2. 2Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy Vol. ?? No. ? ?? 2016 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
Disciplinary Academic
Language Instruction
In the past, many secondary teachers perceived literacy,
including academic language, to be the sole responsi-
bility of English teachers (Lester, 2000). Subject area
teachers may resist the notion that responsibility for
literacy instruction resides with them because second-
ary schooling reinforces a compartmentalized view of
content area instruction (Moje, 2008). This opposition
represents hesitancy on the part of content area teach-
ers, possibly because of the alleged difficulty of incorpo-
rating literacy strategies into the content areas (Fisher
Ivey, 2005; Moje, 2008).
However, we see a shift based on the implementation
of the Common Core State Standards with an amplified
focus on disciplinary literacies, including students’
abilities to use academic language (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2010). Because the Common Core
emphasizes informational texts and increased text
complexity, secondary educators of all disciplines be-
come teachers of both content and language (Townsend,
2015). While academic language knowledge is known to
be important for the success of students (Freeman
Freeman, 2003; Nagy Townsend, 2012), attention to
academic vocabulary has increased substantially in the
last decade. The importance of supporting students’
academic language development, including academic
vocabulary, indicates a need to support teachers with
PL opportunities addressing such instruction.
The PL Initiative
Although the need to support academic language
instruction was the inspiration for this PL initiative, a
second, equally important consideration was how the
adult teacher learners experienced and participated in
the PL and how they integrated that learning into their
practice. Adult learning theorists and teacher change
researchers have pointed to the foundational value
of experience (Merriam, Caffarella, Baumgartner,
2007), the necessary skill of critical reflection (Jarvis,
2001), the opportunity for collaborative conversations
(Johnston-Parsons, 2012; Mezirow, 2000), and the shap-
ing function of context to an adult learner’s experience
(Borko, 2004; Boud Walker, 1991; Fenwick, 2001). In
recognition of this research, we examined the unique
experiences of our teachers—our adult learners—and
considered what each took away from the PL, as well as
the way in which each participated in it.
The PL project was a yearlong partnership among
the teachers, their district, and a university research
team, which included two professors and two doctoral
candidates. Our primary goal was supporting teachers
in helping their students develop academic language to
meet disciplinary objectives. Research indicates that PL
should be long term, content focused, interactive, situ-
ated within a learning community, integrated with au-
thentic teaching experiences, and targeted to teachers’
individual learning needs (Desimone, 2009; Desimone
Stuckey, 2014; Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace,
Thomas, 2006; Webster-Wright, 2009). With these ele-
ments of effective PL as guiding principles, we modeled
disciplinary literacy strategies, primarily for support-
ing academic vocabulary development, in the context
of specific disciplines. Four full-day workshops were
facilitated throughout the course of one academic year.
Teachers explored the academic language demands of
their disciplines, evaluated and practiced strategies
for and approaches to building students’ academic lan-
guage, and used large blocks of time to collaboratively
plan upcoming lessons designed to support students’
academic language development. With respect to the
content, much of the work in disciplinary academic
language focused on academic vocabulary, both general
academic words and discipline-specific words. In addi-
tion, through explorations of morphology and connec-
tive words and phrases, academic language syntax was
addressed.
To support teachers with their specific disciplinary
needs, we modeled authentic disciplinary objectives.
For example, in a math lesson, we avoided objectives
such as “Students will be able to define the words simi-
larity, proportion, congruent angles, and corresponding
angles” in favor of objectives such as “Students will be
able to use similar triangles and similar rectangles to
solve problems.” Once an objective like the latter was
established, we helped teachers identify the vocabulary
and academic language features that students would
need to meet this objective and helped them plan scaf-
folding activities for students.
Four additional meetings, aimed at providing
opportunities for meaningful dialogue as teachers in-
creased responsibility for learning, adapting, and enact-
ing new ideas independently, were held in the months
without PL sessions (Rafael, Vasquez, Fortune, Gavelek,
Au, 2014). During these meetings, teachers brought
their own reflections, and often student artifacts, from
the lessons that they had planned at the prior PL ses-
sions. Beyond strengthening the teachers’ learning
from the full-day PL sessions, these meetings provided
formative feedback for the research team, allowing
3. 3Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy Vol. ?? No. ? ?? 2016 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
us to incorporate teachers’ and students’ needs into
subsequent PL sessions.
