ESL students has created a new role for mainstreamteachers, requiring them to take responsibility for ESL students’ languagedevelopment as well as content knowledge. Research suggests that most contentteachers do not modify their instruction for ESL students and believe that studentsshould demonstrate competence in English before being integrated into contentclasses (Gunderson,1985). What then must not be overlooked, is that changes ininstruction to address the needs of an increased ESL population meet not onlylanguage goals but content goals. The notion that second language learning is themain goal, even if the content from the mainstream curriculum is used as the “newlanguage syllabus”, will alone not appeal to the content goals of the mainstreamteacher. Even when willing, content teachers report that they lack the specific skillsand often resources to address the language needs of their ESL students in thecontent classes ( Penfield, 1987, Reyes & Molnar, 1991). Therefore, it has beensuggested that an attractive solution to the question of providing support formainstream teachers is to adopt co-operative strategies between classroom andlanguage teachers to develop curriculum which integrates language and contentinstruction (Bourne, 1989). This involves a change in relationships, beliefs as wellas teaching practices for the regular classroom teacher.135The research on educational change concludes that the process involved is bothcomplex and evolutionary and must be viewed as change in culture rather thanimplementation of a set policy or structure. Successful educational change includesnot only continuous school improvement as a goal but also continuous teacherdevelopment (Fullan, 1993). Working against educational change are thetraditional norms of teaching in the dominant school culture of individualism.Conversely, collaborative cultures nurture and support change and are reflected inattitudes of trust and support where individuals are valued as people andprofessionals. Collaborative cultures require support to develop shared, broadcommon goals and to enable new forms of relationships to be established.Researchers in various fields of education have suggested collaboration betweenteachers as a positive solution to meeting teachers needs to respond to the generalchanging demands of the mainstream classroom. Given the dominant context ofindividualistic school cultures, this attractive notion of teachers working together tomeet the changing needs of their students and the changing demands andexpectations of their profession is not frequently seen in practice. Referring again tothe definition of collaboration used in this study, collaboration is a style for directinteraction between at least two co-equal parties voluntarily engaged in shareddecision making as they work toward a common goal” (Friend & Cook, 1992, p.4).This is no longer a model of the “expert” giving sage advice to the “novice” who isto put into practice a specific strategy to solve an individual student’s problem.136As in the broad frame of reference of collaborative cultures, trust and mutual respectare foundations for implementation and also develop with the process. Althoughthese general themes dominate the literature, the need to address pragmatic issuesof organizational support are also recognized. The particular need for collaborationbetween classroom teachers and language specialists to integrate language andcontent instruction has often been put forth as a means of meeting the language,achievement and integration needs of mainstreamed ESL students (Mohan, 1991,Crandall, 1993, Bourne, 1989). To date, the practice has predominately been team-teaching or copresence of the language teacher in the content classroom. In thismodel the language teacher is to focus on individuals or small groups of ESLstudents to assist them in completing tasks set by the classroom teacher, often on anadhoc basis. (Bourne, 1989, p.92) If, however, language and content developmentinvolve changes to language teaching and content teaching by classroom teachers,it raises new questions of the form collaboration might take between a contentteacher and an ESL specialist. Mere co-presence is not enough. Collaboration needsto result in contingent and developmental changes to what content teachers actuallyteach.The preceding summary of the literature does provide a general look at the issues ofthis case study. It is useful as a broad orientation. However, from the viewpoint ofsomeone implementing collaborative planning to integrate language and contentinstruction, it provides no specifics of the process. To illuminate this137understanding, the particulars of this study will be presented in relation to some ofthe general themes from research, beginning with the reasons for and type ofchange, followed by the specifics which supported that change.The need to integrate language and content instruction for mainstreamed ESLstudents is prominent in recent literature. There appears to be a growing number offorms, strategies and models that are being put forth. Crandall (1993) suggests threebroad model types: content-based language instruction where academic content isused in the language classroom to facilitate the primary goal of second languagelearning; sheltered instruction which is a content class for ESL students; languageacross the curriculum, where student tasks essential to the content classroom aredesigned by taking into account both language, content