Two institutions representing two BSW and one MSW program and a geriatric education center collaborated in a John A. Hartford geriatric enrichment project. Sharing the risks and benefits of a collaborative model, 75 percent of faculty participated in mini faculty fellowships, and bi-monthly dinner meetings with colleagues from each of the three programs, and actively engaged in the curricula revisions. Faculty report pervasive geriatric enrichment in each program's foundation content areas, and increases in students placed in geriatric enriched field practicum settings, from pre-project levels of 8.1 percent to a high of 24 percent. The features of the collaborative project include: respecting each program's autonomy while actively sharing ideas, resources and partnering with community's aging experts; and strengthening mutually reciprocal relationships among faculty and the gerontologic practice community. This model of shared risks and benefits also provides opportunities for innovation, diverse thinking, and shared decision making.

No abstract

This study investigates repair sequences between two nonnative speakers of English while they engaged in naturally occurring talk outside of the second language classroom. Eight hours of naturally occurring talk between native and nonnative speakers were collected and analyzed. The present study reports on one hour of the data which shows two types of repair: Self-initiated and other-corrected and other-initiated. The analysis of the repair sequences shows that the self-initiated and other-corrected repair sequences follow a distinct pattern of asking for confirmation on the production of a language item and receiving a correction, while the other-initiated repair is done differently from the ones found in the literature on repair and do not follow the rules of preference for self-correction described by some researchers in the Conversation Analysis literature. In addition, the other-initiated repair analyzed in this study does not appear to be modulated, that is, the person initiating the correction does not offer a candidate solution by asking a question and displaying uncertainty, as researchers found. The repair sequences show a particularly interesting expert-novice relationship in which one nonnative speaker relies on a more expert nonnative speaker to communicate with a native English speaker.

This study, a follow-up to the research reported by Erlam, investigated K-12 content teachers’ ability to design tasks for content instruction in U.S. schools. Thirty-nine K-12 teachers who were enrolled in an English as a second language (ESL) teaching methods course participated in the study and each designed two language learning tasks. Two researchers rated the tasks following Ellis and Shintani’s four task criteria, as in Erlam. The study addressed the questions: (1) How successful are content teachers in designing tasks that satisfy Ellis and Shintani’s criteria? (2) Which of the criteria do teachers find easiest and most difficult to satisfy? and (3) Do the teachers improve in meeting the criteria in a second round of task designs? Ninety-two percent and 95% of the tasks satisfied three of the four criteria in task designs 1 and 2, respectively. The teachers excelled most at creating contexts for meaningful communication (92%) and including an information gap (92%) in their first tasks. Incorporating a clearly defined outcome was the most difficult criterion (66%) for teachers to achieve. There was no significant improvement from Task 1 to Task 2 in successfully incorporating the four criteria. The content teachers incorporated more of the task features than the foreign language teachers in Erlam. Over 90% met the majority of the criteria, compared to 82% in Erlam’s study. Another important difference was that participants in Erlam’s study found the easiest criteria to address was including an outcome, and they struggled most to allow learners to use their own linguistic resources and incorporate a gap. The content teachers in the follow-up study struggled most to include an outcome, but consistently incorporated communication gaps and grew in their ability to ensure that learners use their own linguistic resources. This suggests that language teachers may focus more readily on language forms, while content teachers focus more on meaningful content than on language, providing support for learners to focus on meaning.

No abstract