Method
To answer our research questions, this explorato-
ry study employed qualitative research techniques
(Litchman, 2013). We collected two data sources—
surveys and observations—from the 25 participating
teachers described in Table 1.
Entry and exit surveys allowed the researchers to
examine how teachers’ self-reported knowledge, prac-
tice, and beliefs shifted over the year. Survey questions
were based on established elements of academic lan-
guage development; they were open ended and intended
to probe teachers about the differences between aca-
demic and social/conversational registers of language,
as well as about specific disciplinary language demands,
including vocabulary, morphology, and syntax.
In addition to the surveys, the researchers observed
the teachers’ full lessons two to four times throughout
the school year. An observational tool, calibrated to in-
crease inter-rater reliability, was used to capture when
students were reading, writing, speaking, or listen-
ing with disciplinary language. Additionally, specific
vocabulary words targeted for instruction or practice
were documented. Given the necessity of supporting
students’ receptive and productive language develop-
ment, the observational tool brought the observers’ at-
tention to how students were engaging with academic
language, either receptively through reading and
listening or productively through speaking and writing.
After each observation, the observer debriefed with the
teacher, providing an opportunity for teacher reflec-
tion, observer feedback, and collaborative planning for
the subsequent lesson.
We used a reductionist approach to thematically
analyze our data, bracketing our own perceptions
about academic language and PL (Litchman, 2013). Our
approach involved identifying relevant data sources, re-
viewing and analyzing key ideas from teacher responses
(McCarthey, 1993), and identifying response patterns.
Once themes were uncovered, we looked more closely
at three of the teachers, exploring their unique journeys
andseekingadeeperunderstandingoftheirperspectives
and stories.
Looking at the Group as a Whole:
Themes
In considering the teachers as a group, we found that
their understanding of academic language deepened
and that the importance they placed on academic lan-
guage across the disciplines increased. The majority of
teachers found the PL to be beneficial, and some teach-
ers’ shifts in practice mirrored the goals of the PL; how-
ever, the teachers’ experiences varied widely.
Throughout the year, the teachers’ understanding
of academic language expanded. Table 2 displays the
Table 1.
Participating Teachers (N = 25)
Content taught
Number of
teachers Highest degree
Number of
teachers
Years of
experience
Number of
teachers
English 5 Bachelor’s 14 1–5 7
English as a second
language
3 Master’s 11 6–10 9
Health/physical
education
2 11–15 2
History 3 16–20 4
Library 1 21–25 3
Math 2
Psychology 1
Science 3
Spanish 1
Special education 4
4. 4Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy Vol. ?? No. ? ?? 2016 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
teachers’ self-ratings before and after the PL, describing
their own knowledge and abilities related to academic
language instruction. The group as a whole became
more confident on each indicator.
In Table 3, several teachers’ survey responses when
asked to define the concept of academic language are
presented. Responses revealed that teachers’ knowl-
edge of academic language expanded in depth and that
the importance teachers placed on academic language
across disciplines increased. Doris and Melody, history
teachers; Mary, an English teacher; Clayton, a math
teacher; and Hattie, a science teacher, offered similar
explanations to their colleagues. At the beginning of the
year of PL, many teachers described academic language
in a more general sense, often mentioning its formal na-
ture and describing it as used “only in the classroom,”
“in academic settings and writing,” or “in professions.”
At the conclusion of the year, teachers also began to see
the importance of academic language for their students’
success in all disciplines, realizing that academic lan-
guage is interdisciplinary and discipline specific.