and concept goals. In theinstance of this study, the latter model type was employed. We used theKnowledge Framework (Mohan, 1986) as a planning tool to identify knowledgestructures which bridge both language and content outcomes. Key visuals aredeveloped to explicitly represent these knowledge structures and by lowering thelanguage barrier and organizing and simplifying content they become an aid instudent comprehension and in the development of academic discourse. Althoughthese are the broad strategies, this is not a linear, lock step methodology. At thepractical level, utilizing this approach, it is a complex interaction involving theparticular situation, culture, and the context for each individual who is involved increating the specific, unique form the tasks will actually take. This systematicapproach includes not only a number of strategies but also a theoretical framework138and is based on a language socialization rationale. This is in contrast to approachesreviewed by Crandall (1993) which focus on single instructional strategies tofacilitate content-centered second language instruction and are based on a languagelearning rationale. The differences in these approaches have implications for thetype of staff development offered to content teachers. The single strategy methodencourages a technical approach to staff development. Both the approach and theteacher development are specific and limited. The approach instituted in this studyis more complex since it is both contingent and developmental. It is contingent onwhat the teacher is doing, has done, and their own goals and is thus developmental.The corresponding forms of staff development must then take these features intoaccount.Both for successful change to occur and as a condition of a collaborative schoolculture, there must be a consensus on broad goals. In this instance, the goal was theintegration of language and content instruction in mainstream classrooms. Thuscontent teachers were required to further expand their role to include takingresponsibility for language development as well as content knowledge. However,research has highlighted the lack of positive attitudes on the part of content teacherstowards changing instruction for the ESL students. In this case study, creatingconsensus on broad goals meant changing attitudes on the part of staff in regards toaddressing the issue of adapting instruction for ESL students. This was initiallyaccomplished through pre-service workshops. The ideas about academic languageand the length of time required for it to develop gave teachers a reference to frame139the context of ESL students in their classes. Given the numbers of students (75% atthis school) and the length of time to become proficient in academic language (5-8years) it was seen that the ESL specialists alone, either in pull-out programs orreception classes, could not meet these needs. Classroom teachers thus becameaware of the need for their instruction to include language development.Once a willingness to address these issues was established, then strategies andtechniques of integrating language and content instruction, based on the theoreticalmodel developed by Mohan, were offered through professional developmentactivities. Specifically, the staff were introduced to the Knowledge Framework as aplanning tool to identify knowledge structures which bridge both language andcontent outcomes. Key Visuals which explicitly represent these knowledgestructures, were demonstrated as a practical way to aid in student comprehensionand in the development of academic discourse. The Task Design For Teaching andLearning (Hooper and Early,1989 adapted from “Erica” Model, Moris and StewartDore ,1984) was introduced as a model which included three general steps; buildingbackground knowledge, making connections while interacting with the informationand reconstructing knowledge.Creating a shared vision and establishing implementation plans does not precedeaction. Rather, the vision and plans must occur through interaction over time.During the first two years of the Pilot, and the period of this study, furtherprofessional development time was devoted to eliciting participant input and140soliciting their concerns and suggestions to further deepen their understanding ofthe theory and aid in developing the practice of integrating language and content.Implementation plans were initially made by the Steering Committee and thentaken to the entire staff for their suggestions and approval.To implement and sustain a change in education process, beliefs and relationships itis important for support to be both centralized and decentralized, top-down andbottom up. This particular study contained elements of this two-way influence.The district provided material support in the form of extra staffing, professionaldevelopment for both the entire staff and for Pilot staff, and additional funding forresource and teaching materials. Bureaucratic support was offered in establishingregular forums for the Pilot Steering Committees from the six elementary schools tomeet and discuss emerging issues and concerns. Teachers in Pilot positions werealso able to meet to share information and concerns. In this way, the district wasapprised of common and particular themes at the school level. With thisinformation they were able to offer further informational or supplementary, limitedmaterial support. The district also became a central clearing house of sharinginformation and