System 114 (2023) 103022
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system
The distributed knowledge base: Preservice language teachers’
positioning in language–content teacher collaboration
Minh Hue Nguyen *, Marianne Turner, Jessica Premier
School of Curriculum, Teaching and Inclusive Education, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia
Content area teacher指的是教授特定学科内容的教师，例如数学、科学、语言艺术、社会研究等等
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Teacher collaboration
Content and language integration
Distributed knowledge base
Positioning theory
Effective language–content teacher collaboration is beneficial when teaching content to English
language learners through the medium of English. Preparing preservice teachers (PSTs) for
collaboration is increasingly common, but there is still a perception that the English language
teacher’s role is more supportive than collaborative. In this paper, we report on research that
provided English language PSTs with a more agentic, collaborative role. For data collection, we
audio-recorded English language and content PSTs’ collaboration activities as part of preservice
programs at an Australian university and interviewed the PSTs after they completed the collab­
oration activities. We used a framework of distributed knowledge base and positioning theory to
analyse the data. The findings showed that English language PSTs positioned themselves and were
positioned by the content PSTs as leading in the shared domains and language-related domains
and as supporting in content-related domains of professional knowledge. We discuss implications
for theory, research and practice in preparing language teachers for collaboration with content
teachers.
1. Introduction
Over the last few decades, English-speaking countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA, have promoted the
integration of English as an additional language (EAL) students in content classrooms. Under this schooling policy, language–content
teacher collaboration (hereafter, collaboration) has gained increasing attention (Creese, 2010; Honigsfeld & Dove, 2019). Research has
discovered that effective collaboration can enhance teachers’ practice and EAL students’ learning (Nguyen, 2021; Nguyen & Dang,
2021; Villavicencio et al., 2021). Yet, the literature demonstrates that English language teachers are often relegated to only a sup­
portive role when collaborating with content area teachers (Arkoudis, 2006; Creese, 2010; DelliCarpini, 2014; Zappa-Hollman, 2018).
Previous researchers have found that this relegation is harmful to meaningful collaboration, teacher learning, and student outcomes
(Turner, 2015, 2016; Villavicencio et al., 2021).
It has been argued that teacher education (TE) needs to prepare PSTs for collaboration (DelliCarpini, 2014; Honigsfeld & Dove,
2019). In light of this, our approach to addressing the issue of marginalising English language teachers is through TE. We agree with
Honigsfeld and Dove (2019) that giving PSTs the opportunity to experience equal-footing collaboration before they go into the pro­
fession can help, even in a small way, to promote effective collaboration when they become in-service teachers. However, the
perception of a supportive role for English language teachers has mostly been based on the binary view of language knowledge versus
Content area teacher指的是教授特定学科内容的教师，例如数学、科学、语言艺术、社会研究等等
* Corresponding author. Clayton Campus, Monash University, 19 Ancora Imparo Way, Level 1, Building 92, VIC, 3800, Australia.
E-mail address: minh.hue.nguyen@monash.edu (M.H. Nguyen).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103022
Received 2 August 2022; Received in revised form 21 February 2023; Accepted 22 February 2023
Available online 24 February 2023
0346-251X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
System 114 (2023) 103022
M.H. Nguyen et al.
disciplinary knowledge (Arkoudis, 2006; Creese, 2010; Villavicencio et al., 2021; Zappa-Hollman, 2018), and it is well established that
teaching English language learners involves more extended professional knowledge (Bigelow & Ranney, 2005; Bunch, 2013; Freeman,
2020; Hammond, 2014; see also Section 2). Given the taken-for-granted role of language support so often assigned to English language
teachers, our objective was to intentionally provide English language PSTs in an Australian TE program with an experience that gave
them the opportunity to take the lead in collaboration with content PSTs through our pairing of more experienced English language
PSTs with less experienced content PSTs. Exploring the distribution of professional knowledge in situations where English language
PSTs lead collaborations has the potential to inform TE in preparing English language teachers for more agentic collaborative roles
with content teachers.
In order to understand the English language PSTs’ engagement in collaboration, we used positioning theory (Davies & Harré, 1990)
and a framework of distributed knowledge base, which we developed based on the work of Hammond (2014). In the paper, we first
review literature on the professional knowledge for teaching EAL students in content areas. Next, we examine literature on the
positioning of language teachers in collaboration and explain positioning theory and its ability to support research on positioning in
collaboration. We then explain the methodology and discuss the findings and implications.
2. Professional knowledge for teaching EAL students in the content classroom
The professional knowledge necessary for teaching EAL students has historically been the domain of English language teachers
(Bigelow & Ranney, 2005). Over the last few decades, professional knowledge for teaching EAL students has also been discussed in
relation to content teachers. For example, the notion of pedagogical language knowledge (Bunch, 2013) has been used to refer to a
distinctive type of pedagogical knowledge needed by content teachers for teaching EAL learners. Nevertheless, limited linguistic
knowledge among content teachers has been noted in different countries, such as Australia (e.g., Love et al., 2015), New Zealand (e.g.,
Gleeson, 2015) and the United States (e.g., Schall-Leckrone, 2017). Turner (2020) argued that it is important to distinguish between
knowledge of language expected of language specialists and that expected of generalist teachers. One way of maintaining a distinction
between specialist and generalist knowledge may be to consider EAL-in-the-content-area professional knowledge in a distributed way.
In this study, we conceptualise distributed knowledge base as the knowledge distributed between an English language teacher and a
content teacher when collaborating to teach EAL students in content classrooms. Our framework draws on the types of professional
knowledge proposed by Hammond (2014), but in this study we think about such knowledge in a distributed way to address the issue of
separating English language specialists from content areas that we identify in the literature under the Introduction (Arkoudis, 2006;
Creese, 2010; DelliCarpini, 2014; Villavicencio et al., 2021). Hammond’s work is significant since it was derived from over ten years of
research she and her colleagues conducted on EAL students in Australian content classrooms. In their research, they worked with
English language specialists and content teachers who collaboratively planned and implemented successful programs for EAL learners
in content classrooms. Based on her reflections on these programs, Hammond (2014) suggested that “the kind of knowledge required of
[language and content] teachers in the development of strong pedagogical frameworks” (p. 515) for teaching EAL students in content
areas must include at least.