Beyond knowledge gains, the teachers varied in their
self-reported shifts to practice. Many of these shifts
mirrored some of the goals mentioned by teachers, such
Table 2
Self-Evaluation of Teachers Before and After Professional Learning: Knowledge and Abilities Related to
Academic Language
Statement on the survey Change in self-evaluation
“I can explain the importance of academic language.” +38%
“I can select content words for students’ active academic practice.” +27%
“I can plan for increasing students’ academic vocabulary practice in every lesson.” +45%
“I can identify academic words that increase the density of academic language, causing student
comprehension problems.”
+47%
“I can plan comprehension scaffolds for disciplinary academic texts.” +40%
“I can plan linking instructional objectives, CCSS, and comprehension scaffolds.” +35%
Note. CCSS = Common Core Sate Standards.
Table 3
Survey Responses: “How Would You Explain ‘Academic Language’ to Someone Unfamiliar With the Term?
Teacher (content taught) Entry survey response Exit survey response
Doris (history) “Language students need to effectively
communicate while in school”
“This is the language, which one must have in both
content-specific and cross-discipline areas for optimal
understanding of the subject.”
Mary (English) “The language you need to participate
in academic conversations”
“Academic language is the vocabulary used through
academics. They are those words/terms specific to your
discipline and those across disciplines.”
Melody (history) “Words that students need to function
in an academic setting”
“Words/phrases that can be interdisciplinary as well as
discipline specific. They are seen regularly.”
Clayton (math) “The language you use in the
classroom”
“Academic language encompasses the language a student
will be exposed to in a school setting. There are ‘brick’
words that are content-specific and ‘mortar’ words that
bind the bricks together and are used in all content areas.”
Hattie (science) “Science words needed to understand
Biology”
“The words you use to describe your subject and concepts.
Also the common words all students need to know to be
able to understand any reading about an academic subject”
Note. Adapted from Active Academic Vocabulary Practice in All Content Areas: A Summary Report, by High School
Professional Learning Team, 2015, Reno: Striving Readers Grant University of Nevada, Reno.
5. 5Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy Vol. ?? No. ? ?? 2016 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
as implementing purposeful and authentic vocabulary
instruction. According to Doris,
My awareness of the need for purposeful vocabulary
instruction has increased. I continue to “front-load” the vo-
cabulary found in the literature we read, but I am also more
aware of vocabulary I once assumed students would know.
I believe this has had an impact on their reading, certainly,
but also writing and speaking.
Doris noted that she was more student centered in
her planning, looking at her students’ academic lan-
guage needs related to the content, and she was see-
ing resultant student outcomes. Ramona, a Spanish
teacher, added, “I feel that I have targeted reading a bit
more than the other forms of communication, but I have
also focused on listening, speaking and writing.” Doris,
Ramona, and Clayton mentioned incorporating more
aspects of literacy into their instruction. Clayton noted,
“I have tried to be more aware of who is using the lan-
guage and do my best to target all aspects of literacy.”
Many teachers also increased the specificity of their
planning, especially for vocabulary instruction. Whereas
early in the year, teachers relied on general definition
tasks to improve their students’ vocabulary, exit surveys
indicated that teachers more thoughtfully planned how
to incorporate vocabulary into instruction with activities
such as word walls, discipline-specific reading, and con-
cept sorts. For theses teachers, the PL both strengthened
knowledgeandallowedforsomeintegrationintopractice.
Although most of our teachers perceived the PL as
valuable, evidenced by over 90% volunteering to return
for a second year of learning with the partnership, there
was a wide variation in the teachers’ shifts in practice.
Some teachers increased their knowledge related to
supporting students’ academic language but for vari-
ous reasons did not change their practice significantly.
Shelly, a psychology teacher, noted, “Science words in
psych are important. I point them out to help [students]
make meaning—but no formal word wall and [I] need
to do this more.” Similarly, Ramona indicated that she
“sometimes touches on prefixes and suffixes, as well as
cognates, but I could do a better job of this.”
Through our interactions with the teachers, we no-
ticed that their experiences during the PL varied in the
extent to which the learning was integrated into prac-
tice, and it also differed along other dimensions. In fact,
the teachers’ experiences seemed to take the form of a
personal journey. As a result, we looked more closely at
what made these teachers’ experiences unique.
