Charting a Course: Responding to the Industry-Related
Adult Basic Education Needs of the Texas Workforce
Handbook Two: Workplace Savy for Workforce-related Instruction
Modules #5 & 6

---

Module Six: Delivering Instruction Responsive to Identified Needs

VESL: Linking ESL and Occupational Training

Because adult education programs differ in their capacity to deliver workforce-related instruction to English language learners, each must consider its capacity to integrate vocational training with English language instruction. Certainly, choices are influenced by local partnerships, employers’ needs, and collaboration with the local workforce development network. Curriculum development and delivery may incorporate one or more of the following configurations (Hanson, 2005):

1. The coordinated approach – two separate classes are offered but they are jointly planned and coordinated. Example: An ESL teacher provides English language instruction related to workforce issues, topics, and terminology; a vocational or occupational training instructor provides technical instruction. Each teacher provides support to the other by reinforcing the use of work-related concepts and terminology to ensure as much integration as possible. In some instances, one class is offered mornings and one afternoons, or on alternate days, and the number of hours of ESL instruction and vocational/occupational instruction fluctuate in response to the needs of the learners.
2. The integrated approach – two instructors (one ESL and one vocational) team teach one class. This is a challenging approach in that the instructors must be totally committed to and capable of implementing a team approach to instruction. But having two instructors in a classroom provides opportunities to do small group learning activities, focusing on learners’ specific language and vocational needs.
3. The book end model – vocational content is preceded and followed by ESL instruction. Basic English language skills are addressed in the first phase of instruction, occupational training follows, and additional work-related ESL instruction is the final phase of instruction. This configuration is sometimes necessary when partnering providers are unable to coordinate or integrate instruction to the extent described in the first two models. However, some joint planning and coordination are necessary if learners are to benefit from this model.
4. The stand alone model – either the vocational teacher or an ESL teacher delivers all of the instruction. Either way, it requires cross training, which can be costly.

Hanson makes a number of suggestions to ensure success in programs designed to help learners bridge the gap between adult and post secondary programs:

• An orientation should always precede student enrollment into industry-specific ESL training. An introduction to health occupations, for example, gives learners a sneak preview of the work and commitment required.
• Student cohorts should be formed for tutorial purposes. There is strength in numbers.
• Mentoring by employer partners promotes buy-in and commitment.
• Each of the four options requires commitment and close coordination between adult education and vocational/occupational training providers or programs.
• A study skills module is an absolute must (can include cultural issues; these can be particularly critical when dealing with health matters).
• It is important that each approach continues to develop language proficiencies and study skills during the course of training.

Activity: Select one of the four configurations described above to discuss with a partner. Then quickly brainstorm the steps that would need to be taken to prepare for the delivery of VESL in this configuration.

1. What would your program administrator need to do to set this up?
2. What about partners – who would they be and what would they provide?
3. What would you as the instructor need to do in preparing to deliver instruction?
4. What would be required of the learner participants in such an initiative?

What about using learners’ native language in workplace instruction?

Use of the native language in workplace instruction, particularly in situations where workers share the same native language, can minimize miscommunication and can accelerate learner comprehension of difficult concepts (Katz, 2000; Moore, 1999; Taggart & Martinez, 2003).

This requires a judicious choice of which language to use for which purposes, and bilingual teachers may need explicit criteria as to when to use the native language and when to use English (Taggart & Martinez, 2003). Taggart and Martinez suggest that the learners’ native language be used to teach the difficult content that they need to know in order to do a task. Then the English vocabulary and structures they need to listen, read, write, and talk about the tasks should be taught. Ana Huerta-Macías (2003) offers a model for using the two languages:

• The topic is introduced in the native language
• Key English vocabulary items are taught
• Hands-on activities (such as those involving workplace machines) are carried out in English and assessed in English
• Technology activities follow, with discussion in the native language as needed
• Final discussion and question/answer activities are carried out in whichever language each individual student prefers
• If a class has speakers of several different languages, Huerta-Macías suggests dividing the group into same-language small groups for discussion of the workplace issues in the native language
• Each group then, in English, frames questions about the workplace issues for the teacher