Fig. 1. The distributed knowledge base for teaching EAL students in content areas.
2
System 114 (2023) 103022
M.H. Nguyen et al.
●
●
●
●
●
●
knowledge of an extensive repertoire of teaching/pedagogical techniques;
knowledge of students and their language and literacy abilities;
the theoretical understandings of language, literacy, and learning that give depth and cohesion to the overall design of the program;
ability to undertake formative assessment of students;
ability to analyse curriculum demands; and
extensive discipline knowledge (e.g., of science, geography).
We understood Hammond’s (2014) types of knowledge above to be a useful point of departure for our work on collaboration. We built
on Hammond’s original concepts of knowledge types to incorporate the notion of the distribution of professional knowledge – in
recognition of the way that there can be differences in the knowledge base of language and content teachers – and also a shared knowledge
base in collaboration. This led us to conceptualise the framework in a different way and develop the illustrative graphic model in Fig. 1.
The distributed knowledge base we conceptualised in Fig. 1 comprises the knowledge each teacher brings to the collaboration and
what they co-construct in the process of working together. The knowledge base is divided into six domains as suggested by Hammond
(2014), and we reconceptualised it by distributing it around the large circle. We further classified the six domains into three groups of
knowledge, including (1) language-centric domains (knowledge of students and their language and literacy abilities; the theoretical
understandings of language, literacy, and learning), (2) content-centric domains (ability to undertake formative assessment of stu­
dents; extensive discipline knowledge), and (3) shared domains (knowledge of pedagogical/teaching techniques; ability to analyse
curriculum demands). The overlapping smaller inner circles indicate that both distinctive knowledge from each teacher and their
shared knowledge are important in the distributed knowledge base. We used this framework to guide our analysis of data to understand
how professional knowledge was distributed between language and content teachers across the six knowledge domains suggested by
Hammond (2014).
3. Collaboration and positioning theory
In the literature on collaboration, teacher positioning has been identified as a major issue (Zappa-Hollman, 2018). There have been
insights into productive positioning as well as unproductive positioning. Productive positioning has been found to involve the language
teacher planning conversations with the content teacher to explore the latter’s ideas and guide their thinking on EAL related matters
(Arkoudis, 2003). Positioning is also productive when content–language teachers’ relationship is established on an “equal footing”,
mutual respect and trust in relation to expertise and contribution, especially recognition of a focus on language and the EAL teacher’s
expertise (Nguyen, 2021; Nguyen & Dang, 2021; Premier & Parr, 2019) Creese, 2010; Davison, 2006). In productive positioning, both
teachers adopt some understanding and interest in the other’s teaching pedagogy, and the EAL teacher demonstrates power in strategic
ways (e.g., asking questions, making linguistic choices) to gain epistemological authority within the scope of the content curriculum
(Arkoudis, 2006). In unproductive positioning, however, language and content teachers have unequal power relations, where content
teachers are positioned as superior and EAL teachers are concurrently marginalised and viewed as subordinate (Arkoudis, 2006;
Creese, 2010; Davison, 2006; Zappa-Hollman, 2018). Content teachers are also positioned as primarily teaching the content to the
majority of students (Arkoudis, 2003, 2006; Creese, 2010) while EAL teachers are positioned as primarily responsible for providing
input on how to simplify the language of the curriculum for the EAL students (Creese, 2010).
The above insights into teachers’ positioning in collaboration suggest that unproductive positionings are still common and need to
be overcome. This is where TE can potentially make a difference. The literature cited above also focuses predominantly on in-service,
experienced teachers and less on PSTs’ positionings. Among a small number of studies on preservice collaboration, DelliCarpini (2014)
revealed the effect of teacher educators’ modelling of collaboration on language and content PSTs’ development of knowledge and
beliefs related to collaboration. (Turner, 2015, 2016) examined English language PSTs’ perceptions after engaging in a collaboration
activity with content PSTs and found that the English language PSTs lacked confidence in the activity and positioned themselves in a
supportive role. This was the catalyst for thinking about how to give PSTs more agency in the collaboration.
In order to investigate English language PSTs’ positioning in the collaboration, we drew on positioning theory. This theory accounts
for the discursive practices that give rise to how people make sense of themselves and others in given situations (Davies & Harré, 1990).
Positioning refers to assigning a position to someone in interaction, and a position means a “cluster of beliefs with respect to the rights
and duties of the members of a group of people to act in certain ways” (Harré, 2012, p. 6). There are two common modes of positioning,
namely interactive positioning and reflexive positioning. Interactive positioning happens when “what one person says positions
another” (Davies & Harré, 1990, p. 48). Reflexive positioning refers to how an individual positions him/herself in conversations (van
Langenhove & Harré, 1999). To this end, collaboration presents a context for examining collaborators’ positioning, issues of power
relations, and knowledge construction (Tanghe & Park, 2016). Therefore, we used positioning theory to help us interpret how pro­
fessional knowledge was distributed between English language PSTs and content PSTs in collaboration through the ways the former
positioned themselves and were positioned by the latter.
4. Methods
4.1. Research setting and participants
The research team included three academics from an Australian university. The authors had been involved in lecturing and
researching collaboration. The first author taught a core EAL specialist unit for English language PSTs while the second and third
3
System 114 (2023) 103022
M.H. Nguyen et al.
Table 1
Research setting.
Unit and participants
Unit description
Collaboration related TE activities
EAL specialist unit: 8 English language PSTs
Core method unit for English language PSTs (secondary), 3 h a week
EAL elective unit: 8 content PSTs
Elective unit for content PSTs (secondary), 3 h a week
A lecture and a tutorial on collaboration
A cross unit collaboration activity
A cross unit collaboration activity
authors taught an elective EAL unit for content PSTs. Table 1 outlines the two units which comprised the setting of this research.
Both cohorts were exposed to language–content teacher collaboration activities embedded within and across their respective units.
Specifically, the English language PSTs – who were either fourth-year B.Ed. students or graduate students doing a Master of Teaching –
completed a 1-h lecture and a 2-h tutorial on collaboration and related topics in the EAL specialist unit just before they participated in
the cross-units collaboration activity in the research. In the lecture, the roles of English language teachers, including a collaborative
role, were presented alongside principles and strategies for effective collaboration. In the tutorial, groups of English language PSTs
prepared, presented and received feedback on a poster on collaboration strategies, factors sustaining/hindering effective collabora­
tion, and personal experiences with collaboration. The tutorial also prepared the English language PSTs specifically for a collaboration
activity (described in the next paragraph) by discussing a list of prompts as resources for their collaboration.