Looking at the Teachers Closely:
A Journey
Each of our teachers brought a different set of
knowledge, skills, and experiences to the PL. We chose
to look closely at three social science teachers—Melody,
Molly, and Ronald—to illustrate. Looking at teachers
within the same content area allowed us to consider
their differences independent of their disciplines. We
found variation in the teachers’ intentions for the PL,
their ability to plan for application within their prac-
tice, and their ability to meet expressed goals as a re-
sult of systemic constraints. These specific teachers’
journeys demonstrated the personal nature of the ex-
perience and the different approaches to this major PL
commitment.
Melody
Melody, a social studies teacher with 12 years’
experience, began this PL with an explicit emphasis on
using the training to meet her instructional objectives.
On her entry survey, she noted wanting to move toward
“more primary texts, incorporating student talk, better
utilizing leveled partners, and adding non-traditional
analyses, i.e. more political cartoons and art.” Her
specific content area drove her PL goals.
As evidenced by her classroom observations, Melody
changed her practice according to her stated goals.
During her first observation, she had students defin-
ing specific academic vocabulary necessary for the
unit; however, the observer noted that beyond these
definitions, Melody did not offer students the chance
to collaborate or write about the content using the new
terms. The observer suggested that to develop student
understanding, the students needed to “read, think, and
write about [the content].” The observer also questioned
whether, following the lesson, Melody knew “where in
their understanding the kids were on these terms.”
In contrast, Melody’s final observation involved
students analyzing various artifacts related to im-
migration. In groups, the students completed graphic
organizers about the artifacts and shared ideas with
one another. The lead investigator noted,
The research I do focuses on who is using the academic
language in a lesson—is it the teacher or the students?
And, if the teacher has constructed opportunities for the
students to drive the language use in the classroom, has
she done so in ways that provide ALL students opportuni-
ties to participate and not just the confident students or
the students who come in with more advanced academic
language proficiency? Your lesson provided authentic and
6. 6Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy Vol. ?? No. ? ?? 2016 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
meaningful opportunities for ALL students to use academic
language inherent in a unit on immigration.
The observer’s comments indicated that Melody’s
practice evolved during the year to a practice more
supportive of her students’ needs as compared with
supporting only her own instructional goals. She pro-
vided authentic opportunities for her students to use
academic language. Her stated goals were related to
specific social studies objectives, and she enthusias-
tically used the academic language PL to meet those
instructional goals.
In her exit survey, Melody recognized that her
journey had been productive. Addressing her academ-
ic vocabulary instruction at the beginning of the year,
she reported assessing her students through selected
response questions. After the year of PL, she noted
that she used “questions of the day as quick check-for-
understandings, but I also do non-traditional vocabu-
lary quizzes, i.e. having them create symbols for each
word.” Melody’s assessment practices surpassed the
strategies presented during the PL and evidenced her
deeper understanding of the value of assessing stu-
dent vocabulary knowledge. Perhaps because each PL
session offered substantive time for teachers to work
with disciplinary cohorts using their own materials to
plan for authentic application of the presented strat-
egies, she was better able to contextualize the new
strategies within her practice to best meet her own
students’ needs.
Melody’s other instructional shifts included
improving her students’ knowledge of syntax and
morphology, which she stated she had previously nev-
er prioritized. For example, she reported that she had
incorporated and extended a strategy presented dur-
ing the PL into her practice: “Morpheme sorts? SOOO
love these! We then take this knowledge and highlight
where we see it in primary sources…write other words
we know with these morphemes…tie it into other
disciplines.”
Melody discussed ensuring that her students had a
multitude of opportunities to practice with academic
language. Observational data confirmed this shift as
she began employing graphic organizers, pair-shares,
and brainstorming charts for vocabulary practice to-
ward the end of the year, as opposed to simply asking
her students to define vocabulary words, as seen at
the beginning of the year.
Melody’s reflections and observations highlight
her consistent dedication to embedding her new
learning into her practice. Very little in her observa-
tions or surveys indicated that she took her learning
at face value. Instead, using the collaborative plan-
ning time offered both during the PL sessions and in
the monthly meetings, she often amended, extended,
or even rejected provided strategies to fulfill her own
instructional goals and meet the needs of her students.
Seemingly, her journey was a highly personal one.
Molly
Molly, a teacher with eight years’ experience, started
the year with uncertainty. When we met her, she was
beginning her first year of teaching AP Government.
Her early comments reflected her uncertainty about
teaching a new content area and perhaps indicated
a lack of self-efficacy about her ability to implement
high-quality instruction related to academic lan-
guage. For example, when asked to identify content
words that her students struggled with, she stated,
“This is the first year teaching AP Government and
I’m still learning.” She also stated that “it has been a
while” since she had adjusted instruction for English
learners. Outside of her teaching load and the PL, she
also had family demands and was responsible for over-
seeing a major schoolwide initiative.
Molly’s stated goal for the year mirrored the em-
phasis of the academic language PL—academic vo-
cabulary. She reported that her teaching goals for the
year were “to be better about purposeful vocabulary
instruction.” Unlike Melody and Ronald, Molly did not
define instructional goals specific to her discipline.
From her entry survey, it was unclear how or why she
had chosen academic vocabulary as her instructional
goal. Molly’s choice of objectives less specific to her
subject area or students may have reflected her lack
of experience in this new content area and a resulting
lack of efficacy. Scribner (1999) found that teachers
with lower self-efficacy are less opportunistic in their
approach to PL.
In Molly’s first observation, there was little
attention to the language demands of her lesson. For
example, the observer noted, “Students take notes on
new terms. Teacher provides slides with information,
and student records it and records on note-taker, ex-
tending verbally on terms as she goes.” The observer
also asked Molly, “You go over so many words in class.
How do you check in with students about understand-
ing?” Indeed, Molly identified 35 words in the ob-
served lesson but gave students no practice with or
formative assessment of the words.
Molly’s midyear observation showed that although
she still focused on numerous academic vocabulary
words, she now included supportive literacy activities.
7. 7Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy Vol. ?? No. ? ?? 2016 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
In the observed lesson, her students discussed photos,
formulated definitions, created categorizations, and
made connections, all relating to the target words.
At year end, Molly reported a shift in her practice
toward offering students “more opportunities to prac-
tice using words verbally and in writing.” However,
she also reported asking students to practice vocab-
ulary verbally and in writing at the start of the year,
so the extent of this shift is unclear. Additionally, she
indicated that she supported students by “trying to
use more academic words” in her own speech. Molly
increased the opportunities to support students’ ac-
ademic vocabulary but, unlike Melody, did not cus-
tomize the learned strategies to meet the specific
disciplinary needs of her students.
Related to other areas of academic language beyond
vocabulary, Molly discussed her instruction related to
syntax, morphology, and connectives. At year end, she
admitted needing to “incorporate more practices re-
lated to connectives into my classroom.” She reported
that she “at least mentions” syntax and noted that she
now uses morphology to relate disciplinary concepts
but “needs to [use a morphological word wall] more.”
Although Molly’s practice appeared to change, the
shift was related primarily to word-level academic vo-
cabulary instruction, the main subtopic of the PL and
her stated goal for the year. Specifically, she increased
the number of opportunities for students to practice
using new vocabulary. Even so, she recognized that
she had implemented only some of the presented strat-
egies, stating that she “needed to do a better job” with
others. Molly recognized that she still had changes
she wished to undertake; her year-end reflections
indicated that her movement was not as substantial
as she had planned. Her instructional shifts remained
restricted to academic vocabulary practice but did not
extend to supporting or expecting students to authen-
tically use academic language within their content
area reading and writing.
On her exit survey, Molly showed interest in another
year of PL when the option was offered free of charge.
Ultimately, however, she was one of only a few who chose
not to return the following year. We must surmise that
the PL did not meet her needs at that time. It is possible
that her other commitments and responsibilities, in-
cluding acting as a facilitator for a schoolwide initiative,
prevented her from being able to integrate her learning
into her practice. This interpretation would highlight
how systemic constraints can impact how teachers in-
tegrate PL into practice.
An alternative possibility is that the PL did not meet
Molly’s needs in part because she did not hold strong
beliefs about her own instructional capacity within
her content area, as her previously mentioned com-
ments suggest. Although her first survey indicated an
average amount of confidence in her academic language
knowledge, Molly, unlike Melody and Ronald, did not de-
fine objectives for this intense PL experience that were
specific to her own instructional practice. She increased
her knowledge of academic vocabulary instruction and
made some related changes in her practice, but as evi-
denced by her year-end self-report, the extent and na-
ture of her change was less than Melody’s and Ronald’s.
We wonder whether Molly’s journey would have been
different had the PL better bolstered her efficacy be-
liefs and thus increased her motivation for authentic
application.
Ronald
Ronald was a sixth-year social studies teacher assigned
to teach AP World History. This was the first year that
he taught an AP class, and he expressed some conster-
nation about that responsibility. Like Molly, he had ad-
ditional family responsibilities.
Like Melody, Ronald came to the year of PL with a
specific vision of how it might serve his instructional
goals. In his entry survey, he reported goals specific to
social studies: to “improve my students’ research skills
as well as argumentative writing skills.” He chose to
position the PL as an avenue to improve his students’
content-specific literacy capacities and also their disci-
plinary vocabulary.
Unlike Melody, however, Ronald’s final observation
showed a heavy emphasis on instructional strategies
aimed primarily at content vocabulary acquisition.
Although his stated goals for changing his practice over
the year focused on research skills and argumentative
writing, his observed lesson evidenced his students
taking notes from a prepared presentation, including
definitions of the many discipline-specific vocabulary
words they were expected to learn. The volume of the
material presented was considerable; the observer not-
ed that “several times, students asked teacher to slow
down—seemingly engaged in writing down notes and
keeping up with information.”
In addition, although Ronald’s surveys showed that
he recognized the need to support students’ language in
service to understanding the content, his practice did
not consistently reflect this. In his exit survey, he stated
that he broke down the text in a way that would “better
support the reading and writing skills of his students.”
However, he also noted that he “hadn’t yet used” any
practices to help students understand the syntax of his
8. 8Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy Vol. ?? No. ? ?? 2016 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
materials. Moreover, he indicated that his assessments
at year end included fewer opportunities for reading
and writing. At the start of the year, he reported assess-
ing vocabulary knowledge through “essays, quizzes and
tests, and Socratic seminars.” At year end, he said that
he used “mainly formal assessments like quizzes.”
It is noteworthy that over the year, Ronald’s
practice changed to reflect less focus on support-
ing his students in meeting disciplinary literacy de-
mands, although his own words, as noted previously,
indicated an expressed goal to meet those needs.
Perhaps his postobservation debriefing notes illumi-
nate a reason for this apparent contradiction. During
this meeting, Ronald expressed frustration about
the amount of content he had to cover to prepare
his students for the AP examination. He explained
that pressure from his administration to have a high
student pass rate prevented him from teaching the
content in more depth or offering more literacy sup-
port. Interestingly, he elected to attend another year
of PL on similar content, which evidenced his belief
in his capacity to provide such support. Although he
recognized the need to support the literacy demands
of the material, his concern for covering a massive
amount of content prevented him from putting his
beliefs into practice. Systemic constraints seemed to
affect Ronald’s application of learning more so than
Melody’s or Molly’s.
