PLANNING, PRACTICE, AND SENSEMAKING: TEACHING CHINESE ACADEMIC VOCABULARY FOR MATHEMATICS By Zheng Gu A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education—Doctor of Philosophy 2021 ABSTRACT PLANNING, PRACTICE, AND SENSEMAKING: TEACHING CHINESE ACADEMIC VOCABULARY FOR MATHEMATICS By Zheng Gu Bilingual education in the United States basically involves English language learners (ELLs) in mainstream classes and students who are learning an additional language in a foreign language immersion (FLI) program. Although academic vocabulary instruction for ELLs has attracted increasing attention in the past two decades (e.g., McQuillan, 2019; Schleppegrell, 2009), academic language teaching in FLI programs has received much less attention. Previous studies of FLI programs have focused on exploring the tension between language and content teaching and have called for balancing language and content instruction in subject matter areas such as mathematics (e.g., Cammarata & Haley, 2018; Cammarata & Tedick, 2012). However, managing this tension and scaffolding language and content learning through academic vocabulary teaching in content areas within FLI programs is still under explored, especially Chinese immersion programs. To address this gap, this study drawing on sociocultural theory (SCT) (e.g., Lantolf, 2014; Vygotsky, 1987), analyses the academic vocabulary instruction of one Chinese immersion teacher, Wang Laoshi, to captures the complexity of teaching academic vocabulary, from planning to practice, in a mathematics classroom in Chinese. The current study described Wang Laoshi’s classroom to present an example for researchers to access how she made sense of both language and content curriculum in a Chinese immersion program, and subsequently enacted those curricula in teaching academic vocabulary. The study answered three research questions: (1) To what extent does the Chinese immersion teacher teach academic vocabulary in mathematics classrooms? (2) How does she teach academic vocabulary to construct meaning and scaffold language and content teaching? and (3) How does her sensemaking of the curricula scaffold her academic vocabulary instruction? The study collected data from pre-observation interviews, curriculum materials, classroom video tapes, observational notes, and post-observation debriefings through Video- stimulated Reflective Dialogue (VSRD) (e.g., Hargreaves et al., 2003) to triangulate Wang Laoshi’s plan, instructional practice, and her voices to track the entire process of how she made sense of, adapted, and enacted the mathematics and Chinese curricula to teach different categories of academic vocabulary. The study unpacks the three categories of academic vocabulary that Wang Laoshi taught in her mathematics classrooms and the two trajectories for employing various strategies to teach the different categories of academic vocabulary. The findings echoes to previous research and suggested that Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction falls in a continuum between language-intense and content-intense (e.g., Domingez et al., 2018). Therefore, I argue that instead of calling for maintaining a strict balance between language and content teaching in class, teachers should handle the tension between language and content through an understanding of the written curriculum, and in accordance with the students’ learning needs as they are enacting it. The findings also unveiled various social factors that influenced Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking in enacting the two written curricula, and subsequently impacted her decision-making during academic vocabulary teaching. The study sheds light on the complexity of FLI teachers’ academic vocabulary instruction through making sense of, adapting, and enacting a Chinese and a mathematics curriculum. Furthermore, it advanced our ideas about the role of social factors in the planning and instruction by FLI teachers. Its methodological and pedagogical implications will hopefully help to better prepare FLI teachers with a dual curricula in FLI programs to scaffold their planning and teaching academic vocabulary to support students language and content learning. Copyright by ZHENG GU 2021 This thesis is dedicated to my mom and dad. Thank you for always believe in me and support me. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Patricia Edwards, for her support, knowledge, and patience throughout my research work to complete this dissertation. Her passion for literacy education, vision for classroom practice, and ideas on writing have always profoundly inspired me. She is always very responsive to my questions and inspired me to think deeply about issues between language and content, beliefs and practice, and teachers’ understanding and identity. It was a great privilege to study and work under her guidance. I am also grateful for what she has offered me: empathy and endless mental support. I am also extremely grateful to Dr. Dongbo Zhang, who supervised my research and teaching at the early stage of my doctoral study. I appreciate his guidance to help me find my research interest, establish foundations of methodology to carry out this research, and shape my writing skills to present my ideas and research work as clear as possible. I cannot express enough thanks to my committee for their continuous inspiration, support, and encouragement: Dr. Xiaoshi Li, Dr. Charlene Polio, and Dr. Carrie Symons. It has been an honor to take courses with you, and discuss my ideas and receive feedback from you. Those valuable comments and feedback have helped me better organize and frame this dissertation. Finally, to my loving, caring, and supportive parents, Yumin Bao and Guiquan Gu: my deepest gratitude. Thank you for always supporting me to continuously seeking and preparing for my career. Thank you for always encouraging me to maintain my hobbies to make my life more enjoyable. Thank you for always telling me you are proud of me. vi When I was young, I loved a song called Journey (by Angela Chang). Completing this dissertation is such a “long long journey” where “ I know I will falter, I know I will cry.” Luckily, I have all of you “standing by myside.” My heartfelt thanks again. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES xi LIST OF FIGURES xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 3 Teaching Academic Language to Integrate Language and Content Learning 3 Research Focused on Academic Vocabulary Teaching to ELLs 4 Needs to Explore Integrating Language and Content through Academic Vocabulary Teaching to FLI Students 5 Research Questions 6 Significance of the Study 7 Definition of Terms 7 Foreign Language Immersion Programs (FLI) Programs 8 Academic Vocabulary 8 Curriculum 9 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) 9 Classroom Teachers 10 Arrangement of the Dissertation 10 CHAPTER 2 USING SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY TO UNDERSTAND ACADEMIC VOCABULARY TEACHING: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 15 SCT Perspectives of Content and Language 16 Content and Language 16 Mathematics and Language 17 SCT Perspectives on Learning 18 Classroom Interaction 18 Scaffolding 20 Mediation 23 CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW 27 FLI Programs 28 Integrating Language and Content Teaching in FLI Classrooms 30 Academic Language and Content Learning 31 Academic Vocabulary Construct Content Learning 32 Definition and Categorization of Academic Vocabulary 33 Academic Vocabulary Instruction Scaffold Language and Content Learning 36 Select Academic Vocabulary. 37 Linguistic Scaffolding Strategies. 38 Non-Linguistic Scaffolding Strategies. 40 Sensemaking Influence Teaching Practice 43 Sensemaking and Enacting a Written Curriculum 44 Curriculum Enactment: Context, Experience, and Self-Perception 46 viii CHAPTER 4 MOBILIZING SCT THROUGH INTERVIEWS, OVSERVATIONS, AND DEBRIEFINGS: A METHODOLOGY 49 Research Context and Participants 50 Research Context 50 The Participant 51 The Role of the Researcher 52 Data Collection Procedures 53 Pilot Study 53 Spoken Data 54 Observational Data 56 Documents 57 Data Coding and Analysis 58 Defining Interactive Episodes 58 Data Analysis 61 CHAPTER 5 FINDING 1: TEACHING ACADEMIC VOCABULARY IN MATH CLASSROOMS—EXPLICITLY AND IMPLICITLY 67 Different Categories of Academic Vocabulary Taught in Wang Laoshi’s Math Class 68 Content-Specific Vocabulary 71 All-Purpose Academic Vocabulary 74 High-Frequency Vocabulary 77 Vocabulary from the Language and Content Curriculum 81 Summary 83 CHAPTER 6 FINDING 2: STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING ACADMEIC VOCABULARY—LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS 85 Strategies for Teaching Different Categories of Academic Vocabulary 88 Strategies for Teaching Content-Specific Vocabulary to Content Learning: Explicit Teaching 91 Strategies of Teaching All-Purpose Academic Vocabulary to Construct Meaning: Explicit Teaching 96 Strategies of Teaching High-Frequency Vocabulary: Implicit Instruction 100 Summary 106 CHAPTER 7 FINDINGS 3: CURRICULUM SENSEMAKING AND ADAPTATION: SCAFFODLING ACADEMIC VOCABULARY SELECTION AND INSTRUCTION 108 Sensemaking and Adapting the Mathematics and Chinese Curriculum 109 Using the Mathematics Curriculum: Explicit Academic Vocabulary Teaching 112 Reading and Evaluation. 113 Adaptation. 118 Practice. 123 Using the Chinese Curriculum: Implicit Instruction to Facilitate Mathematics Teaching 125 Reading and Adaptation. 128 Summary 132 ix CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION: THREE TRENDS OF ACADEMIC VOCABULARY TEACHING 134 The Interplay of Language and Content Teaching: the Language-Intense and Content-Intense Continuum 136 Two Trajectories to Use the Curricula and Teach Academic Vocabulary: Varying Pedagogical Purposes 139 Factors Connecting Curriculum Sensemaking and Academic Vocabulary Instruction: Context, Experiences, and Self-Perception 141 Test-Oriented Context 141 As a Mathematics Learner, as a Mathematics Teacher 142 As a Chinese Teacher, as a Classroom Teacher: Chinese-Speaking Classroom Teacher 143 Summary 144 CHAPTER 9 IMPLICATIONS 146 Methodological Implications 146 Pedagogical Implications 148 CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 152 Summary of the Research 152 Contribution of the Research 154 Limitations and Future Research 155 APPENDICES 157 APPENDIX A: Phase Preliminary Interview Questions 158 APPENDIX B: Observational Heuristic 160 APPENDIX C: In-depth Interview Questions 161 BIBLIOGRAPHY 163 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Vocabulary Instruction 41 Table 2: Coding Methods 63 Table 3: Vocabulary Instruction Episodes Examples 65 Table 4: Academic Vocabulary Instruction 66 Table 5: Key Academic Vocabulary Observed in Class 70 Table 6: Academic Vocabulary from Different Curricula 82 Table 7: Number of Academic Vocabulary Episodes 83 Table 8: Academic Vocabulary Instruction 87 Table 9: Strategies for Teaching different Types of Academic Vocabulary 90 Table 10: Curriculum Scaffolding Classroom Instruction 110 Table 11: Using the Language and Mathematics Curriculum to Scaffold 112 Vocabulary Selection and Teaching Table 12: Observational Heuristic 160 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Social Factors, Sensemaking of Curricula, and Academic Vocabulary 28 Teaching Figure 2: Whiteboard Explanation of 分 Distribute/Divide 103 xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION To help second language (L2) learners achieve academic success, researchers have paid increasing attention to exploring the relationship between academic language and learners’ comprehension of academic texts (Bailey et al., 2007; Galloway & Uccelli, 2019; Guerrero, 2004; Schleppegrell, 2012; Snow & Uccelli, 2009). Academic vocabulary learning influenced L2 learners’ language and concept comprehension and problem-solving skills. L2 students who struggle with academic vocabulary are further prevented from discussing academic topics precisely. Scholars further identified academic vocabulary as “an essential obstacle to student success” (Nagy et al., 2012, p. 91). To better understand and support instructors teaching academic vocabulary, scholars have examined the categories of academic vocabulary (e.g., Gardner & Davis, 2014; Greene & Coxhead, 2015; Marzano & Pickering, 2005), and the quantity and quality of academic vocabulary instruction in content classes such as mathematics and science (e.g., Kelly et al., 2010; Li et al.,2017; ; McKeown, and Beck, 2014; Snow & Kim, 2007; Townsend & Collins, 2009) to give teachers specific methods that will help learners cope with the vocabulary demands. However, these studies primarily focused on English language learners (ELLs) while foreign language immersion (FLI) programs have attracted very limited attention. FLI programs, considered to be an effective method of bilingual education, have been proliferating in the United States for at least three decades (e.g., Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Fortune & Tedick, 2008; Genesee, 1983; Steele et al., 2017). Teachers of FLI programs in which the instructional language is different from the learners’ mother tongue, have to undertake the dual task of supporting students’ learning of both language and content (for example, mathematics or science) simultaneously. Therefore, FLI teachers need to construct meaning through academic vocabulary instruction to support the language and content 1 learning. This goal can sometimes be achieved through teachers’ interpretation and adaption of both the language and content curricula into their teaching practice (Remillard, 2005). This sensemaking is shaped by the teachers’ own experiences in learning and teaching (Drake & Sherin, 2006). Therefore, it is important to explore how teachers understand curriculum and implement it into their practice of teaching academic vocabulary. However, previous studies have focused on exploring how mainstream teachers make sense of content curriculum, while FLI teachers’ interpretation of both language and content curricula has rarely been addressed. To address the above gaps, this dissertation, framed by sociocultural theory (SCT) (Jaramillo, 1996; Lantolf, 2014; ; Scott & Palincsar, 2013; Swain & Lapkin, 2013; Vygotsky, 1987), examined a third-grade Chinese immersion class, which has generally seen a attracted a surge in interest and adaptation across the country in the past twenty years (Chen et al., 2017; Lü, 2019; Padilla et al., 2013) as an example to present an experienced teacher’s academic vocabulary instruction in mathematics classes, and show how her sense making of the Chinese and mathematics curricula influences her teaching practice. The purpose of this dissertation is to further understand the academic vocabulary instruction within a specific teaching context, and how FLI teachers’ sensemaking of both language and content curricula influenced this instruction to support students’ language learning and academic performance in mathematics classes. To do so, three research questions guided the study: (1) To what extent does the teacher teach academic vocabulary in mathematics classes? (2) How does she use academic vocabulary to construct meaning and scaffold language and mathematics teaching? and (3) How does her sensemaking of the Chinese and mathematics curricula scaffold her academic vocabulary teaching practice? The current study highlighted the process and implementation of Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking of 2 integrating language and content to teach academic vocabulary and will have implications for FLI teachers, teacher educators and programs. In order to contextualize the current study, this chapter was arranged as follows: First, I situated this study in a specific teaching context to highlight the problem of academic vocabulary teaching in the field of bilingual education; second, I indicated the purpose of this study; third, I listed the research questions; forth, I discuss the significance of this study; and fifth, I provided a definition of the terms used in this study. By doing so, I argue that by closely examining a Chinese immersion teacher’s planning and teaching of academic vocabulary in mathematics classes, this study provided an example of how FLI teachers construct meaning and manage language and content teaching through making sense of, adapting, and practicing both language and mathematics curricula. Statement of the Problem Teaching Academic Language to Integrate Language and Content Learning Two populations are typical involved in bilingual education in the United States.: one is English language learners (ELLs) in mainstream classes, and another is native English speakers who are learning another language in a foreign language immersion program (FLI) (Baker, 2011; Flores & García, 2017; García & Woodley, 2015; Ovando, 2003). In these bilingual education classrooms, teaching emphasizes both content (e.g., social studies, mathematics and science) and language teaching, with the former being particularly important under accountability policies, that mandate success in academic achievement for all students (Barwell, 2014; Tedick & Wesely, 2015). This need of integrating language and content learning has attracted increasing interests, especially in exploring the relationships between academic language instruction and students’ language and content learning. Teachers’ academic language instruction was conceptualized as one of the most important tools to construct meaning (e.g., Gardner & Davis, 2014; Gibbons, 2003; Li et al., 2017; 3 Nagy et al., 2012) and mediate language and content learning simultaneously. For example, academic language acquisition influences students’ comprehension of the content of academic texts (e.g., Bailey, 2007; Proctor et al., 2020; Schleppegrell, 2012; Uccelli & Galloway, 2017). Research also indicates that academic language constructs content knowledge and shapes students’ ways of engaging in conversations within certain fields, like mathematicians or scientists (Schleppergrell, 2007). Moreover, researchers argued that academic language proficiency connects closely with learners’ overall academic performance and thusly caused weaker academic performance in ELLs than in native English speakers (e.g., Haag et al., 2013; Proctor et al., 2020; Steven et al., 2001; Townsend et al., 2012). Research Focused on Academic Vocabulary Teaching to ELLs Within the research on academic language teaching, the exploration of academic vocabulary teaching has attracted the most attention because academic vocabulary has been identified as the most obvious and inseparable aspect of academic language and it plays an essential role that influences students’ overall content knowledge learning (Gardner & Davis, 2014; Greene & Coxhead, 2015; ; Kelly et al., 2010; Li et al., 2017; Marzano & Pickering, 2005; McKeown, and Beck, 2014; ). Previous studies have argued that the learning of academic vocabulary can ensure students’ access to the other levels of language such as sentences and paragraphs that help them comprehend concepts associated with certain subject matters. Furthermore, academic vocabulary comprises the functional components used to verbalize their opinions or display their acquisition of various concepts (Nagy et al., 2012). Recent studies have focused on defining and categorizing academic vocabulary, and proposing effective academic vocabulary instruction to help teachers integrate language and content teaching, from making sense of the mathematics curriculum to providing exact academic vocabulary teaching (Brown, 2011; Riccomini, 2015) 4 However, this exploration has mainly focused on how to provide support and accommodation to ELLs. For example, previous studies on English language learning have distinguished academic vocabulary from non-academic vocabulary, and further categorized academic vocabulary in regard to the context within which the word is used or the frequency of word use (Brezina & Gablasova, 2015; Gardner & Davis, 2014; Greene & Coxhead, 2015; Hyland & Tse, 2007). By categorizing and analyzing ELL instruction, researchers have argued that the teachers they observed seldom explicitly teach academic vocabulary, especially academic vocabulary across different disciplines, which influenced ELLs’ academic performance (Pritchard, 2017; Schleppegrell, 2012; Snow et al., 2009; Uccelli & Galloway, 2017). They also called for teaching academic vocabulary through explicit instructions in content classrooms. Recent research has also examined effective strategies to provide explicit instruction, such as deliberately selecting academic vocabulary and providing linguistic and non- linguistic scaffolding to provide references for classroom teachers to better support academic improvement for ELLs (e.g., Beck et al., 2013; Marzano, 2004; Riccomini et al., 2015; Sedita, 2005). Needs to Explore Integrating Language and Content Through Academic Vocabulary Teaching to FLI Students However, these approaches are not immediately applicable in FLI classrooms, including Chinese immersion classrooms, to support FLI teachers in their struggle to integrate language and content teaching in subject matter areas. Research on FLI programs has reported a tension in integrating language and content teaching- how much attention to pay to language teaching and how much to pay to content knowledge teaching (e.g., Barwell, 2014; Cammarata & Ceallaigh, 2018; Cammarata & Haley, 2018). Studies have observed that FLI teachers prioritize content teaching based on stress over accountability and a lack of 5 pedagogical linguistic knowledge (Tedick and Cammarata, 2012). Therefore, scholars have encouraged teachers to pay equal attention to language and content, and provide a balanced instruction in the middle of a continuum between language-intense to content-intense (e.g., Arshad & Lyster, 2021; Cammarata, 2016; Mehisto et al., 2008). However, how can teachers always maintain an equal attention to both and provide balanced language and content instruction? What are some strategies teachers use to teach academic language in order to scaffold content and language learning? How do FLI teachers’ sensemaking of the dual curriculum (language and content) influence their adaptation and teaching practices? These questions remain unanswered. Therefore, using academic vocabulary teaching as a research focus, the current study looked at a Chinese immersion teacher’s mathematics classroom as an example to describe the entire process of her academic vocabulary teaching: selecting the academic vocabulary by reading and understanding the Chinese and mathematics curricula, planning activities and strategies to teach different categories of academic vocabulary, and the exact instructional practice of teaching academic vocabulary in mathematics classrooms. Research Questions By examining the processes of sensemaking, planning, and the practicing academic vocabulary teaching in a Chinese immersion classroom, the current study aims to answer the following three questions: (1) To what extent does the teacher teach academic vocabulary in mathematics classes? (2) How does she use academic vocabulary to construct meaning and scaffold language and mathematics teaching? (3) How does her sensemaking of the Chinese and mathematics curricula scaffold her academic vocabulary teaching practice? 6 Significance of the Study Although academic vocabulary instruction for ELLs has attracted increasing attention in the past three decades (e.g., August, 2016; Baumann & Graves, 2010; Schleppegrell, 2009 Snow, 2010; ), studies on how to teach academic vocabulary in content areas within FLI programs, especially Chinese immersion programs, were still under explored, while novice Chinese immersion teachers often report difficulties in teaching in content subject areas. Through analyzing one Chinese immersion teachers’ academic vocabulary instruction in teaching mathematics, and discussing the models for her sensemaking, adaptation, and enacting of both Chinese and mathematics curriculum, the study seeks to enhance our understanding of the way that FLI teachers interpret and implement the assigned curriculum to purposefully guide their planning and practice of academic vocabulary to scaffold language and content learning. Methodologically, this study triangulated the teachers’ plan, instructional practice, and voices as multiple resources to track the entire process of how Wang Laoshi made sense of, adapted, and enacted the mathematics and Chinese curricula to teach different categories of academic vocabulary. Pedagogically, FLI teachers, especially novice teachers can benefit from an experienced teacher’s sensemaking of both language and mathematics curriculum to select and teach academic vocabulary to scaffold language and content teaching. Teacher education programs should better train FLI teachers in the sensemaking and adaptation of given curricula in order to help facilitate their flexible instructional move to scaffold language and content teaching. Definition of Terms This section defines a few key concepts used throughout the study briefly: (1) foreign language immersion programs; (2) academic vocabulary; (3) curriculum; (4) the Common 7 Core State Standards (CCSS); (5) classroom teachers. These terms are also discussed with more details in the Literature Review Chapter. Foreign Language Immersion (FLI) Programs A FLI program refers to a type of language program in which learners study a foreign language in a content-based learning environment (Freeman & Silverman, 1992). Such a program has been inspired by the success of French immersion for English-speaking students in Canada and has become increasingly popular in the United States over the last thirty years. Unlike traditional foreign language teaching where the learning is primarily focus on language knowledge and the communicative use of the target language, the learning in an FLI classroom includes content (e.g., mathematics and science) as well as language, although the content is particularly important under accountability policies (e.g., state testing) that mandate that all students achieve success in school (Tedick & Wesely, 2015). Therefore, students in FLI programs have the dual task of learning a language and content knowledge at the same time, while teachers undertake a dual task of teaching a foreign language and content knowledge simultaneously. Academic Vocabulary As Snow (2010) argued, academic vocabulary in FLI classes “falls toward one end of a continuum, with informal, casual, conversational language at the other extreme” (p. 450). To recognize this characteristic, this study adopted Nagy & Townsend’s (2012) definition of academic vocabulary—“academic vocabulary is the kind of specific vocabulary that facilitates communication and thinking across disciplines in academic settings” (p. 92). For example, by asking students to “determine” the “multiplier” in an “equation,” teachers were fostering students’ communication and problem-solving process with the field of mathematics by comprehending the vocabulary “determine, multiplier, and equation.” 8 Building on Nagy & Townsend (2012), the current study carefully examined episodes of teaching such vocabulary in a Chinese immersion mathematics classroom. Curriculum As part of the fundamental understanding of education, scholars have proposed a multilevel view of curriculum (Remillard, 2014), in studies such as The Study of Schooling (Goodlad et al., 1979), and The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Schmidt et al., 1996). The curriculum system was broken down into the various levels of policy, designing, and enactment (Remillard, 2014, p. 705). This study employed Remillard’s (2014) definition: a curriculum includes the state standards, textbooks, a teacher’s handbook, and the student’s workbook. It explored how a FLI teacher understand those curriculum materials to design and conduct academic vocabulary instruction. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) The CCSS is a set of educational standards initiated from 2010 in the United States. It was sponsored by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, covering the learning goals of English language arts and mathematics for each grade in K-12 settings. The purpose of initiating these standards was to provide consistent and explicit guidelines of students’ academic achievement. With these guidelines, teachers and parents will know how to better support learners (CCSS Initiative, 2013). The CCSS for mathematics is divided into two sets of standards: the Standards for Mathematics Practices and the Standards for Mathematics Content. These standards were employed and listed as learning goals in different textbooks, including the mathematics textbook, Go Math, used in the Wang Laoshi’s school district. 41 states, including Michigan, adopted the CCSS from 2010 and mandate all students achieve those standards, for both mainstream classrooms and FLI programs. Different school districts were encouraged to use the standards as a guide to prepare all students for college or professional careers. 9 Classroom Teachers Classroom teachers, also known as “mainstream teachers” in secondary education, refers to kindergarten and elementary school teachers who provide broad academic instruction across disciplines, such as language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science, in kindergarten and elementary schools. In the current study, this term was used as a contrast to language teachers or English teachers, who take charge of language teaching in K-12 settings. Arrangement of the Dissertation This dissertation seeks to understand the selection, adaption, and enactment of both the Chinese language and mathematics curriculum to teach academic vocabulary in mathematics classrooms. To understand these processes, the following chapters were arranged as follows: ● Chapter 2 unpacked the overarching theoretical framework-sociocultural theory (SCT)- that guided my literature review, methodology, data collection and analysis. This chapter overviews two perspectives of SCT as the overarching theoretical framework to analyze the participant’s planning, practice, and sensemaking: (1) the inseparable relationship between content (mathematics) and language and (2) learning in SCT. Under the guidance of these two perspectives, the chapter focused on reviewing literature about teaching academic vocabulary to mediate and scaffold language and content learning in mathematics classrooms, employing a triangulation strategy to collect written, spoken, and observational data to track the focal teacher’s instructional process of planning, practice, and reflect on her academic vocabulary instruction in teaching mathematics. ● Chapter 3 reviewed relevant literature to provide background of why this dissertation is needed and how I can join the conversation in the field. Under the 10 guidance of SCT, this chapter reviewed the literature of selecting and teaching academic vocabulary strategically to mediate learners’ development of language skills and content knowledge, teaching academic vocabulary to scaffold language and content learning, and teachers’ sensemaking of curriculum to scaffold their classroom practice. By reviewing the literature, I addressed the following research gaps: (1) previous research on academic vocabulary teaching focused on ELLs in mainstream classrooms while FLI classrooms requires more attention; (2) research on teachers’ sensemaking of curriculum focused on content curriculum while there is a need to unpack the complicity of understanding and using both foreign language and content curriculum in FLI programs; and (3) previous research called for balancing language and content teaching in FLI program, meanwhile, there is a need to show how FLI teachers practice such a call, the challenges they encountered, and the solutions they may employ. ● Chapter 4 provided information of data collection and analysis to explain the rationale of the research design. Case study is a social practice where different data resources interact with each other to ensure validity (e.g, Goodwin & Goodwin, 1984). By collecting the written, spoken, and observational data through requested curriculum materials, conducting classroom observations, and conducting pre-observation interviews and post-observation debriefings, this chapter contextualizes the participant in a specific research context (Perlesz & Lindsay, 2010). It went beyond exploring FLI teachers’ academic vocabulary instruction through self-reporting, but triangulated the focal teacher’s practicing process of making sense of, adapting, and enacting both Chinese language and 11 mathematics curricula to teach academic vocabulary in mathematics classrooms. ● Chapter 5 to 7 illustrated the three findings in regards to answering the three research questions. Under the guidance of SCT, this study reported the following three findings: ● Chapter 5 reported that Wang Laoshi explicitly listed academic vocabulary in her division and multiplication lesson plan, and explicitly taught those vocabulary in different teaching stages through teacher- student interaction, mathematics practice, and story-embedded instruction during small group center time. The finding was different from previous research findings about mainstream teachers’ academic vocabulary teaching to ELLs; ● Chapter 6 indicated the two trajectories Wang Laoshi employed to construct meaning and scaffold conceptual understanding through academic vocabulary teaching. The finding resonated with previous studies that FLI teachers’ instruction usually fell in a continuum between language- and content-intense teaching (Martinez et al., 2018) but seldom can maintain a balanced status; ● Chapter 7 unveiled the process Wang Laoshi used to make sense of, adapt, and “play with” both Chinese and mathematics curricula to scaffold her academic vocabulary teaching. The finding resonated with previous research that teachers’ teaching contexts, learning experiences and self-perception influence their prioritization of language or content teaching; and further indicated that these social factors also impact FLI teachers’ prioritization of using language or content curriculum. 12 ● Chapter 8 interpreted the findings under the guidance of SCT and reported three trends: (1) Language and content teaching interplay which made Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction fall in a continuum between language-intense and content-intense and moving continuously; (2) Wang Laoshi took two trajectories to teach different categories of academic vocabulary according to her pedagogical purposes by making sense, adapting, and practicing the mathematics and Chinese language curriculum; and (3) There are different social factors, such as Wang Laoshi’s teaching contexts, her experiences as a mathematics learner, and her self-perception, that influenced Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking of enacting the two written curricula, and subsequently impacted her decision-making during academic vocabulary instruction. Based on the three trends, I argue that (1) instead of calling for keeping a balanced teaching status in class, teachers can start handling the tension between language and content from understanding the written curriculum, and managing the tension according to students’ learning needs during the enacting process; and (2) FLI teachers’ teaching contexts, learning experiences, and self-perceptions determine both the priority of decision-making during teaching practice and the priority of their sensemaking process when understanding the language and content curricula. ● Chapter 9 indicated the methodological and pedagogical implications of this study that would shed light to FLI teachers, especially novice teachers, teacher educators, and teacher preparation programs. Methodologically, the triangulation method of collecting and analyzing written, observational, and spoken data should be used to explore the whole process of how FLI teachers made sense of, adapted, and enacted the content and language curricula to scaffold language and content learning through teaching different categories of 13 academic vocabulary. Pedagogically, the study challenged the call for balancing language and content teaching in FLI programs. Moreover, it highlighted the needs for teacher educators and teacher preparation programs to prepare FLI teachers to better understand and adapt both language and content curricula to handle the tension between language and content teaching according to the pedagogical purposes during the process of planning and practicing the lessons, and provided an example of how a FLI teacher managed language and content teaching through academic vocabulary teaching for novice FLI teachers. ● Chapter 10 summarized the conclusions, contributions and limitations of this study, and indicated directions for future research. In addition to reporting the summary and contribution of this study, Chapter 10 indicated two limitations of the present study which calls for further exploration in the future: (1) the recruitment of the research participant; and (2) the assessment of students’ learning, especially language learning. Moreover, future investigations can also consider exploring novice teachers’ learning and development of teaching academic vocabulary through a longitudinal design in the first few years of their teaching practice. Examinations about the teachers’ cultural identity that influenced her academic vocabulary teaching in mathematics classrooms would also be an important contribution to this conversation. 