In the collaboration activity, each English language PST paired up with a content PST to jointly plan for the hypothetical teaching of
EAL students in content classrooms. It was not possible to have the pairs subsequently co-teach the lessons given the course organi­
sation. During the planning, the English language PSTs were asked to elicit a possible EAL learner profile the content PSTs might have
in their class based on their previous observation and teaching experiences on placement. The planning was based on this learner
profile and a text (i.e., teaching material in the content area) that the content PSTs had been asked to bring to the activity. While the
English language PSTs were prepared for the activity in the lecture and tutorial described above, the content PSTs were only asked to
bring the text and use it in the joint planning. Neither PST group were given instructions about who should lead and who should
support during the planning process. The collaboration activity, or the deliberate pairing of more experienced English language PSTs
with content PSTs who were third-year B.Ed. students formed the focus of data collection in this study.
Due to our direct involvement in the teaching, the informed consent, recruitment, and data collection processes were conducted by
a research assistant to maintain confidentiality until the final results of the units had been released. The research assistant explained
this to the PSTs so they knew that their (lack of) participation would not affect their grades in any way. There were 35 students from
each unit who participated in the collaboration activity (out of 41 English language PSTs and 73 content PSTs). The research assistant
deliberately paired the consenting PSTs, one from each unit, and this resulted in eight pairs. The participants were selected based on
their voluntary consent rather than purposive sampling based on certain criteria. Only the eight consenting pairs were audio-recorded
during the activity. The eight participating English language PSTs (Table 2) include four first-year Master of Teaching students and
four fourth-year B.Ed. students (seven female and one male). The eight participating content PSTs were third year B.Ed. students
majoring in various content areas. All the PSTs were working towards becoming qualified teachers in their respective areas as
identified in this study. They had accumulated at least three weeks of professional experience teaching in schools as part of their
course.
Table 2
Participants.
Pair
PST code
Profile
Content text used in joint planning activity
Pair 1
ET1
CT1
ET2
CT2
ET3
CT3
ET4
CT4
ET5
CT5
ET6
CT6
ET7
CT7
ET8
CT8
Fourth year B.Ed.
Third year B.Ed./Legal studies
Fourth year B.Ed.
Third year B.Ed./History
First year Master of Teaching
Third year B.Ed./English
Fourth year B.Ed.
Third year B.Ed./Science
First year Master of Teaching
Third year B.Ed./Biology
First year Master of Teaching
Third year B.Ed./Science
First year Master of Teaching
Third year B.Ed./History
Fourth year B.Ed.
Third year B.Ed./Maths
A text introducing the difference between civil law and criminal law
Pair 2
Pair 3
Pair 4
Pair 5
Pair 6
Pair 7
Pair 8
A speech on the Congress of the United States
An extract from Romeo and Juliet
A text on spaceships
A text on the water cycle
A video on physics
A text on the history of money
A text on matrix
4
System 114 (2023) 103022
M.H. Nguyen et al.
4.2. Data collection and analysis
The eight pairs’ collaboration activities were audio-recorded by the research assistant and used as the primary data. This provided
insights into the positionings of the English language PSTs in action. Four of the English language PSTs and five of the content PSTs also
volunteered to be interviewed by the research assistant at the end of the semester using a list of semi-structured questions developed by
the authors. The interviews focused on their perceptions of the role of English language specialists in collaboration and the distinct
knowledge that they have. The audio-recorded interviews lasted approximately 15 min each and served as a secondary data source. As
stipulated by the ethics process, all the collaboration activity and interview recordings were transferred to the researchers only after
unit results had been released. These were then transcribed by professional transcription services before being analysed by the authors.
We followed the steps in Table 3 to analyse data, with the first author initiating the analysis and the second and third author
providing feedback on the analysis before the team reached an agreement. Specifically, we thematically analysed the data into pro­
fessional knowledge domains first then we analysed the positionings of the English language PSTs teacher in each domain of
knowledge. In Step 1 (Table 3) our analysis was guided by Hammond’s knowledge domains as sub-codes. The concepts of leading/
supporting are new in the area of positioning in collaboration, as we have discussed in the paper, and this can vary from one knowledge
domain to another depending on the PSTs’ specialism and individual knowledge. Therefore, we did not use sub-codes for what we
counted as leading/supporting in positioning analysis (Step 2, Table 3). Instead, we looked for any possible ways a leading/supporting
position might manifest in the interaction. A leading position was understood to manifest when guidance or knowledge was elicited
and appreciated by the other PST or when one PST makes a suggestion or a guiding question.
5. Findings
The analysis revealed that the English language PSTs positioned themselves – and were positioned by the content PSTs – as leading
the collaboration in the language-related and shared domains and as playing a supporting role in the content-related domains (Fig. 2).
We begin with findings related to the English language PSTs’ leading position followed by their supporting position. Within each subsection, we present findings related to both English language PSTs’ self-positioning and the ways they were positioned by the content
PSTs.
5.1. Leading in shared domains
5.1.1. Extensive repertoire of pedagogical techniques
In the following example, ET41 positioned himself with pedagogical knowledge for using a text through his suggestion and
explanation of “the basic reading guide”:
My plan for this one would be to follow the basic reading guide. […] If you’re reading a literary text or anything like that, then
you need to break it down into activities before reading, during reading, and after reading. Before reading, […] you need to
know the schemata, […] so you know what you’re going to be talking about. Then, while you’re reading […], you’re under­
lining keywords you may want to define, you’re looking out for certain quotes, certain uses of language […]. Then afterwards
…. (ET4)
In this extract, ET4 demonstrated his reflexive positioning as competent in the area of pedagogical knowledge through sound and
detailed understanding of the teaching approach as well as his willingness to contribute this knowledge to the collaboration. Similarly,
when asked during the interview if he felt like he had something to offer to the content teacher, ET4 mentioned “the theoretical
background … why we do these things as opposed to just this is the best way to do it” while ET1 mentioned “the pedagogies [my
lecturer] taught us”.