implementation ideas between schools. The professionaldevelopment activities were designed collaboratively by the district staff and theschools Steering Committee. This not only allowed the particular context of eachschool to be taken into account but also specific requests could be incorporated into atailor-made program.141If the integration of language and content is the ultimate responsibility of thecontent teacher, who will implement the program, then support for classroomteachers must be part of the program model. Simply presenting new strategies andideas does not neccessarily mean that people are clear about how to translate theminto their own teaching practice. Collaborative planning with the ESL Resourceteacher was offered as support for classroom teachers in implementing these ideas.Collaborative planning went beyond putting a language teacher and a classroomteacher together to plan instruction. Specific ILK strategies, to which classroomteachers had been introduced, were the basis of this planning. These strategiesoffered a bridge between content, language and thinking skills and went beyond L2acquisition to language and curricular integration. The strategies were to be thebasis of task development jointly achieved by the classroom teachers and thelanguage teacher. They were offered as concrete and practical, yet open enough totake into account individual teacher contexts.Suggesting or even mandating that this joint work should occur does not ensurethat it will be instituted. In this case study, collaborative planning was part of thestated role of the new position of ESL resource teacher. This was additional staffingto provide teachers with on-site support, not taking away existing service fromstudents to provide a new form of service for the staff. Not only was the rolemandated and supported at the district level, the staff themselves agreed to thisconcept as part of the mutual decision to request participation in the pilot. Releasetime for collaborative planning was provided during school time to remove this142structural! organizational! pragmatic barrier to participation. The developmentalnature of the process was recognized by the administrator, the resource teacher andthe Steering Committee, so participation, not product was the initial goal.As Fullan (1993) points out, change is a journey not a blueprint and since it is acomplex process, the particulars cannot be known in advance. However, having thecar filled with gasoline, the luggage loaded and everyone sitting in their seats, doesnot mean you will actually get anywhere. It is important to understand some of thespecifics of the actual journey of collaborative planning to ILC.So staff were brought to the stage of willingness to include ILC goals and wereoffered strategies and techniques, with support (CP), to enable them to put the ideasinto practice. This still does not ensure a change in their roles and responsibilitieswill be realized. Initially, staff were hesitant to take time away from theirclassrooms to collaboratively plan. There may have been a sense that participationwas meeting language goals at the expense of their existing content goals and apossible fear that techniques to ILC might actually mean watering down contentobjectives for the benefit of ESL students and the detriment of Li students.Staff came to collaborative planning bringing different skills and goals withvarying interpretations and reactions to the new ideas and strategies. Until they hadsome experience in practice to demonstrate otherwise, there was general concernabout how these ideas would tie into what they were currently doing and wanting to143do in their classrooms. Thus the process became contingent upon each individual’scontext and developmental, as the strategies were being jointly developed as theywere put into practice.Initially and thoroughout collaborative planning, the starting point was always theclassroom teachers’ objectives, whether they brought very specific or general topicsand or student tasks. In the beginning, I would use the Knowledge Framework as aplanning tool to organize their content objectives--thinking skills, new concepts andtasks they wanted to teach. As additional student tasks were further jointlydeveloped, the Knowledge Framework was also used to identify possible KeyVisuals.For most people, Key Visuals were the starting point. Teachers own goals were tohelp students understand ideas presented in texts and lectures. They saw KeyVisuals as a tool to meet those needs. It was a strategy which could be easilyincorporated into their existing practice, which was not too time consuming tocompromise their need to cover the content. The focus was content not languageteaching. The Task Design for Teaching and Learning which included a focus onbuilding background knowledge was viewed at the beginning, by some, as a goodidea if they had extra time. Which they felt they didn’t. At the start, people’slanguage concerns for their students focused on language in isolation, language inthe Language Arts curriculum and thus at the grammar or sentence level.144Over time, the ideas and strategies were further developed as they were put intopractice. Recognizing the developmental and contingent nature of this process, thedegree and nature of these developments varied for each individual. However,some general trends emerged in relation to ILC through collaborative planning.Initially staff were willing to give collaborative planning a try and thus came tojointly plan a complete unit. Once the unit was planned, they would go off andteach it. This one shot approach to planning changed with time into ongoingplanning with an increase in the sharing of responsibility for all aspects of theplanning outcomes, including team teaching. The use of Key Visuals was expandedbeyond a tool for presenting or summarizing information by the teacher. When theTask Design For Teaching and Learning was included as another strategy to try, thenKey Visuals were used not only as a teaching tool but as a learning tool for students,initially to help build background knowledge and for note taking and summarizinginformation, for review and eventually for evaluation.At the point where Key Visuals were used by students as a guide for writing andspeaking tasks, then the step to explicitly teach language was accepted by classroomteachers. Modelling, as a teaching strategy, was viewed as beneficial when designingtasks which included direct teaching of language as part of all subject areas. At thispoint, team teaching was often begun. (Perhaps since we all recognized that this wasreally new territory).145As student tasks were continually developed to include both language and contentgoals, the use of the Knowledge Framework developed beyond a planning tool toorganize tasks around thinking skills, to a planning tool for identifying Key Visualsand specific language types which correspond to the Knowledge Framework.Finally, some intermediate staff felt the Knowledge Framework would be a usefultool for students, especially to assist them in becoming independent in constructingtheir own Key Visuals.The trends outlined above illustrate the journey teachers took and demonstrateboth the development of strategies to ILC and an increasing willingness on the partof content teachers to take responsibility for both language development andcontent knowledge. However, the route and distance covered in this journey variedfor each teacher. In the beginning, the staff were simply willing to try collaborativeplanning once (a willingness to sit in the car). There were assumed expectationsthat the participants were open to try something new and that my role was to assistin developing Key Visuals. The developments mentioned previously only occurredwith repeat participation. Therefore, the specifics of what fuels the process are alsoimportant. The journey will not be sustained unless attention is paid to some of theelements. In retrospect, seven major elements unfolded along the journey ofdeveloping a collaborative planning process to ILC in this study.Collaboration was voluntary. Although the staff as a whole agreed to apply to be aPilot school, it is recognized that the level of conunitment amongst the staff likely146varied. Once the school had been accepted, the implementation of collaborativeplanning may have been viewed as a mandated change. However, the decision toparticipate was a voluntary one for each classroom teacher. The voluntary nature ofparticipation was stressed from the first staff meeting where the new positions weredescribed. The process of signing up for collaboration meetings reinforced this andwas kept private to limit any initial social pressure to participate.Support for teachers to implement language and content instruction was evident inorganizational, material/resource and social forms. The goal here was not toincrease the burden on classroom teachers. The support from the district has beenpreviously mentioned. The extra staffing for on-site collaborative planning offeredteachers assistance with curricular adaptation and material and task design.Additional release time was made available so that classroom teachers and the ESLresource teacher could meet during school hours without the responsibility to planinstruction during those meetings. The principal at this site provided supportiveleadership. He recognized the importance of release time and altered to school’sorganization to be able to accommodate this. Extra material support, at the schoollevel was also directed towards support for the staff. He demonstrated a publiccommitment to the Pilot: by his active participation in all professional developmentactivities; by becoming a spokesperson, at the district level, for the efficacy of theimplemented strategies of integrating language and content; by addressing thespecifics and implications of the pilot at all staff meetings. The staff were also147continuously praised and their efforts were frequently recognized and lauded, asindividuals and as a group.Trust must be present to initiate collaborative planning but it also grows with theprocess. The voluntary nature of participation was probably one of the specificfactors from this study, that nurtured a climate of trust and mutual respect. Duringthe actual collaborative meetings, valuing individuals input as an equal part in thecreative process of task design, by both offering and seeking suggestions withouttaking control, may have lessened any apprehension about the process beingjudgmental. Encouraging personal, informal contact time at the beginning ofcollaborative planning sessions may also have helped trust to grow.Parity amongst the participants and joint sharing of responsibilities were importantin this form of collaborative planning between language and content teachers. Theroles began to overlap, without rigid definition, in the process of exchangingexpertise. Although it is recognized that the classroom