14 CHAPTER 2 USING SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY TO UNDERSTAND ACADEMIC VOCABULARY TEACHING: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Sociocultural theory (SCT) focused on how interaction influences individual learning, as well as how beliefs and attitudes impact the enacting of instruction and learning. According to Vygotsky (1978), learning “presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them” (p. 88) which indicated an inseparable connection between social interaction and human development. Also known as “cultural-historical activity theory” (Mercer, 2012, p.13), SCT examines how human skills and knowledge are appropriated by social interaction with different individuals (Säljö, 2009). From an SCT perspective, learning and development should be understood through a “collective, historical nature of human life” (Mercer, 2012, p. 12). SCT has been used in and has is influential in different fields such as child development, cognitive psychology, and education. This chapter describes SCT as an explanatory framework to guide the current research since it engages with the questions of language and content acquisition as a social practice. This study drew on two perspectives in SCT as the overarching theoretical framework to analyze the planning, practice, and sensemaking of the participant, Wang Laoshi: (1) the inseparable relationship between content (mathematics) and language and (2) the definition of learning in SCT. These two perspectives shaped my focus in the classroom interaction between the teacher and her students, the discursive moves she took to construct meaning, and the ways she understood the curricula to prepare and conduct lesson plans and classroom practice in order to scaffold students’ language and content learning. 15 SCT Perspectives of Content and Language Content and Language Previous research drawing on SCT has argued for entangling language and content (e.g., Donato, 2016; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Vygotsky, 1978). According to Vygotsky (1979), through employing various social tools, learners started to develop language and cognition simultaneously around two-years old. Without the development of relational actions to the social environment around them, language cannot be acquired; without language skills, cognitive and content knowledge cannot be conceptualized. By developing language skills, learners make sense of social relationships, summarize logical rules to solve different problems (Vygotsky, 1986). In other words, “language and thought… converge during the course of development and are influenced bi-directionally thereafter” (Burkholder & Pelaez, 2020, p. 8). Under the guidance of SCT, Halliday (1978) has argued that the meaning construction is rather a process of articulating both the idea and of language instead of communicating already formed ideas. Snow et al. (1989) has clarified that for young learners, the development of language skills and content knowledge go hand in hand, regardless of whether it is the learners’ first language or second language development. The distinction is that the process of developing a first language is relatively natural. In sum, language and content learning cannot be separated. Studies have further argued that language and content learning occurs more effectively within a purposeful social and academic context through classroom interaction (e.g., Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Genesee, 1994; Jiang, 2000; Sanjurjo, 2018). For example, from a pedagogical perspective, Cantoni-Harvey (1987) pinpointed that “when the learner’s second language is both the object and medium of instruction, the content of each lesson must be taught simultaneously with the linguistic skills necessary for understanding it” (p. 22). 16 Therefore, different pedagogical research has argued for integrating language and content teaching, for example, the content-based foreign language instruction (CBI) (e.g., Cammarata, 2016; Tedick & Cammarata, 2012) or the content-language-intergate-learning (CLIL) (e.g., Cenoz, 2015; Dalton-Puffer & Nikula, 2014). Moreover, scholars of CBI or CLIL haves argued that since the teaching of content lessons must be accompanied by language teaching, maintaining a balanced status, or paying equal attention to language and content teaching in a content classroom is more effective than paying more attention to either language or content teaching (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012). Mathematics and Language As an important part of subject matter areas, researchers in mathematics education who have drawn upon SCT have increasingly recognized the pivotal role language plays in understanding and solving mathematics problems and argued that mathematics and language are inseparable (e.g., Mogan et al., 2017; Phakeng, 2016). For instance, Pimm (1987) has emphasized the linguistic features in mathematics in Speaking Mathematically: Communication in Mathematics Classrooms. The work differentiates mathematical activity from other subject matter in order to argue that mathematics is not a language-free discipline. Lerman (2000) identifies the “social turn” to clarify that the method of isolating language and mathematics is for the purpose of lab research only. Brown (2002) has claimed that “the framing of mathematical experience in words by individuals should have been seen as an integral part of the mathematics itself, inseparable from less visible cognitive activity” (p. 222). In other words, researchers have challenged the dichotomous views of language and mathematics as separate and argued that mathematics and language development are integrated and the learning of mathematics knowledge is inseparable from knowing and using the target language through classroom communication within a social environment (e.g., 17 Brown, 2002; Martínez & Dominguez, 2018; Morgan et al., 2014; Phakeng, 2016). For the purpose of this study, these notions of language and mathematics indicate that “when teachers focus on language they may be teaching mathematics, and vice versa” (Martínez & Dominguez, 2018, p. 2) through teacher-student interaction. SCT Perspectives on Learning Guided by SCT, this study understands that learning occurs when one interacts with and reflects on the world around them through employing various mediational tools in a highly situated contexts (Lantolf, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978). From this perspective, learning is a dynamic and complex social practice through which learners acquire and possess the development of knowledge and ability through continuous interaction between participating members (Walsh & Li, 2013; Walqui, 2006). In this interactive process, participants collaboratively construct meaning and knowledge through language, which is one of the most important mediational tools. In a classroom context, this collaboration is characterized by the teacher working as a facilitator, as well as the primary source of language input, to help students construct and express their understanding in order to solve problems through accomplishing certain tasks. On the one hand, with careful planning and deliberate practice, teachers create rich language and content input to construct meaning and facilitate students learning. Such planning and practice, on the other hand, influences and is influenced by teachers’ sensemaking of the professional environment and materials they can employ around them simultaneously. To better understand FLI teachers’ sensemaking and practice of academic vocabulary teaching, three foundational notions were used to guide the data collection and analysis in this study: classroom interaction, scaffolding and mediation. Classroom interaction Classroom interaction is a central action in communicative-based foreign language classrooms (e.g., Mackey et al., 2012; Swain & Suzuki, 2008; Sundari, 2017). Through 18 interactional conversation within a classroom, teachers and students negotiated and constructed meanings together (Basterrechea & Mayo, 2013). This interaction mediated input and encouraged intake through the execution of meaningful activities, thus facilitating acquisition (Van Lier, 2014). From a sociocultural perspective, the relationship between classroom interaction and learning are inextricable (Thoms, 2012). In other words, classroom interaction is an essential part of learning because meaning is negotiated, constructed, and created in this “active, creative and socially interactive process” (Ruschoff & Ritter, 2001, p. 206). Classroom interaction included teacher-students interaction and students-student interaction. However, some research has argued that teachers played a critical role in this discursively interactive process (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). Teachers usually control the classroom interaction as the most knowledgeable person in a classroom (e.g., Gardner, 2013; Li & Walsh, 2011; Sundari, 2017). One of the most common classroom interaction is the IRF (teacher initiation-student response-teacher feedback) pattern (Cazden, 1988; Christison & Murray, 2011; Rustandi, 2017; Waring, 2008; Wells, 1993) in which the teacher initiates an utterance, students respond, and then teacher gives feedback. In other words, through this IRF pattern, teachers modified their utterances to scaffold students’ comprehension and production, provided corrective feedback and constructed follow-up questions to raise students’ awareness of certain features through this IRF pattern. Example 1 provides such an interactional moment. Example 1: Classroom Interaction Line Speaker Spoken Utterance 1 Wang: 我们有十二个梨子，三个人，每个人都要有梨子，我们怎么办？ (Three people have twelve pears. If everyone wants some of the pears, what should we do?) 2 Zhining 我们要 divide 19 Example 1 (cont’d) (We should divide [them]) 3 Wang 对的，divide，divide 怎么说？ (Yes, divide. How to say divide [in Chinese]?) ___________________________________________________________________________ In this example, Wang Laoshi first asked the students a question about how to divide the pears. After one student gave the correct answer, she provided feedback to confirm the answer, and then asked a follow-up question to lead the student into saying “divide” in Chinese. Even though classroom interaction happens spontaneously during the teaching processes, it is influenced by multiple factors outside the classroom. As Seedhouse and Jenks (2015) argued, a classroom is one of the social contexts in which teachers and learners communicate with each other continuously by applying teaching methods, enacting a teaching syllabus, and employing teaching strategies to achieve learning goals. In other words, classroom interaction is impacted and scaffolded by various outside factors, such as accountability policies, assigned curricula, and teaching philosophy within a program. Scaffolding Previous researchers have provided definitions and categories of scaffolding to help teachers better understand the term and carry it out in their classrooms. Bruner (1983) defined scaffolding as “a process of ‘setting up’ the situation to make the child’s entry easy and successful and then gradually pulling back and handing the role to the child as he becomes skilled enough to manage it” (as cited in Walqui, 2006, p. 163). Donato (1994) has argued that scaffolding is a situation “where a knowledgeable participant can create supportive conditions in which the novice and participant collaborate, and extend his or her current skills or knowledge to higher levels of competence” (p. 40). Similarly, Shuman (2005) has described scaffolding as “providing support for students in their language, and 20 then gradually diminishing the support as students become more independent” (p. 53). Generally, in the field of education, scaffolding means a structured process of providing purposeful help step by step to help a learner achieve certain goals which are challenging for them to achieve alone (Wood et al., 1976). Wells (1999) has argued that scaffolding is a process and structure which aims to encourages students to use the language knowledge they have to gradually express their arguments or ideas in their own words. Walqui (2006) highlighted scaffolding as a process that includes a “supportive structure” (p. 164) which is gradually removed by the teacher, and “collaborative construction work” that should be accomplished together by the teacher and students. It includes different steps and strategies provided to enact the process. As SCT researchers have argued, this process integrated students’ language and content knowledge learning simultaneously through classroom interaction (e.g., Gibbons, 2003; Walqui, 2006). The following example aken from the collected data provides an example of scaffolding. Example 2: Pedagogical Scaffolding Line Speaker Spoken Utterance 1 Wang 这里面哪一个是被除数 (Which one is the dividend [in this equation]?) 2 Daniu 15 (15) 3 Wang 怎么确认？ (How do you determine that?) 4 它在“分”的前面还是后面？ 21 Example 2 (cont’d) (Is this in front or after “divide”?) 5 Ss 哦，哦，前面 (Oh, oh, in the front [of “divide”]) 6 Wang 非常好。在“分”前面的是被除数， (Very good. [The number] before “divide” is the dividend.) 7 在“分”后面的是除数。 ([The number] after “divide” is the divisor. ) As illustrated in this example, Wang Laoshi revisited a content-specific word “dividend.” She first asked students to recognize the dividend to assess their comprehension of the mathematics concept “dividend.” After receiving the correct answer, she further posed a follow-up question for that identification. When she realized it is challenging for students to explain why 15 was the dividend, she changed the question to highlight the location in order to simplify the question by providing options. After that, she summarized and retaught a strategy to solve this category of mathematics problem by identifying the position of different factors. The above episode provides an example of “pedagogical scaffolding” (Walqui, 2006) which often takes place within classroom interaction. However, scaffolding usually goes beyond the classroom and refers to the facilitation provided within different contexts: it is closely connected with teachers’ sensemaking and implementation of language and content curricula. In addition to scaffolding described above, scholars have defined different levels of scaffolding to situate these supportive strategies into various stages of teachers’ practice, including understanding the curriculum, planning lessons accordingly, and enacting the 22 curriculum through teaching. In other words, scaffolding is “conceived of as a tripartite set of pedagogical scales” (Harraqi, 2017). Walqui (2006), for example, has broken the process of scaffolding down into three levels: 1) macro-scaffolding refers to the supporting process happens when teachers reading the assigned curriculum, such as determine the lesson sequence of a unit or designing projects and tasks over time; (2) meso-scaffolding which happens when teachers planning sequence of lessons according to the curriculum, such as preparing teaching materials and instructional strategies; and (3) micro-scaffolding, which refers to the structured support teachers provide spontaneously during classroom teaching through interaction. The three levels of scaffolding represents an inseparable relationship and influence each other. For example, the example provided above happened on the micro level, however, this micro-level scaffolding is rooted in the teachers’ understanding of the curriculum. In other words, the sequence of scaffolding moves from the macro level to the micro level, from the planning time to the enacting time, from structure to process (Gibbons, 2003). To provide these three levels of scaffolding, teachers need to have a better understanding of the existing curriculum, evaluate and adapt it, and then use it in their classroom teaching in order to assess the students’ learning difficulties and needs to offer timely assistance (Drake & Sherin, 2002). Mediation One of the central notions of SCT is mediation because the interactions are “materially or symbolically mediated” (Swain, 2015, p. 2). Thorne & Thorne (2007) defined mediation as a process “through which humans deploy culturally constructed artifacts, concepts, and activities to regulate the material world or their own and each other’s social and mental activity” (p. 179). Such a process occurs when learners encounter learning challenges, and acts as a tool or resource for learners to use in order to conquer the difficulties (e.g., Gibbons, 2003). These tools are culturally and historically created and 23 “made available to learners through social interaction” (Walqui, 2006, p. 161). Vygotsky (1978) has argued that these mediational tools can be material tools invented by human beings or semiotic tools such as gestures. Within a FLI classroom, teacher talk, teachers’ non- verbal gestures and visual supports are some of the common mediational tools (e.g., Liskinasih, 2016; Maolida, 2013). Example 3 provided one mediational moment when students encountered a challenge in understanding the high-frequency word “分 distribute/ divide.” Example 3: Mediate the Understanding of “分 distribute/ divide” Line Speaker Spoken Utterance 1 Wang 什么是分工？<分>工？ (What is divide up the work? the work) 2 Ss <分>扫地 ( sweep the floor) 3 Wang 对的，你扫地，他⼲什么？ (Right, you sweep the floor. What would he do?) 4 Bingxin 擦擦 (wipe) 5 Wang 很好，你扫地，他擦窗户, 就是什么？ 「hand gesture showing distribution」 (Good, you clean the ground, he wipe off the window. What is that? 24 Example 3 (cont’d) 「hand gesture showing distribution」) 6 Bingxin 分 （distribute/ divide） ________________________________________________________________________ In this example, when students encountered a challenge to define the word “分 distribute/divide,” Wang Laoshi reinforced students’ understanding about “分 distribute/divide” by providing language support and body language to mediate students’ learning. These mediational tools are not only used to support students’ learning, but also employed to shape teachers’ teaching. On the one hand, within a classroom setting, the teachers usually provide the mediational tools, such as the language teachers use for interacting with students, slides and handouts prepared in advance, multimedia materials to provide background knowledge, and the scaffolding techniques for step by step learning. These mediational tools can be prepared in advance or brought in during teachable moments. On the other hand, mediational tools are not only the means that teachers use to promote to learning, but they are also devices that teachers draw on to improve their own learning of teaching. Teachers draw upon different mediational tools, such as materials from the organization in which they work, to support their understanding of the curriculum and construct their teaching in a meaningful and coherent way. From this perspective, Remillard (2005) views teachers’ sensemaking and implementing of curriculum as a “participatory process” (p. 64) in which teachers continuously interact with the curriculum resources. In sum, the inseparable relationship between language and content learning creates challenges in academic achievement for FLI learners. Solving these problems requires 25 teachers to provide various levels of scaffolding to support learners’ development of the target language and literacy, as well as content problem solving, with the support of different mediational tools. The preparation and implementation of the scaffolding and mediation is closely connected to the teacher’s adaption of both language and content curriculum within a foreign language immersion program. This adaption is grounded in immersion teachers’ beliefs about language and content learning, which is situated in their “historical and developmental experiences” (Drake et al., 2014, p. 157) as learners and teachers of a certain language and subject matter . In other words, education scholars have established that scaffolding and mediation happen in class, and both relate to teachers’ adaption of the curriculum, and that adaptation process is connected to the teachers’ experiences. This is a dynamic and ongoing relationship which involves individual interaction and transaction between curriculum, teachers, and students (Brown, 2009). Given this theoretical lens, the next chapter reviewed literature about how teachers integrated language content teaching through academic language, especially academic vocabulary teaching in bilingual classrooms. Moreover, the next chapter also explored literature about how teachers’ sensemaking of curricula scaffolded their academic vocabulary teaching in subject matter areas. 26 CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW The current study aims to explore the dynamics of academic vocabulary instruction within a Chinese immersion teacher’s mathematics teaching to explore how her previous experiences and current teaching align with each other. As discussed in Chapter 2, academic vocabulary learning in subject matter areas is a process involving comprehension and practice of both language and content knowledge and occurs through continuous interaction between teachers and students. Such practice is driven by teachers’ ongoing mediation and scaffolding provided before and during the teaching practice based on her sensemaking of the assigned curriculum. To describe this process in detail, below I reviewed the characteristics of FLI programs, research focus on content classrooms in FLI programs, and studies about teachers’ sensemaking of a single curriculum. In this chapter, I reviewed the literature related to the three guided research questions: (1) To what extent does the teacher teach academic vocabulary? (2) How does she teach academic vocabulary to construct meaning and scaffold language and content learning?; and (3) How does her sensemaking of curricula scaffold her academic vocabulary teaching? Teachers’ sensemaking of curricula influence their classroom practice, while they themselves are influenced by their experiences as learners and teachers. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the teacher’s sensemaking and instructional practice, which guided the three research questions. 27 Figure 1: Social Factors, Sensemaking of Curricula, and Academic Vocabulary Teaching To address the above research questions, in this chapter I review (1) the dual task of teaching in the specific context of an FLI program, (2) previous studies about academic vocabulary instruction to integrate language and content teaching, and (3) teachers’ sensemaking that connects their previous experience and current teaching practice. Based on reviewing the literature, this study analyzes the research on academic vocabulary to ELLs, and how teachers’ sensemaking of a single curriculum, such as language arts curriculum or mathematics curriculum, influenced their classroom teaching. This chapter identified the complicity of employing both language and content curricula to select and teach academic vocabulary in subject matter areas in FLI classrooms and the limited attention such classrooms received. Therefore, the current chapter addressed the needs of closely examining FLI teachers’ process of understanding, adapting, and enacting both language and content curricula to manage language and content teaching through academic vocabulary instruction. FLI Programs In the context of bilingual education in the United States., two populations are typically discussed: ELLs in mainstream classes and native English speakers who learn a foreign 28 language in a FLI program(Baker, 2011; Flores & García, 2017; García, 2015; Ovando, 2003). While the former attracted the most research interest, FLI programs, where learners learn a foreign language as both the content and learning tools, are also receiving increasing attention (Baker, 2011; Flores & García, 2017; Freeman & Silverman, 1992; García & Wei, 2015; Genesee, 2008; Ovando, 2003; Swain & Lapkin, 2005). Previous research have identified main characteristics of FLI programs that differ from the traditional foreign language teaching program, such as foreign language and culture programs. Even though traditional foreign language programs argue for teaching both the foreign language and culture, teaching in those programs primarily focus on language knowledge and communicative use of the target language to support students’ development of language proficiency levels. In other words, language learning is the dominated goal in foreign language programs. On the contrary, the learning in an FLI classroom includes both content (e.g., history, literature, math and science) and language. Scholars have argued that the content learning is especially important in FLI programs. Because under accountability policies, all students should be successful in academic achievement by taking certain tests (Barwell, 2014; Tedick & Wesely, 2015). Therefore, teachers in FLI programs undertake dual tasks to teach both language and content knowledge at the same time. Moreover, just as ELLs in mainstream classrooms, students in FLI programs also have the dual task of learning a language and content knowledge at the same time. However, different from English classrooms for linguistically-diverse students, FLI program students do not encounterthe target language, including vocabulary, much beyond what they see, hear, learn and use at school. This situation makes the classroom the primary context where students can access the target language, and makes teachers the main resource of target language input (Fortune & Tedick, 2008). 29 In general, the above characteristics of FLI programs require teachers to undertake the task of integrating language and content (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Caldas, 1999; Savage, 2014; Watzinger-Tharp et al., 2018). As I discuss in the theoretical framework, the SCT perspective emphasized the inseparable relationship between language and content learning, which aligns with the above task. Under the guidance of SCT, pedagogical approaches, such as content-based Foreign Language Instruction (CBI), and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), focus on examining how teachers plan and handle the dual teaching tasks in foreign language immersion classrooms (Byrnes, 2005; Donato, 2016; Dupuy, 2000; Lyster, 2017; Tedick & Wesely, 2015) Integrating Language and Content Teaching in FLI Classrooms Guided by CBI and CLIL, researchers examined FLI teachers’ classroom practices to support students’ language, literacy, and content development in subject matter areas like mathematics and science. As a result, they called for employing a “dual-focused approach” (Mehisto et al., 2008, p. 9) that pays equal attention to language and content teaching. However, previous research reported some tension in teaching a content classes in FLI programs over how much attention to pay to the content, and how much attention to pay to the language (Barwell, 2014; Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Martin, 2015). Moreover, these studies have argued that teachers prioritize content teaching over language instruction (Hoare & Kong, 2008; Lyster, 2007). For example, Cammarata & Tedick (2012) interviewed three FLI teachers-- two Spanish teachers and one French teacher—about their practice of integrating language and content teaching in content classes such as mathematics through interviews. The findings indicated that those teachers were increasingly developing an awareness of the interplaying relationship between content and language; however, due to a lack of resources and accountability pressure, it was challenging for them to identify which kind of language materials they should focus on when teaching content knowledge. The 30 findings resonated with other studies about how teacher prioritize content teaching. However, the discussion was basically relied solely on the self-reporting of the three participants. In addition to argue that FLI teachers paid less attention to language instruction, researchers called for employing a “dual-focused approach” (Mehisto et al., 2008, p. 9) in content classrooms. In other words, they believe that FLI teachers should pay equal attention to language and content teaching ( Cammarata, 2016; Dalton-Puffer et al., 2010; Llinares & McCabe, 2020; Urmeneta & Walsh, 2017), especially in the teaching of academic language (e.g., Davis et al., 2019; Guerrero,1997; Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008; Lucero, 2014; Steele et al., 2017) Academic Language and Content Learning Researchers in second language acquisition have explored the contribution of Vygotskyan SCT to second language teaching and learning. Aligning with Vygotsky’s (1991) fundamental principle that thinking and speaking are unified, researchers have argued that one of the most significant insights is the inseparable relationship between academic language and content learning in second language classrooms. Teachers’ academic language instruction was conceptualized as one of the most important tools to construct meaning (e.g., Block, 2003; Gibbons, 2003; Swain, 2006) and mediate language and content learning simultaneously. One example ls the way of learning academic language directly impacts students’ understanding of academic texts across different disciplines(e.g., Bailey et al., 2007; Kalinowski et al., 2019; Schleppegrell, 2004). Acquisition of academic language also help students construct meaning to comprehend content knowledge and further shapes their engagement in participating in conversations within certain field (Erath et al., 2018; Schleppegrell, 2007; Snow & Uccelli, 2009; Uccelli et al., 2019). Moreover, academic language proficiency directly influenced learners’ overall academic performance. Because of struggling with the comprehension of academic language, ELLs do not perform as good as 31 native English speakers in accountability tests, which are written in English (e.g., Jones et al., 2019; Hakuta et al., 2000; Townsend et al., 2012). Gibbons (2003) illustrated how a teacher’s academic language input supported her teaching of both science and English by scaffolding students’ generalizations and expressions of abstract science concepts through teacher-student interaction. She argued that “meanings are constructed between rather than within individuals and are shaped by the social activities in which they arise and the collaborative nature of the interaction” (p. 268). Moreover, academic language played a critical role in constructing students’ understanding of academic content and impacts their problem solving; by extension, it became a factor in their overall academic achievement. In other words, how the teachers collaborated with students to construct the interaction shapes the overall outcome of that interaction. Within the research on academic language, academic vocabulary has attracted the most interest because it is the fundamental unit of meaning construction. Academic vocabulary instruction is the main focus in much current research due to its crucial role in language acquisition and content comprehension (e.g., Nagy, 2012). Academic Vocabulary Construct Content Learning Academic vocabulary has been identified as the most noticeable and essential part of academic language. It connects closely to students’ overall content knowledge learning and academic achievement (e.g., Erath et al., 2018; Snow & Kim, 2007). On the one hand, acquisition of academic vocabulary is responsible for helping students achieving other levels of language, such as sentence level or paragraph level, and help them comprehend concepts in different text genres (Nagy et al. 2012). On the other hand, academic vocabulary comprises the functional components that students use to construct meaning in order to express their thoughts or opinions to participate in a conversation within professional fields. For example, Nagy et al. (2012) argued that academic vocabulary is not only related to other words which 32 could be used in a certain context, but more importantly, to construct meaning through systematic interaction. In addition, as the fundamental components of language use, academic vocabulary is the initial step that teachers can use to scaffold students’ conceptualization. Informed by its critical role for language and content learning, academic vocabulary has attracted increasing interest. Recent studies have generated a consensus on the characteristics of academic vocabulary itself and instructions for teaching academic vocabulary to promote learners’ language development and academic achievement (e.g., Baumann & Graves, 2010; Li et al.g, 2017; Schuth et al., 2017; Sibold, 2011). In other words, scholars have paid special attention to two areas of academic vocabulary teaching that are closely tied to learners’ academic achievement: (1) defining and categorizing academic vocabulary; and (2) exploring the characteristics of effective academic vocabulary instruction. Definition and Categorization of Academic Vocabulary Previous studies on English language learning have distinguished academic vocabulary from non-academic vocabulary, and defined and categorized academic vocabulary in regard to the context within which words are used and the frequency of their use (Baumann & Graves, 2010; Dutro & Moran, 2003; Gardner & Davies, 2014; Marzano & Pickering, 2005; Snow et al., 1989). In defining academic vocabulary as based on the contexts in which it is used, researchers have argued that teachers need to be recognized and select the vocabulary carefully to provide explicit instruction. For instance, Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) classified words into three tiers based on the context in which a word is used. The first tier is non-academic vocabulary (e.g., “sun” or “go”) which is used within an informal and conversational contexts. The second tier is general-academic vocabulary like “demonstration” or “argument,” which is used across academic disciplines. The third tier is 33 content-specific vocabulary (e.g., “organism” or “multiplication”), which are not used outside of a specific content area. This three-tier model has been accepted, adapted and developed by other scholars (e.g., Calderon et al., 2005). Researchers have also classified academic vocabulary based on the contexts in which it appear. For example, Baumann and Graves (2010) classified academic vocabulary into five categories: (1) domain-specific academic vocabulary; (2) general, or all-purpose academic vocabulary; (3) literary vocabulary, which specially appear in literature to “describe characters, settings, and characters’ problems and actions” (p. 10); (4) metalanguage, which is used to “describe the language of literacy and literacy instruction” (p. 10); and (5) symbols. These five categories are useful for recognizing the different semiotic needs of academic vocabulary learners. In addition to the above work, several studies have categorized academic vocabulary based on its frequency of use. For example, Stevens, Butler, and Castellon- Wellington (2000) categorized vocabulary into three tiers based on frequency level. They defined Tier 1 vocabulary as high-frequency words that are often used in daily life, Tier 2 as non-specific academic words that are used frequently across different domains, and Tier 3 as specific- academic words that are rarely used outside of a given field. Research on Chinese academic vocabulary basically borrows the framework of research in English to distinguish academic vocabulary from non-academic vocabulary. For instance, the syllabus of Graded Words and Characters for Chinese Proficiency was published by the the Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (Chinese Level Test) State Committee in 2001, and the Graded Word List for Chinese Heritage Learners was proposed by Zhang in 2002. However, it is not difficult to specify academic vocabulary in English learning but not that easy in Chinese immersion education in the United States. Academic vocabulary used in content classes taught in English, (also called vocabulary for schooling), is commonly heard, seen, and 34 learned in different contexts both inside and outside the academic setting. However, the situation differs in FLI classrooms where students usually do not have many opportunities to explore the target language outside their classroom. It makes the FLI classrooms the main places for students to communicate in and comprehend the target language and content knowledge. For most students in a FLI classroom, everything they hear, read, write and speak in a foreign language is used for an academic purpose. In other words, this characteristic echoes Nagy's (2012) definition of academic vocabulary: “academic vocabulary is the kind of specific vocabulary that facilitates communication and thinking across disciplines in academic settings” (p. 92).By adapting this definition to identify academic vocabulary in this dissertation, the current study identified and examined different interactive episodes of Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction. According to Snow’s (2010) argument, there is no explicit distinction to differ academic vocabulary to non-academic vocabulary in FLI classes according to formality. Instead, academic vocabulary in FLI classes “falls toward one end of a continuum, with informal, casual, conversational language at the other extreme'' (p. 450). Therefore, three categories of academic vocabulary whereas identified and examined in Wang Laoshi’s mathematics class: (1) content-specific vocabulary that are usually used in mathematics class only and can influence students’ understanding of mathematics concepts and ability to solve mathematics problems, such as “余数 remainder;” (2) all-purpose academic vocabulary that can be used across different disciplines including mathematics, science, etc, and usually influence students’ comprehension of questions or texts, such as “⾸ 先 first...然后 then…;” and (3) high-frequency vocabulary that were most familiar to students because of their that they can use often in everyday life and the academic world, such as “组 35 group”. Some basic vocabulary that would not influence the understanding of questions, such as “ 梨 pears” were not included in these categories. By exploring the different categories of academic vocabulary, researchers have argued that teachers seldom explicitly teach content-specific and all-purpose academic vocabulary (e.g., Schleppegrell, 2004; Snow & Uccelli, 2009). Students usually only have the opportunities to hear those vocabulary items at different teachable moments. Scholars further spotlighted the need to explicitly teach academic vocabulary in English language settings. For example, with the recognition of the linguistic features of academic language, systematic functional linguistics argues that academic vocabulary is one of the important linguistic features that deserve teachers’ attention to better serve English language learners. Academic Vocabulary Instruction Scaffold Language and Content Learning With the acknowledgement of different categories of academic vocabulary, scholars have further explored effective instruction for teaching academic vocabulary, primarily to ELLs, in order to scaffold language and content learning (Jones et al., 2019; Kelley et al., 2010; Prediger & Zindel, 2017; Schleppegrell, 2012; Snow, 2009). There is a growing body of academic vocabulary research focuses on the characteristics of academic vocabulary instruction from two main perspectives for English language learning (e.g., Graves et al., 2012; Lee & Palido, 2017; Marzano, 2004; Teng, 2017): (1) selecting vocabulary systematically and deliberately during planning; and (2) linguistic scaffolding strategies that include explaining a word’s meaning explicitly, discussing word meanings, providing contexts, and creating opportunities for students to use and review the word’s meaning during classroom teaching. Riccomini et al. (2015) also recommended providing non-linguistic scaffolding strategies, such as designing game-like activities, using body language and visual support. Even though most of these strategies are promoted specifically for ELLs, they may be useful for learning a foreign language as well. Therefore, based on the review of relevant 36 literature below, I generated an observational protocol to explore instructional strategies that a Chinese immersion teacher uses in teaching academic vocabulary in mathematics classes. Selecting Academic Vocabulary. ELL researchers have argued that selecting academic vocabulary carefully and deliberately is the first step in providing effective instruction for integrating language and content learning. They suggested that teachers select vocabulary from existing word lists which could be used across disciplines. For example, Baumann & Graves (2010) recommended that teachers compare words in the text students are currently reading to words on existing word lists such as (a) The First 4,000 Worth Teaching (Grave et al., 2008); (b) Marzano and Pickering’s (2005) Teacher’s Manual; (c) Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List; (d) Manyak’s (2007) Character Trait Vocabulary; and (e) Pilgreen’s (2007) Academic Terms for Books Parts. Marzano and Pickering (2005) have suggested that teachers to select domain-specific words of different subject-matter areas from their graded lists. All these lists provide teachers with resources that they can choose and use directly during lesson planning stages. However, research seldom considered how to support teachers selecting academic vocabulary from the curriculum materials. Researchers in systemic functional linguistics (SFL) have demonstrated the importance of recognizing and teaching linguistic features in a certain register so that students can learn to learn and speak the language of professions like mathematics and scientists. Academic vocabulary, one of the essential linguistic features, is the initial step that teachers can focus on to support students’ learning of meaning construction and expression. For example, Fang and Schleppegrell (2008) identified difficult linguistic features that hinder students from understanding academic texts accurately. They argued that students need to recognize and use technical vocabulary to express mathematics problem-solving precisely, and teachers can select these vocabulary items in advance and focus on teaching them in various ways. These studies provide teachers with references to consider when selecting academic vocabulary to 37 teach. Taken with research on vocabulary lists, work in SFL demonstrates how teachers can use direct tools and reference resources to provide macro-scaffolding through academic vocabulary instruction. Linguistic Scaffolding Strategies. Linguistic scaffolding strategies refer to strategies that teachers use to raise learners’ linguistic awareness through systematic guidance (Marzano, 2004). Teaching academic vocabulary instruction is an essential linguistic scaffolding strategy, including explaining word meanings explicitly, providing continuous declaration of certain vocabulary, discussing word meaning, providing contexts, and creating opportunities for students to use and review words during repetition. Explaining Word Meaning in Various Contexts. Explaining word meaning refers to clarifying a word’s different meanings or nuances in different contexts, its history, formation, and characteristics, including providing simple explanations, examples, and synonyms. For example, Lee et al. (2016) argued the teaching of content and language are related, and such teaching should begin with explicitly explaining the meaning of certain academic words that are specific to a discipline. The authors encourage teachers to explain the word’s history, formation, and specific meaning within a certain context to help students comprehend the content from vocabulary level. Contextualized vocabulary instruction supports students in understanding vocabulary meaning holistically and purposefully (e.g., Calderón, 2007; Carlisle, 2000; Nagy et al., 2012) since “vocabulary learning must occur in authentic contexts” (Nagy et al. 2012, p. 98). Within certain contexts, learners are able to understand how one word connects and interacts with other words, and provide support to other words. Therefore, when discussing teaching academic vocabulary in English, researchers have argued that context cues in different content areas can could help students comprehend texts better. They believe that teachers need to provide authentic contexts for learners to understand when and how they can use the 38 selected vocabulary to talk about the problem-solving process (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008). For example, Baumann et al. (2003) conducted an exploratory study to examine the efficacy of academic vocabulary acquisition through contextual analysis, which refers to selecting various types of context clues. Four classes of fifth-grade students participated in the study with twelve 50-minutes interventions. The finding confirms that teaching academic vocabulary in a particular context is “generous or parsimonious, helpful or hostile in the amount of assistance they provide the reader or listener” (Baumann et al., 1991, p. 609). Vocabulary Revisiting. Vocabulary revisiting refers to repeating and emphasizing certain vocabulary through multiple contexts. Researchers have argued that continuous revisiting of vocabulary is an effective strategy in teaching academic vocabulary (e.g., Scott, et al., 2003; Wright &, 2014; Webb & Nation, 2008). For example, Scott et al. (2003) examined and described adequate vocabulary instruction in 23 upper-elementary classrooms of students with diverse ethnic backgrounds in Canada and summarized several principles to identify effective academic vocabulary instruction. They claimed that providing a continuous revisiting of vocabulary can support students’ personalized word learning by engaging students to establish connections between known words and new vocabulary. Starreveld et al., (2014) also conducted an interventional study to examine Dutch students’ learning of academic vocabulary. At nine classroom meetings in which a certain amount of words were revisited, the students’ vocabulary learning grew from 43% to 70%. This finding confirmed the efficacy of repetition. The author warned teachers for not to neglect repetition; otherwise, the effort already put into learning the vocabulary would be wasted. Words Meaning Discussion and Restatement. Word meaning discussion and restatement refers to a negotiation process in which teachers and students define a certain word collaboratively (e.g., Ellis & He, 1999; Proctor et al., 2009; Riccomini, et al., 2015). 39 Interaction between teachers and students about the word meaning is considered as one of the most effective strategies which ties closely to students’ vocabulary learning and text comprehension. For example, Vaughn et al. (2009) found that compared to the control group, treatment students were graded higher on a multiple choice delayed test after having a certain amount of intervention to discuss the word meaning with the teacher. Based on the findings, the authors suggested teachers create more opportunities to modify their input in order to negotiate word meanings and encourage collaborative output with students. Explicitly Teaching Word learning Strategies. Teaching word learning strategies refers to the explicit instruction that includes morphological analysis, cognate use, and polysemy (Snow, 2009). Graves et al. (2018) conducted an intervention study to teach word learning strategies, such as morphological analysis, to two groups of students between seven- to nine- years old. The findings indicate that students who received explicit instruction showed significance improvement on word comprehension and spelling. Non-Linguistic Scaffolding Strategies. In addition to providing linguistic scaffolding strategies, scholars have also encouraged teachers used non-linguistic scaffolding strategies and materials to support students’ language and content learning, including pictures, photographs, diagrams, and body language. Table 1 summarized the scaffolding strategies that have been generated and promoted in the existing literature. It is used as an observational protocol when I observed Wang Lasohi’s academic vocabulary instruction. 40 Table 1: Vocabulary Instruction Academic Vocabulary Instruction Resources Vocabulary Graves (2006) selection Linguistic Defining the word in Providing simple strategies various contexts explanations Providing examples Met (2008) Providing synonyms Word meaning discussion and restatement Riccomini et al., (2015); Revisiting vocabulary Marzano (2004) Teaching word learning strategies explicitly Snow et al. (2009) Non- Designing game-like activities Riccomini et al., linguistic (2015); strategies Integrating non-verbal support Marzano (2004) The above strategies encompass a wide range of studies and have been identified as effective scaffolding strategies for teachers to implement in their classrooms to support students’ language and content learning. However, several empirical studies indicated that although these strategies were commonly used in language arts classes, they were seldom observed in subject matter classes (e.g., Cervetti et al., 2009; Wright et al. 2014). 41 In addition to identifying the quantity and quality of academic vocabulary instruction in both language arts and content classes, previous research has also argued that teaching practices are closely connected to the teachers’ prior experiences and the professional contexts in which they have studied and taught through sensemaking, which refers to their interpretation and adaptation of an assigned curriculum within a professional context(e.g., Drake, 2002; Schifter, 1996; Spillane, 2000; Thompson, 1992). For FLI teachers, such sensemaking involves understanding and adapting an entangled curriculum that integrates the target language and a content area curriculum. This understanding indicates their self- recognition as learners of the language being taught, learners of the content area, and learners of teaching, as well as being a teacher in a teaching space in which foreign languages and content knowledge are both valued and counted as students’ academic goals. Thus, educational scholars have argued that sensemaking is constructed by teachers’ understanding about themselves as students and teachers. Previous research has explored how immersion teachers’ beliefs (Cammarata, 2010) and knowledge-base (Cummins & Tedick, 2011) affects their teaching practice in content classrooms. However, little research into teachers’ practice has generally considered the role of teachers’ sensemaking of the existing curricula. To address this gap, this dissertation is concerned with situating curricula sensemaking within a Chinese immersion mathematics class at the macro level of curriculum adaptation and lesson planning, as well as at the micro level of the academic vocabulary instruction in that mathematics class. Previous studies have suggested that sensemaking is situated in the events that teachers experienced as learners and teachers (e.g., McAdams, 1993). Therefore, this study also explored the teachers’ academic vocabulary instruction from the perspective of sensemaking to connect FLI teachers’ experiences and their teaching practices. To achieve this goal, I reviewed the literature from the following three perspectives: (1) how teachers’ sensemaking influencing their practice; 42 (2) how teachers’ sensemaking of the written curriculum influencing their enactment of the curriculum; and (3) how teachers’ sensemaking of the curriculum is influenced by their learning and teaching experiences. Sensemaking Influences Teaching Practice Sensemaking theory is primarily grounded in the work on policy studies and organizational behavior in the field of education (Drake, 2002). One of the most important materials that represent policy is the curriculum assigned by different schools which is used as a guideline for teachers. As Brown (2009) states, curriculum materials are “intended to convey rich ideas” and “influence common practice by introducing innovative approaches” (p. 21-22). However, teachers implement these ideas by putting personalized interpretation into dynamic practices (Remillard, 2018). In other words, the process of sensemaking emphasizes how individual teachers’ interpretations inform their implementation of an assigned curriculum. This process involves the teachers’ interactions with others within a professional context and their use of mediational tools, which are constructed historically and culturally, to guide their adaption of the curriculum. Richards (1996), for example, argued that second language teachers developed personal principles, such as best teaching behavior, during the process of making sense of a foreign language curriculum to regulate their teaching practice. Richards (1996) observed one ESL teacher in HongKong and one in Canada. The ESL teacher in Hong Kong reported that she implemented the belief that teachers need to cover the materials prescribed in curriculum, while the Canadian teacher saw that the curriculum as merely a reference that should yield to student interests. Therefore, the two teachers chose distinguishable approaches to teach the same level ESL classes. They also chose different solutions when dealing with a similar situation: one chose to follow the lesson plan, while the other abandoned it. Based on the findings, Richards (1998) argued that L2 teachers’ understanding of the curriculum 43 influences their decision making during classroom teaching, and that their understanding is grounded in their perceived beliefs about what is most beneficial to the students the most within their schools. The findings echoes Remillard’s (2014) distinction between a written curriculum and enacted curriculum, the latter referring to the implementation of the former. Sensemaking and Enacting a Written Curriculum As part of the fundamental understanding of education, scholars (e.g., Remillard, 2014), have proposed a multilevel view of curriculum in works such as The Study of Schooling (Goodlad et al., 1979), and The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Schmidt et al., 1996). The curriculum system has been broken down into different levels of policy, designing, and enactment (Remillard, 2014, p. 705). For example, Goodlad et al. (1979) proposed five different perspectives on curriculum: the ideal curriculum, formal curriculum, instructional curriculum, operational curriculum, and experiential curriculum. The ideal curriculum at the policy level represents the values and beliefs of educational scholars. Being “ideal”, this curriculum most likely does not exist in reality. The formal curriculum is usually represented in written format to indicate the content teachers that needs to be covered and goals that the students need to achieve. It includes school pacing guides, national or local standards, course syllabi, and other instructional materials. The instructional curriculum refers to teachers’ purpose and consideration when adapting a formal curriculum. As Remillard (2014) states, “identifying the instructional curriculum recognizes the vital mediating role that teachers play” (p. 706). The operational curriculum, which lies at the enactment level, is the curriculum that is actually implemented by the teacher. The experiential curriculum, refers to the exact interactions teachers and students conducted to accomplish a learning task collaboratively. Thus, this system distinguishes the written curriculum (the aims and goals that are mandated by an education 44 system) from the enacted curriculum (how teachers actually teach and cover the concepts in classes). The written curriculum includes curricular objectives, the content of assessment, and instructional materials to mediate the teacher’s lesson planning and classroom practice. The enacted curriculum is “an emergent, joint constructed entity” (Remillard, 2014, p. 712) that results from “a process of design-in-use” (Pepin et al., 2017, p. 801). Identifying this curriculum emphasize the teacher’s employment of the written curriculum into classroom teaching. This effort is influenced by contextual factors, the teacher’s ongoing response to the written curriculum, and the teacher’s individual experiences (Snyder et al., 1992). Therefore, with the same written curriculum, the enactment may vary in style, pace, emphasis, and quality (Remillard, 2018). This difference relates to “the teachers’ ability to interpret, make decisions about, and leverage the resources” (Remillard, 2018, p. 484) when planning and delivering content. According to Sherin & Drake (2000), teachers usually undertake four processes to make sense of and enact a curriculum: reading, evaluating, adaptation, and practice. Reading refers to teachers’ carefully reading of the assigned curriculum materials, such as state standards, teachers’ handbook, and school’s pacing guide. Evaluating is about how teachers determine and select what to teach according to their understanding of the curriculum and students’ learning progress. Adaptation refers to how teachers make changes and accommodations before or during the teaching process based on their moment-to-moment instructional practice and students’ learning results. This may not occur every time. Practice, known as “doing the curriculum” (Drake, 2002, p. 314) refers to teachers’ actual teaching practice to realize the curriculum and lesson. By employing these three or four processes, teachers select teaching materials according to their understanding of the curriculum and the teaching goals, and they conduct the classroom interaction in such a way as to enact the curriculum. 45 Curriculum Enactment: Context, Experience, and Self-Perception As stated above, previous studies have indicated that an individual’s sensemaking of the written curriculum, as well as their actions to implement the curriculum, are framed by their organizational contexts and their personal stories (Lin et al., 2006). Within an FLI program, the teacher’s understanding of the stimulated language and content curriculum depends to a great extent on the professional context in which they are working, as well as the repertoire of their previous experience as a language and content teacher. Much of the literature has emphasized the importance of the context because teaching practice takes place through continuous interaction within the school (e.g., Louis & Kruse, 1995). As Morrow (1988) argued, “No practices can be maintained for any length of time unsustained by institutions; without institutions the practices would gradually dissipate, institutions are the bearers of practices” (p. 254). In one example, Blignaut (2008) looked at three teachers in three diverse South African educational contexts and argued for recognition of the critical role that context played in influencing their teaching practice. Several contextual factors were examined through the participating teachers’ discourses and practices: the competence of the learners, the resources, the need to maintain discipline, the time restraints, and the role of tradition in the socialization of teachers. Among these, Blignaut (2008) argued that the “lack of resources and materials” and “role of tradition in the socialization of teachers” were the two most important factors that influencing the teachers’ interpretation of the curriculum and that subsequently impact their practice and revised practice. Fullan et al., (2008) argued that how teachers make sense of the curriculum, adapt it, and enact it is framed by their prior experiences and the professional contexts in which they interact. Drake (2002) interviewed twenty in-service mathematics teachers and argued that compared to the teachers’ life stage and experience as learners, their experiences as teachers 46 had a more significant influence on their understanding of a mathematics reform and the assigned curriculum, and that those aspects were more relevant to their reform-oriented practices. Recent studies have also argued that FLI teachers’ perception of their own role directly influence their decision-making in teaching practice and in the effectiveness of the content or language teaching (e.g., Cammarata & Tedick, 2016; Cummins, 2000; Fortune et al., 2008,; Kong, 2015). For example, Fortune, Tedick, & Walker (2008) interviewed six Spanish immersion teachers to examine the relationship between their self-perceptions and their understanding of balancing content and language instruction through interviewing six Spanish immersion teachers. The findings showed that those teachers’ perceive themselves as both language and content teachers. This perception of their dual task in teaching both language and culture played a crucial role in their struggle to balance the tension between language and content teaching since they wanted to pay equal attention to both language and content. Previous studies of teachers’ sensemaking of curriculum have primarily focused on content subject areas such as mathematics or science in mainstream schools with little attention to FLI programs. To integrate target language and content teaching in content areas, FLI teachers need to make sense, adapt, and use both a language and a content curriculum, which makes the enacting process even more complex and dynamic. To understand the patterns of teachers’ sensemaking of a mathematics curriculum and a language curriculum to guide their instruction (e.g., Drake, 2002; Spillane, 2000), this study examined one Chinese FLI teacher’s sensemaking of both Chinese and mathematic curriculum to provide an example of how her interpretation and implementation influenced her dual teaching goal of integrating language and content the in subject matter areas. 47 The review indicated that (1) previous research on academic vocabulary teaching focused on ELLs in mainstream classrooms while FLI classrooms requires more attention; (2) research on teachers’ sensemaking of curriculum focused on content curriculum while there is a need to unpack the complicity of understanding and using both foreign language and content curriculum in FLI programs; and (3) previous research called for balancing language and content teaching in FLI program, meanwhile, there is a need to show how FLI teachers practice such a call, the challenges they encountered, and the solutions they may employ. Thus, I collected and analyzed data of one Chinese immersion teacher’s practice of teaching in mathematics to unpack this complex and dynamic process. Moreover, I used academic vocabulary as a focus point and connected her practice of it to her understanding and adaptation when enacting the Chinese and mathematics curriculum through examining the context she taught, her experiences as a mathematics learner in China, and her self- perception as a “Chinese-speaking classroom teacher” (W. Laoshi, Personal Interview). 48 CHAPTER 4 MOBILIZING SCT THROUGH INTERVIEWS, OBSERVATIONS, AND DEBRIEFINGS: A METHODOLOGY Case study research, a common method of conducting research in the field of language education and applied linguistics (Duff, 2014), can “exemplify larger processes or situations in a very accessible, […], personal manner” (p. 96). Guided by SCT, the current study used case study to illustrate a Chinese immersion teacher’s academic vocabulary instruction in teaching mathematics, as well as how her understanding and adaptation of language and math curriculum influences her practice. The current study answered these three research questions through data collection: (1) To what extent does the teacher teach academic vocabulary in mathematics classes? (2) How does she use academic vocabulary to construct meaning and scaffold language and mathematics teaching? and (3) How does her sense-making of the Chinese and mathematics curriculum influence her academic vocabulary teaching practice? As mentioned in the Literature Review, FLI teachers, includes Chinese immersion teachers, undertake the dual task of language and content teaching. This dual task changes academic vocabulary instruction in subject matter areas into “complex social happenings” (Dyson & Genishi, 2005, p. 9). This underscores the dual learning objectives (language and content), the multiple-purpose tasks and the complicated assessment goals for supporting simultaneous student language and content development (Spicer-Escalante, 2019). To capture the complexity of teaching academic vocabulary, from planning to practice, in a mathematics classroom taught in Chinese, the current study focused on one teacher (Wang Laoshi) and described her classroom to present an example for researchers to see how she makes sense of both language and content curriculum in a Chinese immersion program, and subsequently teach academic vocabulary to enact those curricular. Therefore, in this study, the “case” 49 refers to this Chinese immersion teacher’s planning and instructional practice within and outside her classroom. Through this design, the case study was able to describe the focal teacher’s academic vocabulary instruction in-depth to address the research questions of “how some phenomenon works” (Yin, 2014, p. 12) from an ethnographic perspective (Gee & Green, 1997). Such an perspective provides an approach by which to analyzing data within SCT that takes the position that language simultaneously constructs reality on the basis of the participants’ understanding of what and how they should act. This understanding was represented by the exact language used by the participant with “little control over the phenomenon and context from the researcher” (Yin, 2014, p. 13). Therefore, the case study method allowed me to focus on the details happening within the context of a mathematics classrooms in a Chinese immersion program, instead of claiming generalizability to all mathematics teachers and classrooms. Following suit, in this chapter, I provided the information of the research context and participants, described the triangulated resources I collected at different phases of data collection, explained the coding methods used to analyze varied data and strategies to maximize validity of this study. Research Context and Participants Research Context The case study was conducted in a dual language academy located in a prime living area in a midwestern city in the United States. The involved school is surrounded by many recreational areas and industrial facilities. It is an authorized International Baccalaureate (IB) world school that has housed a Primary Years Program (PYP) in Chinese and Spanish since 2011. The Chinese PYP provides a 50/50 Chinese immersion education in which students, most of whom are native English speakers from grades Pre-K to 6, are taught in English half of the day and in Chinese the other half. In this program, Chinese teachers and English 50 teachers split their teaching responsibilities: the Chinese teachers teach Chinese language arts, mathematics, and/or science while the English teachers teach English language arts, social science, and or/ science. Therefore, in the mathematics classes and some science classes, Chinese is not only the target language to be learned but also a medium of instruction. To ensure sufficient Chinese language input, over 90% of Chinese instruction is required in classrooms. To date, as mentioned earlier, studies on academic vocabulary learning has focused on ELLs (e.g., Nagy et al., 2012; Snow et al., 2009) while FLI programs have received very limited attention. Studies indicated the need to explore the effects of FLI education, especially in the content subject areas (Steele et al., 2017). Therefore, the current study focuses on a Chinese teacher, as a case study, to examine the instructional experiences, sense making, and challenges (if any) of Chinese immersion teachers in teaching both Chinese and mathematics knowledge through academic vocabulary instruction. The Participant Wang Laoshi, (Wang is a pseudonym where “Laoshi” means “teacher” in Mandarin and, like Dr., is a title as well), a third-grade teacher, and her twenty-five students participated in this study. Wang Laoshi is a native Chinese speaker with a certificate to teach K-12 Chinese in the United States and an endorsement in elementary education. She received her BA in English from a Chinese university and MA in Teaching and Curriculum from an American university. The majority of her students who were involved in this study were native English speakers. Of the non-native English speakers, there were two heritage Chinese speakers, one heritage Vietnamese speaker, and two heritage Spanish speakers. Wang Laoshi has taught in the school district for eight years and is responsible for teaching Chinese language and mathematics, which she does with over 90% of the instruction in Chinese. This 51 is her fourth time teaching third-grade students. She teaches two groups of students daily. She teaches mathematics for around one to two hours for one group in the morning and the same content to the other group in the afternoon. Most of her students have been enrolled in the program since pre-school and have been learning Chinese for around four years. According to the latest M-STEP report, 67% of the focal class was identified as “above average” in mathematics. Her principal identified her as a “very effective” teacher. The Role of the Researcher Creswell (2017) argued that the researchers are a “key instrument” (p. 45) when conducting a qualitative study. They notice research needs, choose participants, and examine phenomena through their personal experiences and values. For this study, I inhabited different identities. I initiated contacted Wang Laoshi as an emerging scholar, where I noticed her teaching, and conducted the first phase of the current study as a researcher. I initially selected and contacted Wang Laoshi because of another larger project that was been conducted by a professor who was studying classroom-based assessment. As a research assistant (RA) for that study, I noticed that Wang Laoshi’s reflections on how to assess students’ academic language improvement in content classes, such as mathematics and science. Her reflection resonated with my research interest in exploring academic language teaching in FLI programs to better prepare international language teachers. After observing different formats for Chinese classes (Chinese as a foreign language, Chinese language and culture, and Chinese immersion), I noticed certain discursive moves that Chinese immersion teachers used which were different from the other two types of classrooms. Therefore, using academic vocabulary as a focus, I started reviewing the literature and recruiting participants to explore FLI teachers’ sensemaking and practice of academic vocabulary teaching in subject matter 52 areas. While Wang Laoshi volunteered to participate in the study because of her connection with me, she was not merely a convenient sample just because she was the teacher whose teaching and reflections inspired me to explore academic vocabulary instruction in Chinese immersion programs. As mentioned above, the goal of this study was to answer questions of how and why a Chinese immersion teacher teaches academic vocabulary in math classes in a certain way. I wanted to answer these questions in order to provide an example for other Chinese immersion teachers, especially novice, so that they could better understand themselves as learners and teachers, their teaching contexts within a cross-national and cross- cross-cultural setting , and their teaching practice to integrate language and content. Therefore, describing and understanding Wang Laoshi’s practice and sensemaking is the focus of this study. In order to achieve this goal, I made no interventions in Wang Laoshi’s teaching practice. Data Collection Procedures When conducting a case study, multiple resources connect with each other to provide rich description of the case (Duff, 2012) and “confirmative evidence” (Yin, 2014, p. 135) to support the findings and arguments. Therefore, I conducted a pilot study to refine the data collection plans (Yin, 2014) and collected three types of data: spoken, observational, and documents (Compton-Lilly, 2007). This data was selected and deployed to document the participating teacher’s sensemaking and practice of teaching academic vocabulary instruction in mathematics classrooms. Pilot Study I conducted small-scale pilot study in November 2018 become familiar with Wang Laoshi’s classroom instruction in order to refine the data collection process, time and 53 resources that might be needed, and a research protocol which aligns better with the research questions (Ismail et al., 2018). The findings of the pilot study indicated the necessity of collecting multiple data resources, especially the time and protocol for conducting instructional debriefing with the participant. Therefore, I collected three types of data for this thesis research. Spoken Data The spoken data includes one survey, six post-observation debriefings, and three interviews. At the end of April 2018, I conducted a 44-minute survey (see Appendix A). The survey focused on the teacher’s basic information and her perceptions of Chinese immersion education, defining and understanding of academic vocabulary, as well as her perception of instructional practices for teaching academic vocabulary in the mathematics classrooms. Wang Laoshi provided her understanding of teaching academic vocabulary in mathematics instruction, discussed the challenges she encountered in preparing and teaching those vocabulary, and described what she usually does to teach academic vocabulary (e.g., explicit instruction or implicit instruction). From this pilot study, I also generated an observation heuristic of academic vocabulary instruction that included Wang Laoshi’s explicit and implicit academic vocabulary instruction, including explanations, declarations, contextualized teaching, meaning discussions, synonyms and repetition. From the pilot study, as I also found that Wang Laoshi sometimes provide direct translation of one word in English, therefore, I added “direct translation” into the observation heuristic for the official observation (see Appendix B). 54 From November through December 2019, I conducted altogether three interviews (see Appendix C), and six audiotaped debriefings. The interviews took place before the classroom observations to explore (1) Wang Laoshi’s previous learning experiences and current teaching experiences, both of which might influence her interpretation and implementation of the existing curricula assigned by the school district; and (2) how does her sensemaking of the mathematics and Chinese curricula impacts her planning and teaching of teaching academic vocabulary in the mathematics classes. By reading and discussing her lesson plan with her, I could see Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking of the Chinese language and mathematics curricula, as well as the pedagogical purposes and plans to design different lessons across two units: multiplication and division. Post-observation debriefings refer to the discussions that took place after the classroom observation, and were guided by the technique of the Video-stimulated Reflective Dialogue (VSRD) (Hargreaves et al., 2003). Wang Laoshi and I sat together and to discuss her thoughts and decision-making process during different teaching moments that drew my attention and stand out to me. When conducting the debriefing, I sat together with Wang Laoshi. These debriefings captured Wang Laoshi’s instructional decision-making to answer general questions that had emerged during the observation. Wang Laoshi and I watched the teaching video together, paused at the moments when I was curious about something, and we discussed various points. For example, when Wang Laoshi taught “平均 equal(ly)/ even”, which was not listed in the lesson plans and was taught with direct translation, I asked her about the reason and rationale for that. To ensure the efficacy and validity of using VSRD, I held the debriefing with Wang Laoshi right after the class to ensure that “the event and recall is minimized” (Gass & Mackey, 2000, p. 105). The debriefings altogether took six hours and four minutes. 55 Observational Data. The observational data included classroom observation recordings and observational notes to capture information of Wang Laoshi’s discursive moves and interaction with students in the classroom settings (Creswell, 2005). I observed Wang Laoshi’s class seventeen times between November 2019 to January 2020 (excluding the Christmas break and the assessment week) and recorded the classes to scrutinize the academic vocabulary instruction. The period covered the sequence of teaching multiplication and division (e.g., introduction, practicing, and review) and includes all the activities such as whole group instruction and “centers instruction,” a small group design where Wang Laoshi conducted activities such as guided book reading. Each mathematics class lasted about one hour which included a 40-minutes (approximately) of whole-group teaching time and 20-minutes of small-group center time. Altogether, there were eighteen- hours and thirty-two minutes of recorded classroom observation. My classroom visits took place one week before the official classroom observations to make the observation less disturbing to the students. When the observations started, a video- recorder was set up at the back of the classroom to capture all of the teacher talk and moves throughout the instructional time. It provided me with evidence for the post-observation debriefing and accurate transcription of Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction for data analysis. I positioned myself at the left side of the classroom so that I could observe Wang Laoshi’s instruction and the students’ responses; in addition, I took notes during the observation. I printed out a hardcopy of instructional strategy heuristic (See Appendix B) to use as a reference, and for taking notes, and for recording questions that emerged during the observation. 56 Documents Remillard (2005) argued that various resources, including existing curricula, instructional materials, and artifacts of collective lesson planning, are all mediational tools to help teachers constructing their teaching in a meaningful and coherent way. To explore how Wang Laoshi’s understanding of how the language and mathematics curriculum influences her academic vocabulary instruction, I ask her for the following materials: the mathematics curriculum (Go Math!) and the Chinese language curriculum (Better Chinese/Immersion), the school pacing guide, the lesson plans of the seventeen lessons that would be observed, and any relevant teaching materials (PowerPoints, handouts, etc) to identify the academic vocabulary she would teach before classroom observations started. That gave me the chance to review the vocabulary in advance in order to be more alert to the academic vocabulary instruction. The two curricula, Go Math! and the Better Chinese/ Immersion, allowed me to understand the teacher’s expectations for the students’ academic achievement prior to observing the classroom. Go Math! is a mathematics textbook written in English and includes standards, concepts, and activities. It is aligned with the goals of the CCSS. It includes textbooks, a student book, and different online resources. The CCSS were listed at the beginning of each unit in Go Math! as the learning objectives. Better Chinese/Immersion provides story-based Mandarin curricula for students from pre-kindergarten to college. Each level of the Chinese curriculum consists of twelve story books that were assigned as textbooks. 57 Data Coding and Analysis The three types of data, spoken, observational, and documents provided various perspectives by which to identify the themes. For example, certain questions raised during the interview were observed and videotaped through classroom practice. Sometimes Wang Laoshi’s reported of her pedagogical rationale was contradicted by her instruction. The data collection phase involved a “recursive process” (Compton-Lilly, 2007) during which the data collection and preliminary analysis (e.g., a brief transcription of the interview data and notes) were continuously interwoven. Defining Interactive Episodes The study examined different episodes that involved teacher-student interaction to indicate how Wang Laoshi constructed meaning of different academic vocabulary. I employed the approach of Video-stimulated Reflective Dialogue (VSRD) to identify useful interactive episodes between Wang Laoshi and her students (Hargreaves et al., 2003). The VSRD approach originally was employed to record and describe elementary teachers’ questioning strategies of teaching ELLs. It is commonly used to identify the teaching moments within the interactive process between teacher questioning and students responses in language and literacy teaching (Hargreaves et al., 2003). I adapted Hargreaves et al.’s (2003) analytical protocol to guide my selection of interactive episodes about teaching academic vocabulary: ✔ The teacher is interacting with students ✔ Students must be involved in the interaction (verbally or non-verbally) ✔ The interaction includes at least one communication pair (teacher question and students’ responding) 58 ✔ The content of the interaction is related to curriculum ✔ The teacher provides certain feedback on students’ responses (p. 104) Excerpt 1 is an example of an interactional episode that I select under the guidance of above criteria. In that episode, Wang Laoshi spent time introducing, explaining and practicing how to use vocabulary they have learned to make a word problem. Through teacher-student interaction, Wang Laoshi and students use the word 分 distribute/divede through storytelling. In the following analyses, several annotation conventions were used: Stress, , - silence, [author made up], 「gestures and body languages」, and (author translations). Excerpt 1: Line Speaker Spoken Utterance 1 Wang 好的，你有几个梨子？ (Good. How many pears do you have?) 2 Yuesi 100 个梨子，有 100 个梨子 (100 pears, I have 100 pears.) 3 Wang 哈哈，好的，Yuesi 有 100 个梨子。 (haha, OK, Yuesi has 100 pears.) 4 然后呢？你要做什么？ (Then, what are you going to do?) 5 Yuesi - 59 Excerpt 1 (cont’d) (-) 6 Wang 谁知道？然后我们要做什么？ (Who knows? Then what should we do?) 7 Ss - (-) 8 Wang 我们要<分>这些梨子，对不对？ (We are going to these pears, right?) 9 分「wrote the character of 分 distribute/ divide」 (distribute/divide. 「wrote the character of 分 distribute/ divide」) 10 我们看，这个分 (Look, this distribute/ divide) 11 这里「point at the top part of 分 distribute/ divide」 (Here, 「points at the top part of 分 distribute/ divide」) 12 分给你，分给他「hand gesture of distribution/ divide」 (I am giving to you, I am giving to him, 「hand gesture of distribution」 ) 13 除法就是分。 (Division is distribution。) 60 In the above excerpt, Wang Laoshi initiated the interaction through asking questions such as “how many pears do you have” or “what would you do?” Students participated in the communication verbally by answering her questions. Such interaction included two adjacent pairs where Wang Laoshi asked questions and students answered with short phrases or simple words. All those conversations happened to make a word problem of multiplication. When students encountered a challenge in using the word 分 distribute/ divide, Wang Laoshi explained the logic of division based on the shape of a Chinese radical1. She also provided feedback and used verbal and non-verbal strategies, such as stress and gestures to reteach the word “分 distribute/ divide.” Data Analysis The audio-recordings of the interviews, classroom observations, and after-class debriefings were transcribed verbatim. The observational data were analyzed through thematic analysis (Saldaña, 2015), which included open coding and deductive coding, while in vivo coding was used to analyze the spoken data. Open coding means to develop substantial codes describing, naming or classifying the phenomenon under consideration. In this study, open coding is a coding process in which essential segments of the scripts about academic vocabulary selection and instruction are coded with keywords or short phrases based on the research questions (e.g., planned, teachable, language, mathematics, new, review, etc), such as the number of cases of Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction episodes. For example, in the lesson plan of the first lesson for “division”, Wang Laoshi listed three words as her language objectives: 除法 (division), 被除数(dividend), and 除数 (divisor). These three words were labelled as “content-specific” and “mathematics curriculum vocabulary” 1 Radical: A radical is a part of a character that puts it into a general semantic category. 61 Deductive coding is the coding method in which a codebook is created to be used as a reference to guide you through the coding process. The codebook usually is developed before the data collection starts and usually in the process of researching the existing field. When analyzing the scaffolding strategies Wang Laoshi used for teaching academic vocabulary, I used both deductive coding and open coding to analyze the data. For example, the observational data was categorized according to the observation heuristic to identify strategies that had been addressed in previous ELLs research, as well as emerging strategies specific to FLI classrooms that have not been identified before (if there is any). Because of the requirement to use over 90% Chinese in the classrooms, I did not translate any data into English before the coding. Spoken data, which includes the interviews and debriefings, contributed to the accounts of Wang Laoshi’s understanding and rationale for academic vocabulary instruction. Therefore, in vivo coding, which refers to a practice that draws on participants’ words or phrases as the themes, was used to analyze the spoken data. This coding format can avoid the concern that will “the selection of data that fit the researchers’ existing theory, goals, or preconceptions, and the selection of data that will ‘stands out’ to the researcher” (Maxwell, 2012, p. 147). It also generalizes “categories taken from participants’ own words and concepts” (Maxwell, 2012, p. 121). Therefore, results of this study can be explained through the “participant language, perspective, and word views” (Saldaña, 2015, p. 91). Table 2 summarizes the coding methods that have been used to analyze the three types of data. 62 Table 2: Coding Methods Data Coding Method Definition Observational Open coding Developing substantial codes describing, naming Data or classifying the phenomenon Deductive coding Development of a codebook used as a reference to guide one through the coding process Spoken Data In vivo coding Taking participants’ own words as themes The process of collecting and analyzing data followed the principle of triangulation to establish the current study’s validity. Triangulation is a process of gathering and comparing multiple sources of evidence to ensure the accuracy of a phenomena. For example, Scott (2007) argued that “triangulation may be defined as the use of two or more methods of data collection in the study of some aspect of human behavior” (p. 11). In the current study, I interviewed the participating teacher to understand her academic vocabulary instruction, and observed her classroom to confirm her teaching practice, and then held a debriefing with her to recall and understand her decision-making at different teaching moments. These different resources captured the complicity of Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary teaching. I also followed Ezzy’s (2013) strategies for validating the findings through the process of coding: “(1) Check the interpretations developed with the participants themselves; (2) Initially code as you transcribe interview data, and (3) Maintain a reflective journal on the research project with copious analytic memos” (p. 67-74). Moreover, the coding and analysis result was discussed with my colleagues when progressing through them. Instead, the coding and reflection were sent to the participating teacher to check whether the interpretation of her words was correct. As mentioned above, the goal of the current study was to describe the academic vocabulary instruction in mathematics classrooms due to the significant influence academic 63 vocabulary holds in impacting students’ academic performance. Therefore, I narrowed the analysis data into vocabulary that would influence students’ understanding of mathematics concepts or the solving of mathematics problems. For example, I included the word “分 （distribute/ divide” which showed up in most of the word problems the students encountered. These academic vocabulary was divided into three categories: content-specific vocabulary (the words that can only be used in the field of mathematics, such as “除数 divisor”); all-purpose academic vocabulary (words that can be used across disciplines, such as “运⽤ apply”); high-frequency vocabulary (vocabulary that can be used frequently daily, such as “分 distribute/ divide.”) There are also episodes of teaching basic vocabulary captured, for example, during the center time of solving word problems, Wang Laoshi explained “⻦窝 (nest)” to students saying that “a nest is the place where birds live”. However, teaching episodes of such vocabulary were excluded from the second round of coding because they do not influence the understanding of mathematics content. Table 3 demonstrated several examples of academic vocabulary that were closely analyzed in the current study and the vocabulary episodes that were excluded after the first round of coding. Additionally, these categories are developed from the literature review. 64 Table 3: Vocabulary Instruction Episodes Examples Academic Vocabulary analyzed in this study Vocabulary excluded from this study Content- All-purpose High- Everday vocabulary specific academic frequency vocabulary vocabulary vocabulary Words only used Words can be Vocabulary in the field of used across used frequently mathematics disciplines in daily life 两位数 two 确定 发现 find T: ⻦窝，⻦窝是什么？ determine digital numbers 知道 know Bird nest, what is a bird nest? 乘法 证明 verify 一共 altogether S：（silent） multiplication 确认 identify 每 every 被除数 dividend 计算 calculate T：先看看，什么是⻦？ 除数 divisor Let’s discuss this first. What is niao? S1: ⻦是 bird Niao is bird. After viewing previous studies about academic vocabulary teaching in the field of English language education and mathematics education, I summarized an observational protocol to examine the strategies Wang Laoshi used to teach academic vocabulary in order to construct meaning and scaffold language and mathematics learning. Table 4 lists the strategies I adapted from the previous literature. 65 Table 4: Academic Vocabulary Instruction Academic vocabulary instruction Resources Vocabulary Graves (2006) selection Linguistic Define the word in Provide a simple strategies various contexts explanation Providing examples Sedita (2005) Providing synonym Word meaning: discuss and restate Riccomini et al., (2015); Revisit vocabulary Marzano (2004) Teach word learning strategies explicitly Snow et al. (2009) Non- Design game-like activities Riccomini et al., linguistic (2015); strategies Integrate non-verbal support Marzano (2004) 66 CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS 1: TEACHING ACADEMIC VOCABULARY IN MATH CLASSROOMS—EXPLICITLY AND IMPLICITLY Note: All excerpts and quotations below are in Chinese and have been translated by the author into English. Some sentences may seem incorrect in English because some of the expressions are not accurate without cotext (e.g., 除法是分梨 Division is distributing pears), while some are literal translation from Chinese (e.g., 学生们很高兴 students very happy). The author added the necessary components in brackets to make the literal translation grammatically correct in English [e.g., The students (were) very happy]. The study primary focused on answering the three research questions: (1) To what extent does a Chinese immersion teacher teach academic vocabulary in math classes? (2) How does she teach academic vocabulary to construct meaning and scaffold language and math teaching? and (3) How does her sense-making of the Chinese and mathematics curriculum influence her academic vocabulary teaching practice? To answer these questions, this study examined various interactional episodes of where Wang Laoshi constructed meaning and concepts through teaching academic vocabulary in light of SCT (Gee, 2000). In this chapter, I presented the findings regarding the first research question: To what extent does the teacher teach academic vocabulary in math classes? The findings indicated Wang Laoshi explicitly listed academic vocabulary in her division and multiplication lesson plan, and explicitly taught those vocabulary at different teaching stages through teacher-student interaction, mathematics practice, and story-embedded instruction during small-group center time. As emphasized by SCT, language and content learning is a collaborative process created through continuous scaffolding and mediation to construct meaning, among teachers 67 and students, in which language serves as the primary mediational tool (Mercer & DeRosier, 2010). The findings of the current study suggested that (1) Wang Laoshi taught both content- specific vocabulary and all-purpose academic vocabulary explicitly, while teaching high- frequency vocabulary implicitly. As discussed in the literature review chapter, content- specific vocabulary refers to the words that can only be used in the field of mathematics, such as “除数 divisor；” all-purpose academic vocabulary refers to words that can be used across disciplines, such as “运⽤ apply;” high-frequency vocabulary refers to vocabulary that can be used frequently in everyday life, such as “分 distribute/ divide”. (2) All of the academic vocabulary items Wang Laoshi prepared and taught explicitly were taken from the mathematics curriculum, Go Math! In her lesson plan, content-specific vocabulary and all- purpose academic vocabulary were listed as “language objectives” and “content objectives,” respectively. By examining the different types of vocabulary Wang Laoshi employs in her teaching, this chapter reviews moments of her instruction to demonstrate the ways these types of vocabulary instruction appear in her pedagogy. Broadly, these findings demonstrated that, unlike previous studies (August et al., 2004; Li et al., 2017 ;Schleppegrell, 2007; Sibold, 2011; Taboada et al., 2011; ) about academic vocabulary instruction for English language learners, Wang Laoshi did prepare and teach various categories of academic vocabulary explicitly to fulfill the teaching objectives in her content-based instruction. Different categories of academic vocabulary taught in Wang Laoshi’s math class For content teaching in foreign language immersion classrooms, language is not only the instructional tool, but also the goal of learning. Therefore, previous studies recorded and reported immersion teachers’ main difficulty in teaching content classes: how much attention 68 should be paid to the language and how much to content knowledge (e.g., Batt, 2008; Martinez & Dominguez, 2018; Snow & Moje, 2010)? Wang Laoshi experienced this tension as well. As a result, she selected academic vocabulary from the mathematics curriculum purposefully to manage such tension. The findings revealed that she selected key academic vocabulary carefully and deliberately to deal with the tension between foreign language and content instruction (Barwell 2014; Batt, 2008) in advance in order to help the students comprehend mathematics questions in Chinese. In Wang Laoshi’s math class, she employed three categories of academic vocabulary in her mathematics class and taught them using different approaches, including teaching content-specific vocabulary and all-purpose academic vocabulary explicitly, and teaching high-frequency vocabulary implicitly. Table 5 presents key academic vocabularies items, frequency, and examples as observed in the seventeen mathematics lessons. 69 Table 5: Key Academic Vocabulary Observed in Class Categories of Content-specific All-purpose High-frequency vocabulary vocabulary （13） academic vocabulary （18） vocabulary （10） Definition Words only used in the Words can be used Vocabulary used daily field of mathematics across disciplines life Examples 两位数 two digit 确定 determine 发现 find number 证明 verify 知道 know 三位数 three digit 确认 identify 一共 altogether number 每 every 计算 calculate 四位数 four digit 组 group number 运用 apply 乘法 multiplication 一样 the same 部分 partial 被乘数 multiplicand 多 more than 首先 first 少 less than 乘数 multiplier 然后 then 故事 story 最后 last 乘积 product 问题 question *平均 equal 乘 multiply 算 calculate 除法 division 看 look 被除数 dividend 觉得 feel 除数 divisor 分 distribute 商 quotient 给 give 余数 reminder 又 again *等式 equation 加 add 拿走 take away Table 5 shows that Wang Laoshi taught three categories of academic vocabulary within the classroom: content-specific vocabulary, general academic vocabulary, and high- frequent vocabulary. Among these, she prepared and focused on teaching two categories of academic vocabulary explicitly with various strategies that will be discussed in the next chapter. In the following sections, I provid examples of each category of academic vocabulary observed in Wang Laoshi’s class. Across these examples, Wang Laoshi’s 70 academic vocabulary diverged from the previous literature about academic vocabulary teaching to ELLs (Carlo et al., 2004; Li et al., 2017; Schleppegrell, 2007; Sibold, 2011; Taboada et al., 2011). Wang Laoshi taught content-specific and all-purpose academic vocabulary explicitly to support students’ comprehension. Content-Specific Vocabulary The first category employed by Wang Laoshi was the content-specific vocabulary that were used only in mathematics classes or for discussing mathematics problems. Such vocabulary represented precise meanings in the context of math discussion. Episodes 1 and 2 listed below presented two examples of how Wang Laoshi taught content-specific vocabulary. In the following analyses, several annotation conventions are used: Stress, , - silence, [made up by author],「gestures and body languages and (author’s translation) Episode 1 is taken from introductory multiplication class in Fall 2019. Wang Laoshi wrote a multiplication equation, 7 × 4 = 28, and then introduced two mathematics terms: multiplicand and multiplier. Students were asked to repeat the Chinese pronunciation of the terms, and identify them according to their location in an equation. This episode showcases the move Wang Laoshi made to teach the multiplicand. She employed similar discursive moves to teach multiplier later. Episode 1: Introductory Lesson on Multiplicand Line Speaker Spoken Utterances Vocabulary Taught 1 Wang 现在我们来写一个等式，7 乘 4 等于 28.谁在前面？ 71 Episode 1 (cont’d) (Now let’s write a formula, seven times four equals to twenty eight. What is in the front?) 2 Ss 7 (seven) 3 Wang 很好。7 在前面，它就是<被乘数>. 被乘数 (Good. Seven is in the front. So it is the . multiplicand 4 跟我读，被乘数 被乘数 (Read with me, multiplicand) 5 Ss 被乘数 (multiplicand) 6 Wang 好的，什么是<被乘数>？ 被乘数 (OK, what is the multiplicand) 7 Ss - (-) 8 Wang 月丝，你知道吗？什么是被乘数？ 被乘数 (Yuesi, do you know? what is the multiplicand?) 9 Yuesi - (-) 10 Wang 它在前面还是后面？ (Is it in the front or behind [ the division sign]?) 11 Yuesi 前面 (The front) 12 Wang 对，在前面的就是被乘数。 (Right, the number in the front [of the division sign] is the multiplicand) In this episode, Wang Laoshi asked the students to identify what the multiplicand was by verifying the context in which it appeared. As Wang Laoshi was introducing the concept of multiplicand, the students were also naming and pronouncing it. They discussed the location where this concept usually appears in an equation. Significantly, Wang Laoshi purposely organized this discourse move to raise students’ awareness of the key concept 72 vocabulary in this lesson which would influence how they solved word problems and achieve the learning objectives listed in the mathematics curriculum: “N. ME. 03.04 Develop an understanding of multiplication and identify the basic multiplication factors, e.g., multiplicand and multiplier. Use multiplication fact families to understand the inverse relationships.” In a similar vein to Wang Laoshi’s lesson on multiplicand and multiplier above, her lesson on division below featured content-specific vocabulary. In the episode below, Wang Laoshi asked students to look for the remainder within an equation, and prepared follow-up questions encourage students to provide a reason. Notably, the word “remainder” is not a content-specific vocabulary in English; however, the term in Mandarin, “余数” can only be used in mathematics classes. For this reason, the episode below uses “remainder” as an example of content-specific vocabulary. Episode 2: Introductory Lesson on Remainder Line Speaker Spoken Utterance Vocabulary Taught 1 Wang 我们来找一下余数。 余数 （remainder） (Let’s find the remainder) 2 哪一个是余数？132，18，7，还是 6？ (Which one is the remainder [in this formula], 132, 18, 7, or 6?) 3 Jiaran 6 (6) 4 Wang 怎么确认是 6？ 确认（determine/decide） (How did you decide taht it is 6?) 5 Jiaran - (-) 6 Wang 为什么是 6？ 7 Jiaran Because 6 is the remainder. (Because 6 is the remainder.) 73 Episode 2 (cont’d) 8 Wang： 非常好，6 是 remainder，remainder 就是余数。 (Very good. 6 is the remainder, remainder is yúshù.) In this episode, both Wang Laoshi and the student used an English translation to define 余数 remainder. By asking students to provide the reason that 6 was the remainder in this division equation, Wang Laoshi used students’ background knowledge, which was their first language, to reinforce their understanding about the remainder in a mathematical problem. In this way, students can read and understand mathematics questions in both Chinese and English, as well as achieve the learning objectives in the math curriculum: N.MR.03.14 Solve division problems involving remainders and define the remainder as “the number left over.” As demonstrated in the above two examples, Wang Laoshi selected the key content- specific vocabulary items from the mathematics curriculum, wrote them as the language objectives in her lesson plan, and prepared to teach them explicitly in order to help the students’ pronunciation and comprehension. All-Purpose Academic Vocabulary Along with explicit teaching of content-specific vocabulary, Wang Laoshi also explicitly used all-purpose vocabulary to guide students’ comprehension. All-purpose academic vocabulary items (e.g., Snow, 2009) such as “solve” or “calculate” are not only used in the field of mathematics, but across different disciplines, such as science and finance. In this section, I illustrated two episodes of all-purpose academic vocabulary that Wang Laoshi taught so that students could fulfill different problem-solving tasks, such as determining a strategy to solve a multiplication problem, or writing an equation to calculate the sum. 74 Episode 3 and 4 exhibits two examples of how Wang Laoshi taught all-purpose academic vocabulary. Episode 3: Review Lesson on Multiplication Line Speaker Spoken Utterance Vocabulary Taught 1 Wang 我们要怎么解决？用什么法？ 解决 （solve） (How can we solve it? Which kind of math should we use?) 2 Ss - (-) 3 Wang 乘法还是除法？ (Multiplication or division? ) 4 Ss 乘法。 (Multiplication.) 5 Wang 嗯，对的，对的，用乘法。 (Um, right, right, [we need to use] multiplication.) 6 你怎么知道，你怎么证明是乘法？ 证明（verify） (How do you know-- how can you verify that it’s multiplication?) 7 怎么证明它，小伟？ (How can you verify, Xiaowei?) 8 Xiaowei - (-) 9 Wang 证明，什么是证明？ (Verification, what is verify) 10 Ss - (-) 11 Wang Verify。 哪个词，verify 是乘法？ (Verify. Which word can verify that [we need to use] multiplication?) 12 Mingming 一共。 (Altogether.) 75 Episode 3 (cont’d) 13 Wang 对了，非常好，<一共>有多少只小⻦。 (That is right, that is great! how many birds are there? ) In this excerpt, Wang Laoshi employed the English translation to explain the meaning of 证明 verify. First, Wang Laosh asked the students to figure out a math problem to solve a word problem. After they figured out the arithmetic, Wang Laoshi asked a follow-up question—she asked them to verify their idea by providing the reason. Since students were kept silent, Wang Laoshi provided the English translation of “verify” to help students understand what she wanted, and she achieved the learning objective in the math curriculum: 3. OA.3 Assess the reasonableness of answers to solve multiplication word problems. In another instructional moment, Wang Laoshi revisited the all-purpose academic vocabulary “determine” to review the concept of multiplicand with the students, and taught another word “calculate” to describe the process of organizing an equation to solve a word problem. The episode below provided the example of how Wang Laoshi constructed the meaning of “calculate” to help students build an equation. Episode 4: Practice Lesson on Multiplication Line Speaker Spoken Utterance Vocabulary Taught 1 Wang 我们确认了被乘数，是几？ 确认（determine） (We have determined the multiplicand--which one is it?) 2 Ss 9。 (9.) 3 Wang 很好。乘数呢？ (Great. How about multiplier?) 4 Bingbing 4。 (4.) 5 Wang 现在，我们要做什么？ 76 Episode 4 (cont’d) (Now what should we do?) 6 Ss - (-) 7 Wang 我们有了被乘数和乘数 (We have the multiplicand and multiplier) 8 然后，我们要做什么？「writing gesture」 (So, what should we do?) 「writing gesture」 9 Yuning Write a formula? 10 Wang 对，我们要写一个<等式>来<计算> 「Tape the flashcard for 计算 the white board.」 (Right, we are going to write a equation to calculate) 「Tape the flashcard for Calculate on the white board.」 11 计算，算一算，calculate (Jìsuàn, count and calculate) In this episode, Wang Laoshi provided both an synonym and the English translation of “计算 calculate” to teach this general academic vocabulary. She first asked students to “determine” the multiplicand, and then scaffolded them to gradually figure out the different components of an equation, including multiplicand and multiplier. With this information, she introduced the all-purpose academic vocabulary “calculate” to request students writing an equation. She provided a simple explanation to support students’ understanding of “calculation” and achieve the learning goals written in the curriculum: N.MR.03.14 Solve multiplication word problems posed with whole numbers. Represent these problems using equations. High-Frequency Vocabulary The above four episodes demonstrate Wang Laoshi’s explicit instruction of content- specific and all-purpose academic vocabulary in mathematics classes. In addition to teaching 77 these two categories of academic vocabulary explicitly, Wang Laoshi taught high-frequency vocabulary, which refers to vocabulary used frequently in both academic and everyday situations, implicitly during different teachable moments. She did not list these words in her lesson plan and did not prepare materials such as flash cards or vocabulary recognition activities to teach them. However, in moments when these vocabulary emerged where Wang Laoshi discussed the meaning with students. Episode 5 and 6 listed below showed samples of this kind of academic vocabulary that Wang Laoshi taught, for example, “分 distribute/ divide” and “组 group.” Episode 5: Practice Lesson on Division Line Speaker Spoken Utterance Vocabulary Taught 1 Wang: 我们有十二个梨子，三个人，每个人都要有梨子，我们怎么办？ (Three people have twelve pears. If everyone want some pears, what can we do?) 2 Zhining 我们要 distribute (We need to distribute [the pears]) 3 Wang 对的，distribute，distribute 怎么说？还记得吗？ 分（distribute） (Right, distribute, how to say distribute [in Chinese]? Does anyone remember?) 4 Distribute，我们前天刚学过的，那个孔融的故事 (Distribute, we just learned the story about Kongrong two days ago) 5 还记得吗？distribute (Do you still remember? Distribute) 6 Ss - (-) 7 Wang 孔融把梨子 f (Kongrong f pears) 8 Yuesi 分？ 78 Episode 5 (cont’d) (distribute fēn?) 9 Wang 什么？分？对的！ (What? Fēn? Yes!) 10 孔融把梨子分给弟弟。 (Kongrong distributed pears to his younger brother. ) 11 那我们怎么办？明明 (So what can we do, Mingming?) 12 我们有十二个梨子，三个人，你怎么办 (We have twelve pears and three people, so what can we do?) 13 Mingming 我给他们 (I gave them [some]) 14 Wang 是<给>还是<分给>？ ( or ?) 15 Mingming 分给 (Distribute and give) 16 Wang 很好，怎么分？你来写一写。 (Very good. How would you distribute them? Please come up and write [the formula]) In this episode, after a student (Zhining) recalled the high-frequent word “distribute” to express his understanding about “division,” Wang Laoshi reviewed the word “分 distribute/ divide” taken from the Chinese story, which was called “孔融让梨 Kongrong Shared His Pears,” they had read two days ago. The text tells a story about a young boy named Kongrong who distributes his pears to share with his siblings. Two keywords in that text are 分 (distribute; share) and 给 (give). Wang Laoshi recalled the word, compared the two verb phrase “分 give” and “分给 distribute and give,” and used “分 distribute” within different sentences. 79 When conducting shared book reading, more high-frequency vocabulary emerged because Wang Laoshi read a large selection of narratives during the small group center time. Therefore, she had more opportunities to discuss high-frequency words to help with students’ comprehension of the text content during these fifteen minutes. The episode below is an example of Wang Laoshi read a fiction book, 买卖国的乘法队⻓ the Multiplication Captain in the Business Country, to her students. Episode 6: Shared Book Reading for Multiplication Line Speaker Spoken Utterance Vocabulary Taught 1 Wang 我们接着看，“一把香蕉五块钱，”“好的，给我来五把。” （Let’s continue reading, “a bunch of bananas costs five dollars.” “OK, give me five bunches”） 2 一把香蕉就是一组，对不对？ 组（group） (One bunch of banana is one group, right?) 3 Ss - 4 Mingming What is yìzú? (What is one group?) 5 Wang !"zǔ"yìzǔ (Um, zǔ"yìzǔ ) (Wang Laoshi was correcting the pronunciation of the third tone here.) 6 就是，「Takes several makers and holds them together」啊， (that is，「Takes several makers and holds them together」ah 7 这个，这个, 这个，把他们放在一起，他们就是一组 （this one, this one, and this one, put them together and they makes a group.) In this episode, when students questioned about the meaning of “一组 one group” Wang Laoshi used simple words to explain the meaning of “group” with the support of realia to raise their awareness of the concept of “group,” which needs to be placed at the beginning of a multiplication equation. 80 Vocabulary from the Language and Content Curriculum The findings indicate that Wang Laoshi explicitly taught two categories of academic vocabulary as well as content-specific vocabulary and general academic vocabulary. She listed them as “language objectives” in her lesson plans. Most of these vocabulary items were taken from the mathematics curriculum Go Math!. These items were labeled as “Mathematics Textbook Vocabulary” (for example, 被乘数 multiplicand). Only two words within this category, 等式 equation and 平均 equal, were implicitly taught during the teachable moments. Wang Laoshi translated the “Mathematics Textbook Vocabulary” into Chinese because GoMath is written in English. She considered it as “vocabulary that must be taught” (by Wang Laoshi). The majority of the high-frequency vocabulary items that were taught implicitly during teachable moments were taken from the Chinese textbook Better Chinese/ Immersion. This vocabulary was labeled as “Chinese Textbook Vocabulary and other resources.” In Episode 3 above, Wang Laoshi used 分 distribute/ divide, a word that students previously read in the story 孔融让梨 Kongrong Shared His Pears. By using this high- frequency word, Wang Laoshi reinforced the concept of “division.” Table 6 below categorizes all academic vocabulary taken from different resources. 81 Table 6: Academic Vocabulary from Different Curricula Mathematics Textbook Vocabulary Chinese Textbook Vocabulary and other Resources Content-specific General academic High Frequent Vocabulary vocabulary (13) vocabulary (7) Chinese Textbook (13) Other resources(5) “language objectives” “content objectives” Not listed in the learning objectives 两位数 two digit 确定 determine 一共 altogether 发现 find number 证明 verify 每 every 知道 know 三位数 three digit 组 group 算 calculate 确认 identify number 又 again 一样 the same 计算 calculate 四位数 four digit 加 add 多 more than number 运用 apply 少 less than 乘法 multiplication 部分 partial 故事 story 被乘数 首先 first 问题 question multiplicand 然后 then 乘数 multiplier 看 look/ see 最后 last *平均 觉得 feel 乘积 product 分 distribute/ divide 乘 multiply 除法 division 给 give 被除数 dividend 拿走 take away 除数 divisor 商 quotient 余数 reminder *等式 formula Note: The two words with the stars were content-specific and all-purpose academic vocabulary but taught implicitly during the teachable moments. These words were taught explicitly and implicitly during different stages of the classroom observations, including the teacher-student interaction during big group teaching, as well as the shared book reading session during small group center time. Table 7 calculated the number of teaching episodes of different categories of academic vocabulary addressed in the diverse teaching stage. 