During the collaboration activity, CT2 asked ET2 for feedback on her plan to have students write their own speech. The following
extract shows that ET2 led the discussion using pedagogical knowledge.
CT2: So, what would you do instead?
ET2: So, maybe I would say, ‘Let’s just pretend we are the representative of our school, and we would like to introduce blah blah
blah to the community, how would you say that in your speech?’
CT2: Yeah that’s a good idea. Drag the big social context to the school context. That’s easier for students. [ …. ]
ET2: But maybe I’m not going to ask each one of them to write their own text. Instead, I would engage the whole classroom to do
one. So, everybody can say what they would like to say, and probably as a teacher I would ask them what exactly is the words
that you are going to write in your speech.
CT2: So, I would write on the board and then I let them to tell me what should I write. Is that what you mean?
ET2: Yeah.
1
In the findings section, the PSTs from each pair were referred to using a code ending in the same number. For example, the collaborators forming
Pair 1 include ET1 (i.e., English language PST1) and CT1 (i.e., Content PST1).
5
M.H. Nguyen et al.
Table 3
Data analysis process.
Example 1 – ET’s leading position
Example 2 – ET’s supporting position
Coding the transcripts into domains of knowledge by using our
adaptation of Hammond’s (2014) framework (Fig. 1).
The following excerpt was coded to the knowledge domain
Extensive discipline knowledge following Hammond (2014):
I can’t wait to kind of collaborate with an EAL specialist who does
not necessarily have the expertise of knowledge in my content area
that can bring things to light that I would not have noticed. (CT2)
Step 2:
Positioning
analysis
Coding the data within each professional knowledge domain
using positioning theory (Davies & Harré, 1990) to identify
the way the English language PSTs positioned themselves and
were positioned by the content PSTs.
The following excerpt was coded to the knowledge domain
Pedagogical techniques following Hammond (2014):
CT2: So, what would you do instead?
ET2: So, maybe I would say, ‘Let’s just pretend we are the
representative of our school, and we would like to introduce
blah blah blah to the community, how would you say that in
your speech?’
CT2: Yeah that’s a good idea. Drag the big social context to the
school context. That’s easier for students.
The excerpt above was further examined to identify how ET2
positioned herself and was positioned by CT2 in relation to
Pedagogical techniques. As a result, we found that ET2 positioned
herself and was positioned by CT2 in a leading role in the
pedagogical domain, as evidenced through ET2’s suggestion and
CT2’s elicitation, interest in and receptiveness of the suggested
techniques.
6
Analysis process
Step 1:
Thematic
analysis
The excerpt above was further analysed to identify how CT2
positioned the English language PST as having a supporting role in
the identified domain. This is evidenced in the content PST’s
acknowledgement that despite a lack of content knowledge, an
English language specialist can contribute in different ways.
System 114 (2023) 103022
System 114 (2023) 103022
M.H. Nguyen et al.
Fig. 2. The positioning of English language PSTs in the distributed knowledge base for teaching EAL learners in content areas (adapted from
Hammond (2014)).
CT2: That’s a good idea.
In this exchange, CT2 requested teaching ideas from ET2 to cater for EAL students. ET2 offered a suggestion, which was well
received by CT2 because it would give EAL students a more familiar context for their speech. As ET2 went on to elaborate on her
suggestion, CT2 showed further interest and finally appreciation. ET2’s confidence in suggesting pedagogical techniques and CT2’s
interest and receptiveness show that ET2 positioned herself and was positioned by CT2 in a leading role in the pedagogical domain.
Another salient finding related to English language PSTs’ pedagogical knowledge was that during the joint planning activity, most
of the English language PSTs suggested techniques for teaching content-specific vocabulary. Some example techniques include.
● providing a glossary of terms (Pairs 2, 3, and 6; e.g., So I’d recommend a glossary for words that are related to your subject like that they
need to know)
● visualising concepts (Pairs 3, 5, and 8; e.g., I would highlight some of those terms there and possibly give a lot of pictures),
● showing annotation of vocabulary in the text on the large screen (Pairs 3, 5, and 8; e.g., Since you’re using the iPad, I’m sure schools
have connections to the large screen … So if you use technology like that they can see in real time),
● writing concepts clearly on the board (Pairs 4 and 8; e.g., You can write it on the whiteboard, it’s much faster … When you go through
vocabulary, it’s good to have a visual of the word as well. So they can remember the spelling),
● explaining vocabulary through examples (Pairs 5 and 8; e.g., You … highlighting the vocabulary and also putting in the example).
A possible explanation of this focus on teaching vocabulary was that the English language PSTs could clearly see how EAL students
would struggle in this area.
All eight content PSTs were found to ask the English language PSTs for suggestions related to teaching techniques for EAL students.
The content PSTs predominantly accepted and appreciated the teaching techniques suggested by the English language PSTs. Although
pedagogical knowledge was understood to be one of the core domains of professional knowledge for both cohorts of PSTs, and both
cohorts had completed pedagogy-related units in their degrees, the English language PSTs’ position in this domain during the joint
planning activity was that of mentor since they have EAL specific pedagogy knowledge.
5.1.2. Ability to analyse curriculum demands
The English language PSTs took a leading position in this domain in light of their understanding of EAL students’ language and
learning abilities discussed in the next section. In analysing the curriculum demands, just as with pedagogical techniques, the English
language PSTs were mostly concerned with the vocabulary demands in the teaching materials, a conspicuous difficulty. The following
is an extract from Pair 8, which exemplifies how ET8 positioned herself in relation to this domain:
So, words like ‘arithmetic’, ‘transformations’, ‘inverse’, you might have to consider […] at least explaining what the words
mean because in the sentence it might not give context. [ …. ] ‘The size or dimension of the matrix is […].’ That’s a very jargon7
System 114 (2023) 103022
M.H. Nguyen et al.
heavy sentence. [ …. ] So just a sentence like this, if you get them to read this, they will probably struggle. So, it would be
worthwhile to go through it. (ET8)
Here, ET8 took a leading role in the collaboration via her ability to analyse curriculum demands in the form of content-specific
language with which EAL students would struggle.
