Section 5: From integrated assessments to further integration of curriculum

Though we already had agreed on a shared theme, collaboratively developed three essays, and chosen common content, our two courses were still only partially integrated.  In this section we discuss our move towards further integrating our classes that ultimately resulted in a single syllabus and shared grade for both classes.

Aurora

After four semesters of co-teaching together, Jeff threw down the challenge to move to a common syllabus and assign the same final grade for both his ELL class and my Sociology class.  Surprisingly I was the one who needed to think about it.  This learning community curricular model reflects the highest level of integration (Smith et al, 2004) and has been presented as the idealized model in our readings and discussions of learning communities at BHCC. Submitting a single grade based on a joint syllabus for each class of a learning community cluster indicates the degree to which the student has met the outcomes of both classes. I had to grapple with the idea that the work being done in Jeff’s ELL classes was as equally important and relevant to students as was reaching the learning outcomes in Sociology.  I had to stop and reflect and actually review his syllabus.  It was clear that his assignments all demonstrated learning of the Sociology learning outcomes and concrete evidence of learning.  I had to be confident that this was happening.  Similarly, I had to consider whether my own assignments – low stake multiple choice quizzes, chapter assessments – supported Jeff’s ELL student learning outcomes.  I realized that these quizzes were also assessing reading comprehension skills.  My discussion board posting assignments and in-class writing assignments supported their writing skills.  And our final oral presentation assignment met both Jeff’s ELL communication learning outcomes and my own sociology learning outcome of applying sociological concepts to personal or societal observations and experiences.  From these observations and reflection, I saw that the borders between our classes were not so rigid as separate syllabuses and grades would suggest, and I agreed to this final step of integration.

Conclusion

We titled this article “Breaking Down Borders” because we wanted to challenge the notion of a rigid disciplinal border separating Sociology and ELL with unique discipline-specific pedagogical approaches.  By teaching our respective classes through a learning community model, we break down the traditional barriers between teaching ELL (with its dominant emphasis on form, interactive teaching methodologies, skill-based class activities and no transferable college credit) and sociology (with its dominant emphasis on content, lecture-based methodologies, critical thinking activities and transferable college credit).  Approaching the teaching of ELL and Sociology as a learning community allows us to complement each other’s areas of specialization and individual strengths and has had a positive impact on our teaching and our student learning. 

Our satisfaction comes from witnessing students successfully meet the outcomes of our courses.  There is also that satisfaction that comes from working to improve our craft as teachers and being responsive to the needs of our cluster faculty partner, which includes supporting and challenging each other’s professional growth.  The joy of teaching however comes from getting to know our student’s own personal stories, journey and experiences as they learn to apply lessons in sociology and analyze interconnections between their personal experiences and larger societal structures and issues. 

About the authors

Jeff Ellenbird is Professor of ELL at Bunker Hill Community College.  Originally from California, Jeff’s passion for teaching comes out of community organizing and community-based teaching in San Francisco.  He then got his Masters in TESOL at San Francisco State University and later served as a Fulbright Fellow in Chile.  Jeff started teaching at BHCC in 2015 and helped lead the 5-year AANAPISI overhaul of the ELL program.  Outside of teaching, he loves cooking, playing music, making fires on the beach, and getting around with his partner and two daughters.

Aurora Bautista is Professor of Behavioral Sciences at Bunker Hill Community College and recently served as the Activity Coordinator of the AANAPISI Grant 2016-2021. She received her Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of the Philippines, an M.A. in Anthropology at New School University, and a Fulbright Doctoral Enrichment in Economic Anthropology at Boston University.  Dr. Bautista has developed learning community courses and integrates ethnography of work, Asian American themes, and place-based learning outcomes in her sociology and cultural anthropology courses.  These pedagogical approaches provide students with real world experiences in collaboration with community partners.

Bibliography

• Boland, D. E., Alkhalifa, K. B., & Al-Mutairi, M. A. (2019). Co-Teaching in EFL Classroom: The Promising Model. English Language Teaching, 12(12), 95-98.

• Booth, N.B. (2009). English as a Second Language (ESL) learning communities: An approach to retaining ESL students in a community college. [Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/750178182

• Briggs, S. (2015, March 7). Deeper Learning: What Is It and Why Is It So Effective? InformED. https://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/deep-learning/

• Bunch, G. C. & Kibler, A. K. (2015). Integrating language, literature, and academic development: Alternatives to traditional English as a second language and remedial English for language minority students at community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(1), 20-33.

• Crandall, J. (1998). Collaborate and cooperate: Teacher education for integrating language and content instruction. English Teaching Forum, 36(1).

• Dove, M., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ESL co-teaching and collaboration: Opportunities to develop teacher leadership and enhance student learning. TESOL Journal 1(1), 3-22.

• Fogarty, J. & Dunlap, L. with Dolan, E., Hesse, M., Mason, M., & Mott, J. (2003). Learning communities in community colleges. National Learning Communities Project Monograph Series, Olympia, WA: Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education. http://wacenter.evergreen.edu/node/1746

• Kuh, G. (2008).  High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/publications/high-impact-educational-practices-what-they-are-who-has-access-0

• Gladman, A. (2014). Team Teaching Is Not Just for Teachers! Student Perspectives on the Collaborative Classroom. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 130–148.

• Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2016). Coteaching English learners: Riding the tandem bike. Educational Leadership, 76(4), 56-60.

• Kibler, A. K., Bunch, G. C., & Endris, A. K. (2012). Community college practices for U.S.-educated language minority students: A resource-oriented framework. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(2), 201-222.

• MacNeill, A. J. (2014). An examination of the effects of using a sustained-theme content-based instruction approach in a community college ESL program. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 21(2), 15-20.     

• Mlynarczyk,  R.  W.,  &  Babbitt,  M.  (2002).  The power of academic learning communities. Journal of Basic Writing, 21(1), 71–89.

• Raufman, J., Brathwaite, J., & Kalamkarian, H. S. (2019). English Learners and ESL programs in the community college: A review of the literature. CCRC Working Paper No. 109. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University

• Razfar, A., & Simon, J. (2011). Course‐taking patterns of Latino ESL students: Mobility and mainstreaming in urban community colleges in the United States. TESOL Quarterly, 45(4), 595-627.

• Reynolds, K. M. (2010). Exploration: One Journey of Integrating Content and Language Objectives.  In J. Nordmeyer & S Barduhn (Eds.), Integrating Content and Language, (pp. 161-174).  Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

• Seabury, E. & Hernandez-Folch, A (2011). Strength in numbers: Reflections on team teaching a learning community.  Teaching for Our Times, 8. Bunker Hill Community College: Boston

• Shapiro, S. (2011).  Stuck in the remedial rut: Confronting resistance to ESL curriculum reform. Journal of Basic Writing, 30(2), 24-52.

• Smith, B. L., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R., & Gabelnick, F. (2004). Learning Communities: Reforming Undergraduate Education. Jossey-Bass.

• Song, B. (2006). Content-based ESL instruction: Long-term effects and outcomes, English for Specific Purposes, 25, 420-437.

• Tang, S. S., Ty, K. S., & Thiem, L. (2019). Stories and visions across generations: Khmer American women. In S. Hune & G. Nomura (Eds.), Our voices, our lives: Asian American and Pacific Islander women's history (pp. 439–456). New York University Press.

• Tasdemir, H.,  & Yıldırım, T.  (2017). Collaborative teaching from English language instructors‟ perspectives. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 632-642.

• Weinstein, G. (1999). Learners' Lives as Curriculum: Six Journeys to Immigrant Literacy. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems Company Inc.