According to Kaufman and Brooks,
Little documentation exists about innovative ventures within teacher
education programs that are designed to prepare teachers for interdisciplinary
collaboration and integration of language and content." (1996, p.
233)
This paper is one attempt to begin to fill this gap in the literature.
It describes specific aspects of a teacher development program designed
for a unique interdisciplinary team teaching environment at a small Japanese
liberal arts university. Several activities which have been used in the
institution's pre-service orientation sessions to encourage collaboration
among faculty from different disciplines.
The paper opens with a brief overview of the recent state of professional
faculty development in higher education. Next, characteristics of effective
faculty development workshops are summarized. This is followed by an overview
of a professional orientation program for training in English for Specific
Purposes (ESP). Drawing from experiences over five years as a faculty developer
in this program, I will introduce several professional development activities
that have proven to be very helpful to promote communication among faculty
members centering on discussions about ESP and team teaching. The reactions
of trainees to these specific activities are presented.
Professional Development Programs in Higher Education
New faculty need orientation programs which encourage professional development.
They cannot be expected to know everything necessary to be effective members
of an institution (Boice, 1992; Fink, 1992). Boice contends that, "Learning
a new campus culture requires adjustment, even for experienced faculty"
(1992, p. 220). Yet, until recently, little research into the induction
of new staff into higher education has been conducted, and therefore, the
literature about this topic is almost nonexistent (Dunkin, 1990). Thus,
there is scant evidence of the effectiveness of faculty development programs.
Given this situation, the occurrence of faculty development programs at
colleges has generally been haphazard (Boice, 1992). In fact, department
chairs and deans are often very resistant to faculty development programs
(Turner & Boice, 1986). However, some colleges have established faculty
development offices staffed by experts in pedagogy (Hativa, 1995; Smith,
1995).
Facilitating Active Participation in Faculty Development Programs
Eison, Janzow and Bonwell (1990) reported that too many faculty workshops
are conducted using a "teaching is telling" or "talk and
chalk" style of presentation. This pattern of presentation has been
used by many of the facilitators that have in the past helped to conduct
the pre-service program for faculty at our institution. In higher education,
the accepted method of instruction is lecturing. TESL training programs
that I am familiar with tend to feature classroom presentations in lecture
format. This is likely the result of the prevalence of the "empty vessel"
philosophy of education. Teachers with this view of education, also known
as "banking education," see learning as a unidirectional process
and try to fill the empty minds of their students with their own
knowledge (Crookes & Lehner, 1998). Instructors, even those who know
better, easily can become preoccupied with covering as much material as
possible. But, altering traditional practices is not easy. When contemplating
the use of more discussion oriented and learner centered instruction, faculty
workshop leaders and classroom teachers share similar fears: fear of silences;
fear of challenging and quiet students; fear of the unknown directions a
discussion can take; and fear of not knowing all of the answers (Eison et
al., 1990, p. 85).
So what are some characteristics of successful professional development
workshops? Generating an atmosphere tolerant of risk and experimentation
is something that can benefit faculty developers tremendously. The creation
of such an environment can begin in teaching workshops offered by faculty
developers (Eison et al., 1990; Gomez, 1995; Master, 1992; Short, 1991b
& 1994). However, this can be accomplished only when administrative
support is provided. Having administrative backing is particularly important
in programs employing innovative teaching approaches. In addition, active
learning strategies should be incorporated into professional development
workshops. Eison et al. (1990) offer workshop facilitators an extensive
list of points for using active learning techniques in teacher training
sessions. Finally, effective workshops are organized so that teachers need
to collaborate to find possible solutions to salient concerns (Brinton,
Snow & Wesche, 1989; Chamot & O'Malley, 1994; Jackson, 1998; Master,
1992).
Professional Development Program and Context
The scope of this paper centers on activities used in several pre-service
training sessions. Before introducing the activities I would like to frame
them for readers with a description of the institutional context, and a
brief overview of the two orientation programs offered to new faculty at
our college. (For a more extensive description of these programs see, Sagliano,
Stewart & Sagliano, forthcoming.)
Less than 20% of our college’s faculty are Japanese nationals. To ensure
new faculty members as smooth a transition as possible into new personal
and professional circumstances, they experience two types of orientation
programs before entering the classroom. Personal orientation begins through
email, fax, and post immediately after a faculty member is hired, with communication
about housing, schools, banking, medical care and other matters of concern.