While most English language PSTs focused on analysing the vocabulary demands of the texts, ET5 used her specialist knowledge to
analyse the content-area curriculum demands in relation to EAL students’ language levels. When invited by CT5 to comment further on
the text, ET5 said:
I just want to work out what level we would be directing that text to in terms of English language learners. [ …. ] I’m just
thinking on the C levels, where would you be? If you’re teaching to Year 7 level, would you be teaching to an EAL student with
the language abilities at a […] C2 level or C3? […] I mean something like this, would you be looking at a student who has got no
English language skills whatsoever. [ …. ] Or would you be looking at the student … ? This text is more instructing towards
students at a C2 or C3 level. (ET5)
Here, ET5 was taking the lead in determining what language ability level would be most suitable for the text at hand. In the context
of the activity, this quote appeared as a monologue with questions raised and answered by ET5 herself. She referred to the C levels,
which are from the Victorian EAL Curriculum, to determine the suitable groups of students for this text.
In terms of interactive positioning, most content PSTs were found to rely on the English language specialists’ ability to analyse the
curriculum demands in their collaborative planning. For example, CT2 consulted ET2 on the task demands on EAL students.
CT2: Do you think at the end I can give them a chance to write their own speech, like, pretend they are writing to the public? [
…. ] Do you think it’s a good idea?”
ET2: That’s a thing that normally teachers do in the English classroom, […] ‘I show you a text and then you can write a text on
your own’, but I feel like for EAL students, maybe one or two texts is not quite enough for them to construct their own text.
CT2: Like a short paragraph is enough?
ET2: I feel like they definitely need to get more exposure to the sentences of the text, so they have more confidence in con­
structing one themselves.
This shows that CT2 positioned her collaborator as having expertise for advising on the suitability of her teaching plans for the
abilities and needs of EAL students. In turn, ET2 suggested that the proposed teaching plan might be challenging for EAL students who
would need more scaffolding to engage. Similarly, CT6 sought advice from her collaborator.
CT6: But because this class includes some non-EAL students, so I don’t know how to deal with [the text].
ET6: So, the best way to go about that is you can provide […] the EAL students with a slightly different copy of the sheet with a
bit more information or a glossary of terms.
CT6 in this extract implicitly ascribed a leading position to her English specialist partner, who, in turn, was able to take up that
leading position by suggesting providing support to EAL students.
In another example from Pair 8, as ET8 verbally analysed the demands of the text in light of EAL students’ learning needs, CT8
showed agreement with the English language PST’s analysis of the text demands.
ET8: Let’s continue looking at our textbook. ‘A matrix is a rectangular array of numbers’. Words like ’array’, it doesn’t add much
to the sentence but it’s just a different way of saying various numbers [ …. ]
CT8: Oh yeah. I’ll highlight that. Definitely should explain it: What does array mean?
This quote also indicated that ET8’s leadership role in the discussion was reinforced by her understanding of language as it per­
tained to mathematics – the content area in question.
5.2. Leading in language-centric domains
5.2.1. Knowledge of students and their language and literacy abilities
The English language PSTs were also found to have a leading position in knowledge of students and their language and literacy
abilities. For example, the following was the feedback that ET5 provided on her collaborator’s idea of using a worksheet:
If they haven’t been to school for long, if they’ve come over as refugees or immigrants and then being in the language immersion
school and then been put into Year 8 or 9, they might not have ever filled out a worksheet before. Which seems like a simple
thing to you and me, but then if they might not know that you have to fill in the gaps in those certain places because they haven’t
been learning since grade Prep to do that. (ET5)
In this quote, ET5 explained to her collaborator that due to EAL students’ prior schooling experiences, they might not be able to
understand and follow simple classroom instructions to engage with the curriculum. Even though there is a good chance that EAL
students would have filled out worksheets in an English language centre (a language immersion school) before arriving in a content
class, the importance of not making assumptions comes through very clearly. In another example, ET6 offered to her collaborator: “If
8
System 114 (2023) 103022
M.H. Nguyen et al.
you have any questions about […] the EAL learner profile, I can help with that”. As the activity unfolded, she continued taking the lead
in the joint planning activity.
ET6: I’ll show you, there’s the draft curriculum for EAL. [ …. ] So, this is the curriculum for EAL that will begin next year. But
this is what we’re using. [ …. ] These are the levels here.
CT6: Oh, okay. Yeah?
ET6: So, you would be looking at probably […] this level, Pathway C.
CT6: Oh, yeah?
ET6: [ …. ] So, this shows what level of English they need to be comfortable in certain classrooms. [ …. ] So, level two and level
one they need a lot of help. Level four, they would be able to probably do a lot of what the class is doing. [ …. ] If you go further
down it goes into detail about what they can or cannot do in each of the levels. So, for example, this is reading and viewing if
you’re doing a video. […] Level C2, […] these are the things that they can do. So, I think when you’re doing your EAL student
profile, you can say they are level C2, which means that they can locate specific information on diagrams.
ET6 in this exchange was proactively offering specialist knowledge of students and their language and literacy abilities and
demonstrating how to use the EAL Curriculum to assess EAL students’ language abilities against the curriculum demands.
The leading position of the English language PSTs was also revealed in the interviews. Following are typical self-perceptions of
English language PSTs’ knowledge in this area in response to the interview question: “What do you think you know as a soon-to-be EAL
teacher that you think non-EAL teachers might not know?”:
But what I’ve realized is that [content-area teachers] actually don’t have the grasp of the fact that EAL students have difficulties
with the basics, basic vocabs. [ …. ] They just don’t have probably the lesson preparation of providing them with the necessary
vocabs for them to follow the lessons. (ET3)
ET3 perceived this knowledge to be distinctive to the English language teacher role rather than an element of content-area teachers’
knowledge. This perception was echoed by content PSTs, such as in the following:
I do think [collaboration] helps me to design the lesson plan or identify the learners needs. EAL teachers probably know more
about students than me. […]. They teach EAL. They can identify how the EAL students learn and what’s their language level
[…], but I’m not sure what’s the difference between year eight EAL students and year nine EAL students. (CT1)
This leading position of the English language teacher in knowledge of students was further revealed below:
My role? I think it’s just explaining what EAL students need, [ …. ] like, make their needs known to other teachers so they can
cater for them. (ET1)
Well, I think it’s […] collaborating with the other teachers to make them aware that there’s a range of things that might be a
barrier and it’s not only language […] so that all, like the student, me and the other method teacher are all working together for
the best for the student. (ET2).
