Co-Teaching Photosynthesis: Integrated ENL in Seventh-Grade Science
A seventh-grade science class in a mid-sized district has 28 students, 9 of whom are ELLs at the Transitioning and Expanding levels and 3 of whom have IEPs. Mr. D, the science teacher, and Ms. R, the ENL teacher, co-teach the class. Mr. D opens the photosynthesis unit with a 25-minute lecture with slides, then shows a video and asks students to take notes; the ELLs copy the slide titles and answer nothing on the exit ticket. Ms. R suggests previewing vocabulary in a separate room for 20 minutes during the lecture. Mr. D objects that pulling students out is segregation and that they will fall behind on content; he also says the exit-ticket data show they 'cannot do the science.' The principal wants evidence that the co-teaching model is working within six weeks. The district expects integrated ENL to provide access to grade-level content, not a parallel curriculum.
1. Write a content objective and a language objective for the first lesson and describe two scaffolds that would make the lesson comprehensible.
Read the worked answer
Content objective: students will explain how light energy, water, and carbon dioxide are converted into glucose and oxygen and will identify the inputs and outputs of photosynthesis. Language objective: students will describe the process orally and in writing using the frame 'During photosynthesis, plants take in ___ and ___, and they produce ___ and ___, because ___.' The language objective names the function (describe a process) and the language demand (cause and effect, technical vocabulary), which is what makes it useful rather than decorative.
Scaffold one: a visual input-output graphic organizer with labeled leaf, chloroplast, sunlight arrows, and word bank, completed along with the lecture rather than after it. Scaffold two: structured partner talk with assigned roles and a posted sentence frame, so ELLs rehearse the explanation before writing. Add short chunks: three to four minutes of lecture, then a paired task, then another chunk. This is the core of comprehensible input for this group.
Note what these scaffolds do not do: they do not change the standard or remove the science. Pull-out previewing vocabulary in another room for 20 minutes would remove students from the very input they need and would shift the burden back onto the ELLs rather than changing the lesson.
2. How should the two teachers assess whether the ELLs have learned the content, and what should they avoid?
Read the worked answer
Assess the content objective with a task that separates science understanding from English mechanics. For example, students complete a diagram with labels and arrows, match inputs to outputs, and write two framed explanation sentences; score the diagram and explanation with a science rubric, and score language separately with a language rubric. That way a student who understands photosynthesis but writes with article errors does not appear to 'not know the science,' which is exactly the mistake Mr. D made with the exit ticket.
Avoid three things. First, avoid using the oral lecture and note-taking as the only access route and then treating the resulting empty exit ticket as a measure of ability. Second, avoid modified grading that lowers the science standard; only the access route and language demands should be modified, and the same core content must be assessed. Third, avoid assessing only at the end. Use daily quick checks (sorting cards, labeled diagrams, oral questioning) and record them, because the principal asked for six-week evidence and this is the data that will show whether the model is working. Compare ELL and non-ELL performance on the same rubric dimensions and share the results with the co-teaching team.
3. How should Ms. R respond to Mr. D's pull-out proposal and to the claim that co-teaching is not working?
Read the worked answer
Separate the model from its implementation. Mr. D is right that pulling ELLs out for the lecture is a poor use of integrated time, but the current lesson does not demonstrate that co-teaching fails; it demonstrates that a 25-minute lecture with note-taking has not been planned jointly. The first step is a shared conversation about roles: who plans, who delivers which chunk, who assesses, and when the ENL teacher provides language support inside the lesson. Without agreed roles, integrated ENL becomes an extra adult in the room rather than a designed model.
Agree on a short observation cycle. Ms. R models a chunked lesson, Mr. D observes the language scaffolds, and they meet weekly using student work rather than impressions. Bring the exit-ticket data and the same task re-administered after the modified lesson, so the conversation is about evidence. If students still struggle, adjust the scaffolds before blaming the model. Also clarify the program requirement: ELLs must have access to grade-level content with language support, and the principal's six-week request can be met with a simple pre/post measure on two objectives plus a log of co-planning. Frame the change as better science teaching for all 28 students, since chunking and structured talk benefit many of them.