The Australian Educational Researcher

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 363–382 | Cite as

Hit the ground running? An exploratory study of the positionings teachers and international students take or ascribe to others on academic language

  • Anna Filipi
  • Anne Keary


The International Student Program (ISP) in Australian secondary schools has in recent times drawn public attention. Despite this attention, there is a paucity of research about the challenges faced by schools in developing and sustaining these programs. The study reported in this paper explores the ISP in an independent metropolitan secondary school in Victoria with a high enrolment of international students. Using positioning theory, the study analysed the self- and other-positionings of an EAL teacher, a STEM teacher and two international students on a range of issues germane to the ISP and academic language. Findings confirmed past research that content teachers feel a lack of confidence in addressing these students’ language needs. In adding to the literature, the study found that content teachers feel a responsibility for these students and that the international students positioned themselves as successful language learners as well as students with gaps in their academic language.


International students Academic language English as an Additional Language STEM Content area teaching 


  1. Adams, J. L., & Harré, R. (2001). Gender positioning: A sixteenth/seventeenth century example. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour. Scholar
  2. Arkoudis, S. (2005). Fusing pedagogic horizons: Language and content teaching. Linguistics and Education. Scholar
  3. Arkoudis, S., & Love, K. (2004). They’re all over the shop: Chinese international students in the VCE. TESOL in Context, 14(1 & 2), 10–14.
  4. Arkoudis, S., & Love, K. (2008). Imagined communities in senior school mathematics: Beyond issues of English language ability. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication. Scholar
  5. Arkoudis, S., Marginson, S., Sawir, E., & Stone, N. (2010). Internationalising secondary school education in Victoria. Report to the Department of Education and Training, Victoria. Retrieved from
  6. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Baecher, L., & Schieble, M. (2016). English language learners pedagogy in the English methods class: collaborative planning as a component of preservice teacher preparation. In L. de Oliveira & M. Shoffner (Eds.), Teaching English language arts to English language learners: Preparing pre-service and in-service teachers (pp. 35–59). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barwell, R. (2002). Understanding ESL issues in mathematics. In C. Leung (Ed.), Language and additional/second language issues for school education (pp. 69–80). Surrey: National Association for Language Development in the Curriculum.Google Scholar
  9. Birrell, B., & Healy, E. (2010). The February 2010 reforms and the International student industry. People and Place, 18(1), 65–80.
  10. Creese, A. (2002). The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: Language and subject specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly. Scholar
  11. Creese, A. (2010). Content-focused classrooms and learning English: How teachers collaborate. Theory into Practice. Scholar
  12. Cummins, J. (1991). Language development and academic learning. In L. Malave & G. Duquette (Eds.), Language, culture and cognition: A collection of studies in first and second language acquisition (pp. 161–175). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  13. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davison, C. (2005). Learning your lines: Negotiating language and content in subject English. Linguistics and Education. Scholar
  15. Department of Education and Training (2017a). Retrieved from
  16. Department of Education and Training (2017b). Summary statistics Victorian Schools Flyer. Retrieved from
  17. Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. In M. McGroarty (Ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics: Advances in language pedagogy (pp. 284–302). West Nyack, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Edwards, S. (2014). Supporting English language learners: New Zealand secondary mainstream teachers’ knowledge and use of recommended teaching resources and strategies. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 49(1), 43–58.
  19. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  20. Gibbons, P. (2010). English learners, academic literacy, and thinking: Learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  21. Gregory, G., & Burkman, A. (2012). Differentiated literacy strategies for English language learners, Grades 7-12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halliday, M. A. K. (1984). Three aspects of children’s language development: Learning language, learning through language, learning about language. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), The language of early childhood (pp. 308–326). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  23. Hallman, H. L. (2016). Learning to teach English language learners through English language arts methods: findings from a national survey. In L. de Oliveira & M. Schieble (Eds.), Teaching English language arts to English language learners: Preparing pre-service and in-service teachers (pp. 61–78). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hammond, J. (2012). Hope and challenge in The Australian Curriculum: Implications for EAL students and their teachers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(1), 223–240.
  25. Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English language learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152–162.
  26. Harper, C. A., de Jong, E. J., & Platt, E. J. (2008). Marginalising English as a second language teacher expertise: The exclusionary consequence of No Child Left Behind. Language Policy. Scholar
  27. Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1991). Varieties of positioning. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. Scholar
  28. Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). The dynamics of social episodes. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 1–13). Great Britain: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Haworth, P. (2009). The quest for a mainstream EAL pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2179–2208.
  30. Jacks, T., & Willingham, R. (2015). Victorian schools the future for international student market. The Age. Retrieved from
  31. Kaufman, D., & Crandall, J. (Eds.). (2005). Standards-based content-based instruction: Transforming language education in primary and secondary schools. In Case studies in content-based instruction in primary and secondary school settings (pp. 1–7). Alexandria VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
  32. Kendall, L. (2008). The conduct of qualitative interviews: Research questions, methodological issues, and researching online. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 133–149). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Landgrebe, J. (2012). ‘I think—you know’ Two epistemic stance markers and their significance in an innovation process. Nordica Helsingiensia, 30, 107–131.
  34. Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modelling by teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education. Scholar
  36. Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2012). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (2nd ed.). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Love, K., & Arkoudis, S. (2004). Sinking or swimming? Chinese international students and high stakes school exams. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. Scholar
  38. Love, K., & Arkoudis, S. (2006). Teachers’ stances towards Chinese international students: An Australian case-study. Linguistics and Education. Scholar
  39. Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373.
  40. Moghaddam, F., & Harré, R. (2010). Words, conflicts and political processes. In F. Moghaddam & R. Harré (Eds.), Words of conflict, words of war: How the language we use in political processes sparks fighting (pp. 1–30). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar
  41. Schleppegrell, M. J., & O’Halloran, C. L. (2011). Teaching academic language in L2 secondary settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Scholar
  42. Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Scholar
  43. Turner, M. (2015). The collaborative role of EAL teachers in Australian schools from the perspective of EAL teacher education. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 38(2), 95–103.
  44. Victorian Registration and Qualification Authority. (2015). International students in schools, 2015. Information sheet no 2. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education Clayton CampusMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations