![Professional Learning Communities Develop Effective Integrated Content-Language Instruction Rita MacDonald, Applied Linguistics [email_address] James Nagle, Education [email_address]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/nagleandmacdonaldprofessionallearningcommunitiesdevelopeffectiveinegratedcontentlanguageinstruction-100401135332-phpapp02/85/nagle-and-mac-donald-professional-learning-communities-develop-effective-inegrated-content-language-instruction-1-320.jpg)
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Similar a Nagle And Mac Donald, Professional Learning Communities Develop Effective Inegrated Content Language Instruction
Similar a Nagle And Mac Donald, Professional Learning Communities Develop Effective Inegrated Content Language Instruction (20)
Último
Último (20)
Nagle And Mac Donald, Professional Learning Communities Develop Effective Inegrated Content Language Instruction
- 1. Professional Learning Communities Develop Effective Integrated Content-Language Instruction Rita MacDonald, Applied Linguistics [email_address] James Nagle, Education [email_address]
- 2. Project CREATE at SMC Curriculum Reform for the Education of All Teachers of ELLs
- 4. SMC Curriculum Placements Schools Program Design Program Design Course work Instruction Elementary Secondary Teaching Model Shared responsibility, collaboration, integrated content and language instruction
- 5. SMC Curriculum Placements Schools Program Design Program Design Course work Instruction Elementary Secondary Teaching Model Shared responsibility, collaboration, integrated content and language instruction
- 22. References Echevarria, Vogt and Short. (2008) Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model, Third Edition. Pearson Fang, Z. & Schleppegrell, M. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Tomlinson, C. A. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Vermont Grade Level Expectations for content area and grade level http://education.vermont.gov WIDA Standards for Language Standards www.wida.us Winooski School District (2009). The Report on the Effectiveness of the Winooski School District. Zwiers, J. (2008) Building Academic Language: Essential Practices for Content Classrooms, Grades 5-12 . Wiley.
- 23. CREATE website http://academics.smcvt.edu/CREATE/Default.htm rmacdonald@smcvt.edu jnagle2@smcvt.edu
Notas del editor
- VT does not require ESL courses for teacher ed or for licensing, but we know that today’s Ts need to be prepared to teach in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms
- VT is a WIDA state , and we’ve incorporated WIDA standards and tools into our SMC curriculum and used them in the PD we’ll be describing today. We’ll talk about those as we go along.
- Explain the model of curriculum reform across 2 departments Coursework + placements + LEA development w/ 3 partner school districts keeps our revision grounded in real classrooms
- This PD project in this one high-incidence school district is designed to help teachers meet the needs of a rapidly-growing ELL population. This school district serves as an important observation and student teaching site for SMC students in both Education and Applied Linguistics. Have moved placements from former ‘suburban’ schools to this one high-need district.
- HIGH NEEDS SCHOOL....similar to urban districts... High ELL population—at the tipping point-- up from just 12% 3 years ago—so, need to revise models for instruction High percentage of low ses Ss—unusual in VT—again, similar to urban districts 1: 13 ratio
- Research shows DI not sufficient for ELLs ……. explicit instruction in Academic Language needed…[and for many other Ss, to a lesser extent] Therefore, model of integrated C- L instruction.. not to replace ESOL instruction, but situated in C classroom with COLLABORATION of ESL Ts We will walk though this process of developing flexible, responsive PD approach — responsive to structural restrictions/impediments of schooling (scheduling, planning time)
- PD project over the 2 year period … Year 1 = 1 W in fall, then another in Spring followed by 4 months of work, embedded to varying degrees to meet the specific needs and opportunities of each school Year 2 = kick-off W (repeat of Y1 Fall W), followed by FULL YEAR of monthly work, embedded in varying degrees Flexible and responsive to the teachers’ real teaching and learning situations
- 1. CAN DO = graphic org showing English proficiency levels across 4 domain + Cultural profiles 2. look at roster, create whole-class Can Do char, showing range of proficiency levels and cultural backgrounds 3. Then start to develop unit plans for these particular Ss based on DI and UBD
- Half-day workshop More of Eng proficiency levels as they interact with typical classroom activities Selected components of SI Rationale for increasing the focus on AE for all Ss Role of learning objectives as navigational aid for ELLs , how to write effective ones for Ss
- 4 months of further exploration of these topics, but contextualized by using Ts’ real lesson planning process and products Products hoped for were Ts working in groups to develop unit plans to implement in fall of 09. Groupings differed, based on schedule and structural constraints
- K-5 Ts were really under the gun …new science approach + new to UBD… multiple demands, very little common time …met as a 30-person group for 30 minutes once/month PDers need to be flexible to meet real demands of: school schedules, union contracts, multiple T responsibilities and Ts expressed and changing needs
- K-5 –whole school, 30 Ts, working on developing inquiry-based science + UBD + SIOP/DI…hope for spread of strategies to other content areas MS – ELLs clustered into one team, with new teams to be trained in successive years.. based on needs of Ss—Ss were graduating from newcomer into mainstream, needed team up and running HS —disciplinary level teams to develop unit plans to start in fall...to be followed thru implementation through PLC cohort...revise and develop more unit plans
- Didn’t re-teach, just facilitated a review of concepts from previous fall Desired outcome --- Ts update unit plan based on new, updated info about their Ss
- K-5 = traditional workshop MS = all bottom-up, Ts have id’d need and process, during school time...Ts bring issues and Qs HS = top-down PLC dictated by state...differential effects for Ts + after school...still, able to create opportunities for investigation of S work
- K-5 : no shared planning time; ESL Ts ‘push in’ to classroom, but are not co-teaching MS : Andrea works in planning AV + DI + lang sx HS : plan and teach together
- Desired outcomes are being met Strategies are spreading to other content areas
- Moved from initial separation of C/L…. to more authentically integrated C=L approach... just beginning to use SFL
- CONTENT: Take Ts where you find them... move from basic knowledge (WIDA standards and tools, chart, ACCESS scores) .. increase awareness of AE (SIOP, Zwiers) as pertains to content but not really getting into L... more sophisticated analysis of the construction of meaning trough discourse (SFL)... INTEGRATED INTO Ts’ PLANNING, TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM...BUT all done using THEIR curric planning tools, their lessons, their unit plan formats PD Responsiveness : embed it into context of school...work w teams of Ts during school day.. Don’t add another demand...therefore PD must be flexible ...intense front-loading helped, but need ongoing focus with Ts working on THEIR practice and THEIR lessons