82 Table 7: Number of Academic Vocabulary Episodes Content-specific All-purpose High-frequent vocabulary academic vocabulary vocabulary Big group 269 111 56 interaction Small group center 42 7 73 Amount 311 118 129 The information provided in the Table 7 indicate that Wang Laoshi was able to follow her lesson plan and spend sufficient instructional time teaching content-specific vocabulary and all-purpose academic vocabulary, especially during the large-group teacher-student interaction. At the same time, even though she had not addressed teaching high-frequency vocabulary, there were teachable moments emerged across the lessons, especially when conducting shared book readings during small group center time. In general, Wang Laoshi selected, prepared, and focused on teaching content-specific vocabulary and all-purpose academic vocabulary taken from the mathematics textbook. In addition, she listed the former one as the “language objectives” and the latter as the “content objectives.” High-frequency vocabulary items were not listed in her lesson plan. Summary In sum, this chapter reported the three categories, teaching method, and resource for the academic vocabulary that Wang Laoshi taught in the seventeen observed classes: (1) content-specific vocabulary, which only used in mathematics classrooms; (2) all-purpose academic vocabulary that can be used across disciplines; and (3) high-frequency vocabulary can be used in both school and daily communication. Unlike the findings of previous studies which showed that academic vocabulary was rarely taught explicitly to English language learners (e.g., Li et al., 2019; Snow, 2009), Wang Laoshi carefully selected content-specific vocabulary and all-purpose academic vocabulary from the mathematics curriculum, Go Math!, carefully as her focus for vocabulary teaching. Listing content-specific vocabulary as 83 “language objectives” and general academic vocabulary as “content objectives,” she created different opportunities to teach them explicitly. She did not include high-frequency vocabulary, which was taken from the Chinese textbooks and other resources, as learning objectives and taught that vocabulary implicitly in different teachable moments. 84 CHAPTER 6 FINDINGS 2: STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING ACADEMIC VOCABULARY— LANGUAGE AND MATHEMATICS In this chapter, I presented the findings on the second research question: how does Wang Laoshi teach academic vocabulary to construct meaning and scaffold language and math teaching? An analysis of Wang Laoshi’s interaction episodes with students in the classroom, including the whole group teacher-student interaction and the small group shared book reading activities, shows that Wang Laoshi adopted different strategies and took three trajectories to construct meaning and scaffold conceptual understanding. On the one hand, her instruction resonated with previous studies (e.g., Martinez et al., 2018) that fell in a continuum between language- and content-focused teaching. On the other hand, the differentiation in teaching strategies reflected the different teaching expectations that Wang Laoshi had. When teaching content-specific and all-purpose academic vocabulary, Wang Laoshi’s expectation was that students could understand or recognize those words. Therefore, she focused on supporting students’ listening and reading skills to solve word problems. When teaching high-frequency vocabulary, she created more opportunities for students’ language output, including speaking and writing. In the literature review chapter, I explored different strategies proposed by scholars of second language education and mathematics education. I also summarized an observational protocol that examined the strategies Wang Laoshi used to teach academic vocabulary in order to construct meaning and scaffold language and mathematics learning. For example, Met (2008) suggested that teachers should define key words within different contexts to provide opportunities for students to become familiar with them. Riccomini et al., (2015) expanded Marzano’s (2004) recommendations and proposed strategies for learning mathematics vocabulary, including asking students to restate the vocabulary items in their 85 own words, providing visual support, and providing fun game-like activities. Snow (2009) called for teachers who taught ELLs to teach students word learning strategies, such as morphological analysis or polysemy, revisiting key words periodically, and use the students’ first language as a resource. In Table 8 I listed the strategies that I adopted from the previous literature. Included are two strategies that have not been identified as effective vocabulary instruction, but that I observed in Wang Laoshi’s teaching practice: providing English translation, and explicitly teaching problem-solving strategies. I have added them to Table 8 as well. 86 Table 8: Academic Vocabulary Instruction Academic Vocabulary Instruction Resources Vocabulary Graves (2006) selection Linguistic Define the word in Provide simple strategies various contexts explanation Provide examples Met (2008) Provide synonym Word meaning: discuss and restate Riccomini et al., (2015); Revisit vocabulary Marzano (2004) Teach word learning strategies explicitly Snow et al. (2009) Non- Design game-like activities Riccomini et al., linguistic (2015); strategies Integrate non-verbal support Marzano (2004) Provide translations Teach problem-solving strategies In Table 8, I listed strategies that help students improve their academic vocabulary learning. As I explained in the methodology chapter, I observed and videotaped seventeen 87 mathematics classes, and watched and discussed several instructional episodes with Wang Laoshi during the post-observation debriefing. The data indicated that most of the strategies of teaching academic vocabulary in Table 8 were observed in Wang Laoshi’s mathematics class. On the one hand, Wang Laoshi focused on teaching content-specific vocabulary and all-purpose academic vocabulary explicitly to support the development of listening and reading skills, as well as scaffolding students’ ability to solve mathematics problems; on the other hand, she worked together with the students to negotiate the meaning of high-frequency vocabulary and encourage more language output during teachable moments. Therefore, I observed repeated patterns and strategies in these three categories of academic vocabulary. Strategies for Teaching Different Categories of Academic Vocabulary First, Wang Laoshi usually organized her teaching of content-specific vocabulary in the following pattern: (1) teach academic vocabulary item through an equation; (2) read the word aloud; (3) provide the English translation of the word; (4) make a word problem to revisit the word; and (5) write an equation to identify the word again. With this pattern, Wang Laoshi employed five strategies for this category of vocabulary: (1) revisiting vocabulary periodically; (2) explicitly teaching problem-solving strategies; (3) providing simple explanations; (4) teaching word recognition strategies; and (5) providing English translations. Second, Wang Laoshi employed all-purpose academic vocabulary to construct students’ ability to produce mathematics equations through the following three strategies: (1) revisiting the words periodically; (2) providing synonyms; and (3) giving English translations directly. Third, a different pattern was observed when Wang Laoshi taught and used high- frequency vocabulary. Wang Laoshi adapted four strategies to teach this category of 88 vocabulary: (1) asking students to restate the vocabulary in their own words, (2) constructing various non-verbal expressions to discuss the meaning of certain vocabulary, (3) providing examples, and (4) teaching word learning strategies explicitly. In Table 9, I summarize the different strategies Wang Laoshi used to teach the three categories of academic vocabulary in order to construct meaning and scaffold the students’ listening and reading comprehension. 89 Table 9: Strategies for Teaching Different Types of Academic Vocabulary Strategies Content-specific All-purpose High-frequency vocabulary academic vocabulary vocabulary √ √ √ Define the word in various contexts √ Provide non-verbal support √ Ask students to restate in their own words Design, play game-like activities √ √ Teach word learning strategies explicitly √ √ √ Revisit vocabulary √ √ Use students’ background knowledge (L1) √ Teach problem-solving strategies 90 Strategies for Teaching Content-Specific Vocabulary to Construct Learning: Explicit Teaching The data shows that Wang Laoshi employed five different strategies to teach content- specific vocabulary, including revisiting the vocabulary periodically; explicitly teaching problem-solving strategies; providing simple explanations; teaching word recognition strategies, and providing English translations. Episode 7 and 8 provided examples of these strategies. Episode 7 shows a moment in which Wang Laoshi asked students to identify the word 被除数 dividend when reading a problem. The students were taught to differentiate between dividend and divisor according to their location in a word problem. This episode showed the move and strategies Wang Laoshi employed to raise students’ awareness of 被除 数 dividend explicitly: revisiting the word and teaching problem-solving strategies. Episode 7: Practice Lesson-- Division Line Speaker Spoken Utterance Strategy 1 Wang 这里面哪一个是被除数 revisiting vocabulary (Which one is the dividend [in this equation]?) 2 Daniu 15 (15) 3 Wang 怎么确认？ (How can you determine that?) 4 它在“分”的前面还是后面？ Problem-solving strategy 91 Episode 7 (cont’d) (Is it in front or after “distribute”?) 5 Ss 哦，哦，前面 (Oh, oh-- in front [of “distribute”]) 6 Wang 非常好。在“分”前面的是被除数， Problem- solving strategy (Very good. [The number] before “distribute” is the dividend.) 在“分”后面的是除数。 Revisiting vocabulary ([The number] after “distribute” is the divisor. ) In Episode 7, Wang Laoshi revisited two words, “dividend” and “divisor” to reinforce the comprehension of “dividend.” She employed different strategies to scaffold students’ answers by narrowing the scope of questions. First, she asked students to identify dividend and then posed a follow-up question asking them to provide the reason. When she realized that students were confused about the question, she changed the question to guide students’ attention to the location of the dividend. After that, she summarized the problem-solving strategy to wrap up the reasoning process. During the post-observation debriefing, I paused the video Wang Laoshi and I were watching and asked her why she did not ask the students to say the key word 被除数 dividend at that point. Wang Laoshi responded: “I think as long as they can identify what the dividend is in the equation, that’s enough. If they understand what dividend means can find it [in a word problem], then that is good. If they can make a whole sentence, “five is the divisor,” that is perfect. But students usually just answer in short words, and if they do not 92 have something to say, I will just continue because they have recognized the meaning of this word.” In a similar situation in teaching division, Episode 8 below adapts four strategies to support students’ comprehension of the concept of “remainder:”revisiting vocabulary, teaching word recognition strategy, providing simple explanations, and providing English translations. By using these strategies step by step, Wang Laoshi was helping with the students’ reading skills by pronouncing and recognizing “remainder.” Episode 8: Practice Lesson-- Division Line Speaker Spoken Utterance Strategy 1 Wang 那这个 1 叫什么呀？ (What is the “1” called?) 2 Ss - (-) 3 Wang 我们在做什么？ (What are we doing?) 4 Yuesi 除法 Revisiting vocabulary (Division.) 5 Wang 我们在做除法。「Write the character for divide」 (We are doing division [problems]. 「Write the character for “divide”」) 93 Episode 8 (cont’d) 6 这个字是除，我们都认识了。「Erases the “ear” radical」 (This character is divide. We all have know this character. ) 7 这个字是什么，是什么，想一想 Word recognition (Then what is this character, what is it? Think about it) 8 Ss - (-) 9 Wang 是余数。再跟我说下，余数。 (It is remainder. Say it with me, remainder.) 10 Ss 余数 (Remainder) 11 Wang 对，余数就是多下来的那个。 Simple explanation (Yes, the remainder is the left-over.) 12 记得吗，我有十三个梨子，分给四个人，每个人有几个？ (Remember? I have 13 pears and divided them among four people. How many does each person get?) 13 Jiaxing 每个三个 (Each [person gets] three.) 14 Wang 对，多了一个，就是余数。Remainder。 Translation 94 Episode 8 (cont’d) (Yes, [there is] have one left-over, that is the remainder. Remainder) Episode 8 showcases how Wang Laoshi used four strategies to take students to revisit the word 余数 remainder. First, she asked students to identify the remainder in an equation. When she realized that the task was challenging for her students, she showed them how to link the meaning (left-over) with the character 余 (remainder) by highlights the relationship between “divide” and “remainder” [余 remainder is one part of the character for 除 divide] by revisiting the content-specific vocabulary 除法 division. After that, she explained the meaning of “remainder” in simple language (reminder is the left-over) to define remainder. Last, she provided the English translation of 除 remainder to reinforce the meaning of this word. In this way, she aimed to help students achieve the learning objectives listed in the math curriculum: N.MR.03.14 Solve division problems involving remainders and define remainder as “the number left over. In the post-observation debriefing, I asked Wang Laoshi why she taught the relationship between 除 divide and 余 remainder, and provided the explanation and English translation. Wang Laoshi’s responded: “This is a word recognition strategy we usually use in teaching Chinese to help them connect the characters and meaning directly. It will help them understand that both words are connected to division. It will be helpful for them to recognize the words in the word problems later. Our curriculum explicitly states that the students need to know that remainder is the number left over. So of course I need to teach this to help the students understanding.” 95 In these two examples, Wang Laoshi used five different strategies of step-by-step scaffolding to teach the two content-specific words and help students construct their meaning as well as understand the mathematics concepts. Her responses in the two interactional episodes show the strategies she used to help students’ recognition of the content-specific words to solve mathematics problems later. At the same time, Wang Laoshi’s strategies were guided by the mathematics curriculum. Strategies of Teaching All-Purpose Academic Vocabulary to Construct Meaning: Explicit Teaching Similar to teaching content-specific vocabulary, Wang Laoshi taught the all-purpose academic vocabulary explicitly as well. Notably, the main strategies she employed to teach all-purpose academic vocabulary, however, were different from teaching the content-specific vocabulary. She basically provided simple synonyms and English translations when teaching and revisiting the all-purpose academic vocabulary items such as 计算 calculate, or 确定 determine. Episode 9 and 10 below provided two examples of the strategies, synonyms and translations, Wang Laoshi used to construct meaning and help the students pay attention to the all-purpose vocabulary. She expected students to notice and recognize those words to aid in their problem-solving processes later. Episode 9: Practice Lesson-- Multiplication Line Speaker Spoken Utterance Strategy 1 Wang 好的，我们来写一个等式。 （OK, let’s write an equation） 96 Episode 9 (cont’d) 2 首先，我们要写什么？ Revisiting vocabulary (What should we write first?) 3 Ss 17 乘 (17 times) 4 Wang 很好，我们先写 17 「Write 17」 provide synonym (Very good, first, we write 17「write 17」) 5 然后写乘号，然后呢？ (Then we’ll write the multiplication sign. And then?) 6 Dongran 9 (9.) 7 Wang 对，写 9，为什么写 9？ （Right, we write 9. Why [do we ]write 9?） 8 你怎么确定 9 在后面？ (How do you determine that 9 should be after [of the multiplication sign]? ) 9 Dongran - (-) 10 Wang 你怎么知道 9 要放在后面？ provide synonym (How do you know that you need to put 9 after [the multiplication sign]?) 97 Episode 9 (cont’d) 11 Dongran - (-) In this episode, Wang Laoshi revisited the all-purpose vocabulary item 首先 first…然 后 then… to guide the students in the steps of writing a multiplication equation, and used the informal synonym 先 first as the alternative form of the compound 首先 First. After students had written part of the equation, she asked a follow-up question to help them spotlight the location of the multiplier. When she realized that the students may not have understood the meaning of 确定 determine, she provided the synonym 知道 know to prompt the focal student’s answer. Wang Laoshi used a similar strategy, providing synonyms, to teach other all-purpose academic vocabulary items such as 计算 calculate and 算 calculate, 运用 apply and 用 use, 平均 equal and 一样 the same. In the post-observation debriefing, Wang Laoshi answered my question of why she stopped the students when they said ’17 乘 （17 times）’ when it seems they would have been able to produce this equation on their own. Wang Laoshi’s responded: “Hmm, yes, you are right. I did not think about that. I was focusd on teaching the conjunction word 然后 then. At that time, I wanted them to notice the sequence for using these conjunction words. We are going to list our steps for solving a mathematics problem later so at least they need to be familiar with those words, when they heard or read them. In a similar vein, Wang Laoshi’s lesson on writing multiplication equations above, her lesson on division below basically used English translation to teach the all-purpose 98 vocabulary that she could not find a synonym for. For example, in the following episode, Wang Laoshi provided an English translation directly to explain the meaning of 证明 verify. Episode 10: Practice Lesson on Division Line Speaker Spoken Utterance Strategy 1 Wang 你怎么证明 48 是被除数？ (How can you verify that 48 is the dividend?) 2 快，找一找，怎么证明 (Quick, look for the way to verify) 3 48 是被除数？ (Is 48 the dividend) 4 Ss - (-) 5 Wang 怎么证明，how can it be verified？ Translation (How to verify, how can it be verified) 6 Which word can help to verify. 7 Ss 有 (There is/ are) 8 Wang 对了，<有> 48 块饼干，有在故事的开头。 99 Episode 10 (cont’d) (Right, 48 cookies. There is a “there are” at the beginning of the story) In this episode, Wang Laoshi firstly asked the students to verify their response that 48 was the dividend of the word problem they were solving. When she noticed that the students could not answer her question, she reminded students that they need to find a key word to verify their response. Since the students kept silent again, she provided the English translation of “verify” and focused their attention to find “a word” to “verify” their argument. In this way, the students’ background knowledge, which is their first language, was used as a strategy to scaffold the students’ language and mathematics learning. The above two examples demonstrate the major strategies Wang Laoshi used to teach all-purpose academic vocabulary in order to scaffold students’ understanding of different factors and solutions of a mathematics problem, such as providing simple synonyms and English translations. She also indicated that the main purpose of teaching these all-purpose academic vocabulary was that students can recognize them to organize their problem-solving process. Strategies for Teaching High-Frequency Vocabulary: Implicit Instruction Apart from academic vocabulary that was taught explicitly, Wang Laoshi also employed various strategies to teach high-frequency vocabulary implicitly during different teachable moments. For example, revisiting the words periodically, asking students to restate the vocabulary in their own words, constructing various non-verbal expressions to discuss the meaning of certain vocabulary, providing examples, and teaching word learning strategies. Episode 11 and 12 show two examples in which Wang Laoshi negotiated the meaning of high-frequency vocabulary with the students during various teachable moments. 100 Episode 11 shows how Wang Laoshi taught a character recognition strategy to help the students link the language form and the meaning, as well as to raise the students’ logographic awareness for development of their reading skills. Episode 11: Practice Lesson-- Division Line Speaker Spoken Utterance Strategy 1 Wang 谁能写一个小故事？ （Who can write a story?） 2 Ss 「raise their hands」 3 Wang Yuesi, 你来说一个小故事。 (Yuesi, please tell a story.) 你想用什么？ (What do you want to use [to make this story]?) 4 Yuesi 梨子 (Pears.) 5 Wang 好的，你有几个梨子？ (OK, how many pears do you have?) 6 Yuesi 100 个梨子，有 100 个梨子 (100 pears, I have 100 pears.) 7 Wang 好的，Yuesi 有 100 个梨子。 101 Episode 11 (cont’d) (OK, Yuesi has 100 pears.) 8 然后呢？你要做什么？ (Then, what sould you do?) 9 Yuesi - (-) 10 Wang 谁知道？然后我们要做什么？ (Who knows? What should we do then?) 11 Ss - (-) 12 Wang 我们要<分>这些梨子，对不对？ Revisiting vocabulary (We are going to these pears, right?) 13 分「Write the character of 分 distribute/ divide」. Non-verbal support (Distribute. 「Write the character of 分 distribute/ divide」) 14 我们看，这个分 (Look, this distribute) 15 这里「Points at the top part of 分 divide」 Teaching word recognize (Here, 「Points at the top part of 分 divide」) 16 分给你，分给他「hand gesture for distribution」 non-verbal support 102 Episode 11 (cont’d) (I distribute it to you, distribute it to him, 「hand gesture for distribution」 ) 17 除法就是分。 （Division is distributing.） In this episode, when students encountered a challenge in making a word problem (a story), Wang Laoshi explained the logic of division based on the shape of a Chinese radical. She provided non-verbal support, including the use of the written characters and her body language, to establish the connection among “分”，“八,” “distribute” and “division.” Figure 2 is the whiteboard Wang Laoshi’s used in teaching the concept of “分 distribute/ division,” when asking students to make a word problem. Figure 2: Whiteboard Explanation of 分 Distribute/ Divide In the moment, Wang Laoshi wrote 分 distribute on the whiteboard with the top part “八” in red. Then she elongated each line of “八” and drew several pears at the end of each line. After that, she asked the students to use their arms to imitate the shape of “八” to help them establish the connection between the body language and the meaning of distribution. 103 In the post-observation debriefing, Wang Laoshi explained why she taught the radical and asked students to practice writing: “This is a very normal word, we used it not only in mathematics class, but also in Chinese language arts class. They can use this word to write storiesor word problems. So I hope they can say it and write it.” Episode 12 exhibited another example of Wang Laoshi encouraging student output by restating the high-frequency words in their own words. Episode 12: Shared Book Reading-- Multiplication Line Speaker Spoken Utterance Strategy 1 Wang 对的，7 是组，我们要放在后面 (Yes, 7 is the group, so we need to put it after [the multiplication sign]) 2 在中国，没有关系，组可以在前面，也可以在后面 (If it is in China, it does not matter. The word “group” can be put before or after [the multiplication sign]) 3 但是在美国，组要放在后面。 (But in the United States, “group” must be put after [the multiplication sign]) 4 谁能告诉王老师，什么是组？ (Who can tell Teacer Wang, what a group is?) 5 Ss - 6 Wang Jiaxi，什么是组？ (Jiaxi, what is a group?) 7 Jiaxi 我不知道 104 Episode 12 (cont’d) (I don’t know.) 8 Wang Dalong，你知道吗？什么是组？ (Dalong, do you know? What is a group?) 9 Dalong 就是一个，一个，一个 Restate in own words (Yes, it’s one, one, one) 10 「Make a gesture for holding something」together (together) 11 Wang 非常好，一组就是大家在一起。 (Exellent! One group is everybody together) 12 Jiaxi，Mingming，你们一起读书，你们就是一组. providing examples (Jiaxi, Mingming, if you two are reading together, you are one group) In this episode, Wang Laoshi asked students to use their own words to explain the high-frequency word 组 group. It is important to note that students read two narrative books about multiplication and both used this word. After one student used both Chinese and English to express his understanding about the group (things staying together), Wang Laoshi confirmed the answer, and then provided an example to further elaborate the meaning of this word. In the post-observation debriefing, Wang Laoshi answered my question of why she asked the students to restate the meaning. Her response was: “Because we were discussing the picture book. It is basically a word problem. They will need to create word problem later, so they have to know these common words.” 105 The above two examples show the major strategies Wang Laoshi used (such as teaching word recognition strategies, or asking students restate the term in their own words) to teach high-frequency vocabulary to scaffold students’ language produce and prepare them for making word problem in the future. Wang Laoshi herself indicated that the main purpose of using these strategies was to create opportunities for students produce oral or written output prepare them for creating word problem in Chinese later. Summary This chapter reported strategies that Wang Laoshi used to teach different categories of academic vocabulary. In general, most of the vocabulary instruction strategies were observed in Wang Laoshi’s mathematics class. She employed different strategies to construct vocabulary meaning and scaffold language and content teaching. For example, Wang Laoshi used five strategies: (1) revisiting vocabulary periodically; (2) teaching problem-solving strategies explicitly; (3) providing simple explanations; (4) teaching word recognition strategies; and (5) providing English translations, to help the students recognize and identify different content-specific vocabulary items in word problems and equations. She employed all-purpose academic vocabulary to build the students’ ability to produce mathematics equations by means of three strategies: (1) revisiting the words periodically; (2) providing synonym; and (3) giving English translations directly. In teachable moments, even though she had not prepared for teaching certain words, Wang Laoshi adapted four strategies to teach the vocabulary that emerged and that affected students’ listening and reading comprehension: (1) asking students to restate the vocabulary in their own words, (2) constructing various non-verbal expressions to discuss the meaning of certain vocabulary, (3) providing examples, and (4) teaching word learning strategies 106 explicitly. These strategies were used for different teaching purposes (discussed in the next chapter) including supporting the students’ language production, requesting students to write equations, or to understand a word problem. From this perspective, the strategy Wang Laoshi used resonated with Martinez & Dominguez’s (2018) argument that foreign language immersion teachers’ classroom instruction usually fell on a continuum between language intensity and content intensity. Moreover, her strategies move from the language-intense side to the content-intense side based on her various pedagogical purposes according to her understanding of the curriculum. 107 CHAPTER 7 FINDINGS 3: CURRICULUM SENSEMAKING AND ADAPTATION: SCAFFOLDING ACADEMIC VOCABULARY SELECTION AND INSTRUCTION The previous two chapters explored the different categories of academic vocabulary Wang Laoshi had selected to teach and how she organized the eacher-student interaction to teach those vocabulary items and scaffold language and content learning in her mathematics classrooms. In this chapter, I present the findings regarding the third research question: How does Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking of the Chinese and mathematics curriculum scaffold her academic vocabulary teaching practice? As mentioned in the literature review chapter, Walqui (2006) clarified, there are three types of scaffolding: 1) macro-scaffolding which refers to the scaffolding at the curriculum level, such as sequence of planned lessons, projects and tasks over time; (2) meso-scaffolding at the lesson plan level based on the teacher’s understanding of the curriculum, such as preparing teaching content and instruction, and (3) micro-scaffolding, the spontaneous procedures used during the interaction between teachers and students. This chapter presents the data that reveals how the three types of scaffolding took place throughout Wang Laoshi’s planning and teaching of academic vocabulary. Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking of the mathematics curriculum and Chinese language curriculum affected the way she scaffolded the academic vocabulary learning; additionally, her adaptation of the curriculum impacted the way she scaffolded her exact instruction in teaching that vocabulary. The findings indicate that, along with Walqui’s three layers of scaffolding (2006) and through curriculum sensemaking and adaptation, Wang Laoshi took two trajectories to select and teach different categories of academic vocabulary based on various pedagogical purposes. Because those goals reflected the inseparable relationship between language and content teaching, Wang 108 Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction fell between language-intensity to content-intensity on the instructional continuum. The data shows that Wang Laoshi examined the mathematics curriculum closely to scaffold the selection of academic vocabulary and then planned the lesson sequence. Wang Laoshi designed these lesson plans to explicitly teach content-specific and all-purpose academic vocabulary through different strategies with the pedagogical purposes of supporting the students’ comprehension of mathematics problems and developing problem-solving skills by listening to and understanding content-specific and all-purpose academic vocabulary. However, the Chinese curriculum only scaffolded Wang Laoshi’s teaching process. Wang Laoshi did not select any high-frequency vocabulary from the Chinese curriculum to conduct explicit teaching. However, she rearranged the texts in the Chinese curriculum and read those texts in advance to familiarize students with the high-frequency vocabulary that would influenced the students’ understanding of math curriculum. With the purpose of facilitating mathematics learning, Wang Laoshi taught high-frequency vocabulary implicitly during various teachable moments. This adaptation created opportunities for students to review and negotiate meaning of high-frequency vocabulary and engaged them in listening and speaking practice. From this perspective, Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction went beyond listening to content-specific vocabulary that has been addressed in previous studies (e.g., August, et al. 2018; Fortune et al., 2008; Gardner, 2013; Roling, 2017; Swain, 2011;), and involved more opportunities for comprehension and output based on her sense-making and adaption of the dual curriculum in a Chinese immersion program. Sensemaking and Adapting the Mathematics and Chinese Curriculum According to Remillard (2014), a curriculum includes the State standards, textbooks, teacher’s handbook, and student’s workbook. Previous studies have argued that there are four processes for mathematics teachers to make sense of and practice a mathematics curriculum: 109 reading, evaluating, adapting, and practicing (Davis, 2017; Drake & Sherin, 2006; Jnanesh & Hebbar, 2008). Reading refers to teachers examining the curriculum closely, including reading the curriculum materials assigned by the school district, the teacher’s handbook and the student workbook. Evaluating refers to teachers determining materials that were appropriate for their students based on their understanding of students’ learning. Adaptation refers to teachers selecting materials and making changes before or during the teaching process according to their understanding of the teaching pace and results. Practice, or “doing the curriculum” (Drake, 2002, p. 138) refers to teachers’ actual interaction with their students through the use of the curriculum materials. Among these four processes, adaptation may not happen in the curriculum usage of every teacher. In Table 10, I summarized the processes of teachers’ use of different curricula in relationship to scaffolding categories adapted from Walqui (2006) and Drake (2002). Table 10: Curriculum Scaffolding Classroom Instruction Scaffolding Definition Example Curriculum Definitions Categories sensemaking Macro- Scaffolding at the Reading a Reading the The teacher’s scaffolding curriculum level, such planned curriculum close as sequence of planned curriculum examination of lessons, projects and the curriculum tasks over time materials Meso- Scaffolding at the Understanding Evaluating The teacher’s scaffolding lesson-plan level based the curriculum the selection of on an understanding of and plan a curriculum materials deemed the curriculum, such as lesson appropriate for preparing content and tthe students instruction Micro- Spontaneous Moment to Adaptation How teachers scaffolding procedures used during moment of the select and make the interaction between assistance curriculum changes of the teachers and students provided by curriculum the teacher Practicing of Teachers’ actual the interaction with curriculum their students through the curriculum materials 110 Table 10 reveals how teachers’ sensemaking of the assigned curriculum influences and scaffolds their classroom instruction. In general, the curriculum provides macro- scaffolding of the teacher’s planning of the lesson sequences, assignments, and activities during the process of reading to understand the curriculum. It provides meso-scaffolding when teachers plan a lesson to achieve the goals listed in the curriculum. At the end, teachers provide micro-scaffolding through adapting or practicing the curriculum to assist in student improvement. In Wang Laoshi’s context, the mathematics curriculum for the third grade, Go Math!, included one textbook, one teacher’s handbook and one student’s workbook. The CCSS were listed at the beginning of each unit on the textbook and teachers’ handbook. The Chinese curriculum for the third grade, Better Chinese/ Immersion, includes twelve storybooks, eight optional storybooks, one teacher’s handbook, and different online worksheets. The CCSS of English Language Arts were employed and listed at the beginning of each lesson in the teacher’s handbook. As discussed in the literature review, teaching subject matter classes in a foreign language immersion program, including Chinese immersion programs, necessitates dual tasks: target language and content teaching. Therefore, immersion teachers usually plan their teaching under the guidance of two curricula: the language curriculum (Better Chinese/ Immersion in this study) and the content (mathematics) curriculum (Go Math!) in the current study. The data analysis, including Wang Laoshi’ lesson plans, teaching materials, and classroom instruction, indicate that there are two different models Wang Laoshi made sense of and used from the Chinese and mathematics curriculum to select and teach the academic vocabularies. These two models reveal the pattern of how Wang Laoshi’s curriculum sensemaking and adaptation scaffolded her pedagogical goals and led to the two trajectories she took to teach different categories of academic vocabulary. 111 Table 11 summarizes the findings for a quick comparison of how Wang Laoshi adapted and used the language and mathematics curriculum. Table 11: Using the Language and Mathematics Curriculum to Scaffold Vocabulary Selection and Teaching Curriculum Process of curriculum adaptation Reading Evaluation Adaptation Practice Mathematics √ √ √ √ Academic vocabulary selection Teaching strategies Chinese √ √ Rearranging the texts Teaching strategies Table 11 indicates two paths Wang Laoshi took to use the Chinese and mathematics curriculum to select and teach academic vocabulary. In one of the interviews, Wang Laoshi reported how she selected academic vocabulary and planned activities to teach the words. Her use of the mathematics curriculum resonated with previous research on teachers’ sensemaking and the use of the curricula materials (e.g., Drake, 2002). First, she closely read the mathematics curriculum to find the important mathematics concepts and problem-solving goals she needed to cover. Then, she evaluated the curriculum to select the key vocabulary to be taught explicitly. After that, she conducted the classroom teaching and made adaptations according to her teaching situations. However, different from the previous studies (e.g., Davis, 2017; Drake & Sherin, 2006), her process of using the Chinese curriculum to teach academic vocabulary only involved two steps: adaptation and practice. She only read the curriculum roughly and adapted exact texts to determine whether they would be useful for the students’ understanding of mathematics concepts. Then she taught these texts and revisited the high-frequency vocabulary items during teachable moments. Using the Mathematics Curriculum: Explicit Academic Vocabulary Teaching In general, Wang Laoshi used the mathematics curriculum to guide her instruction across the planning and practice processes of teaching content-specific and all-purpose 112 academic vocabulary. She relied heavily on the curriculum and believed that, ideally, students should understand everything and be able to solve every problem listed in this curriculum. To achieve this goal, the students would need to learn the content-specific vocabulary to comprehend mathematics concepts and use the all-purpose academic vocabulary to organize their problem-solving. Therefore, Wang Laoshi read the mathematics curriculum before designing the lesson sequence, took descriptions of teaching goals from this curriculum and listed them as the overall “learning objectives” and “content objectives” and then selected key vocabulary from the curricular materials as the “language objectives.” She adapted her lesson plan and teaching according to the students’ learning results and taught according to her understanding of the curriculum. The conversation below reflects the fact that she relied on the mathematics curriculum and used it as the overall goal of her teaching. Reading and Evaluation. Before teaching lessons she prepared, Wang Laoshi read the curriculum materials, including the Michigan Merit Curriculum-Mathematics, the textbook Go Math!, the teacher’s handbook, and the student’s workbook. After that, she selected content-specific vocabulary in different standards and listed them as “language objectives” in her lesson plans. She made e-flashcards on Quizlet, paper flashcards, and a word bank that she posted on the whiteboard. She also wrote learning goals that included the all-purpose academic vocabulary as “content objectives.” She made flashcards of these words and highlighted them with red markers when posting “Today’s Learning Objectives.” She believed that those vocabulary items were essential in supporting the students’ higher-order thinking to solve mathematics problems. During the interview about her lesson plans, Wang Laoshi talked about her understanding of the mathematics curriculum. Below, Conversation 1 indicates Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking of the mathematics curriculum and how she selected the academic 113 vocabulary items accordingly. In the following conversations, “R” refers to the questions asked by the researcher, while “W” refers to Wang Laoshi’s answer. Conversation 1: The Mathematics Curriculum as a Guide for Selecting Academic Vocabulary ___________________________________________________________________________ R: So do you plan to achieve all goals in this curriculum? (这个大纲里的所有目标都要实现 吗？) W: Of course. Yah, if possible. Sometimes it depends. I remember I had a challenging class two years ago. We were not able to cover everything in the math curriculum. I struggled at that time. So…ideally, yes, I try to cover everything in that curriculum. It’s very detailed and clear. So I think that is what I should do. They need to achieve those learning objectives, for example, identify the factors of an equation, and solve the word problems step by step. （当 然啦。