The two quotes above show the English language PSTs’ views on the leading role of the English language teacher in relation to this
knowledge when collaborating with content-area teachers differed markedly. ET1’s self-positioning revealed her role as being limited
to informing the content-area teacher of EAL students’ needs and suggesting strategies for the content-teacher teacher to meet the
needs. She did not see the English language teacher as having an active role in meeting the needs of the students. In contrast, ET2’s selfpositioning involved not only making the CT aware of language learning needs but also actively working with the content teacher in
meeting these needs. Although both ET1 and ET2 were working with the content PST partner towards meeting the needs of EAL
students, their levels of involvement and leadership in the collaboration were different.
5.2.2. Theoretical understandings of language, literacy and learning
Understanding of issues related to the acquisition of a second or additional language also appeared to influence the English lan­
guage PSTs’ positioning as leader in the discussions. For example, data from Pair 3 below show that ET3 took an opportunity to discuss
the use of students’ first language in second language learning.
ET3: [ …. ] Would you consider exploiting EAL students’ first language if you’re able to?
CT3: [ ….] Do you have a recommendation? I don’t know how in an English classroom to best implement their home language
or native language explicitly.
ET3: […] I’m just asking because it’s been shown that it actually helps for them to learn when they have access to their mother
tongue as well. [ …. ] That would give them motivation as well because, like, it’s a safe, you’re acknowledging the fact that they
have their own language.
In this quote, ET3 initiated the discussion topic. CT3’s response then invited her to make a suggestion. In her final turn above, ET3
showed her understanding that learning an additional language can benefit from using the learner’s first language. When the content
9
System 114 (2023) 103022
M.H. Nguyen et al.
PST proposed the idea of having EAL students write in their first language and then translate it into English, ET3 elaborated on the
benefits of this idea:
So, if you can tell them, ‘if you learn doing this process, this translation for me, then you would be able to help or ease your
parents outside or your communities to understand what’s going on around you.’ And it’s like, they would be more active
participants of the society because they, it feels like they can find the value of what they’re doing or what they’re studying at the
moment. (ET3)
In this quote, ET3 demonstrated an understanding that the EAL student might feel that they needed to speak English in an envi­
ronment where everyone was speaking English, and that it might be necessary to explain to the student that her/his linguistic resources
were an asset.
Further, in Pair 5, the ET5 led the discussion on multilingual literacy.
ET5: So, when you see the EAL student, do you look to their level of knowledge and their understanding in their first language in
addition to that in their second language that they’re still learning? [ …. ]
CT5: Well maybe just ask them questions, like one by one, to see if they can understand or not.
ET5: So, I think that question is more to do with seeing them holistically. So, seeing the student as having a greater under­
standing, based on their previous schooling and in another country, for example, and language ability in their first language.
Sort of seeing them as […] having more comprehensive language ability than what they can actually just explain in English, for
example.
Here, ET5 first prompted CT5 to think about language and learning in relation to the students’ extended linguistic repertoire. When
receiving CT5’s response, ET5 continued by explaining her question. Through her explanation, ET5 revealed her understanding of EAL
students’ linguistic repertoire as not only comprising their skills in English but also the resources they brought into the learning process
from their past experiences.
Some of the English language PSTs’ understanding of learning was revealed through their reflection on experiences as EAL learners
themselves having been in EAL students’ position:
I’ve been in an EAL student’s shoes. I know how it felt. I know how anxi[ous] it is when you’re learning a language and how it
actually stops a child to study or to even try to talk because you’re afraid of making mistakes and being judged because you’re
making mistakes. (ET3, Interview)
In this extract, the ET3 recounted the anxiety she experienced as an EAL student and how it impacted on her response in the
classroom. Such experience helped to develop an understanding of what it is like learning in a second language and empathy towards
EAL students. Some other English language PSTs shared this perception of their knowledge in the following typical interview
responses:
I think it can be an understanding of, maybe, the difficulty with learning a language, and like, where learners have come from
and the cultural and linguistic factors that play a part in their learning. (ET4)
Well, I found this in a lot of my classes. As a preservice EAL teacher, I’m aware of some of the barriers in the mainstream classrooms
that a lot of other method teachers aren’t aware of, and it’s things such as just different education cultures around the world, different
expectations in the classroom. [ …. ] Like a lot of the other PSTs think of the language as the only barrier, but there’s so many things
that it could be. (ET2).
The PSTs above demonstrated the knowledge that EAL students’ learning can be influenced by a range of factors, including not only
the language but also their cultural and educational background and the support provided by teachers. The English language PSTs
viewed this knowledge as a valuable contribution in collaborating with content teachers to support EAL students’ learning.
5.3. Supporting in content-centric domains
5.3.1. Formative assessment
The data showed content and English language PSTs’ focus on assessment of content-area knowledge rather than separating
language out from this. Consequently, the content PSTs took a leading role while the English language PSTs took a supporting role. The
following example illustrates ET4’s self-positioning as supporting CT4 in formative assessment of students’ learning:
I’d be thinking, once we’re at an activity point where I know students are writing through their paragraph, I can come around to
each student and ask a couple of questions to know where their mindset is, if they comprehended it, if they had little grey areas,
whether they were clear with the task or with the content. Then, if they’re not, going through key parts and then maybe
adjusting the aim of the task if the students are very much struggling with it. (ET4)
In this extract, ET4 offered to formatively assess and support EAL students individually during a whole class writing activity. He
explained his plans in detail, elaborating on the criteria he would be using to assess students’ task performance. He then proposed an
action plan to support EAL students if they struggle with the task.
Within Pair 5, ET5 prompted CT5 to think about a formative assessment plan for assessing EAL students’ content knowledge.
10
System 114 (2023) 103022
M.H. Nguyen et al.
ET5: How do you find out if they already know these concepts in a different language? [ …. ]
CT5: That’s a good question. [ …. ] I think if they are from China I can just ask them in Chinese, if they know the content or not,
but for other students … because I could translate the words first. So maybe I’ll show them the keywords in their own language
and ask them if they know something about it.
ET5: What’s another way, do you reckon, if you weren’t just translating the words? […] I mean even vocabulary, putting vocab
together to create the concepts or even like diagrams you could use.