Ronald’s journey was both similar to and different
from Molly’s and Melody’s. Like Molly, he had signifi-
cant systemic demands affecting his integration of
PL. However, unlike Molly but similar to Melody, he
began the journey by clearly positioning his participa-
tion in the PL within the context of his students’ spe-
cific needs. He expressed conflict during his journey;
although he had articulated his plans to do so, he was
unable to employ the knowledge gained from the PL,
possibly due to the very real demands placed on him
in his position. Unlike Melody, he was less successful
at integrating his learning into practice. Both Ronald’s
and Molly’s experiences highlight a challenge to au-
thentically applying PL: The realities of a teacher’s
situation can prevent the ability to transfer knowledge
into practice. Ronald and Melody, however, were better
able to build authentic connections for themselves and
their students between the PL and their disciplinary
objectives.
Implications for Teachers
This study examined how teachers participating in
a yearlong PL initiative aimed at supporting teach-
ers in helping students develop disciplinary academic
language changed their practice. Our findings sup-
port research indicating that no two teachers will ever
take on new understandings or practices in the same
way. Although successful PL may change teachers,
“on average, it does not change all teachers equally”
(Desimone Stuckey, 2014, p. 478). Our findings also
demonstrate that effective PL offers space and time for
reflection, planning, and feedback (Darling-Hammond
et al., 2009; Webster-Wright, 2009).
At the same time, our research suggests that
stakeholders should be sensitive to the reality that
external constraints are a significant factor in the
implementation of practices learned in PL. For ex-
ample, Ronald was highly receptive and responsive
to the PL, but as a more junior teacher, he felt that he
had to keep up with departmental demands. As such,
he prioritized covering content with little active pro-
cessing time for students, yet he explicitly recognized
the need for such student-centered instruction. His
experience illustrates that fewer systemic or personal
constraints allows for more integration of learning into
practice. Perhaps PL should be complemented by sup-
port for teachers to navigate systemic constraints to
implementation.
These findings also indicate that teachers who
position their participation in PL as servicing their in-
structional objectives and the needs of their students
make more significant changes to practice. Our teach-
Guidelines for making use of what we learned from this
PL project:
1. PL opportunities should include space for teachers’
reflection with the goal of situating the PL within
their disciplinary instructional objectives.
2. PL in disciplinary academic language should include
collaborative planning time for teachers to identify
the challenging academic language of their own
objectives and materials.
3. Academic vocabulary instruction should be in
the service of disciplinary objectives, supporting
students’ disciplinary literacy rather than simply
increasing their lexicons. To do this, rather than begin
a lesson or unit with a list of key terms, begin with
disciplinary objectives and select the words that will
help students meet those objectives. Then, utilize
vocabulary and writing strategies to give students
opportunities to learn and use the important
concepts.
TAKE ACTION!
9. 9Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy Vol. ?? No. ? ?? 2016 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
ers were not asked to work on the same language is-
sues in the same ways but rather to identify what they
felt would be most meaningful in developing their stu-
dents’ content area academic language. Those teachers
who took this to heart set their PL objectives as serv-
ing what they defined as most critical to their practice.
Our teachers’ learning became more valuable when
applying the information and strategies to meet their
instructional needs.
Our study highlights the opportunity for teachers
to drive their own PL agenda. By advocating for PL that
provides time for reflection and planning, support
with systemic constraints, and the contextualization
of the learning, teachers can enhance the quality of
their PL.
REFERENCES
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher
learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher,
33(8), 3–15. doi:10.3102/0013189X033008003
Boud, D., Walker, D. (1991). Experience and learning:
Reflection at work. Geelong, VIC, Australia: Deakin
University Press.
Coleman, R., Goldenberg, C. (2010). Promoting academic
achievement among English learners: A guide to the re-
search. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N.,
Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in a learn-
ing profession: A status report on teacher development
in the United States and abroad. Stanford, CA: National
Staff Development Council School Redesign Network,
Stanford University.
Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teach-
ers’ professional development: Toward better conceptu-
alizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3),
181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140
Desimone, L.M., Stuckey, D. (2014). Sustaining teacher
professional development. In L.E. Martin, S. Kragler, D.J.
Quatroche, K.L. Bauserman (Eds.), Handbook of profes-
sional development in education: Successful models and
practices, preK–12 (pp. 467–482). New York, NY: Guilford.