对，如果可能的话，都要啊。就有的时候也不太可能。我两年前教过一个班， 挺不好的，就没办法完成。我那个时候就觉得很 struggle。所以，最好就是能都 cover。这个 curriculum 还是挺清楚的，写得很详细。那就按照这个来教啊。学生要达 到那些 learning objectives，比如 identify factors of an equation, 或者要一步步解决一个 应用题。） R: So how do you decide what to teach? (那你怎么决定教哪些内容呢？) W: [Looking at “R”] Isn’t that obvious? It is all in the curriculum. If you want to identify factors of a multiplication equation, you need to know what a multiplicand is and what the 114 Conversation 1 (cont’d) multiplication sign is. (刚才不是说了吗，都在大纲里啊。你要想 identify 一个乘法里的 factor, 那你先要知道被乘数是什么啊，乘号是什么啊. ) R: So is that the reason you choose to teach those academic vocabulary items? (所以你就觉 得要教这些词吗？) W: Yes, they need to know those words. Those were the goals of the curriculum. Without knowing them, they will not be able to do the M-STEP well. They need to know the words to understand the questions. （对啊，他们一定要知道这些词的。大纲写了呀。词都看不懂 的话，怎么参加 M-STEP 呀。题都看不懂的呀。） R: But… (但是……) W: You can see, we have learning objectives for each lesson. Those objectives align with the Common Core [State Standards]. Are you familiar with Common Core? The students will need to take the test accordingly, so they have to reach the goals set in Common Core. I have highlighted the important vocabulary items. As you can see, the students need to “identify the multiplicand and multiplier to solve a multiplication problem.” That is the standard, that is the thing they need to know. If they do not know what a multiplicand is and what a multiplier is, how can they understand the problem, and how will they know what to do? So I think I have teach those words. (你看，每一节课都是有确定的 learning objectives，是和 Common Core 一致的。你知道 Common Core 吗？学生要考试的，根据 Common Core 制定标准然后达到一个目标。我 highlight 了所有的重点生词。你看，学生需要 115 Conversation 1 (cont’d) “identify the multiplicand and multiplier to solve a multiplication problem”。这就是要达到 的标准，学生需要做到这点。如果他们连被乘数和乘数是什么都不知道，怎么能看懂 问题呢，那肯定就不知道要做什么了呀。所以这些词是一定要教的。) R: I know, I understand. I am just wondering, for the sake of language learning, you know, if the students cannot use them outside the mathematics class, how do you think they’ll use these words, such as, like in daily life? (我知道，我也理解，就是，我想知道如果从语言 学习的角度来看，学生出了数学教室就不会用这些词了，那他们要怎么用这些词呢， 在日常生活里面？) W: I would say, as long as they can use them in mathematics classes to solve the problem, that is my goal. They may also tell their parents something like “today I learned multiplication.” More importantly, I will keep reviewing those words in Chinese. I think they can improve their language skills at the same time. (我觉得他们能懂这些词，然后解决问 题，就可以了。他们也可能会告诉家⻓，啊，今天我们学了乘法啊。而且我们上课时 会反复用这些词。我觉得这就会提高学生的语言水平啊。) R: Then can I understand the situation in this way: in a mathematics classroom, concepts and problem-solving learning are the priority? (那我可不可以这么理解，就是在数学课上，还 是学习数学概念和解题思路是最重要的？) 116 Conversation 1 (cont’d) W: Of course. That is a mathematics class. No matter whether you teach it in Chinese, English, or Spanish, it is still for teaching mathematics. (当然啊，这是数学课呀。你用中 文教，用英语、西班牙语教，都是数学课。) R：OK, then I have a follow-up question-- do you consider yourself a Chinese language teacher, or a classroom teacher? (那我接下来的问题，您觉得您是一个中文老师还是一个 全科老师呢？) W: I will say that is a difficulty question, and to be honest, I am not sure how to answer it. Of course I am a Chinese teacher. I am a Chinese, and the school district hired me because they want someone who was Chinese Chinese. But I am also a classroom teacher. I do not think they conflict with each other. Our English teachers are classroom teachers. Why do you think Chinese teachers are any different? I am a Chinese-speaking classroom teacher, while English teachers are English-speaking classroom teachers. (你这个问题，就挺难回答的。 我肯定是中文老师呀。我是个中国人，我们学校也是因为这个才请我，对吧？但是我 也是全科老师呀。全科和中文不冲突的呀。我们学区的英文老师也都是全科老师。中 文老师有什么不同呢？我就是一个说中文的全科老师啊，英文老师是说英文的全科老 师。) ___________________________________________________________________________ Conversation 1 shows how Wang Laoshi selected content-specific vocabulary and all- purpose vocabulary according to her sense-making of the mathematics curriculum and her 117 self-perception. Wang Laoshi believes that the content in the mathematics curriculum, including the concepts and activities, are key in her mathematics teaching. She relied on the curriculum because it is “detailed and clear,” and includes questions and problems students need to solve in accountability tests and the terms that can help students comprehend those questions. Moreover, Wang Laoshi does not prioritize Chinese language teaching over mathematics teaching just because she believed that she is a Chinese-speaking classroom teacher. For these reasons, she believes that she needs to teach the academic vocabulary listed in the curriculum to ensure the students’ ability to understand questions and solve problems. At the same time, she does not see any requirement to produce the target language in this curriculum, and she believes that continuous target language input will support the students’ language development. Therefore, she decided to prioritize listening and reading comprehension throughout her teaching. ___________________________________________________________________________ Adaptation. After reading and evaluating the mathematics curriculum materials, Wang Laoshi selected the key vocabulary that she believed she “must teach” and listed them as “learning objectives.” She also adapted the existing curriculum, taught vocabulary that was critical for conceptual understanding during teachable moments. After the class, she added the words to the “language objectives” for the next class. Episode 13 below provides an example of this adaptation. When one student (Xiaolong) was working on a division word problem, he tried to divide the dividend unequally. Wang Laoshi emphasized that division means distribute equally and taught the word 平均 equal/ even. After that experience, she changed the translation of “divide” from “分 distribute/ divide” to “平均分 distribute equally” and listed 平均 equal/ even as one of the learning objectives in lessons afterward. 118 Episode 13 Teaching “平均 Equal/ Even” in a Word Problem Line Speaker Oral Utterances vocabulary strategies 1 Wang 好的，小龙有十二个草莓。 （OK, Xiaolong has 12 strawberries.） 2 你要分给谁？ (To Xiaolong: Who do you want to share with?) 3 Xiaolong Jiaming。 (Jiaming.) 4 Wang 好的，你要分给 Jiaming。 (OK, you are going to share with Jiaming.) 5 你要分给他几个？一个两个三个… (How many do you want to give him? One? Two? Three…?) 6 Xiaolong 三个。 (Three.) 7 Wang 好的，你要分给 Jiaming 三个。 (OK, you are going to give Jiaming three.) 8 然后呢，你要分给谁？ (Then, who els are you going to share them with?) 9 Xiaolong Lili 119 Episode 13 (cont’d) (Lili.) 10 Wang 好的，你要分给 Lili 三个。 (OK, you are going to give Lili three.) 11 Xiaolong No. (No.) 12 Wang No？不 (No? No [in Chinese].) 13 Xiaolong 不，不，不是，四个。 (No, no, no, four.) 14 Wang 嗯，你要分给 Lili 四个？ (Um, you are going to give Lili four?) 15 Xiaolong Yah。 (Yeah.) 16 Wang 嗯，不，不可以。你不可以给 Lili 四个。 (Um, no, you can’t. You can’t give Lili four.) 17 除法是不可以分得不一样的。 (In division, we can’t divide unequally.) 18 除法是要平均分的，equally。 平均 Translation 120 Episode 13 (cont’d) (Division means to divide equally.) 19 平均就是要一样。 平均 Simple explanation (Equally means the same.) 20 Jiaming 有三个，Lili 也三个。 平均 Simple explanation (Jiaming has three, and Lili has three too.) ___________________________________________________________________________ In Episode 13, Wang Laoshi asked the students to make a word problem about division. When one student (Xiaolong) tried to divide a number into uneven numbers, Wang Laoshi stopped him and introduced the concept of 平均 equally/ even. She first provided the English translation of “平均 equally/ even,” then explained it in simple words (一样 be the same). After that, she went back to Xiaolong’s word problem to explain that “distribute means A and B got the same number of strawberries” to confirm the meaning of “equally.” Through this move, Wang Laoshi corrected the student’s misunderstanding of “division,” and further clarified that division means not only to distribute, but to distribute equally. In the post-observation debriefing, Wang Laoshi and I discussed this teaching moment. Wang Laoshi explained why she focused on teaching this word and added it to her learning objectives after the class. Conversation 2: Adding “Equally” to the Curriculum ___________________________________________________________________________ R: So here (at 17:56) you stopped and taught “平均 equally.” Here (at 22:14) you asked students the meaning of 平均 again. Here (at 23:31) you wrote it on the whiteboard. Why? 121 Conversation 2 (cont’d) (所以这里你停下来教了平均这个词。然后这里你又问学生平均是什么意思，然后这里 你把这个词写在了黑板上。为什么教这个词呢？) W: I didn’t prepare to teach it, so I didn’t have a flash card. But then I realized that I needed to teach this word or the students would misunderstand division. I didn’t think I should mention subtraction here-- that would have made them confused. I am just going to add it to my learning objectives. The students have to know it. I think I will just teach 平均分 divide equally as a whole. I think I will add this word for my future students as well. They need to recognize it and use it in word problems. (我本来是没有准备教的，我也没准备 flash card。但是上课的时候我觉得还是要教，不然学生就理解错了。我前面不应该提减 法，我觉得学生就从那里开始思路就偏了。我要把这个词也加到我的 learning objective 里面。学生要知道除其实是平均分的意思。我以后打算直接把平均分整个地教。后面 我也要加进去。学生要能懂这个词才能答对。) ___________________________________________________________________________ Conversation 2 reveals Wang Laoshi’s reasoning for adapting the curriculum. She changed it and added a word that had not been in the curriculum because she realized that the word would affect the students’ understanding of mathematics concepts. From this perspective, Wang Laoshi modified the word problem to better achieve the goals of the curriculum. Her adaptation of the curriculum constructed the meaning of “division” and scaffolded students’ understanding of “distribution” within the classroom, while her 122 sensemaking of the mathematics curriculum was scaffolding her decision-making in the teachable moment. Practice. In her teaching of academic vocabulary, Wang Laoshi employed different strategies to help the students’ achieve the goals of the mathematics curriculum using the exact language used in the curriculum-- for example, to “identify” the “multiplicand” and “multiplier” to “solve” “division” questions that involve a “remainder” and “understanding remainder” as the number “left over.” Episode 14 is an example of such a moment. (Although Episode 14 has already been cited earlier in this dissertation, we are return to it to understand how practice plays out in Wang Laoshi’s classroom. Episode 14 Teaching “Remainder” Line Speaker Oral Utterances Vocabulary Strategies 1 Wang 这个字是什么，是什么，想一想 余 Word Recognizing (What is this character, what is it? Think about it.) 2 Ss - (-) 3 Wang 是余数。再跟我说下，余数。 余数 (Remainder. Read it with me, “remainder.”) 4 Ss 余数 Reading aloud (Remainder) 5 Wang 对，余数就是多下来的那个。 Simple explanation (Yes, the remainder is the left-over.) 123 Episode 14 (cont’d) 6 记得吗，我有十三个梨子，分给四个人，每个人有几个？ (Remember? I have 13 pears and divided them among four people. How many does each person have?) 7 Jiaxing 每个三个 (Each one has three.) 8 Wang 对，多了一个，就是余数。Remainder。 Translation (Yes, there is one left-over, that is the remainder. The remainder) 9 Wang 那在这里，余数是几？ （Then here [in this equation], which one is the remainder?） 10 Ss 6。 (6.) Episode 14 shows that Wang Laoshi focused on using the mathematics curriculum to guide her academic vocabulary instruction. She explicitly taught the word “remainder” to raise students’ awareness of this concept, asked them to read aloud with her to familiarize students with the pronunciation, and employed the exact language, “left over,” taken from the curriculum to ensure that students achieved the goals and would be able to fulfill the tasks listed in the curriculum. As the episode shows, Wang Laoshi’s practice heavily depends on her understanding of the mathematics curriculum. As is evident here, Wang Laoshi used the mathematics curriculum to scaffold different processes of her teaching. She read and evaluated the curriculum to select academic 124 vocabularies and adapted and practiced the curriculum by providing and modifying her instructional strategies when explicitly teaching content-specific and all-purpose academic vocabularies. By teaching the academic vocabulary, she aimed to support students’ interpretive and analytical skills in solving mathematics problems which were listed as learning objectives in the curriculum. Using the Chinese Curriculum: Implicit Instruction to Facilitate Mathematics Teaching Wang Laoshi relied less on the Chinese curriculum when teaching the mathematics classes. The data exploring Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking of the Chinese curriculum indicates that she generally considered the Chinese curriculum as an add-on in teaching mathematics. Those language materials can support the students’ conceptual comprehension and help them solve word problems. The students were not assessed in Chinese because teachers made the Chinese examination by themselves. The situation allowed Wang Laoshi more space to play with the curriculum and select the content she felt necessary. Conversation 3 below shows Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking of the Chinese curriculum. Conversation 3: Chinese Curriculum Facilitating the Teaching of Subject Matter Courses ___________________________________________________________________________ R: I noticed that you taught some basic vocabulary, like “distribute” and “story” at some moments. It seems those word come from other resources other than the curriculum. (我注意 到您教了一些基础词汇，比如分、故事。这些词好像不是数学大纲里的。) W: Yes, I know what you mean. Some of them come from the stories we read in Better Immersion. Some are just words I think of teaching at the time. (对，我知道你说的是哪些 词。有的词我是从 Better Immersion 里找的。有的就是那个时候刚好可以用。) 125 Conversation 3 (cont’d) R: So, do you consider using Better Chinese/ Immersion as another guidance for teaching mathematics? (所以，这个 Better Chinese/ Immersion 是教数学的另外一个教学指南 吗？) W: Hmm, I never thought about it that way. I would say that Go Math! is the only curriculum I refer too when teaching mathematics. I’ve translated it into Chinese. But I do use Better Immersion as an “add-on.” There are some stories about mathematics concepts, such as The Multiplication Captain in the Business Country-- you read it together with us this week. (嗯，我觉得不是。我一般只参考数学大纲，然后把要教的内容翻译成中文。但是我用 Better Chinese 来辅助教学。里面有些故事其实是包含数学概念的，比如那本《买卖国 的魔法队⻓》，我们这周读的，你不是也在？) R: Yes, I remember. That was a really complicated story. But I noticed that you focused on teaching some words like “group” at that time. You asked them to explain it in their own words. Why? (对，我记得，那个故事好复杂的。但是我发现你重点教的词还是固定 的，比如“组”。你让他们用自己的话来解释。为什么这么要求呢？) W: Those words are more common and students will use them in both Chinese class and their daily life. Just like that “group,” we used the word often when doing group work, and they are supposed to be familiar with the word. (这些词比较常⻅，学生在中文课上也能用， 日常交流中也能用。就像组那个字，我们天天让他们分组活动，他们应该很熟悉了。) 126 Conversation 3 (cont’d) R: I would like to double check—do you have a different expectation when teaching those words, compared to the words you list as “language objectives?” (我想确认一下，就是说和 您列出来的那些语言目标不同，教这些词的时候你有不同的 expectation 是吗？) W: Probably? I did not realize it before. But now, when thinking about those words, I kind of think that my students will be able to use them. Even though they cannot produce them right away, I will be able to reteach the word. (是的吧？我没想过其实。现在再和你说这些词 的时候，我觉得是，我觉得我的学生应该能用这些词。即使他们不能⻢上说出来，我 也可以再重复。) R: So I can see that you are quite comfortable adapting the Chinese curriculum. (我觉得您调 整中文大纲的时候很得心应手啊。) W: Yes, well no, I may not say that I am very confident, but I do feel more comfortable playing with the Chinese curriculum more than the mathematics one. You know, I received all my education in foreign language teaching. But now I need to teach mathematics. I remember how my teachers taught me, like identifying key vocabulary, writing equations, and making word problems. Do you learn that way? (对，不，我可能不能说很自信我做得 很好，但是我确实觉得调整中文大纲比数学大纲要容易。你知道的，我本科是学外语 教学的。现在教数学，我就记得我自己老师当时是怎么教我的，就是找关键词，写等 式，自己写应用题。你数学老师也这样吗？) 127 Conversation 3 (cont’d) R: Haha, yah, same here. (哈哈，对的啊，我也是。) W: It’s basically aligned with the curriculum so I do feel like I need to follow it. (你看，这 些基本和大纲也是一样的，我就照着大纲来就好了。) ___________________________________________________________________________ In Conversation 3, Wang Laoshi explained her understanding of the difference between the mathematics curriculum and the Chinese curriculum. She considered the Chinese curriculum as “add-on” material for teaching the subject matter classes (mathematics). Wang Laoshi demonstrated the reasons for seeing the curriculum differently: (1) Students were not required to take standardized examinations in Chinese; and (2) She has formal education in foreign language teaching but very limited pedagogical content knowledge to teach mathematics. Reading and Adaptation. Wang Laoshi often read the Chinese curriculum roughly and adapted it to facilitate mathematics teaching in large group interactions. Conversation 4 below discusses her adaptation of the Chinese curriculum materials to match the mathematics teaching through reorganizing the order of storybooks they read. In this episode, Wang Laoshi talks about why she taught the storybook of “孔融让梨 Kongrong Shared His Pears” during the week that she taught division. Conversation 4: Adapting the Chinese Curriculum ___________________________________________________________________________ R: I noticed that Kongrong Shared His Pears was supposed to be Lesson Three but not Seven. I think you switched the order of those texts. Did you do that on purpose?? (我看了一下你的 128 Conversation 4 (cont’d) 大纲，《孔融让梨》好像应该是第三课，但你教的是第七课。我觉得你好像调整了一 下课文的顺序，是特意这么调的吗？) W: Yes, I did. I am glad you noticed that because I think it was a smart move. Last year when I taught the unit on division, we did a word problem about distributing apples. I suddenly realized that if I use pears to replace apples, it would be very similar to the story of Kongrong. You know, I have three pears, I give you one, give him one, and keep one for myself. That would be a perfect example of division. [Look at “R”]Yeah, I know that the purpose of Kongrong Shared His Pears is about being a good person, but, it is related to division. If they can be learned at the same time, then I will be able to help my students understand the meaning of division through the story of Kongrong; when reading it, they can write an equation. That will connect the content they have learned in the language and mathematics class. (对的，我特地换了一下。啊你注意到了，我还挺高兴的，因为我自 己觉得这个调整就挺好的。去年我教除法的时候做了一个应用题，分苹果的。我忽然 想到，诶，如果把苹果换成梨，那不就是孔融让梨的故事？你看，我有三个梨，给你 一个，给他一个，我自己一个，就是除法呀。[王老师看看我]我知道，那个故事主要 是一个美德故事，但是它确实是有除法因素在里面的。如果学生可以同时学习这个和 除法，那他们就能通过读孔融的故事来接触除法；读了《孔融让梨》，他们可以写个 等式。他们也可以把语文课和数学课联系起来。) 129 Conversation 4 (cont’d) R: Is that the only adaptation you made to the Chinese curriculum? (您就调了这一节课 吗？) W: No, actually I do that on a regular basis now. (不啊，这种调整还挺常⻅的。) R: Can you give another example? (您还做过什么调整啊？) W: OK, yah ,for math, this unit, division, I also moved a story called Working Together to this week. That story is one of the optional texts for the second-grade students. I checked with the second year teacher and learned that they had not read the story, so I just moved it here. (数学的话，我还把《分工合作》这本书调到了除法这个单元。这个故事其实是二 年级的一个 optional 的。我问了下二年级的老师他们还没读过，我就调过来了。) R: How does “working together” relate to “division?” (分工合作和除法有什么关系呀？) W: The story was originally about learning to be a good person, like needing to work with others. However, I noticed that the story also talked about how to share responsibilities, like you do two things, clean the whiteboard and windows, and I will sweep the floor and wipe off the desks. It’s dividing the work. I also moved the story of “I Can Do It” to facilitate the teaching of energy. These are all terms you can use in a mathematics or science class. I kind of like playing with the curriculum this way. (这个本来也是个美德故事，就是教学生要 和别人合作。但是我发现这个故事讲了如何分工，你做两个事情，擦黑板和窗户，我 做两个事情，拖地擦桌子。这就是在“除”我们的工作啊。我还把“我能行”这个故事放 130 Conversation 4 (cont’d) 到了讲能量的那个单元。就是数学课和科学课上你可以用中文课的材料啊。我感觉就 是 play with the curriculum。) ___________________________________________________________________________ In Conversation 4, Wang Laoshi explained how she deliberately adapts the Chinese curriculum by rearranging the order of the textss to create connections between Chinese and mathematics teaching. She also gave other examples that followed a similar design and reflected that pedagogical goal of using the language materials from the Chinese curriculum to facilitate mathematics learning. Episode 15 below shows how Wang Laoshi’s adaptation of the Chinese curriculum scaffolded the students’ understanding of division. Episode 15 Revisiting Mathematics Concepts through Chinese Reading Materials Line Speaker Oral Utterances Vocabulary Strategies 1 Wang 对的，distribute， (Right, distribute) 2 Distribute 怎么说？还记得吗？ 分（distribute） Revisit words (How do you say distribute [in Chinese]? Anyone remember?) 3 Distribute，我们前天刚学过的，那个孔融的故事 (Distribute, we just heard the story about Kongrong two days ago) 4 还记得吗？Distribute (Remember? Distribute) 5 Ss - (-) 6 Wang 孔融把梨⼦ f [Wang Laoshi pronounced the initial of fēn distribute to scaffold the students’ output] (Kongrong f pears) 7 Yuesi 分？ (Fēn?) 131 Episode 15 (cont’d) 8 Wang 什么？分？对的！ (What? Fēn? Yes!) 9 孔融把梨子分给弟弟。 (Kongrong distribute his pears to his younger brother. ) ___________________________________________________________________________ Episode 15 shows that, when the students had difficulty in expressing “distribution” to make a word problem, Wang Laoshi reminded them of the story they had read two days before to provide a context for using “distribute” and refresh their memory of how to say “distribute” in Chinese. With this design, students were able to connect “distribute” with “ 分” again and continue making the word problem. Based on the above episodes and conversations, we can see that Wang Laoshi used the Chinese curriculum for supplementary materials and rearranged the texts to help the students learn content-specific vocabulary and all-purpose academic vocabulary, and thus support their understanding of the mathematics concepts through rearranging texts. Summary In general, the above episodes and conversations show how Wang Laoshi took two trajectories to make sense of the mathematics and Chinese curriculum and used them differently to decide the academic vocabulary and how to teach them. She saw the mathematics curriculum as the guide for her teaching and she knew she needed to cover everything in it due to the pressure of the accountability tests. Therefore, she read and evaluated the mathematics curriculum closely, and made adaption in her instructional practice. The mathematics curriculum scaffolded her planning and teaching processes. However, she saw the Chinese curriculum as an “add-on” for teaching mathematics. She read and adapted the Chinese curriculum to help the students make connections between the Chinese language and mathematics learning. Her teaching in the content classes relied 132 heavily on the content curriculum and she used the language curriculum to facilitate content teaching. In her sensemaking of the two curricula in the Chinese immersion program, she focused on mathematics teaching but also created opportunities for language learning. The interview data also indicates that Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking of the two curricula was rooted in the context of her teaching, as well as the learning experiences she had had. The findings provide an example of how immersion teachers manage the dual tasks of teaching academic vocabulary for both language and content by making sense of the assigned curriculum. 133 CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION: THREE TRENDS OF ACADEMIC VOCABULARY TEACHING Although academic vocabulary instruction to ELLs has attracted increased attention in the past three decades (e.g., Greene & Coxhead, 2015; Kelly et al., 2010; Li et al., 2017; Marzano & Pickering, 2005; Schleppegrell, 2018). However, studies on how to teach academic vocabulary in in content areas within FLI programs, especially Chinese immersion programs, are still lacking, and novice Chinese immersion teachers often reported difficulties in teaching in the content subject areas. To fill this gap, this study has explored a Chinese immersion teacher’s academic vocabulary instruction through answering three research questions: (1) To what extent does the Chinese immersion teacher teach academic vocabulary in mathematics classrooms? (2) How does she teach academic vocabulary to construct meaning and scaffold language and content teaching? and (3) How does her sensemaking of the curriculum scaffold her academic vocabulary instruction? The findings helped to unpack the three categories of academic vocabulary Wang Laoshi taught in her mathematics classrooms and the varied strategies she employed to teach different categories of academic vocabulary. For example, Wang Laoshi explicitly taught content-specific vocabulary by revisiting vocabulary, teaching problem-solving and word recognition strategies, and providing simple explanations and English translations. She also explicitly taught all-purpose academic vocabulary by revisiting the vocabulary and providing synonyms and English translations. She implicitly taught high-frequency academic vocabulary through revisiting vocabulary, asking students to restate the vocabulary in their own words, using non-verbal supports and examples, and teaching word learning strategies. The findings also showed that Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking of the mathematics and the Chinese curriculum assigned by the school district directly influenced her enactment of the curriculum and instructional practice of teaching academic vocabularies. For instance, Wang 134 Laoshi considered the mathematics curriculum as the guide for her math teaching and tried to cover everything on the curriculum. Therefore, she selected all the content-specific vocabulary and all-purpose academic vocabulary from the mathematics curriculum and taught them explicitly. At the same time, she saw the Chinese curriculum as providing “add- on” material to facilitate mathematics learning. Therefore, she adapted the Chinese curriculum by reorganizing the texts. She taught high-frequency vocabulary taken from these texts to construct the meanings of mathematics concepts. This chapter discussed Wang Laoshi’s implementation of the language and content curriculum through academic vocabulary instruction in mathematics classrooms in a Chinese immersion program. From the data, three trends can be identified in Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction: (1) The interplay between Language and content teaching placed Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction on a continuum between language-intense and content-intense and it changed continuously. (2) Wang Laoshi took two trajectories to teach different categories of academic vocabulary according to her pedagogical purposes by making sense, adapting, and practicing the mathematics and Chinese language curriculum. (3) There are different social factors, such as the teaching contexts, her own experiences as a mathematics learner, and her self-perception that influenced Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking in enacting the two written curricula, and subsequently impacted her decision-making during academic vocabulary instruction. By examining these three trends, I argue that instead of calling for keeping a balanced teaching status in class, in other words, to pay equal attention to both language and content teaching, teachers can start handling the tension between language and content by understanding the written curricula and managing the tension according to students’ 135 learning needs during the enacting process. I also argue that foreign language immersion teachers’ teaching contexts, learning experiences, and self-perceptions not only determine the priority of decision-making during teaching practice (Van Den Berg et al., 2014), but also influence the priority of their sensemaking process when understanding different curricula. The Interplay of Language and Content teaching: The Language-intense and Content- intense Continuum Previous studies of content-based instruction have argued that a tension exists between language and content teaching in FLI, including Chinese immersion classrooms: how much attention should be paid to teaching the target language and how much should be paid to teaching content (e.g., Arshad & Lyster, 2021; Cammarata, 2016; Mehisto et al., 2008). In order to shed light on the field of immersion teacher education, researchers have unveiled the struggles of immersion teachers in dealing with this tension (e.g., Barwell, 2014; Swain, 2010) and the ways they have managed it (e.g., Cammarata, 2010). Moreover, previous research has shown the benefits of integrating language and content teaching in FLI classrooms and encouraged immersion teachers to conduct instruction that is balanced in both (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Dalton-Puffer et al., 2006; Martin, 2015). The current study has explored the ways one Chinese immersion teacher teaches academic vocabulary that is considered as an essential and key elements for learning language and content knowledge (e.g., Erath et al., 2018; Snow & Kim, 2007) in both first and second language learning classrooms. The findings suggested that Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction did not balance the teaching of language and content. Instead, the findings resonate with a situation in Spanish immersion classrooms which were 136 described by Martinez and Doninguez (2018) insofar as Wang Laoshi’s teaching episodes “fall in a continuum from mathematically intense to linguistically intense interactions” (p. 4) with some episodes fall toward the middle of the continuum. In other words, Wang Laoshi’s instruction created “a continuum teaching foci” (Martinez & Dominguez, 2018). This continuum is consistent with the SCT’s key conceptualization that language and content learning are integrated and inseparable (e.g., Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Snow, 2005). This study aligns with and elaborates on that concept by showcasing nuanced examples of Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking of both the mathematics and Chinese curriculum through reading and evaluation of the written curriculum and through her decision-making to differentiate her teaching foci-- Chinese language or math concepts-- and enact the curriculum through adaptation and practice. The SCT conception of the interplay of language and mathematics teaching allowed me to examine both Chinese language and mathematics as components of different instructional activities. The findings indicate that even though Wang Laoshi was not able to keep her instruction in the middle of the continuum between Chinese-intense and mathematics-intense teaching, she was able to integrate Chinese and mathematics through academic vocabulary instruction to help the students’ comprehension and understanding of professional concepts. For example, students were involved in identifying different content- specific vocabulary items, such as 被乘数 multiplicand and 乘数 multiplier, in a word problem to solve a multiplication problem. The students were also asked to learn all-purpose academic vocabulary items, such as the conjunction words ⾸先 first… 然后 then…, to organize their problem-solving processes and give the correct answer. Wang Laoshi also 137 negotiated the meanings of different high-frequency vocabulary items to help students create a word problem to reinforce their understanding of multiplication concepts. As describe in Chapter 6, Wang Laoshi did not simply encounter or make sense of the tension, but used different strategies to manage it and scaffold the students’ development of language, literacy, and content acquisition. For example, when Wang Laoshi realized that students were having problems understanding the meaning the meaning of “除 distribute” she drew on the Chinese story they had read in the language arts class (孔融让梨 Kongrong Shares His Pears) to support their sensemaking of the concept. The language support enhanced their mathematics knowledge by situating it in a familiar context. From this perspective, students in Wang Laoshi’s class were using language materials to understand mathematics concepts. As Wang Laoshi stated in Chapter 7, If they [mathematics and language] can be learned at the same time, then I can help my students understand the meaning of division through the story of Kongrong; when reading Kongrong Shared His Pears, they can write an equation. That will connect the content they have learned in the language art class and the mathematics class. As can be seen, Wang Laoshi purposefully prepared and used the Chinese texts as an “add-on” component to enrich the mathematics curriculum. This strategy is supported by previous research on ELLs. For example, Lee and Buxton (2010) encouraged teachers to integrate linguistic resources, such as the learners’ prior knowledge or first language backgrounds, as part of the content curriculum to assist ELLs in learning. Wang Laoshi’s case is an example of the FLI classroom as a dynamic environment in which teachers can be 138 flexible use the language curriculum to support content learning or the content resources to support language learning. Two Trajectories in Using the Curricula and Teaching Academic Vocabulary: Varying Pedagogical Purposes Previous studies about second language learners, especially ELLs, have identified the connection between ELLs’ academic achievement and their academic vocabulary knowledge (Baumann & Graves, 2010; Li et al., 2017; Sibold, 2011). For example, Kinsella (2005) stated that “vocabulary knowledge is the single best predictor of academic achievement across subject matter domains” (p.2). Meanwhile, researchers addressed the gap in academic vocabulary instruction to ELLs and argued that teachers pay more attention to explicitly teaching daily life vocabulary but often only provide opportunities for ELLs to implicitly be exposed to content-specific or all-purpose academic vocabulary. Such instruction directly influences their academic performance (e.g., August et al., 2016; DeLuca, 2010; Snow, 2009). For example, Snow (2009) found that teachers usually taught content-specific and all- purpose academic vocabulary through listening during teachable moments with no explicit instruction to support the students’ learning of the vocabulary. Therefore, scholars have called for second language teachers, including mainstream teachers of ELLs, to provide direct, explicit, and accountable instruction that will support the ELLs’ academic vocabulary acquisition, especially all-purpose academic vocabulary learning in order to develop their language, literacy, and content knowledge (e.g., Dutro & Kinsella, 2010). The current study examines the academic vocabulary instruction in a FLI program. The findings showed that Wang Laoshi took two trajectories to teach academic vocabularies to Chinese immersion students through different teaching goals. On the one hand, she relied on the mathematics curriculum and believed that she needed to explicitly teach academic