teacher has ultimateresponsibility, sharing the burden of decision making regarding the content, theprocess, students tasks and material development was a benefit for classroomteachers. The process by which consensus was reached took into account theconcerns and goals of each of the participants. The shared development ofoutcomes was open enough to allow for differing entry points and for the context ofeach teacher to be valued and taken into account.148The process of collaborative planning was enjoyable. This may not seem to qualifyas a major element, yet it was an important feature of the process. It was not anexpected outcome, yet was obvious in the results. Although not mentioned in theliterature, the laughter and informal, personal nature of collaborative planning inthis study, may have had an impact on repeat participation. Creating an atmospherethat is enjoyable may have helped in countering the anxiety and stress of takingsteps towards any change. (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1991, p. 72)Within the context of this case study, collaborative planning to ILC, using thestrategies based on the theoretical model developed by Mohan, appeared to offer thebridge between language and content goals for classroom teachers. For teachers toinvest the time and effort to attempt changes in their teaching, the proposedchanges must be seen to meet their own teaching aims and objectives. Thestrategies must be useful for all of their students, otherwise teachers are being askedto teach one set of skills for their ESL students and another for the Li students, ineffect doubling their responsibilities.The final and principal element was in the results content teachers experienced intheir classrooms, as a product of collaborative planning to integrate language andcontent instruction. Teachers reported that they saw the strategies leading to bettercontent learning by not only the ESL students but for their Li students as well. Thisfulfills the goal of content teachers for their students to be successful in learning theideas, concepts and processes taught in the mainstream classroom. This approach149goes beyond a language learning rationale, which can lead to diluting andsimplifying content to content goals where teachers had strategies that allowed themto present more cogmtively demanding tasks and content to all their students. Theyincreased their expectations of cognitive ability and began making fewerassumptions about language proficiency for all their students. They came torecognize that language development impacted positively on content learning.According to their own informal reports, they were rewarded by improved studentresults. Beyond a language learning approach, we find content teachers were part ofdeveloping this approach. The student results helped to counter the pressureteachers feel to cover the content, leaving no extra time to include language in theinstructional equation.5.3 ImplicationsThe conclusions from this study have important implications for those involved inplanning or implementing a program to integrate language and content instructionthrough collaborative planning between a language teacher and a content teacher.The researcher believes the following six tentative implications are crucial. Theseimplications are stated in direct form and should be understood as being qualified bythe fact that this is a case study of a number of teachers at one school only and thatgeneralization is limited.1501. Language teachers and content teachers working together to plan instruction isviewed as a promising answer to meeting the need of ESL students in mainstreamclassrooms. However, it is not enough to simply put the two parties together. Theprocess must work towards meeting both language and content goals. The goals ofthe content teacher must not be overlooked or subordinated. In integratinglanguage and content instruction, both the process and the eventual outcomesmust meet the goals of content teachers.2. Content and language teachers must have a shared frame of reference whencollaborating to plan instruction. The need for this joint work must be explicitlystated yet general enough in its particulars to accommodate individual teachers’contexts.3. Teachers must be given information about the need for the integration oflanguage and content development if they are to be willing to change their teachingroles and responsibilities. However, this must be done in conjunction with offeringstrategies which enable teachers to meet those changing needs of their students.4. With support, classroom teachers can successfully include integrated languageand content teaching as part of their role. Given the research regarding teacherattitudes to ESL students in mainstream classrooms, without support teachers willcontinue to focus on covering their content and feel a growing frustration withstudent results. An ever increasing presence of ESL students in their classrooms151will be viewed as a problem, not a benefit.5. It is crucial for administrators, at the school and district level, to understand thebasis for the need to integrate language and content instruction to supportmainstreamed ESL students. This understanding is necessary so that they canprovide both the particular and systemic assistance and support which is required toenable this change.6. For this process to be successfully implemented, the same level of support cited inthis study is crucial. This involves both district