This orientation continues officially for two weeks after new faculty members
arrive on campus. In a small liberal arts college such as ours, this kind
of extensive personal interaction between veterans and newcomers can forge
new relationships and help build the academic community as it eases the
transition for new colleagues.
The key professional development concerns for our new discipline-specific
and ESOL faculty are learning about ESP instruction, and becoming accustomed
to collaborative instruction. Once our new faculty members have dealt with
important personal concerns, they begin our three-week professional orientation
program. All of our first- and second-year discipline courses are designed
and taught by two instructors; an ESOL teacher and a content-area teacher.
Since it is rare to find models in which discipline-specific and ESOL teachers
collaborate (Kaufman & Brooks, 1996), it is not surprising that the
vast majority of our new faculty members have no interdisciplinary team
teaching experience.
Background in ESP varies depending on experience on the job. TESL programs
outside of Britain typically do not include specific courses in ESP or content-based
instruction (Kaufman, 1997; Kaufman & Brooks, 1996; Master, 1997; Peterson,
1997; Short, 1991a). In addition, few of our content specialists have had
prior experience teaching LEP (limited English proficiency) students, and
so their understanding of the backgrounds and needs of second language learners
is limited.
The pre-service professional development program commences eight weeks
before the start of the academic year. It includes nine sessions over three
weeks. Most sessions run about three hours. The schedule is structured so
that there are no sessions for two days in each of the three weeks. Sessions
with social functions are also scheduled. The remainder of this article
will focus on activities from this program which have enhanced communication
among teachers.
Communicating About Team Teaching Relationships
At the beginning of teaching collaborations, an issue of immediate concern
is the relationship between the instructors. Johnson, Johnson and Smith
(1991) argue that there is not nearly enough collaboration among university
faculty members. Higher education researchers have described college professors
as being isolated, autonomous, and individualistic (Boice, 1992; Hatton,
1985; Johnson et al., 1991; Smith, 1995). Thus, a challenge for facilitators
in our faculty development program is to help typically autonomous faculty
members become accustomed to the dynamics of collaborative team teaching
relationships. Our approach has been to allow faculty to get to know their
colleagues and to strengthen relationships with them by having them participate
in group problem-solving exercises. This approach reflects Master's view
that communication between teachers "is best fostered through preservice
and in-service training" (1992, p. 80).
Our professional development program seeks to promote close working relationships
between ESOL and discipline-specific faculty. Throughout this pre-service
training, both the rewards and challenges of team teaching are acknowledged.
To help new faculty members avoid potential interpersonal and professional
conflicts, developers indicate probable areas of teaching partner disagreement.
The objective here is to have instructors discuss these challenges frankly
as they seek solutions to problematic scenarios based on actual cases. This
is done by introducing a series of reality-based scenarios (Jackson, 1998)
for faculty members to consider through cooperative learning structured
tasks.
In this session, new faculty members are assigned to interdisciplinary
groups. At the start of the workshop, cooperative groupings such as "expert
groups" and "cooperative groups" are defined (Olsen &
Kagan, 1992). The first activity is a group investigation and initially
participants are organized in expert groups. Each expert group works on
solutions to their particular team teaching challenge scenario. After about
ten minutes, cooperative (jigsaw) groups, composed of one member from every
expert group, are formed. Every member of a cooperative group is an "expert"
about a different team teaching challenge that has been experienced at our
institution. Cooperative group members take turns describing their scenario
and explaining the solution chosen by their expert group. Each scenario
is discussed in the cooperative group, together with possible courses of
action. Cooperative structures facilitate faculty interchange. Thus, teachers
share ideas about how challenges in team teaching can be resolved, or avoided.
While this is occurring, faculty begin to appreciate each other's points
of view.
Next, participants are regrouped and provided with a list of cooperative
group roles (Olsen & Kagan, 1992). Each member must perform one of these
roles (Gatekeeper, Cheerleader, Taskmaster, Secretary, Checker) while their
group considers the following reality-based scenario:
You have tried to reach your teaching partner to plan your course each
week now for the past 3 weeks but s/he is either not on campus or is usually
rushed doing committee work and Japanese study. You feel a real need to
meet regularly and talk about the course and students at greater length
but your partner thinks, "things are going along just fine."
What do you think you would do if you were in this situation?
All groups work on the same scenario and secretaries for every group
report the suggestions offered by their members to all participants. Suggestions
offered by each group are briefly commented on by experienced faculty developers.
This session was well received with sixty percent of participants rating
it as "excellent" and forty percent rating it as "very good."