vocabulary in the curriculum. Therefore, she would be able to help the students achieve all 139 the goals, cover all the content, and solve all the problems in the curriculum. With this goal in mind, she selected the content-specific and all-purpose academic vocabulary listed in the learning standards and prepared teaching materials and interactive activities, to explicitly teach those two categories of academic vocabulary. On the other hand, because Chinese was the instructional language for teaching the mathematics content, she felt that Chinese language output was not necessarily addressed but would be helpful for students’ comprehension. She considered the Chinese curriculum as an “add-on” material and “played with” it to align the language and mathematics teaching. Therefore, even though she guided students in reading certain Chinese texts to prepare them for the comprehension of mathematics concepts, she did not prepared to explicitly teach high-frequency vocabulary taken from the Chinese curriculum. Instead, she taught these terms implicitly during different teachable moments. Even though the students’ learning of mathematics during the classroom observations was not assessed, the result of the M-STEP examination of this class may provide evidence of Wang Laoshi’s teaching efficacy. Over 67% of the students in Wang Laoshi’s class were identified as making “adequate progress” in the M-STEP summative test while the average percentage of the school district was 49%. The result resonated with claims about the benefits of explicitly teaching academic vocabulary, including content-specific and all-purpose academic vocabulary explicitly to help students understand the meaning of mathematics problems and develop problem-solving skills. This findings provide an example of how to select adequate academic language from an existing curriculum and provide sufficient explicit instruction to familiarize students with vocabulary that is “abstract, academic, literary, and less common” (Hadi-Tabassum & Reardon, 2017, p.42) in order to scaffold students’ academic language and literacy. If FLI teachers can provide more explicit academic vocabulary instruction to scaffold students’ comprehension of academic problems and 140 academic language development the students can cross the language barrier. At the same time, teachers can support their language development within different domains, including daily, all-purpose, and content-specific language (e.g., Schuth et al., 2017; Sibold, 2011) The analysis of the two findings demonstrate that FLI classrooms can provide an integrated language-content environment where teachers can be flexible in their use of language curriculum and to support content learning and in employing content resources to support language learning based on their pedagogical purposes. Instead of calling for maintaining a balanced teaching statues in class by paying equal attention to both language and content teaching, I argue that teachers can handle the tension between language and content by understanding the written curriculum, integrating language and content curricula, and teach according to the students’ learning needs during the enactment process. Factors Connecting Curriculum Sensemaking and Academic Vocabulary Instruction: Context, Experiences, and Self-perception At the sociocultural level, teaching is a social practice situated in a larger context in which different factors influence teachers’ sensemaking of an curriculum, as well as decision- making in conducting teaching practice (e.g., Blignaut, 2008; Pyhältö et al., 2018; Fullan et al., 2008). Based on the discussions with Wang Laoshi during the interviews and post- observation debriefings, the data reveals three main factors that influenced Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction: (1) a teaching context focused on accountability results; (2) her own learning experiences of learning mathematics; and (3) her self-perception as a Chinese-speaking classroom teacher. Test-Oriented Context As discussed in the literature review chapter, unlike traditional foreign language teaching where the teaching is primarily focused on the development of language knowledge and communicative skills, the teaching in and FLI classroom, including Chinese immersion 141 classrooms, emphasize both content (such as mathematics and science) and language learning. Moreover, content teaching is particularly important within the current educational context in which public schools are paying increasing attention to academic performance (Tedick & Wesely, 2015). All students in Wang Laoshi’s school district have to take the state-level test, such as the M-STEP test to assess what and how they have learned. Since the test score are related to student placement and the teachers’ evaluation (e.g., Close et al., 2018; Schochet & Chiang, 2010), the teachers and students are both under increasing pressure to prepare and perform well on these accountability tests. Mainstream teachers who teach both native English speakers and ELLs have reported that they pay more attention to the test items listed in the content curriculum and they try to cover everything in the curriculum (e.g., Kamasak et al., 2020; Menken, 2006). The findings of the current study resonated with this. As Wang Laoshi reported in Chapter 7, “I need to ensure they can understand the questions and solve them.” During one interview, Wang Laoshi also mentioned that her annual evaluation was connected directly with students’ performance on the M-STEP test. Therefore, she saw the mathematics curriculum as her main reference and selected and explicitly taught content-specific and all-purpose academic vocabulary to support student comprehension and problem-solving. As A Mathematics Learner, As A Mathematics Teacher Previous studies have argued that teachers’ understanding and enacting of the curricula is closely connects to their own experiences, knowledge, and beliefs (Sherin & Drake, 2006). In the current study, I claim that Wang Laoshi’s models of adapting the Chinese and mathematics curricula, as well as the trajectories of teaching different categories of academic vocabulary are inseparable from her experiences as a mathematics learner. This is shown in her interview answers when she discusses her method of teaching content- specific and all-purpose academic vocabulary. 142 In this study, Wang Laoshi’s memory and interpretation of her mathematics learning experience in China was reflected in her sensemaking of the mathematics curriculum, and the selection and teaching of academic vocabulary. In her report in Chapter 7, “I remember how my teachers taught me, like identifying key vocabulary, writing equations, and making word problems,” and she used these experiences as a reference point to understand the mathematics curriculum and design her teaching. Therefore, she selected content-specific and all-purpose academic vocabulary deliberately and taught them explicitly to help the students understand the mathematics problems and write equations. Because identifying key vocabulary is listed explicitly in the mathematics curriculum and echoes her own learning experiences, she felt that “It’s basically aligned with the curriculum. So I do feel I need to follow it.” This experiences provided Wang Laoshi with the opportunity to examine and reflect on her own mathematics instruction. The findings resonate with previous research that claims “Teachers tended to view their own instruction through the lens of their early experiences as students” (Drake, 2002, p. 162) and makes sense of the curriculum accordingly as well. As A Chinese Teacher, As A Classroom Teacher: A Chinese-speaking Classroom Teacher As discussed in the Literature Review Chapter, FLI teacher undertake a dual task of teaching both language and content. Recent studies have also argued that FLI teachers’ perception of their own role directly influences their decision-making in teaching practice and the effectiveness of the content or language teaching (Caldas, 1999; Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Kong, 2015; Savage, 2014; Watzinger-Tharp et al). For example, Walker and Tedick (2000) examined the relationship between FLI teachers’ self-perceptions and their understanding of balancing content and language instruction by interviewing six Spanish immersion teachers. The findings demonstrated how those teachers’ perceive themselves as both language and content teachers. This perception played a crucial role in their struggle to 143 balance the tension between language and content teaching since they wanted to pay equal attention to both language and content knowledge. The findings of the current study also indicate that Wang Laoshi considered herself as a Chinese teacher and a classroom teacher. However, unlike the findings of the previous studies, Wang Laoshi prioritized her role as a classroom teacher when teaching content courses, such as mathematics. In addition to stating that “I am a Chinese teacher and a classroom teacher,” Wang Laoshi further clarified that “I am a Chinese-speaking classroom teacher.” There is a large body of literature that has highlighted the connection between teachers’ self-perception and pedagogy (e.g., Kayi-Aydar, 2019; Morgan, 2004). For example, Morgan (2004) has suggested a notion of “teacher identity as pedagogy,” which argued that teachers’ self-perceptions are essential pedagogical resources for classroom instruction. Wang Laoshi’s self-perception provides an example and explains how Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction could flexibly move between the language-intense and content-intense continuum; moreover, it exhibits how her self-perception influences her sensemaking process to understand, adapt, and enact the assigned curriculum. As Barwell (2014) argued, teachers need to play a “key role” (p.921) in handling the different teaching purposes of FLI programs. From this perspective, I argue that FLI teachers’ self-perceptions not only determine priorities during decision-making practice (Berg & Coetzee, 2014), but they also influence their priorities in their sensemaking process of different curricula. Summary This chapter analyzed the three trends emerged in the findings chapters: (1) language and content teaching in content classrooms is an tangled process where it is hard to keep a balanced status all the time; (2) teachers’ teaching trajectories of academic vocabulary were influenced continuously through their sensemaking, planning, and practice process; and (3) the three social contexts, including teaching contexts, teachers’ learning experiences, and 144 their self-perceptions impact their sensemaking and decision-making throughout teaching practice. Based on this analysis, the next chapter argues that (1) instead of trying to keep a balanced teaching status in class, teachers can start handling the tension between language and content by understanding the written curriculum and managing the tension according to students’ learning needs during the enactment process to integrate language and content teaching in a flexible manner; and (2) foreign language immersion teachers’ teaching contexts, learning experiences, and self-perceptions influence teachers’ sense-making and decision-making of integrating language and content teaching throughout their planning and teaching practice of academic vocabulary. These two arguments provide implementations for FLI teachers’ teaching, and teacher education programs’ work, which would be discussed in the next chapter. 145 CHAPTER 9 IMPLICATIONS This case study has examined one elementary Chinese immersion classroom to provide an in-depth description of the Chinese immersion teacher’s academic vocabulary selection and instruction in the mathematics content area. The study also explored how this focal teacher’s sensemaking of the mathematics and Chinese curricula affected her decision- making in adapting and enacting the assigned curricula. Even though it is hard to generalize the findings of a single case (Cardozo-Gaibisso et al., 2017), these findings of this case can respond to the call for an examination of the way that FLI teachers’ management of balancing language and content teaching (e.g., Cammarata & Tedick, 2012) and it provides an example that informs stakeholders in a similar context, such as novice FLI teachers, by providing “a lens to probe or understand similar issues in a comprehensive manner” (Teng, 2018, p. 153). This chapter indicated some methodological and pedagogical implications of examining the academic vocabulary instruction to scaffold language and content teaching in subject matter classrooms. Through this discussion, I pointed out and problematize the general pedagogical approach to balance language and content teaching. Instead, I call for FLI teachers and teacher education programs to shift their teaching foci toward language and content teaching as a continuum, to be used at particular moments in content teaching. Methodological Implications Previous studies of academic language teaching in FLI programs basically used the interview method: they interviewed teachers to report on their teaching instruction and on the factors that influenced their teaching (e.g., Bertrand & Marsh, 2015; Drake, 2002; Eren & Tezel, 2010). By using the case study method, this study was able to collect data from Wang Laoshi reading curricula to explore her understanding and self-perception in a situated context through multiple resources that included pre-observation interviews, classroom 146 observations, and post-observation debriefings. Within this context, Wang Laoshi was able to share her pedagogical design of the mathematics lessons, her decision-making in the selection and teaching of academic vocabulary by explaining her lesson plans and teaching materials during pre-observation interviews, and by reflecting on her instruction in the post-observation debriefing by using VSRD (Muir, 2010; Jones et al., 2009) Through this research design, the study was able to triangulate the teachers’ plan, instructional practices, and her voices to track the entire process of how Wang Laoshi made sense of, adapted, and enacted the mathematics and Chinese curricula to teach different categories of academic vocabulary. The study extended the limited examination of reporting through interviews only, but provided classroom-based evidence to examine the teacher’s view on and understanding of her academic vocabulary instruction through reflective dialogues before and after the classroom observation. As I described in the findings chapters, I used the strategy of reading Wang Laoshi’s lesson plan with her before the classroom observations to better understand her pedagogical purposes and identify important instruction moments; I asked her to watch the critical teaching episodes and reflect on them in the post-observation debriefings. For example, in this study, Wang Laoshi basically followed her plans and explicitly taught content-specific and all-purpose academic vocabulary based on her pedagogical purpose of supporting the students’ comprehension of mathematics concepts. In one episode, she taught additional vocabulary “平均 even/ equally” during a teachable moment when students confused the meaning of division. This echoed her teaching goal of helping students understand mathematics concepts through listening and reading Chinese terms. These moments all resonated with Wang Laoshi’s explanation of her sensemaking of the curricula and decision- making when adapting and enacting those curricula based on her teaching context, learning experiences, and self-perception. 147 In general, the current study overcomes the drawbacks of exploring FLI teachers’ academic language teaching solely through interviewing and self-reporting, and provided evidence to bridge statements about and plans for teaching academic vocabulary teaching with the teacher’s exact instructional practice. Future studies about FLI teachers’ academic language teaching, which has been underexplored in the field of bilingual education, can use a similar design to provide in-depth discussion of how foreign language teachers teach academic language to scaffold language and content teaching within and outside their classrooms. Pedagogical Implications As discussed in the Literature Review chapter, studies of academic language teaching, including academic vocabulary instruction have focused on how mainstream teachers addresses ELLs’ linguistic needs (August, 2016; Baumann & Graves, 2010; Logan & Kieffer, 2017; McQuillan, 2019; Schleppegrell, 2009; Snow, 2010). Suggestions for effective academic vocabulary teaching strategies have also focused on this population. However, the research in FLI programs has paid more attention to the teachers’ struggles to manage both language and content, and as suggested that FLI teachers balance language and content teaching in the subject matter areas (Cammarata & Haley, 2018; Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Genesee, 1994; Snow et al., 1989 ). However, few studies have bridged the teachers’ self- reports and their classroom practice to demonstrate their specific instructional practice in teaching academic vocabulary to scaffold language and content learning. The findings and discussion of this study will contribute to the pedagogical innovation in FLI teachers’ management of academic language teaching in content classes and shed light on FLI teachers and teacher education programs. This study has a number of implications for shaping the ways that FLI teachers present academic vocabulary in subject matter areas. First, previous research has explored and 148 discussed the quantity and quality of academic vocabulary teaching to ELLs in mainstream classrooms (Kelly et al., 2010; Li et al., 2017; McKeown & Beck, 2014). However, as there has been little recognition of how academic vocabulary learning influences the language and content development of FLI students, few studies have focused on what academic vocabulary instruction exactly looks like in FLI content classes. In response to calls to study FLI teachers’ teaching practice in content areas (e.g., Barwell et al., 2016), this dissertation described the quantity and quality of academic vocabulary instruction in one mathematics class in a Chinese immersion program with a focus on the participating teacher’s scaffolding to construct meaning through academic vocabulary teaching. The findings show that Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction falls in a continuum between language-intense and content-intense and moves continuously between them, indicating the interplay between language and content throughout her teaching. With clear pedagogical purposes, Wang Laoshi selected and taught three categories of academic vocabulary by making sense, adapting, and practicing the mathematics and Chinese language curricula using various strategies to support the students’ listening, reading, speaking, and problem-solving skills at different moments of teaching. Therefore, the findings of this study may provide Chinese immersion teachers, especially novice teachers, with an example of how to draw on multiple mediational tools at different stages to maximize academic vocabulary instruction in subject matter areas in order to scaffold students’ language and content development. Moreover, instead of struggling to pay equal attention to both language and content teaching, teachers can consider managing the tension between language and content by understanding the written curriculum and applying it in light of the students’ learning needs during the enactment. Second, this study has implications for researchers trying to better understand FLI teachers’ interpretation and implementation of assigned curricula and how to use that 149 curricula as a mediational tool to purposefully guide their planning and teaching of academic vocabulary. According to previous research, novice FLI teachers have reported difficulties in handling academic language teaching in content areas (Cammarata, 2010). This study may offer some insightful ideas for them and for other FLI teachers. It is not always easy to balance the teaching of both language and content in content areas; therefore, instead of struggling to maintain a rigorous balance, teachers can work to be more flexible to move between the language-intensity and content-intensity to reach their pedagogical priorities. As Barwell (2014) argued, within the different sections of this language-content continuum, teachers need to “have a key role in mediating the tension” (p. 921). From this perspective, this study added examples to the previous research to clarify complexity of integrating language and content curriculum in FLI programs, and teaching academic vocabulary to scaffold language and content teaching. FLI teachers, especially novices, can be informed by this research to connect existing curricula with their teaching practice in order to better serve FLI learners to develop the target language and content knowledge simultaneously. Finally, the current study has implications for foreign language teacher preparation programs and FLI programs. As Cenoz et al. (2014) argued, what is lacking is conceptual clarity and a cohesive pedagogy about what it means to design, implement, and carry out a program to supports teachers. In response, this study demonstrates how Wang Laoshi made sense of and enacted the mathematics and Chinese curricula, and “played with” the Chinese curriculum to enrich the mathematics curriculum. The findings indicated that FLI classroom can provide an language-content-integrated environment where teachers can be flexible in using language curriculum to support content learning, and employing content resources to support language learning depending on their pedagogical goals. This current study provided an instructive example of sensemaking dual curricula in a FLI program; it can provide assistance for teacher educators and teachers education programs so they can better prepare 150 FLI teachers. Teacher education programs can provide hands-on courses or professional development sessions to help teachers practice explore and adapt an assigned curriculum to align their teaching with the expectations of different stakeholders. In sum, methodologically, this study was able to triangulate Wang Laoshi’s plan, instructional practice, and her voices as multiple resources to track the entire process of how she made sense of, adapted, and enacted the mathematics and Chinese curricula to teach different categories of academic vocabulary. Pedagogically, FLI teachers, especially novice teachers will benefit from overseeing an experienced teacher’s sensemaking of both language and mathematics curriculum to select and teach academic vocabulary to scaffold language and content teaching. Teacher education programs should better train FLI teachers’ sensemaking and adaptation of given curricula in order to help facilitate their flexible instructional move to scaffold language and content teaching. 151 CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS Although academic vocabulary instruction for ELLs has attracted increased attention in the past three decades (August, 2016; Baumann & Graves, 2010; Schleppegrell, 2009; Snow, 2010), studies of how to teach academic vocabulary in content areas within FLI programs, especially Chinese immersion programs, have not received enough attention. Researches on FLI programs has called for teachers to balance language and content teaching due to their dual role as language and content teachers. Novice FLI teachers often report a struggling to maintain this balanced status when teaching content classes (e.g., Cammarata & Haley, 2018; Cammarata & Tedick, 2012). To fill this gap, this study has explored one Chinese immersion teachers’ academic vocabulary instruction through answering three research questions: (1) To what extent does a Chinese immersion teacher teach academic vocabulary in mathematics classrooms? (2) How does she teach academic vocabulary to construct meaning and scaffold language and content teaching? and (3) How does her sensemaking of the curriculum scaffold her academic vocabulary instruction? In this chapter, I reviewed the main findings of this study, and indicated the contributions based on the analysis of those findings. In addition, I pointed to the limitations of the current study which also provided pathways for future research to extend the conversation. Summary of the Research By employing a case study method, this study used one Chinese immersion teacher as the focal participant and explored how she planned, taught, and reflected on academic vocabulary instruction in mathematics classes. The findings revealed the three categories of academic vocabulary Wang Laoshi that taught in her mathematics classrooms and two approaches she used to employ various strategies to teach the different types of academic 152 vocabulary. Findings also showed the two models Wang Laoshi developed to understand, adapt, and enact the mathematics and Chinese curricula. Through this process, several social factors emerged to explain Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking of the assigned curricula and her decision-making in enacting them. First, Wang Laoshi’s academic vocabulary instruction fell on a continuum between language-intense and content-intense and it moved continuously. Wang Laoshi selected all the content-specific vocabulary and all-purpose academic vocabulary from the mathematics curriculum and taught them explicitly by asking students to listen, repeat, and recognize them to understand mathematics concepts and questions. She taught high-frequency vocabulary in different teachable moments through teacher-student interaction and asked the students to listen, recognize, and use those words to understand or produce mathematics problems. Second, through a detailed analysis of the teacher-student interactive episodes, the study found that Wang Laoshi took two trajectories to teach different categories of academic vocabulary according to her pedagogical goals for the mathematics and Chinese language curricula through sensemaking, adapting, and practicing. Wang Laoshi explicitly taught content-specific vocabulary by using the strategies of revisiting vocabulary, teaching problem-solving and word recognition, providing simple explanations, and English translations. She also explicitly taught all-purpose academic vocabulary by revisiting vocabulary, providing synonyms and English translations. She implicitly taught high- frequency academic vocabulary through revisiting vocabulary, asking students to restate the vocabulary in their own words, constructing non-verbal support and examples, and teaching word learning strategies. Wang Laoshi did not try to pay equal attention to language and content knowledge, but moved between language and content to fulfill her teaching goals. Therefore, I argue that instead of demanding that teachers keep a balance between teaching language and content in 153 class, or that they pay equal attention to both, teachers can handle the tension between them by understanding the written curriculum and finding a balance in accordance with the needs of the students during the enactment process. Third, there are different social factors, such as the teaching contexts, the teacher’s experiences as a mathematics learner, and self-perception that influenced Wang Laoshi’s sensemaking in enacting the two written curricula, and subsequently impacted her decision- making during the academic vocabulary instruction. This finding goes beyond the previous research showing that in professional contexts, a teacher’s previous learning experiences and their identities is connected to their decision-making in the teaching process and indicates that this takes place during the process of making sense of the curriculum. Therefore, I argue that FLI teachers’ teaching contexts, learning experiences, and self-perceptions not only determine the priorities in decision-making during teaching practice, but also influence the priorities in their sensemaking process when evaluating different curricula. Contribution of the Research The current study contribute to the scholarship in two ways. Methodologically, the triangulation method of collecting and analyzing written, observational, and spoken data can be used to explore the entire process of how FLI teachers make sense of, adapt, and enact the content and language curricula to scaffold language and content learning through teaching different categories of academic vocabulary. Pedagogically, the study challenged the call for balancing language and content teaching in FLI programs, and highlights the need to prepare FLI teachers to better understand and adapt both language and content curricula according to their pedagogical purposes during the process of planning and practicing the lessons. Methodologically, the study was able to overcomes the drawbacks of exploring FLI teachers’ academic language teaching solely through interviewing and self-reporting by triangulating the focal teachers’ plan, instructional practice, and her voices to track the 154 complete process of making sense of, adapting, and enacting the mathematics and Chinese curricula to teach different categories of academic vocabulary. Future studies about FLI teachers’ academic language teaching can use a similar design to provide in-depth discussion how foreign language teachers teach academic language to scaffold language and content teaching inside and outside their classrooms. Pedagogically, the findings and discussion of this study suggested that FLI classrooms could provide an language-content-integrated environment where teachers can be flexible in using the dual curricula to support language and content learning based on their pedagogical purposes. The results may contribute to the pedagogical innovation of FLI teachers’ management of academic language teaching in content classes, and shed light on teacher education programs. To better train FLI teachers’ practice of understanding, evaluating, and adapting of the dual curricula, teacher education programs can provide professional development sessions or courses to this population in order to facilitate their flexible instructional practice to scaffold language and content teaching. Limitations and Future Research There are two limitations to the present study which calls for further exploration in the future: (1) the recruitment of the research participant; and (2) the assessment of students’ learning, especially language learning. First, only one Chinese immersion teacher participant in this study. This allowed me the opportunity to closely observe and provide descriptions about her planning and teaching, but it also affected the reliability of the research findings. I had limited post-observation debriefings with Wang Laoshi because of her busy schedule and family responsibilities. In my future studies, I would like to recruit a number of different teachers, such as novice teachers and experienced teachers from different school contexts, for data generation. 155 Second, even though I consulted the M-STEP test results to provide evidence of Wang Laoshi’s teaching efficacy, the results only indicated the students’ learning process for mathematics since the test was conducted in English. This situation affected the reliability of my arguments. Therefore, in future studies, I would pay closer attention to the students’ learning process and design assessments to evaluate their language and literacy acquisition. In general, the above limitations have implications for future research to extend the work of this dissertation. Future investigations can also consider exploring novice teachers’ learning and development of teaching academic vocabulary through a longitudinal design in the first few years of their teaching practice. Examinations about the teachers’ cultural identity that influenced her academic vocabulary teaching in mathematics classrooms would also be an important contribution to this conversation. In sum, there are different perspectives to further explore the topic while I would like to move the conversation forward with other scholars. 156 APPENDICES 157 APPENDIX A Phase I Preliminary Interview Questions 1. Background 1.Can you tell me your age? If you are uncomfortable with giving an exact age, can you select one from the following age ranges? 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 above 50 2. Can you tell me all the academic degrees you received, and when and where you received those degrees, and what you studied for those degrees (or specialty areas)? 3. Can you tell me your formal experience of teaching the language or content? For example, which school(s) are you currently teaching? Which grade(s)? How many students? How many students on average in each class (class size)? How much time do you teach per week? Can you also say something about the nature of the language program(s) you are currently teaching? If applicable, which level(s) of the language are you currently teaching? If you are not sure about the level(s) of your class(es), can you describe your students’ overall proficiency level(s)? For example, where are the levels of the classes on a scale of 1 to 10? 4. How many years have you been a teacher? How long have you formally taught the language or the content? By formal, I mean any type of formal instruction in a physical or virtual educational setting rather than one-to-one private tutoring. 5. Do you have a professional certificate, like a teaching certificate, related to teaching the language? If so, can you say something about the certificate, such as when you got that certificate, and which organization issued that certificate? 6. What do you think is the objective of learning a foreign language in an immersion program? In other words, what do you expect your students to be able do with the language? II. Perceptions/Beliefs about Academic Vocabulary 1.How do you define academic vocabulary? Can you give some examples? 2. Are there different types of academic vocabulary? If yes, are they weight the same in your mind? 3. How do you think about the role of academic vocabulary? Why do you think so? 4.Do you teach academic vocabulary explicitly? If yes, which kind of strategies do you usually use? 5. How can you decide to use these strategies? For example, for your reading, workshop, or selected from your practice? 158 6. Do you see any connection between your instruction and students’ language and math achievement? If so, how was the connection like? III. Perceptions/ Beliefs about Chinese immersion program 1.Which language do you use to teach content subject matters, such as math and science? 2. What are the most challenging thing of teaching math in Chinese? 3. How would you define “learning Chinese” and “learning math” in your math class? Can you provide some examples that you would define as “learning”? 4. If you need to think about your role, do you think you are a Chinese teacher, or a classroom teacher? 159 APPENDIX B Phase II Observational Heuristic Table 12: Observational Heuristic Academic vocabulary instruction Resources Vocabulary Graves (2006) selection Linguistic Define the word in Providing simple strategies various contexts explanation Providing examples Sedita (2005) Providing synonym Word meaning discussion and restate Riccomini et al., (2015); Revisit vocabulary Marzano (2004) Teaching word learning strategies explicitly Snow et al. (2009) Non- Designing game-like activities Riccomini et al., linguistic (2015); strategies Integrate non-verbal support Marzano (2004) 160 APPENDIX C Phase II In-depth Interview Questions I Learning Experiences Part I- Math 1. Can you tell me how long did you learn mathematics? 2. What are the main methods your teachers used to teach you mathematics? What kind of teaching method or strategies worked efficiently for you? Can you give some examples? Why do you think they are "good teaching? 3. Did any of those methods were used in your math classes? Why do you use them "and why not? 4. What is the main goal of learning math? Do you think the goal you learn math is the same as your students’? If yes, what are the similarities? If not, what are the differences? 5. What would you count as learning evidence when you were learning math? 6. What would you count as learning evidence when you teach math in the current program? II. Learning Experiences Part II- Chinese 1. When do you decide to become a Chinese teacher? 2. According to you, what makes one person an effective Chinese teacher? 3. Which kind of courses did you take about teaching Chinese? Can you list them and tell me the details about the content of these courses? 4. What are your take-aways from these courses? III. Learning Experiences Part III- Teaching and Curriculum 1. When do you decide to work as an immersion teacher? 2. Which courses did you take to prepare you to be a teacher in the U.S? Can you list them and tell me the details about the content of these courses? 161 3. Which courses did you take to prepare you to be an immersion teacher in the U.S? Can you list them and tell me the details about the content of these courses? 4. Can you list some courses that were useful to you? Can you provide some details about why they were helpful? 5. Can you think about one or two moments that were important for you when you were studying in the teacher preparation program? IV. Teaching and Curriculum 1. What are the curricula you using now? Who provided those curricula? Can you modify them? If yes, how do you usually change them? 2. According to the curricula, what are the learning goals throughout the school year? How can you know that? 3. How do you and your colleagues determine the teaching responsibilities? For example, how can you decide who will teach mathematics, and who will teach social science? 