and school level support andincludes organizational, staffing, teacher development and material forms.Inadequate support is in fact wasted resources. If you work with a staff to the pointwhere they are independently using the developed strategies in the mainstreamclassroom, then the effect is both positive and long term. The direct impact will beto support those students who are beyond social language acquisition, who havebeen denied any service in the past due to lack of resources. Some of these students,without in-class support of curricular and learning strategy adaptation, will be lesslikely to reach their academic potential. This becomes a human and social cost. Thenotion then that the levels of support seen in this case study are too costly are calledinto question. It may be more efficient to adequately provide support in the longrun to be able to prime the process whereby more teachers are able to reach levels ofindependence to implement integration of language and content strategies for allstudents.1525.4 Directions for Further ResearchThe findings from this study not only set out the particular form of the process ofcollaborative planning which emerged and some of the influencing factors, but alsoindicate directions for further research. Seven such suggestions are presented here.Focus On The Process:1. What other factors encourage or impede collaborative planning, beyond the onesdeveloped here? For example, the size of the group collaboratively plarming.2. What is the process of moving from the initial implementation phase of a pilotto becoming a demonstration site?3. After the initial implementation phase, what role is played by administrativesupport in sustaining and developing that innovation?Focus On The Individual4. How are collaboratively planned tasks implemented or further modified inpractise in classroom where the content teacher has sole responsibility for teaching?1535. As an outcome of collaborative planning to integrate language and content, arethere changes in knowledge, skills or attitudes of the classroom teacher?Focus On the School Culture6. How does implementing this type of collaborative planning to integrate languageand content instruction impact on the culture of individualism? Is it a step towardscreating a collaborative school culture?7. What is the process of involving new staff members who have not been part ofthe implementation phase, so that they can become part of the collaborative schoolculture?1546.0 ReferencesAnderson, R.C.. (1985). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning andmemory. H. Singer, R. Ruddell eds.. Theoretical Models and Processes ofReading, 372 - 384. 3rd. Ed. Newark, Delaware: International ReadingAssociation.Austrom, L., Kennard R., Nuslund J., & Shields P.. (1989). Implementing Change:A Cooperative Approach to Initiating. Impimenting and SustainingLibrary Resource Centre Programs. Vancouver, B.C.: British ColumbiaTeacher-Librarians’ Association.Babcock, N.L. & Pryzwansky, W.B. (1983). Models of Consultation: Preferences ofeducational professionals at five stages of service. Journal of SchoolPsychology. 21. 359-366.Bailey, K. M. , Dale T., & Squire B.. (1992). “Some Reflections on CollaborativeLanguage Teaching.” Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching.Cambridge Language Teaching Library, Cambridge University Press. 162-178.Bourne, J. (1989). Moving into the Mainstream: LEA Provision for bilingual pupils.Nfer-Nelson.Bravi, G. (1986, April). Support Personnel as Consultants, Paper, The University ofManitoba Department of Educational Psychology.Breen, M.P., & Cadlin, C. (1980). “The essentials of a communicative curriculum inlanguage teaching. Applied Linguistics,J (2), 89-112.Brinton, D. M., Snow,M. A. & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-Bases SecondLanguage Instruction. New York, NY: Newbury House Publishers.Chalfant, James C, and Margaret Van Dusen Pysh. (1989) “Teacher Assistance Teams:Five Descriptive Studies on 96 Teams”, Remedial and Special Education,vol. 10, issue 6, 49 - 58.Chamot, A.U. & O’Malley, J.M. (1987). “The cognitive academic learningapproach”. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (2) , 227-249.Collier, V.P. (1987). “Age and Rate of Aquisition of Second Language for AcademicPurposes”, Tesol Quarterly, 21, 617-614.Crandall, J. (1993). “Content-centered learning in the United States. Annual Reviewof Applied Linguistics, (13) 111-126.155Crookes, G.V. (1986). Task classification: a cross-disciplinary review. (Tech. Rep #4).Honolulu: University of Hawaii Social Science Research Institute, Center forSecond Language Classroom Research.Crookes, G.V. and Long, M.H. (1987). Task-based second language teaching: a briefreport. Modern English Teacher [Tokyo] 24 (5), 26-28; and (6), 20-23.Cummins, J. (1981). “Age on Arrival and Immigrant Second Language Learning inCanada: A reassessment” Applied Linguistics, Vol. 11, No. 2. p.132-49Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment andpedagogy Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.DeBoer, A.L. (1986). The Art of Consulting. Chicago: Arcturus Books.Delamont, S. (1992). Fieldwork in Educational Settings: Methods, Pitfalls andPerspectives. London The Falmer Press.Doyle, W.& Carter,. (1984). “Academic Tasks in Classrooms” Curriculum Inquiry.14, 129-149.Driscoll, D., Shields, P., & Austrom, L., eds. (1986). Fuel For Change: CooperativePlanning and Teaching. Vancouver, British Columbia: British ColumbiaTeacher-Librarians’ Association.Early M., Thew, C. & Wakefield, P. (1986). English as a second l;anguage. K-12:Resource book, Vol.,1. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Education, BritishColumbia.Early, M. (1990). “Enabling First and Second Language Learners in the Classroom”Language Arts . Vol. 67, 567-575.Early, M., Mohan, B.A. & Hooper, H.R. (1989). “The Vancouver School BoardLanguage and Content Project”, Multicultural Education and Policy: ESL inthe 1990’s, OISE Press, 107-122.Friend, M. & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collaboration Skills for SchoolProfessionals. New York, Longman.Fullan, M. (1982). The Meaning of Educational Change. Toronto, Ontario: OISEPress, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Fullan, M.& Hargreaves, A. (1991). Whats Worth Fighting For? Working Together156Fullan, M. (1993). “Innovation, Reform and Restructuring Strategies’ In G.Cawelti(Ed), Challenges and Achievements of American Education,Monograph of Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment. 116-132.Fullan,M. & Miles M., (1992). “Getting Reaform Right: What Works and WhatDoesn’t.” Phi Delta Kappan 73, 10: 744-52.Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill.Guba,E. & Lincoln,Y. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation Sage Publication:LondonGunderson, L. (1985). A survey of reading instruction in British Columbia. ThgCanadian Modern Language Review, 42, 44-55.Hall, G. & Loucks, 5. (1978). “Teacher Concerns as a Basis for Facilitating andPersonalizing Staff Develpment.” Teacher’s College Record, vol. 8a, no.1(September). 9-16.Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography, principles in practice.London! New York, Rutledge.Hargreaves, A. (1992). “Cultures of Teaching: A Focus for Change”. In A.Hargreaves and M.G. Fullan (Eds) Understanding Teacher Development.Teachers College Press 219-242Hurren, P. (1993). “Expanding the Collaborative Planning Model”, EmergencyLibrarian, Vol. 20 No. 5 (May/June) 8-12.Idol, L. Paolucci-Whitcomb P., & Nevin, A. (1986). Collaborative Consultation.Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.Langer, J. & Applebee, A. (1987). How writing shapes thinking. Urbana, ifi:National Council of Teachers of English.Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (1990).”Transformational Leadership: How principals camhelp reform school culture.” Paper presented at American EducatioanlResearch Associaltion annual meeting.Leung, C. & Franson, C. (1991). “English as a Second Language in the NationalCurriculum.” In P. Meara & A. Ryan (Ed.), Language and Nation. BritishStudies in Applied Linguagistics 6 117-123Lieberman, A. (1986). Collaborative Work. Educational Leadership, 43. 4-8157Little, J. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educator’shandbook: A reserach perspective. New York: Longman. 491-518.Little, J. (1990) “The persistence of privace: Autonomy and initiative in teachrs’professional relations, Teachers College Record, 91 (4), 105-22Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, S. (1989). Research in Education: a conceptualintroduction, Harper Collins.Martin, J.R. (1985). Factual Writing: Exploring and challenging social realitv.i :Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and Content Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Mohan, B.A. (1991). “LEP Students and the Intergration of Language and Content:knoiwedge structures and tasks”, In Carmen Simich-Dudgeon (ed)Proceedings of the First Research Symposium on Limited EnglishProficient Students’ Issues. Washington D.C: OBEMLA 113-147Naidu, S. (1988). “Developing Materials For Distance Education: A Concerns-BasedApproach” CIEC , vol. 17, no. 3 (Fall).Nias, J., Southwood, C., & Yeomans, R. (1989). Staff Relationships in the PrimarySchci, London: Cassell.Nunan, D. (Ed), (1992). Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. CambridgeLanguage Teaching Library, Cambridge University Press.Penfield, J. (1987). “ESL: The regular classroom teacher’s perspective.” TESOLQUARTERLY, 21 21-29.Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Reyes, M. & Molner, L.A. (1991). “Instructional Strategies for Second LanguageLearners in the Content Areas”. Tournal of Reading 35:2 October 1991. 96-102Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools,New York, Longman.158Shannon, N. B. & Meath-Lang, B. (1992). “Collaborative Language Teaching: A Coinvestigation.” Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching.Cambridge Languae Teaching Library, Cambridge University Press. 120-140.Tang, C. (1989). Graphic representation of knowledge structures in ESL studentlearning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver, BC.Tikunoff, W.J. (1987). “Providing Instructional Leadership: The Key toEffectiveness”. In S.H. Fradd and W.J. Tikunoff (Eds), Bilingual Educationand Bilingual Special Education: A Guide for Administrators. College-HillPublication 231-262.West, J.F. & Idol, L. (1987). “School Consultation: An Interdesciplinary Perspectiveon Theory, Models, and Research”, Journal of Learning Disabilities 20 (7)388-408.Wideen, M. F. (1989). “Collaboration: New Fad of New Possibility?” Research ForumFall 1989 4-7.Winningham, B. (1990). “Silent Voices: How language minority students learn inthe content areas” The Quarterly of the National Writing Project and theCenter for the Study of Writing. Vol.,12, 1, 4-9.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items