In this extract, even though ET5 used her question to initiate the discussion on formative assessment of EAL students’ under­
standing of content-area concepts, she was taking a supporting position in the assessment plan. She first tried to understand the
partner’s formative assessment plan. When CT5, who speaks Chinese, revealed her plan to use Chinese to check Chinese-speaking EAL
students’ understanding of the content, ET5 was then able to provide a suggestion for assessing EAL students’ understanding when a
common language was not available. Later in the discussion, it became clear that this supplementary assessment strategy involved
asking students to make connections between related concepts to show their understanding.
The supporting role of the English language PST in ability to undertake formative assessment of students can also be seen in the
following extract from Pair 5.
CT5: Can we prepare some tests for them? Or maybe like different level of tests and maybe give them the easiest one first and
then if they got a very good mark then give them the middle level one.
ET5: So that would be in response to gauging their knowledge.
In this quote, CT5 took the lead and ET5 was in a supporting role. CT5’s inclusive use of “we”, a question inviting feedback, and her
proposed assessment strategies indicated that she was seeking support from the English language partner.
5.3.2. Extensive discipline knowledge
The final domain of professional knowledge, extensive discipline knowledge, is the core domain of the content teacher’s profes­
sional knowledge. Within this domain, the English language PSTs’ played a supporting role rather than a leading role. Unsurprisingly,
none of the English language PSTs positioned themselves as having extensive knowledge in content areas. Below are examples from
Pair 5 and Pair 6 that illustrate this typical self-positioning.
ET5: So, sorry, what subject are you? What’s your specialisation?
CT5: Um, Biology.
ET5: Biology! […] Something I know nothing about.
CT6: I don’t know how to design an activity for this review. […] Do you have some ideas to help me?
ET6: Yeah, I don’t know because I haven’t watched the video and I don’t know much about Physics.
In these exchanges, the English language PSTs were clear about their lack of understanding of the content areas. ET6 further
implied that if she had watched the video (i.e., the teaching material), it might have been possible for her to make some suggestions for
teaching activities.
From the perspectives of some content PSTs, English language specialists’ lack of extensive disciplinary knowledge appeared to be a
concern:
Like the EAL teachers are not the experts in your content area and when you identify the technic terms, sometimes they are not
familiar with them. It’s not helpful for students to understand. (CT1)
I might not trust the EAL teachers for their science content knowledge. It’s not that bad. It’s just we might have different expec­
tations about how different concepts for a like different explanations, different logic behind how we explain some concepts to students
and that might cause conflicts which can confuse students further. (CT8).
These comments seem to position the English language teacher as lacking content knowledge but also needing to explain content
knowledge to students, the latter of which is considered the core task of a content teacher. CT2 below acknowledged that despite a lack
of content knowledge, English language specialists can contribute in other areas, which has also been demonstrated throughout the
findings so far.
I can’t wait to kind of collaborate with an EAL specialist who does not necessarily have the expertise of knowledge in my content
area that can bring things to light that I would not have noticed. (CT2)
With a similar self-positioning in terms of discipline knowledge, ET5 verbalised a strategy to learn discipline knowledge useful for
teaching in the content classroom:
If you’re not familiar with the content, let the students teach you. Just let them do it. Just provide a sample and let them do their
self-exploration, and meanwhile you can just search it up on Google. (ET5)
This extract indicated that ET5 positioned students as active participants in the learning process while the English language teacher
does not necessarily need to be an expert in the content area and can learn the content in the process of teaching.
11
System 114 (2023) 103022
M.H. Nguyen et al.
6. Discussion
The finding that the English language PSTs played a leadership role in a majority of the knowledge domains demonstrated their
capacity to take the initiative and collaboratively plan education programs for EAL students in content classes. Their leading position in
the language-related domains reflected the primary focus of language TE. What is especially noteworthy is that the English language
PSTs were also found to lead in the shared domains, which both language and content PSTs were exposed to in their programs. We
suggest that strategically preparing English language PSTs for leadership in the shared domains is a way to give them more agency in
the collaboration, and this did not detract from the two language-related domains. In our TE program, we did this by (1) developing
strong language-related pedagogy and curriculum knowledge (2) building collaboration capacity for the English language PSTs before
they engaged in the collaboration activity under research, and (3) pairing more experienced English language PSTs with less expe­
rienced content PSTs in the collaboration activity. Taking a leading position in preservice collaboration has been found to have a
positive impact on how teachers engage in collaboration in the future (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2019).
We found that the distributed knowledge base framework helped us to make sense of this collaboration, and we therefore consider
it to be beneficial both in TE and also in framing further research. The framework helped us to see that the English language PSTs’
supporting position in content-related domains was productive. While English language PSTs might not have the extensive discipline
knowledge to teach and assess content, they could provide support to content PSTs in language focused and differentiated instruction
and assessment to suit EAL students’ needs and abilities. This is in contrast with much of the existing research which reports that
language teachers are not trusted to make contribution in content areas (Arkoudis, 2006; Creese, 2010; DelliCarpini, 2014; Zappa-­
Hollman, 2018). This lack of trust can be harmful to meaningful collaboration, teacher learning, and student outcomes (Turner, 2015,
2016; Villavicencio et al., 2021). The English language PSTs were also able to actively support the content PSTs in tailoring curriculum
and pedagogy to meet the language needs of the EAL students in a content area. This lends support to (Nguyen, 2021; Nguyen & Dang,
2021) who found that such positioning had a positive impact on teachers themselves and students.
Thinking about the knowledge base for teaching EAL students in content areas in a distributed way thus has great potential for
identifying and developing areas of knowledge that can prepare PSTs for effective English language–content teacher collaboration in
schools. This offers avenues for both theory and practice in language teacher preparation. Theoretically, such a framework of
distributed knowledge base could serve as a catalyst for discussions about the knowledge base for language teaching that take into
account collaboration as an essential part of language teachers’ work in schools. In reflecting on the changes in the knowledge base in
language TE, Freeman (2020) noted that teachers in English-medium educational settings are required “to understand, and be able to
work with, the interrelation between English and other forms of academic content” (p. 10). Such theoretical change needs to be widely
recognised to become part of language TE for English-medium contexts.
