“First-thens” have plagued me all my life and believe me, they are an insidious bunch. These shady characters always show up under the pretence of reason and sensible precaution, and instead end up derailing all my best-laid plans. You might know the kind I’m talking about … they are all the little requirements and conditions we frontload onto our goals, before we actually allow ourselves to accomplish them:
“First I’ll lose a little more weight, then I will be able to buy that nice jacket.”
“First I’ll learn the dance moves, then I’ll be able to go to Zumba class.”
“First I’ll get the house perfect, then I will be able to have my friends over.”
First-thens.
Over the years, such arbitrary preconditions have prevented me from getting to the good stuff more times than I care to admit. And counterpoint — yes, sometimes a little precaution is important, especially when critical situations and life decisions are at stake. But, if I let them, these subtle little negotiators will just keep showing up, intent on keeping me mired in deferred experiences and inaction.
(Diane. Just go to Zumba now.)
So when I see first-thens pop up in the education world, I always look at them a little askance. And while some are undeniably great (such as first-then visual schedules to help students navigate daily routines, or first-then sentence frames to help students create effective sequential writing) some may be more of the counterproductive type.
And there is one “first-then” in particular that may require some unpacking …
Decades ago, when a student new to English arrived at school, the set course of action was decidedly “first-then” in nature:
“First you learn English in ESL class for a year or two, then you will be able to understand classroom lessons.”
With this silo-esque model firmly entrenched, and with the best of intentions based on then-current knowledge, the classroom teacher and the ESL teacher would retreat to their separate rooms. With pedagogical drawbridges pulled up, instruction in the classroom carried on as it always had (which was often largely unintelligible to beginner MLLs), and isolated ESL instruction took place down the hall (maybe a few times a week). And in this disconnected way, the MLL would dutifully bounce back and forth between educators. It was anyone’s guess whether there was any content overlap and thus reinforcement in the two language programs. And most of the student’s time would be spent in the mainstream classroom of course, where they would sit (usually silently) with limited access to the curriculum content delivered in English.
That would have to come later. At some point.
First-then, after all.
Thankfully times have changed. And to be absolutely clear, I am not arguing that extra support in the way of ESL classes is unhelpful – especially in a time of increasing demands on teachers and decreasing funding supports. Rather, I suggest an examination of the assumptions and implications of isolated delivery methods, where English acquisition and learning curriculum are viewed as separate teacher responsibilities. Indeed, during my 20 plus years’ experience in ESL, I have noticed some distinct disadvantages to students if withdrawal programming is the only source of language acquisition support for MLLs – in terms of belonging and inclusion, learning curriculum, and even English development.
One of my all-time favourite quotes related to this issue comes from Pauline Gibbons’ book Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching English Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom:
“We do not first ‘learn’ a language, and then later ‘use’ it. Second-language learners do not have the time in any case to study English as a ‘subject’ before they use it to learn other things; they must begin to use it as a medium for learning as soon as they enter school, simultaneously developing their second language hand-in-hand with curriculum knowledge,” (Gibbons, p 25).
Gibbons is correct when she suggests we cannot wait for ESL class to “fix” the student before they are able to learn math, science, literary devices, and other rich aspects of the curriculum … especially considering it takes 5-7 years on average to attain fluency in a language. Yet, if learning programs are delivered independent of one another, with no communication between educators, we may miss vital opportunities to teach and reinforce the very vocabulary and language structures that MLLs need in order to learn content and communicate with peers in class.
Take the water cycle, for example. In this unit, students need to learn vocabulary such as cloud, rain, condense, and evaporate in order to understand and be included in lessons (and continue developing their English, for that matter). So why then would we spend time labelling types of fruit or common professions in an ESL workbook, when valuable support time could be spent pre-teaching this subject-specific vocabulary, offering speaking practice with target words and sentences about to be used in class, and delivering reading and writing instruction anchored in this relevant context? And during whole-class lessons, why would we pass over the golden opportunity to highlight and chorally read that same key lesson vocabulary with everyone, and point to a few visuals of those words as we instruct? The dual goal of linguistic and content knowledge acquisition is realized in this dynamic interplay, allowing repeated opportunities to use both meaningfully throughout the unit, with everyone in the class benefitting from review, vocabulary clarification, and multisensory engagement.
Now of course, sometimes other activities and approaches may be more appropriate, based on the needs of the student and professional judgement of the teachers. As we know, there is no one single “correct” way to teach; students and their needs are as unique and various as the teaching strategies that will best support them. I simply point out that isolated programs with no communication between teachers as the default and exclusive ESL support model may not always correlate to optimal learning for MLLs.
And I am happy to say I have seen some more-than-optimal learning occur for students, directly as a result of teacher collaboration and communication. Even if they only have a few seconds in their hectic days, these educators use whatever passing moment they can find to make sure their language goals are aligned with curriculum goals, with both teachers intentionally highlighting, recycling, and reinforcing this common language for students in their respective programs (and sometimes, in awe-inspiring fashion, by team teaching in the same classroom).
At this point, you would be correct to point out the desperately limited (if not altogether absent) release time teachers have to plan with one another. In the link below, it is my hope that teachers will find at least initial strategies that require little to no planning time, with the hope of one day having the release time needed to properly and fully explore their potential.
A couple of years ago, a team at ETFO put together the infographic poster linked below. This resource offers quick and effective collaborative teaching strategies for both classroom and ESL teachers, that may provide students with increased chances to learn the language they will need every day in the mainstream classroom.
And while such collaborative efforts are essential to expedited English language acquisition and improved access to the curriculum, they are also key to student belonging and well-being. The ability to access and contribute to learning in the mainstream classroom is integral to feeling a sense of efficacy and inclusion – and to being seen that way by other students as well.
So, to classroom and ESL educators who have the privilege of teaching MLLs, witnessing firsthand their insights, talents, and multilingual abilities …
Have fun jumping in together, right now 😊
Collaboration and Co-teaching for MLLs