Participants appreciated the "open discussion [and] realistic scenarios."
One faculty member said that the workshop was helpful for "recognizing
the importance of cooperation between partners." Another wrote that
it was "very useful to develop some tools for partnered teaching and
especially to have time to think about some of the potential difficulties
and brainstorm how to deal with these problems."
Communicating About Course and Lesson Planning
Swain (1996) has pointed out the need for more extensive planning for
instruction of integrated curricula. Her concerns about a lack of coherence
in integrated language and content instruction have been supported by Snow,
Met and Genesee (1989). Kaufman and Brooks inform us that "the design,
implementation, and assessment of integrated curricula can be greatly enhanced
when teachers of different disciplines form interdisciplinary teams"
(1996, p. 233). But, as was demonstrated earlier, few teachers are used
to working in dynamic team-based structures. Teaching remains a personal
and private act and many teachers are reluctant to share power in planning
course objectives and content, let alone share classroom instruction time
(Bailey, Dale & Squire, 1992).
Pre-service training sessions at our institution introduce new instructors
to several models of integrated classroom activities. Faculty developers
have begun to take more care to plan and implement their professional development
workshops in a manner that reflects the active learning core of the institution's
teaching mission. Thus, new faculty experience first-hand, examples of the
type of classroom dynamics, learning tasks, and teaching approaches that
they are expected to employ.
One example of this hands-on practice is the workshops in Computer Assisted
Language Learning. Use of computers in teaching is encouraged at our college.
So in a workshop facilitators match new faculty in content-language pairs
and instruct each pair to share one computer in the computer classroom.
This arrangement forces learners to cooperate and share information. Colleagues
communicate while working through tasks. Several classroom-tested activities
are demonstrated in an interactive way allowing time for practice and discussion.
These include activities to develop writing and reading fluency; writing
accuracy and editing; and practice approaches to research for LEP students
utilizing electronic sources.
Once the professional development program enters its final week, new
faculty members are given tasks that require them to communicate at length
with colleagues about course design and teaching in their new institutional
environment.
In order to demonstrate practical aspects of ESP instruction more broadly,
a collection of materials designed for courses at our college is displayed
for new faculty members. This material is collected in one large room and
contains work in every aspect of ESP course design. In this self-paced session,
new faculty can browse a wide variety of material and discuss their questions
and concerns at length with more experienced colleagues. In addition to
syllabi, texts, task sheets, and assessment ideas, instructors can also
individually examine completed student assignments and watch video recordings
of classroom activities.
This material display assists new faculty to prepare for the final pre-service
session in which they must describe a lesson plan and one activity that
integrates language and content study. One week prior to the conclusion
of the pre-service training program, new faculty are asked to meet with
an assigned teaching partner and begin course planning discussions in preparation
for this workshop. At the final session of this training program, teaching
teams are asked to present their lesson plan and one integrated classroom
activity. Comments and suggestions are made to each teaching pair after
their presentations. The session concludes with an open discussion of teaching
issues peculiar to our context.
This session was rated as "very good" by all of the workshop
participants. One participant wrote: "preparing the first week of class
was very helpful [and] hearing other's plans was helpful too". Another
new faculty member liked "the fact that it forced us to get together
with our partners and talk and start planning".
Communicating Strengths and Weaknesses of the Pre-Service Sessions
This article deals only with a portion of the activities offered in this
extensive faculty development program. Participants in such programs need
to be given the opportunity to evaluate them and offer suggestions for improvement.
Evaluation of this program occurred at the end of individual sessions and
then again three weeks after the conclusion of the program. In this way,
participants could focus comments on specific sessions while they were fresh
in their minds, and also were able to give general comments about the overall
program after a period of reflection. Representative comments of a general
evaluative nature are listed below.
Strengths
The biggest strength, as I saw it, was the use of cooperative learning
activities during the orientation itself. It's said people teach as they’ve
been taught.... hopefully this had some impact.Sharing of teaching activities planned for the first week of classes
was my favorite session. It was very helpful to have a chance to start
planning, and it was very helpful to hear what others had planned.I also found the team teaching activities useful largely because in
hearing the ideas of the content faculty I worked with in my group, I could
anticipate the real problems that might come up in the classroom!
Areas for Improvement
I didn't like the sharp division between personal and professional orientation.