In terms of teacher preparation practice, there is a need to create spaces in language TE for PSTs to experience and develop capacity
and agency for effective collaboration in their future work. Specifically, language teacher preparation can leverage prior knowledge
and experience as resources PSTs bring to collaboration that enable them to assume the position of leader. For example, more
experienced English language PSTs can collaborate with less experienced content PSTs, who have not been as exposed to pedagogical
knowledge in TE and/or do not have so much life experience. In addition, preservice TE activities can serve as the context for PSTs to
experience positive collaboration to build their agency and capacity for effective collaboration. Initial TE can serve to develop stra­
tegies for ongoing professional learning so that teachers can continue to build their professional knowledge after graduation. In this
endeavour, it is important to take the literature on the supportive (marginalised) positioning of EAL teachers into account, and pairing
more experienced English language PSTs with less experienced content area PSTs in collaborative activities in TE can facilitate a more
agentic positioning for the English language PSTs. There is certainly no guarantee that this dynamic will be maintained once the
English language PSTs enter their early teacher careers, but it does have the potential to build their confidence in their own knowledge.
In sum, the overall distribution of the knowledge base between English language and content PSTs in this study can be seen as
testimony to English language teachers’ important contribution in the collaboration with content teachers. On the one hand, it helps to
address the issue of separating English language specialists and content area teachers, which often works to the detriment of EAL
learners (Villavicencio et al., 2021). On the other hand, following Honigsfeld and Dove (2019), we hope it serves as a positive pre­
service collaboration experience that guides the English language teachers in positioning themselves agentively in future in-service
collaboration with content teachers.
7. Conclusion
Our aim in this research was to explore the idea of an EAL-content area distributed knowledge base from a positioning perspective
(Davies & Harré, 1990). We found that the English language PSTs made the most of the opportunities for leadership they were pro­
vided, by virtue of the way the collaboration activities were designed and also by their greater experience in preparing for collabo­
ration. Insights gave rise to theoretical and practical implications for preservice TE. Future research on the distribution of professional
knowledge in school contexts with real EAL students and curriculum would help to extend our scholarship further. We also suggest
future studies look into how English language PSTs can be given further opportunities to take the initiative in collaborative activities
with content PSTs. This will help us to continue to understand and explore the potential of TE in preparing English language PSTs to
contribute actively in English language–content teacher collaboration.
12
System 114 (2023) 103022
M.H. Nguyen et al.
Author statement
Minh Hue Nguyen: Conceptualisation, methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, writing - original draft, writing
- review and editing, Marianne Turner: Conceptualisation, methodology, investigation, review and editing, Jessica Premier: Writing
- review and editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors have approved the final version of this manuscript for submission. We have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Acknowledgements
We thank the participating preservice teachers and the research assistant for their help with data collection and the editors and
reviewers for their constructive feedback.
References
Arkoudis, S. (2003). Teaching English as a second language in science classes: Incommensurate epistemologies? Language and Education, 17(3), 161–173. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09500780308666846
Arkoudis, S. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 415–433.
https://doi.org/10.2167/beb337.0
Bigelow, M. H., & Ranney, S. E. (2005). Pre-service ESL teachers’ knowledge about language and its transfer to lesson planning. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Researching applied
linguistics and language teacher education (pp. 179–200). Springer.
Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education,
37, 298–341. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12461772
Creese, A. (2010). Content-focused classrooms and learning English: How teachers collaborate. Theory into Practice, 49(2), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00405841003626494
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x
Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know when we are doing it right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 9(4), 454–475. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb339.0
DelliCarpini, M. (2014). Modeling collaboration for ESL teacher candidates. The New Educator, 10(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688x.2014.898486
Freeman, D. (2020). Arguing for a knowledge-base in language teacher education, then (1998) and now (2018). Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 5–16. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362168818777534
Gleeson, M. (2015). It’s the nature of the subject”: Secondary teachers’ disciplinary beliefs and decisions about teaching academic language in their content classes.
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 28(2), 104–114.
Hammond, J. (2014). An Australian perspective on standards-based education, teacher knowledge, and students of English as an additional language. Tesol Quarterly,
48(3), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.173
Harré, R. (2012). Positioning theory: Moral dimensions of social-cultural psychology. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 191–206).
Oxford University Press.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. (2019). Preparing teachers for co-teaching and collaboration. In L. C.d. Oliveira (Ed.), The handbook of TESOL in K-12 (pp. 405–421). John
Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119421702.ch26.
Turner, M. (2015). The collaborative role of EAL teachers in Australian schools from the perspective of EAL teacher education. The Australian Journal of Language and
Literacy, 38(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651960.
Turner, M. (2016). Emergent identity and dilemmatic spaces: pre-service teachers’ engagement with EAL collaboration. Teachers and Teaching, 22(5), 570–585.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1158466.
van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harré, & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory (pp. 14–31). Blackwell.
Love, K., Macken-Horarik, M., & Horarik, S. (2015). Language knowledge and its application: A snapshot of Australian teachers’ views. Australian Journal of Language
and Literacy, 38(3), 171–182.
Nguyen, M. H. (2021). Teachers’ collaboration-mediated practices in meeting the needs of refugee EAL students in the Victorian secondary science classroom. Journal
of Asian Pacific Communication, 31(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.00056.ngu.
Nguyen, M. H., & Dang, T. K. A. (2021). Exploring teachers’ relational agency in content–language teacher collaboration in secondary science education in Australia.
The Australian Educational Researcher, 48(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00413-9.
Premier, J., & Parr, G. (2019). Towards an EAL community of practice: A case study of a multicultural primary school in Melbourne, Australia. The Australian Journal
of Language and Literacy, 42(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03652026.
Schall-Leckrone, L. (2017). Genre pedagogy: A framework to prepare history teachers to teach language. Tesol Quarterly, 51(2), 358–382.
Tanghe, S., & Park, G. (2016). “Build[ing] something which alone we could not have done”: International collaborative teaching and learning in language teacher
education. System, 57, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.01.002
Villavicencio, A., Jaffe-Walter, R., & Klevan, S. (2021). “You can’t close your door here:” Leveraging teacher collaboration to improve outcomes for immigrant English
Learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, Article 103227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103227
Zappa-Hollman, S. (2018). Collaborations between language and content university instructors: Factors and indicators of positive partnerships. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1491946
Turner, M. (2020). Knowledge about (English) language across the curriculum in EAL and CLIL contexts. In P. Mickan, & I. Wallace (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of
Language Education Curriculum Design (1st ed., pp. 90-106). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315661032-7.
13