Preparing Educators for Inclusive Bilingual Education: A Boundary Crossing Laboratory Between Professional Groups

Teacher education programs prepare candidates for bilingual, English as a second language, or special ed¬ucation as separate professionals. This creates challenges when teaching bilingual children with disabilities. There is a need to cross boundaries combining expertise and preparing teachers for children’s uniqueness. Re¬sponding to this need, the researchers organized a change laboratory with 14 professors and two State Depart¬ment of Education consultants. The study explored boundary expressions and their relationship to the larger activity. It also looked at the learning that took place during boundary crossing efforts. Boundaries were identi¬fied around bilingual teacher preparation, cross-disciplinary programmatic, and paradigmatic aspects. While boundary crossing at the intrapersonal level and at the interpersonal level were important, the need to engage multiple institutions was centered. In addition, the discussion manifested that for inclusive bilingual education teacher preparation, there was a need to go beyond the institutional level to reach to policy makers and address the sociopolitical resistance against bilingual education. Throughout the study, participants engaged primarily in the epistemic learning actions of analyzing and modeling. Through volitional actions, the participants real¬ized a renewed object for their activity. This study widens the understanding of possibilities for taking shared educational responsibility through boundary crossing between professionals in preparation programs.

1. Akkerman S., Bruining, T. Multi-level boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2016. Vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 240— 284. DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2016.1147448
2. Akkerman S.F., Bakker A. Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 2011. Vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 132—169. DOI: 10.3102/0034654311404435
3. Engeström Y. Chapter 7: Activity theory and learning at work. In Malloch M. et al. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Workplace Learning. London, U.K: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2010, pp. 74—89. DOI:10.4135/9781446200940.n7
4. Engeström Y. Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 2001. Vol. 14, pp. 133—156. DOI:10.1080/13639 08002 00287 47.
5. Engeström Y. Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Engeström Y., Miettinen R., Punamäki R-L. (eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 377—404. DOI:10.1017/cbo9780511812774.025
6. Engeström Y. Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit, 1987. 269 p.
7. Hamayan E. et al. Special education considerations for English language learners: Delivering a continuum of services (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing, 2013. 304 p.
8. Kerosuo, H. Examining boundaries in health care — Outline of a method for studying organizational boundaries in interaction. Outlines. Critical Social Studies, 2004. Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 35—60.
9. Kerosuo H. Boundaries in health care discussions: An activity theoretical approach to the analysis of boundaries. In Paulsen N., Hernes T. (eds.), Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, pp. 169—187). DOI:10.1057/9780230512559_10
10. Ludvigsen S., Nerland M. Knowledge sharing in professions: Working creatively with standards in local settings. In Sannino A., Ellis V. (eds.), Learning and collective creativity: Activity-Theoretical and sociocultural studies. London, U.K: Routledge, 2013, pp. 116—131. DOI:10.4324/9780203077351-14
11. Martínez-Álvarez P., Chiang H.M. A bilingual special education teacher preparation program in New York City: Case studies of teacher candidates’ student teaching experiences. Equity & Excellence in Education, 2020. Vol. 53, no. 1—2, pp. 196—215. DOI:10.1080/10665684.2020.1749186
12. Smagorinsky P. The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 2008. Vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 389—411. DOI: 10.1177/0741088308317815
13. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. 37th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2015. Washington, D.C., 2015. 284 p. DOI:10.1002/9780470373699.speced1499
14. Wenger E. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 318 p.
15. Virkkunen J., Newnham D.S. The Change Laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 2013. 294 p.
16. Vygotsky L.S. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. 174 p.