The main problem, as I saw it, was that after we had become familiar with
the personal orientation committee members, we were suddenly newcomers
all over again.. . . I think that the pedagogical theories of 'content-based, active
learning' as well as other EFL concepts might have been more openly discussed
at the beginning to provide everyone with more of a foundation in and respect
of the concepts.One significant weakness is the listen-in [lecture] sessions.
What advice can faculty developers glean from these comments? It seems
that the use of cooperative learning methods in workshops was appreciated
and should be continued. Several faculty members complained strenuously
about the lecture sessions dealing with administrative issues. One participant
made several positive suggestions for ways to "activate" these
sessions. However, indications are that it might be advisable to hold administrative
sessions separately from faculty development workshops. Comments about the
team teaching challenges and course planning sessions reveal that they were
highly appreciated and show that the ideas that were exchanged between faculty
across disciplines were valued. Yet, a couple of participants said that
they believe improvements could be made in the program if more work were
done to ground participants in theoretical underpinnings of certain teaching
methodologies. Finally, it seems that ensuring a continuum between orientation
programs could help to establish an atmosphere more conducive to open communication
between new colleagues.
References
Bailey, K. M., Dale, T., & Squire, B. (1992). Some
reflections on collaborative language teaching. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative
language learning and teaching (pp. 162-178). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member: Supporting
and fostering professional development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989).
Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House
Publishers.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA
handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Crookes, G. & Lehner, A. (1998). Aspects of process
in an ESL critical pedagogy teacher education course. TESOL Quarterly,
32, 319-328.
Dunkin, M. J. (1990). The induction of academic staff to
a university: Processes and products. Higher Education, 20, 47-66.
Eison, J., Janzow, F., & Bonwell, C. (1990). Active
learning in faculty development workshops: Or, practicing what we teach.
The Journal of Staff, Program and Organization Development, 8 (2),
81-99.
Fink, L. D. (1992). Orientation programs for new faculty.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 50, (Summer), 39-49.
Gomez, E. L. (1995). The integration of language and content
instruction: A training program for middle school educators. Talking
About TESOL, 18, 1,7 and 10.
Hatton, E. (1985). Team-teaching and teacher orientation
to work: implications for the preservice and inservice preparation of teachers.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 11, 228-244.
Havita, N. (1995). The department-wide approach to improving
faculty instruction in higher education: A qualitative evaluation. Research
in Higher Education, 36, 377-413.
Jackson, J. (1998). Reality-based decision cases in ESP
teacher education: Windows on practice. English for Specific Purposes,
17, 151-167.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991).
Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.: The George
Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
Kaufman, D., & Brooks, J. G. (1996). Interdisciplinary
collaboration in teacher education: A constructivist approach. TESOL
Quarterly, 30, 231-251.
Kaufman, D. (1997). Collaborative approaches in preparing
teachers for content- based and language-enhanced settings. In M. A. Snow
& D. M. Brinton (Eds.),The content-based classroom: Perspectives
on integrating language and content (pp. 175-186). New York: Longman.
Master, P. (1992). What are some considerations for teacher
training in content-based instruction? The CATESOL Journal, 5, (1),
77-84.
Master, P. (1997). ESP teacher education in the U.S. In
R. Howard & G. Brown (Eds.), Teacher education for Language for Specific
Purposes (pp. 22-40). Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Olsen, R. E., & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative
learning. In C. Kessler (Ed.), Cooperative language learning: A teacher's
resource book (pp. 1-30). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents.
Peterson, P. W. (1997). Knowledge, skills, and attitudes
in teacher preparation for content-based instruction. In M. A. Snow &
D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating
language and content (pp. 158-174). New York: Longman.
Sagliano, M., Stewart, T., & Sagliano, J. (forthcoming).
Professional training to develop content-based language instruction in higher
education. TESL Canada Journal.
Short, D. (1991a). Content-based English language teaching:
A focus on teacher training. Cross Currents, XVIII (2), 167-173.
Short, D. (1991b). How to integrate language and content
instruction : A training manual (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Center
for Applied Linguistics.
Short, D. (1994). Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating
language, cultureand social studies. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 581-608.
Smith, R. A. (1995). Creating a culture of teaching through
the teaching portfolio.Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6
(1), 75-99.
Snow, M. A., Met, M. & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual
framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign
language instruction.TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201-217.
Swain, M. (1996). Integrating language and content in immersion
classrooms: Research perspectives. The Canadian Modern Language Review,
52, 529-548.
Turner, J. L. & Boice, R. (1986). Coping with resistance
to faculty development. To mprove the Academy, 5, 26-36.