PUSH-IN LANGUAGE SUPPORT IN ENGLISH-MEDIUM INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS

Abstract

The number of English-medium international schools implementing a second language acquisition instructional model using push-in language support is increasing. With the escalation of push-in comes increased interaction between English language learner (ELL) teachers and classroom teachers. This quantitative survey-based study aimed to explore ELL push-in support in the early and primary years in international schools. Within the construct of English-medium international schools, the researchers sought to investigate teacher expectations during push-in. Areas explored include language policy and the specification of teacher roles, availability of planning time, in-class expectations for ELL teachers, and teacher satisfaction with push-in. The study results revealed that slightly less than half of the participants reported having a school language policy that defined teacher roles, and approximately one-third of the participants in schools using push-in were not provided with planning time. The researchers also found statistically significant differences in the rankings of ELL teacher roles during push-in between ELL and classroom teachers. Further, the study revealed no statistically significant difference in the reported level of satisfaction with push-in between the two groups; however, when the two groups were combined, only about half of the participants reported that teachers were satisfied with push-in ELL support in their school.

Keywords

• ELL Teachers
• English-Medium
• International schools
• instructional model
• Push-In

References

1. Arkoudis, S. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 415-433.
2. Baecher, L., & Bell, A. B. (2017). Opportunity to teach: Push-in and pull-out models of English learner instruction. Journal of Education and Culture Studies, 1(1), 53-68. https://doi.org/10.22158/jecs.v1n1p53
3. Bell, A. B., & Baecher, L. (2012). Points on a continuum: ESL teachers reporting on collaboration. TESOL Journal, 3(3), 488-515. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.28
4. Birkland, T. A. (2014). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts and models of public policy making. Routledge.
5. Bunnell, T. (2016). International schooling: Implications of the changing growth pattern. In M. Hayden & J. Thompson (Eds.), International schools: Current issues and future prospects (pp. 215-235). Symposium Books Ltd.
6. Carder, M. (2007). Bilingualism in international schools: A model for enriching language education. Vol. 8. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
7. Carder, M. W. (2013). Managerial impact on programmes for second language learners in international schools. http://mclanguage.tripod.com
8. Carder, M. W. (2014). Tracing the path of ESL provision in international schools over the last four decades (Part 1). The International Schools Journal, 34(1), 85-96.

9. Constantino, R. (1994). A study concerning instruction of ESL students comparing all-English classroom teacher knowledge and English as a second language teacher knowledge. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 13(1), 37-57.
10. Creese, A. (2005). Teacher collaboration and talk in multilingual classrooms. Multilingual Matters.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
12. Dove, M., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ESL coteaching and collaboration: Opportunities to develop teacher leadership and enhance student learning. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 3-22.
13. Elson, N. (1997). Power, politics-and persuasion: ESL in changing times. TESL Canada Journal, 55-66.
14. Gallagher, E. (2008). Equal rights to the curriculum: Many languages, one message. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
15. Harper, C. A., De Jong, E. J., & Platt, E. J. (2008). Marginalizing English as a second language teacher expertise: The exclusionary consequence of No Child Left Behind. Language Policy, 7(3), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-008-9102-y
16. Harr, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Blackwell.
17. Holderness, J. (2001). Teaching and managing English as an additional or second language in international schools. In S. Blandford & M. Shaw (Eds.), Managing international schools (pp. 63-79). RoutledgeFarmer.
18. Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2010). Collaboration and co-teaching: Strategies for English learners. Corwin Press.
19. ISC Research. (2019). ISC research. ISC Research. https://www.iscresearch.com
20. Lehman, C. (2018). ESL departments in international English-medium schools in East Asia. Konin Language Studies, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.30438/ks.2018.6.2.1
21. Lehman, C. (2020). Parent knowledge and preferences of language learning and use in an international school in Vietnam. VNU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 6(5), 577-590. https://doi.org/10.33100/jossh6.5.ClaytonLehman
22. Lehman, C. (2021). Resources for ELLs in international schools: A non-profit and for-profit comparison. The Universal Academic Research Journal, 3(1), 38-50. https://doi.org/10.17220/tuara.2021.01.5
23. Lehman, C., & Welch, B. (2020a). Second language acquisition instructional models in international schools in East Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 35(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2020.35.2.1
24. Lehman, C., & Welch, B. (2020b). A quantitative investigation of language policy in international schools in East Asia. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2020.1
25. McClelland, R. (2001). Managing assessment in the international school. In S. Blandford & M. Shaw (Eds.), Managing international schools (pp. 48-62). Routledge Farmer.
26. McClure, G., & Cahnmann-Taylor, M. (2010). Pushing back against push‐in: ESOL teacher resistance and the complexities of coteaching. TESOL Journal, 1(1), 101-129. https://doi.org/10.5054/tj.2010.214883
27. McHugh, M. L. (2013). The Chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica, 23(2), 143-149. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.018 Salkind, N. J. (2013). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
28. Shoebottom, P. (2009). Academic success for non-native English speakers in English-medium international schools: The role of the secondary ESL department. NALDIC Quarterly, 7(1), 13-18. www.naldic.org.uk
29. Spencer, J. (2021). Understanding EAL: International secondary school teachers’ experiences and attitudes in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Journal of Research in International Education, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/14752409211033749
30. Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401-427. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587691
31. Torrance, K. (2005). Immersion not submersion. Lexington Institute. Retrieved from http://lexingtoninstitute.org
32. van Langenhove, L. and Harré, R. (1999) Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harré and L. Van Langenhove (Eds) Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action, pp. 14-31. Blackwell.
33. Vintan, A., & Gallagher, T. L. (2019). Collaboration to support ESL education: Complexities of the integrated model. TESL Canada Journal, 36(2), 68-90. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i2.1314
34. Whiting, J. (2017). Caught between the push and the pull: ELL teachers’ perceptions of mainstreaming and ESOL classroom teaching. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 8(1), 9-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/26390043.2017.12067793
35. Wlazlinski, M. (2014). From state rule to practice: How ESOL push-in looks like in the classroom. GATESOL Journal, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.52242/giaj.v24i1.6