Fenwick, T. (2001). Experiential learning: A theoretical cri-
tique from five perspectives (Information Series No. 385).
Columbus: College of Education, Ohio State University.
Fisher, D., Ivey, G. (2005). Literacy and language as learning
in content area classes: A departure from “every teacher
a teacher of reading.” Action in Teacher Education, 27(2),
3–11. doi:10.1080/01626620.2005.10463378
Freeman, Y., Freeman, D. (2003). Helping middle and high
school age English language learners achieve academic
success. Journal of Research Practice, 1(1), 110–122.
Guskey, T.R., Yoon, K.S. (2009). What works in profes-
sional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495–500.
doi:10.1177/003172170909000709
High School Professional Learning Team. (2015). Active aca-
demic vocabulary practice in all content areas: A summa-
ry report. Reno: Striving Readers Grant University of
Nevada, Reno.
Jarvis, P. (2001). Learning in later life: An introduction for edu-
cators and carers. New York, NY: Kogan Page.
Johnston-Parsons, M. (Ed.). (2012). Dialogue and difference
in a teacher education program: A 16-year sociocultural
study of a professional development school. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Lester, J.H. (2000). Secondary instruction: Does literacy fit
in? High School Journal, 83(3), 10–16.
Litchman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education: A us-
er’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCarthey, S. (1993). Teachers’ changing conceptions of
writing instruction (Research Report No. 92-3). East
Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher
Learning.
Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S., Baumgartner, L.M. (2007).
Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.).
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley Sons.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult:
Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow
(Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives
on a theory in progress (pp. 3–33). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Moje, E.B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary
literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal
of Adolescent Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107. doi:10.1598/
JAAL.52.2.1
Nagy, W., Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning
academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading
Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108. doi:10.1002/RRQ.011
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common
Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy
in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.
Washington, DC: Authors.
Rafael, T., Vasquez, J.M., Fortune, A.J., Gavelek, J.R., Au,
K.H. (2014). Sociocultural approaches to professional de-
velopment supporting sustainable school change. In L.E.
Martin, S. Kragler, D.J. Quatroche, K.L. Bauserman
(Eds.), Handbook of professional development in education:
Successful models and practices, preK–12 (pp. 145–173).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Scribner, J. (1999). Teacher efficacy and teacher professional
learning: Implications for school leaders. Journal of School
Leadership, 9(3), 209–234.
Short, D.J., Fidelman, C.G., Louguit, M. (2012). Developing
academic language in English language learners through
sheltered instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 334–361.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., Thomas, S.
(2006). Professional learning communities: A review of
the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–
258. doi:10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8
Townsend, D. (2015). Who’s using the language? Supporting
middle school students with content area academic lan-
guage. Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy, 58(5), 376–
387. doi:10.1002/jaal.374
Wallace, M.R. (2009). Making sense of the links: Professional
development, teacher practices, and student achievement.
Teachers College Record, 111(2), 573–596.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional devel-
opment through understanding authentic professional
learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.
doi:10.3102/0034654308330970
10. 10Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy Vol. ?? No. ? ?? 2016 literacyworldwide.org
FEATURE ARTICLE
MORE TO EXPLORE
■ Gulamhussein, A. (2013). Teaching the teachers:
Effective professional development in an era of high
stakes accountability. Alexandria, VA: Center for
Public Education. Retrieved from www.center
forpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffing
students/Teaching-the-Teachers-Effective-
Professional-Development-in-an-Era-of-High-
Stakes-Accountability/Teaching-the-Teachers-
Full-Report.pdf
■ Santos, M., Darling-Hammond, L., Cheuk, T. (n.d.).
Teacher development to support English language
learners in the context of Common Core State
Standards. Stanford, CA: Stanford University School
of Education. Retrieved from ell.stanford.edu/sites/
default/files/pdf/academic-papers/10-Santos%20
LDH%20Teacher%20Development%20FINAL.pdf
■ Zwiers, J. (2014). Building academic language: Meeting
Common Core Standards across disciplines, grades
5–12 (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
