The present study examined asynchronous online discussions in the online course “English Language Development” to identify themes related to teachers and teacher candidates' learning about the language and literacy development of English Language Learners (ELLs) when they facilitated online discussions. Our overall goal was to determine whether teachers and teacher candidates developed sufficient understanding to effectively educate ELLs. Participants were 29 teachers and teacher candidates who were enrolled in the course in the fall semester, 2011 at a large research university in Indiana. The following research questions were addressed: 1) What do candidates identify as key issues for the literacy development of ELLs when they facilitate online discussions? and 2) In what ways did they discuss these key issues in the online environment? The analysis of teachers and teacher candidates' weekly online discussion postings (n = 154) indicated that student-discussion facilitation can impact the levels of teachers and teacher candidates' understanding about the literacy development of ELLs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AthanasesS. Z., & de OliveiraL. C. (2010). Toward program-wide coherence in preparing teachers to teach and advocate for English language learners. In LucasT. (Ed), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 195–215). New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
CornoL. (2008). On teaching adaptively.Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 161–173.
3.
Darling-HammondL. (2002). Learning to teach for social justice. In Darling-HammondL., FrenchJ., & Paloma Garcia-LopezS. (Eds.), Learning to teach for social justice (pp. 1–7). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
4.
de JongE., & HarperC. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough?Teacher Education Quarterly,, 32, 101–124.
5.
DennenV. P., & WielandK. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: Facilitating online group discourse process.Distance Education, 28(3), 281–297.
6.
De WeverB., Van KeerH., SchellensT., & ValckeM. (2010). Roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: The differential impact of different roles on social knowledge construction.Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 516–523.
7.
GándaraP. C., Maxwell-JollyJ., & DriscollA. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers' challenges, experiences, and professional development needs.Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
8.
GarrisonD. R., AndersonT., & ArcherW. (2001). Critical thinking: Cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education.The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
9.
GonzalezN., MollL., and AmantiC. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
GoodwinA. L. (2002). Teacher preparation and the education of immigrant children.Education and Urban Society, 34, 156–172.
11.
GunawardenaC. N., LoweC. A., & AndersonT. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.
12.
HallidayM. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning.Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116.
13.
HewK. F., & CheungW. S. (2010). Higher-level knowledge construction in asynchronous online discussions: an analysis of group size, duration of online discussion, and student facilitation techniques.Instructional Science, 39(3), 303–319.
14.
KliscC., McGillT., & HobbsV. (2012). The effect of instructor information provision on critical thinking in students using asynchronous online discussion.International Journal on E-Learning, 11(3), 247–266.
15.
LucasT., & GrinbergJ. (2008). Responding to the linguistic reality of mainstream classrooms: Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners. In Cochran-SmithM., Feiman-NemserS., & McIntyreD. J. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd ed., pp. 606–636). New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
LucasT., VillegasA. M., & Freedson-GonzálezM. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education.Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373.
17.
MazzoliniM., & MaddisonS. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums.Computers & Education, 40(3), 237–253.
18.
MeansB., ToyamaY., MurphyR., BakiaM., & JonesK. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies., Technical Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
19.
MenyukP., & BriskM. E. (2005). Language development and education: Children with varying language experiences.Hampshire, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
20.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
21.
MohanB. A. (1986). Language and content.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22.
MollL., AmantiC., NeffD., & GonzálezN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms.Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
23.
MooreM. G. (2007). The theory of transactional distance. In MooreM. G. (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 89–105). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
MorganD. L. (1988). Qualitative research methods, Vol. 16.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2006). The growing numbers of limited English proficient students: 1993/94–2003/4.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition.
26.
NietoS. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
RomiszowskiA., & MasonR. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 397–431), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
30.
SolskenJ., WillettJ., & Wilson-KeenanJ. (2000). Cultivating hybrid texts in multicultural classrooms: Promise and challenge.Research in the Teaching of English, 35(2), 175–208.
31.
SullE. C. (2009). The (Almost) complete guide to effectively managing threaded discussions.Distance Learning, 6(4), 65–70.
32.
ValdésG. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
33.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
WatersJ. (2012). Thought-leaders in asynchronous online learning environments.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(1), 19–33.
35.
ZingaroD., & OztokM. (2012). Interaction in an asynchronous online course: A synthesis of quantitative predictors.Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 71–82.