4. Has the school district provide information or professional development (PD) to guide you on how to teach mathematics? If yes, can you give details on those PDs? If not, how can you know whether your teaching match the district’s expectations or not? 162 BIBLIOGRAPHY 163 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arshad, V., & Lyster, R. (2021). 13 Professional Development in Action: Teachers’ Experiences in Learning to Bridge Language and Content. In The Psychological Experience of Integrating Content and Language (pp. 232-249). Multilingual Matters. August, D., Artzi, L., Barr, C., & Francis, D. (2018). The moderating influence of instructional intensity and word type on the acquisition of academic vocabulary in young English language learners. Reading and Writing, 31(4), 965-989. August, D., Artzi, L., & Barr, C. (2016). Helping ELLs meet standards in English language arts and science: An intervention focused on academic vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32(4), 373-396. Bailey, A. L., Butler, F. A., Stevens, R., & Lord, C. (2007). Further specifying the language demands of school. The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test, 103-156. Bailey, A. L. (Ed.). (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. Yale University Press. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual matters. Batt, E. G. (2008). Teachers' Perceptions of ELL Education: Potential Solutions to Overcome the Greatest Challenges. Multicultural education, 15(3), 39-43. Basterrechea, M., & Mayo, M. D. P. G. (2013). Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks. Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts, 34, 25. Barwell, R. (2014). Centripetal and centrifugal language forces in one elementary school second language mathematics classroom. ZDM, 46(6), 911-922. Bartlett, L., Erben, T., & Garbutcheon‐Singh, M. (1996). Teacher‐identity formation through language immersion in an initial‐teacher‐education curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2), 173-196. Baumann, J. F., & Graves, M. F. (2010). What is academic vocabulary?. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 4. Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland, E. M., Olejnik, S., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context on fifth-grade students’ ability to derive and infer word meanings. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 447-494 Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. Guilford Press 164 Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life. Berg, G. V. D., & Coetzee, L. R. (2014). Academic self-concept and motivation as predictors of academic achievement. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(3), 469-478. Bertrand, M., & Marsh, J. A. (2015). Teachers’ sensemaking of data and implications for equity. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 861-893. Blignaut, S. (2008). Teachers’ sense-making and enactment of curriculum policy. Journal of Education, 43(1), 101-125. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Georgetown University Press, 3240 Prospect Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007. Brezina, V., & Gablasova, D. (2015). Is there a core general vocabulary? Introducing the new general service list. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 1-22. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship. Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction, 17-36. Brown, D. (2011). What aspects of vocabulary knowledge do textbooks give attention to?. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 83-97. Brown, G. (2009). Review of Education in Mathematics, Data Science and Quantitative Disciplines: Report to the Group of Eight Universities. Group of Eight (NJ1). Bruner, J. (1985). Child's talk: Learning to use language. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 1(1), 111-114. Byrnes, H. (2005). Content-based foreign language instruction. Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice, 282-302. Calderón, M. (2007). Teaching reading to English language learners, grades 6-12: A framework for improving achievement in the content areas. Corwin Press. Cammarata, L. (Ed.). (2016). Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills. Routledge. Cammarata, L., Tedick, D. J., & Osborn, T. A. (2016). Content-based instruction and curricular reforms. Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills, 1. Cammarata, L., & Haley, C. (2018). Integrated content, language, and literacy instruction in a Canadian French immersion context: A professional development journey. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 332-348. Cammarata, L., & Ceallaigh, T. Ó. (2018). Teacher education and professional development for immersion and content-based instruction: Research on programs, practices, and teacher educators. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6(2), 153-161. 165 Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251-269. Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2011). CoBaLTT Project—Content-Based Language Teaching with Technology and showcased units: Le Moyen Âge en France (Unit for High School French) and Les Stéréotypes des Français (Unit for Middle School French) and expanded units on accompanying CD: Foreign-language instruction for the digital age. In Technology-Infused French: Foreign-language instruction for the digital age (pp. 49-88). International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Cammarata, L. (2010). Foreign language teachers’ struggle to learn content-based instruction. L2 Journal, 2(1). Cantoni-Harvey, G. (1987). Content-area language instruction: Approaches and strategies. Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning Caldas, S. J. (1999). Poverty, Race, and Foreign Language Immersion: Predictors of Math and English. Learning Languages. Cardozo-Gaibisso, L., Allexsaht-Snider, M., & Buxton, C. A. (2017). Curriculum in motion for English language learners in science: Teachers supporting newcomer unaccompanied youth. In Teaching Science to English Language Learners (pp. 7-29). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complexwords: Impact on reading. Reading and writing, 12(3), 169-190. Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., ... & White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English‐ language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading research quarterly, 39(2), 188-215. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied linguistics, 35(3), 243-262. Cervetti, G. N., Bravo, M. A., Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, P. D., & Jaynes, C. A. (2009). Text genre and science content: Ease of reading, comprehension, and reader preference. Reading Psychology, 30(6), 487-511. Chen, Y. L., Yang, T. A., & Chen, H. L. (2017). Challenges encountered in a Chinese immersion program in the United States. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 26(3), 163- 170. Christison, M., & Murray, D. E. (2014). What English language teachers need to know Volume III: Designing curriculum. Routledge. 166 Close, K., Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Collins, C. (2018). State-Level Assessments and Teacher Evaluation Systems after the Passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act: Some Steps in the Right Direction. National Education Policy Center. COMPTON‐LILLY, C. A. T. H. E. R. I. N. E. (2007). The complexities of reading capital in two Puerto Rican families. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 72-98. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research: Developments, debates, and dilemmas. Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry, 315-326. Cummins, J. (2000). Immersion education for the millennium: What we have learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion. Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (Vol. 7). John Benjamins Publishing Davis, S., Ballinger, S., & Sarkar, M. (2019). The suitability of French immersion for Allophone students in Saskatchewan: Exploring diverse perspectives on language learning and inclusion. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 22(2), 27-63. Davis, M. (2017). Teaching design: A guide to curriculum and pedagogy for college design faculty and teachers who use design in their classrooms. Simon and Schuster. Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 293-304. DeLuca, E. (2010). Unlocking academic vocabulary. The Science Teacher, 77(3), 27. Drake, C., Land, T. J., & Tyminski, A. M. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to support the development of prospective teachers’ knowledge. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 154-162. Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 153-187. Drake, C. (2002). Experience counts: Career stage and teachers’ responses to mathematics education reform. Educational Policy, 16(2), 311-337. Donato, R. (2016). Sociocultural theory and content-based foreign language instruction. Content-based foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills, 25-51. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. Vygotskian approaches to second language research, 33456. 167 Duff, P. A. (2014). Case study research on language learning and use. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 233-255. Duff, P. A. (2012). How to carry out case study research. Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide, 95-116. Dupuy, B. C. (2000). Content‐based instruction: Can it help ease the transition from beginning to advanced foreign language classes?. Foreign language annals, 33(2), 205-223. Dutro, S., & Moran, C. (2003). Rethinking English language instruction: An architectural approach. English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy, 227, 258. Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case (Vol. 76). Teachers College Press. Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in second language acquisition, 21(2), 285-301. Ezzy, D. (2013). Qualitative analysis. Routledge. Erath, K., Prediger, S., Quasthoff, U., & Heller, V. (2018). Discourse competence as important part of academic language proficiency in mathematics classrooms: The case of explaining to learn and learning to explain. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 99(2), 161- 179. Eren, A., & Tezel, K. V. (2010). Factors influencing teaching choice, professional plans about teaching, and future time perspective: A mediational analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(7), 1416-1428. Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M., Lukin, A., Huang, J., & Normandia, B. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Flores, N., & García, O. (2017). A critical review of bilingual education in the United States: From basements and pride to boutiques and profit. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 14-29. Fortune, T. W., & Tedick, D. J. (Eds.). (2008). Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education(Vol. 66). Multilingual Matters. Freeman, R. A., & Silverman, D. C. (1992). Error propagation in coupon immersion tests. Corrosion, 48(06). Fullan, M., Hopkins, D., & Spillane, J. P. (2008). Curriculum implementation and sustainability. In The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 113-122). SAGE Publications Inc.. García, O., & Woodley, H. H. (2015). Bilingual education. The Routledge handbook of educational linguistics, 132-144. 168 García, O., & Wei, L. (2015). Translanguaging, bilingualism, and bilingual education. The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education, 223, 240. Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2014). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied linguistics, 35(3), 305-327. Gardner, D. (2013). Exploring vocabulary: Language in action. Routledge. Gardner, R. (2013). 29 Conversation Analysis in the Classroom. The handbook of conversation analysis, 593. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2000). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading. KAMIL, Michael L. et al. Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Chapter 4: Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of research in education, 23(1), 119-169. Genesee, F. (2008). Early dual language learning. Zero to three, 29(1), 17-23. Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion. Genesee, F. (1983). An invited article: Bilingual education of majority-language children: The Immersion experiments in review. Applied psycholinguistics, 4(1), 1-46. Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: Students, teachers and researchers. A&C Black. Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content‐based classroom. TESOL quarterly, 37(2), 247-273. Goodlad, J. I., Klein, M. F., & Tye, K. A. (1979). The domains of curriculum and their study. Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice, 43-76. Graves, M. F., Schneider, S., & Ringstaff, C. (2018). Empowering students with word‐ learning strategies: Teach a child to fish. The Reading Teacher, 71(5), 533-543. Graves, M. F., August, D., & Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2012). Teaching vocabulary to English language learners. Teachers College Press. Graves, M. F. (2006). Building a comprehensive vocabulary program. New England Reading Association Journal, 42(2), 1. Greene, J. W., & Coxhead, A. (2015). Academic vocabulary for middle school students. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Guerrero, M. D. (2004). Acquiring academic English in one year: An unlikely proposition for English language learners. Urban Education, 39(2), 172-199. 169 Guerrero, M. D. (1997). Spanish academic language proficiency: The case of bilingual education teachers in the US. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(1), 65-84. Hargreaves, L., Moyles, J., Merry, R., Paterson, F., Pell, A., & Esarte-Sarries, V. (2003). How do primary school teachers define and implement ‘interactive teaching’in the National Literacy Strategy in England?. Research Papers in Education, 18(3), 217-236. Haag, N., Heppt, B., Stanat, P., Kuhl, P., & Pant, H. A. (2013). Second language learners' performance in mathematics: Disentangling the effects of academic language features. Learning and Instruction, 28, 24-34. Hadi-Tabassum, S., & Reardon, E. (2017). Bridging language and content for English language learners in the science classroom. In Teaching science to English language learners(pp. 31-57). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Harraqi, M. (2017). Review of Aida Walqui’s scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. American Journal of Arts and Design, 2(3), 84- 88. Halliday, M. A. (1978). Meaning and the construction of reality in early childhood. Modes of perceiving and processing information, 67-96. Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How Long Does It Take English Learners To Attain Proficiency?. Heath-Brown, D. R. (2002). The density of rational points on curves and surfaces. Annals of mathematics, 553-598. Hoare, P., Kong, S., & Bell, J. (2008). Using language objectives to integrate language and content instruction: A case history of planning and implementation challenges. Language and education, 22(3), 187-205. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an “academic vocabulary”?. TESOL quarterly, 41(2), 235-253. Ismail, N., Kinchin, G., & Edwards, J. A. (2018). Pilot study, Does it really matter? Learning lessons from conducting a pilot study for a qualitative PhD thesis. International Journal of Social Science Research, 6(1), 1-17. Jaramillo, J. A. (1996). Vygotsky's sociocultural theory and contributions to the development of constructivist curricula. Education, 117(1), 133-141. Jnanesh, N. A., & Hebbar, C. K. (2008, October). Use of quality function deployment analysis in curriculum development of engineering education and models for curriculum design and delivery. In Proceedings of the world congress on engineering and computer science (pp. 22-24). Jiang, W. (2000). The relationship between culture and language. ELT journal, 54(4), 328-334. 170 Jones, S. M., LaRusso, M., Kim, J., Yeon Kim, H., Selman, R., Uccelli, P., ... & Snow, C. (2019). Experimental effects of Word Generation on vocabulary, academic language, perspective taking, and reading comprehension in high-poverty schools. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(3), 448-483. Jones, S., Tanner, H., Kennewell, S., Parkinson, J., Denny, H., Anthony, C., ... & Loughran, A. (2009). Using video stimulated reflective dialogue to support the development of ICT based pedagogy in mathematics and science. The Welsh Journal of Education, 14(2), 63-77. Kalinowski, E., Gronostaj, A., & Vock, M. (2019). Effective professional development for teachers to foster students’ academic language proficiency across the curriculum: A systematic review. AERA Open, 5(1), 2332858419828691. Kayi-Aydar, H. (2019). Language teacher identity. Language Teaching, 52(3), 281- 295. Kamasak, R., Ozbilgin, M., & Atay, D. (2020). The cultural impact of hidden curriculum on language learners: A review and some implications for curriculum design. Beyond language learning instruction: Transformative supports for emergent bilinguals and educators, 104-125. Kelley, J. G., Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., & Faller, S. E. (2010). Effective academic vocabulary instruction in the urban middle school. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 5-14. Kinsella, K. (2005, October). Preparing for effective vocabulary instruction. Aiming high [Aspirando a lo mejor] Resource, 1–8 Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (Vol. 78, No. 4). Oxford University Press. Lee, H., Warschauer, M., & Lee, J. H. (2019). The effects of corpus use on second language vocabulary learning: A multilevel meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 40(5), 721- 753. Lee, S., & Pulido, D. (2017). The impact of topic interest, L2 proficiency, and gender on EFL incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 118-135. Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2010). Diversity and Equity in Science Education: Research, Policy, and Practice. Multicultural Education Series. Teachers College Press. Li, J., Cummins, J., & Deng, Q. (2017). The effectiveness of texting to enhance academic vocabulary learning: English language learners’ perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 816-843. Logan, J. K., & Kieffer, M. J. (2017). Academic vocabulary instruction: Building knowledge about the world and how words work. Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts. 171 Lü, C. (2019). Chinese literacy learning in an immersion program. Springer International Publishing. Marzano, R. J. (2004). A six-step process for teaching vocabulary. Building background knowledge for academic achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2005). Building academic vocabulary: Teacher's manual. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1703 North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311-1714. Martín de Lama, M. T. (2015). Making the match between content and foreign language: A case study on university students’ opinions towards CLIL. McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. Guilford Press. McQuillan, J. (2019). Where do we get our academic vocabulary? Comparing the efficiency of direct instruction and free voluntary reading. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19(1), 129-138. McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2014). Effects of vocabulary instruction on measures of language processing: Comparing two approaches. Early childhood Research quarterly, 29(4), 520-530 Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, culture and social interaction, 1(1), 12-21. Mercer, S. H., & DeRosier, M. E. (2010). A prospective investigation of teacher preference and children's perceptions of the student–teacher relationship. Psychology in the Schools, 47(2), 184-192. Lantolf, J. P. (2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition. Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, 24-47. Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education research. Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning, 19-44. Li, L., & Walsh, S. (2011). ‘Seeing is believing’: Looking at EFL teachers’ beliefs through classroom interaction. Classroom discourse, 2(1), 39-57. Llinares, A., & McCabe, A. (2020). Systemic functional linguistics: the perfect match for content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-6. 172 Liskinasih, A. (2016). Corrective Feedbacks in CLT-Adopted Classrooms’ Interactions. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 60–69. Lin, W. Y., & Song, H. (2006). Geo-ethnic storytelling: An examination of ethnic media content in contemporary immigrant communities. Journalism, 7(3), 362-388. Lindholm-Leary, K., & Howard, E. R. (2008). Language development and academic achievement in two-way immersion programs. Bilingual education and Bilingualism, 66, 177. Lucero, A. (2014). Teachers’ use of linguistic scaffolding to support the academic language development of first-grade emergent bilingual students. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14(4), 534-561. Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S. D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. SAGE Publications Ltd. Logan, J. K., & Kieffer, M. J. (2017). Academic vocabulary instruction: Building knowledge about the world and how words work. Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts. Lyster, R. (2017). Content-based language teaching. Routledge. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach (Vol. 18). John Benjamins Publishing. Martínez, J. M., & Dominguez, H. (2018). Navigating mathematics and language tensions in language immersion classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 1-9. Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approach. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition, 7-23. Maolida, E. H. (2013). A Descriptive Study of Teacher’s Oral Feedback In an ESL Young Learner Classroom in Indonesia Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage publications. Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How No Child Left Behind impacts language policy, curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 521-546. McQuillan, J. (2019). Where do we get our academic vocabulary? Comparing the efficiency of direct instruction and free voluntary reading. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19(1), 129-138. Morgan, B. (2004). Teacher identity as pedagogy: Towards a field-internal conceptualisation in bilingual and second language education. International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, 7(2-3), 172-188. 173 Morgan, C., Craig, T., Schuette, M., & Wagner, D. (2014). Language and communication in mathematics education: An overview of research in the field. Zdm, 46(6), 843-853. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning Making In Secondary Science Classroomsaa. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Morrow, P. C., & Goetz Jr, J. F. (1988). Professionalism as a form of work commitment. Journal of vocational behavior, 32(1), 92-111. Muir, T. (2010). Using Video-Stimulated Recall as a Tool for Reflecting on the Teaching of Mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading research quarterly, 47(1), 91-108. Ovando, C. J. (2003). Bilingual education in the United States: Historical development and current issues. Bilingual research journal, 27(1), 1-24. Padilla, A. M., Fan, L., Xu, X., & Silva, D. (2013). A Mandarin/English two‐way immersion program: Language proficiency and academic achievement. Foreign Language Annals, 46(4), 661-679. Pepin, B., Choppin, J., Ruthven, K., & Sinclair, N. (2017). Digital curriculum resources in mathematics education: foundations for change. ZDM, 49(5), 645-661. Phakeng, M. S. (2016). Mathematics education and language diversity: Mathematics education and language diversity. In Teaching and learning mathematics in multilingual classrooms(pp. 11-23). Brill Sense. Phillips Galloway, E., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Examining developmental relations between core academic language skills and reading comprehension for English learners and their peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 15. Pimm, D. (2019). Routledge Revivals: Speaking Mathematically (1987): Communication in Mathematics Clasrooms (Vol. 4). Routledge. Powell, E. (2005). Conceptualising and facilitating active learning: teachers’ video‐ stimulated reflective dialogues. Reflective Practice, 6(3), 407-418 Pritchard, R., & O'HARA, S. U. S. A. N. (2017). Framing the teaching of academic language to English learners: A Delphi study of expert consensus. tesol QUARTERLY, 51(2), 418-428. Prediger, S., & Zindel, C. (2017). School academic language demands for understanding functional relationships: A design research project on the role of language in reading and learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7b), 4157-4188. Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R. D., Harring, J. R., Jones, R. L., & Hartranft, A. M. (2020). Teaching bilingual learners: Effects of a language‐based reading intervention on 174 academic language and reading comprehension in grades 4 and 5. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), 95-122. Proctor, C. P., Uccelli, P., Dalton, B., & Snow, C. E. (2009). Understanding depth of vocabulary online with bilingual and monolingual children. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(4), 311-333. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2018). Dynamic and shared sense-making in large-scale curriculum reform in school districts. The Curriculum Journal, 29(2), 181-200. Remillard, J. T. (2018). Examining teachers’ interactions with curriculum resource to uncover pedagogical design capacity. In Research on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources (pp. 69-88). Springer, Cham. Remillard, J. T., & Heck, D. J. (2014). Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. Zdm, 46(5), 705-718 Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of educational research, 75(2), 211-246. Riccomini, P. J., Smith, G. W., Hughes, E. M., & Fries, K. M. (2015). The language of mathematics: The importance of teaching and learning mathematical vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 235-252. Richards, J. C. (1996). Teachers' maxims in language teaching. TESOL quarterly, 30(2), 281-296. Richards, R. T. (1998). Infusing technology and literacy into the undergraduate teacher education curriculum through the use of electronic portfolios. THE Journal, 25(9), 46-50. Roling, K. L. (2017). Enhancing Academic Vocabulary Learning in English Language Learners: Applications of the Cognitive Principles of Elaboration and Retrieval Practice in Intervention. The University of Wisconsin-Madison. Rüschoff, B., & Ritter, M. (2001). Technology-enhanced language learning: Construction of knowledge and template-based learning in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(3-4), 219-232. Rustandi, A. (2017). AN ANALYSIS OF IRF (INITIATION-RESPONSE- FEEDBACK) ON CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN EFL SPEAKING CLASS. EduLite: Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture, 2(1), 239-250. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage. Säljö, R. (2009). Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educational psychologist, 44(3), 202-208. 175 Sanjurjo, J. F., Blanco, J. M. A., & Fernández-Costales, A. (2018). Assessing the influence of socio-economic status on students' performance in Content and Language Integrated Learning. System, 73, 16-26. Savage, B. L., & Hughes, H. Z. (2014). How does Short-term Foreign Language Immersion Stimulate Language Learning?. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 24(1), 103-120. Schifter, D. (1996). What's happening in math class? (Vol. 1). New York: Teachers College Press. Schmidt, W. H., & McKnight, C. C. (1998). What can we really learn from TIMSS?. Schuth, E., Köhne, J., & Weinert, S. (2017). The influence of academic vocabulary knowledge on school performance. Learning and Instruction, 49, 157-165. Schleppegrell, M., & Moore, J. (2018). Linguistic tools for supporting emergent critical language awareness in the elementary school. In Bilingual learners and social equity (pp. 23-43). Springer, Cham. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2012). Academic language in teaching and learning: Introduction to the special issue. The elementary school journal, 112(3), 409-418. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2009, October). Language in academic subject areas and classroom instruction: What is academic language and how can we teach it. In workshop on The role of language in school learning sponsored by The National Academy of Sciences, Menlo Park, CA. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading & writing quarterly, 23(2), 139-159. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Routledge. Schochet, P. Z., & Chiang, H. S. (2010). Error Rates in Measuring Teacher and School Performance Based on Student Test Score Gains. NCEE 2010-4004. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory. Scott, J. A., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Asselin, M. (2003). Vocabulary instruction throughout the day in twenty-three Canadian upper-elementary classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 269-286. Scott, M. L., Spear, M. F., Dalessandro, L., & Marathe, V. J. (2007, September). Delaunay triangulation with transactions and barriers. In 2007 IEEE 10th International Symposium on Workload Characterization (pp. 107-113). IEEE. Sedita, J. (2005). Effective vocabulary instruction. Insights on learning disabilities, 2(1), 33-45. 176 Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2000). Models of curriculum use in the context of mathematics education reform. In Proceedings of the Twenty Second Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Columbus, OH: ERIC. Shuman, L. J., Besterfield‐Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET “professional skills”—Can they be taught? Can they be assessed?. Journal of engineering education, 94(1), 41-55. Sibold, C. (2011). Building English Language Learners' Academic Vocabulary: Strategies and Tips. Multicultural Education, 18(2), 24-28. Snow, C. E., & Kim, Y. S. (2007). Large problem spaces: The challenge of vocabulary for English language learners. Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. science, 328(5977), 450-452. Snow, C., & Moje, E. (2010). Why is everyone talking about adolescent literacy?. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 66-69. Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. The Cambridge handbook of literacy, 112, 133. Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325-344. Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL quarterly, 23(2), 201-217. Snow, C. E. (1989). Understanding social interaction and language acquisition; sentences are not enough. Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. Handbook of research on curriculum, 40(4), 402-435. Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and instruction, 18(2), 141-179. Spicer-Escalante, M. L. (2017). Introduction to dual language immersion. Perspectives on effective teaching in DLI and foreign language classrooms, 3-15 Starreveld, P. A., De Groot, A. M., Rossmark, B. M., & Van Hell, J. G. (2014). Parallel language activation during word processing in bilinguals: Evidence from word production in sentence context. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 258-276. 177 Steele, J. L., Slater, R. O., Zamarro, G., Miller, T., Li, J., Burkhauser, S., & Bacon, M. (2017). Effects of dual-language immersion programs on student achievement: Evidence from lottery data. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1_suppl), 282S-306S. Stevens, R. A., Butler, F. A., & Castellon-Wellington, M. (2001). Academic language and content assessment: Measuring the progress of English language learners (ELLs). Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles. Stevens, R. A., Butler, F. A., & Castellon-Wellington, M. (2000). Academic English and content assessment: Measuring the progress of ELLs. CSE Tec.» Rep, (552). Sundari, H. (2017). Classroom interaction in teaching English as foreign language at lower secondary schools in Indonesia. Advances in language and Literary Studies, 8(6), 147- 154. Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives (Vol. 11). Multilingual Matters. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of immersion and content-based language education, 1(1), 101-129. Swain, M. (2011). Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms: Research perspectives. Research and Practice in Immersion Education. Swain, M., & Suzuki, W. (2008). 39 Interaction, Output, and Communicative Language Learning. The handbook of educational linguistics, 557. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: Some implications for program development 1. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 169-186. Swain, M. (4). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency1. Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, 95. Taboada, A., & Rutherford, V. (2011). Developing reading comprehension and academic vocabulary for English language learners through science content: A formative experiment. Reading Psychology, 32(2), 113-157. Tedick, D. J., & Cammarata, L. (2012). Content and language integration in K–12 contexts: Student outcomes, teacher practices, and stakeholder perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 45(s1), s28-s53. Tedick, D. J., & Wesely, P. M. (2015). A review of research on content-based foreign/second language education in US K-12 contexts. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 25-40. 178 Teng (2017). Teacher’s management of classroom interaction with English language learners. Dissertation Thoms, J. J. (2012). Classroom discourse in foreign language classrooms: A review of the literature. Foreign Language Annals, 45(s1), s8-s27. Thorne, S. L., & Lantolf, J. P. (2007). A linguistics of communicative activity. Disinventing and reconstituting languages, 62, 170-195. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. Townsend, D., & Collins, P. (2009). Academic vocabulary and middle school English learners: An intervention study. Reading and Writing, 22(9), 993-1019. Townsend, D., Filippini, A., Collins, P., & Biancarosa, G. (2012). Evidence for the importance of academic word knowledge for the academic achievement of diverse middle school students. The Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 497-518. Uccelli, P., Demir‐Lira, Ö. E., Rowe, M. L., Levine, S., & Goldin‐Meadow, S. (2019). Children's early decontextualized talk predicts academic language proficiency in midadolescence. Child development, 90(5), 1650-1663. Uccelli, P., & Phillips Galloway, E. (2017). Academic language across content areas: Lessons from an innovative assessment and from students’ reflections about language. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(4), 395-404. Urmeneta, C. E., & Walsh, S. (2017). Classroom interactional competence in content and language integrated learning. Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL, 183-200. Van Lier, L. (2014). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. Routledge. van Riel, C. A., Meijer-van den Bergh, E. E., Kemps, H. L., Feuth, T., Schreuder, H. W., Hoogerbrugge, P. M., ... & Mavinkurve-Groothuis, A. M. (2014). Self-perception and quality of life in adolescents during treatment for a primary malignant bone tumour. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 18(3), 267-272. Vaughn, S., Martinez, L. R., Linan-Thompson, S., Reutebuch, C. K., Carlson, C. D., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh- grade English language learners: Findings from two experimental studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 297-324. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of LS Vygotsky: The fundamentals of defectology (Vol. 2). Springer Science & Business Media. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41. Vygotsky, L. S. (1991). Genesis of the higher mental functions. Learning to think, 32- 41. 179 Walsh, S., & Li, L. (2013). Conversations as space for learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 247-266. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180. Walker, C. L., & Tedick, D. J. (2000). The complexity of immersion education: Teachers address the issues. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 5-27. Watzinger‐Tharp, J., Rubio, F., & Tharp, D. S. (2018). Linguistic performance of dual language immersion students. Foreign Language Annals, 51(3), 575-595. Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 577-594. Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2008). Evaluating the vocabulary load of written text. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a socio-cultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge University Press. Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and education, 5(1), 1-37. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89– 100 Wright, T. S., & Neuman, S. B. (2014). Paucity and disparity in kindergarten oral vocabulary instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(3), 330-357. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications. 180