Vocational orientation – A supportive approach to teaching L2 English in upper secondary school vocational programmes

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research Open

journalhomepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedro

Vocational orientation – A supportive approach to teaching L2 English in upper secondary school vocational programmes

Kaja Granum Skarpaas

, Glenn Ole Hellekjær

University of Oslo, Postboks 1099, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway

a r t i c le i n f o

Keywords:

English as a second language English as a foreign language Vocational education Vocational orientation approach Language teaching

a b s t r a ct

ThisstudyinvestigateshowuppersecondaryschoolEnglishteachersexperienceusingthevocationalorienta- tion(VO)approachwhenteachingEnglishasasecond/foreignlanguage(L2)invocationalstudyprogrammes.

Itcombinesinterviewswith10L2EnglishteachersinNorwayandsupplementaryclassroomobservations.The analysisshowsthattheteachersuseVOtofacilitateadaptiveL2Englishteachingbydrawingonstudentinter- ests,promotingsubjectrelevanceandscaffoldinglearning.ImpedimentstosuccessfulVOuseincludeteacher collaborationissues,students’vocationalcommitmentandtheavailabilityoflearningmaterial.Theinformants findthatVOsupportsstudentlearningandincreasestheirengagementwithL2English,whichisevidenceforthe importanceofunderstandingandreducingthechallengestotheVOapproach.

1. Introduction

Akeychallengeforanyteacherishowbesttoenhanceandsupport studentlearning(DuPlessis,2019).Naturally,thisextends toteach- ersinvocationalprogrammes,notleasttoteachersofgeneralsubjects suchasEnglishasasecond/foreignlanguage(L2English).Studentsin secondaryVocationalEducationandTraining(VET),alsoknownasca- reerandtechnicaleducation,attendprogrammesthatare“multi-site andpoly-contextual” (Fjørtoft,2017,p.157),anddiscussionsofqual- ityinsuchprogrammesoftenfocusonhowtointegratelearningfrom differentareas(Baartman&deBruijn,2011;Billett,2009;Hiim,2017).

Internationally,however,researchismostlyconcernedwiththeintegra- tionofvocationalsubjectmatterandworkplaces(Schaapetal.,2012), withlessattentionbeingpaidtogeneralsubjectsinuppersecondary vocationaleducation.Therefore,thisstudyexplorestheexperiencesof L2Englishteacherswhoadapttheirteachingtotheirstudents’future vocation(s).

AsFjørtoft(2017)notes,acomplicatingfactorforteachersinvoca- tionalprogrammesisthattheyareoftenresponsiblefor“studentswho areeconomicallyoreducationallydisadvantaged[andnotalways]able tosatisfyliteracydemandsineducation” (p.157).However,stakehold- ersagreethatthesestudentsneedsolidgeneralknowledgeandskills inadditiontotheirvocationalcompetencetohandlepersonalandsoci- etaldemandsintheiradultlives(Brewer&Comyn,2015;Hiim,2014; Mouzakitis,2010).Theyalsoneedasolidknowledgebasetobeable todeal withrapidchange and possibleretraining (Hampf& Woess-

∗Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddress:k.g.skarpaas@ils.uio.no(K.G.Skarpaas).

mann,2017;Karoly&Panis,2004)toavoiddroppingoutofthelabour market.

Inmostcountries,vocationalprogrammesincludeasignificantpro- portion of general subjects or content(Sweet, 2010).While the in- clusionof thiscontentis largelyundisputed,practical andstructural solutions vary greatly and can be controversial (for examples, see Cedefop, 2019; Grubb etal., 1991; Steneetal., 2014; Sweet,2010; WorldBankGroup,2015).Indeed,somebelievethereisgoodreasonto questiontheextentandqualityofgeneral-vocationalintegration,andan OECDreviewofVETnotesthat:inalmostallcountries[…]generaled- ucationisincorporatedintoVETprogramssimplybyrequiringstudents totakecoursesormodulesfromacademicinstructors[…].Suchprac- ticesmakenoefforttomakesurethattheacademiccontentcoversthe particularcompetenciesrequiredinspecificoccupations.(Grubb,2006, p.21)

Insummary,lackofempiricalresearchaddressingtheroleofgen- eral subjects in vocational programs is problematic, not to mention unsatisfactory.Thepresentstudyaddressesthisgapbyexamining10 teacherinformants’experienceswithadidacticapproachthatsystem- aticallyintegratesgeneralandvocationalaspectstoteachL2English.

Inthisarticle,weemploythetermvocationalorientation(VO)tode- scribe this type of teaching. Inthe case of L2 English, examples of VOpractices(foundinourmaterial)includereadingtechnicallitera- ture,discussingwork-relatedproceduresandcomposingwork-related textsinEnglish.Thisarticle’sresearchaimistoexamineEnglishteach- ers’ views of and experiences with VO teaching, more specifically

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100064 Received14May2021;Accepted7July2021

2666-3740/© 2021TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

theirgoals,their perceptionsof VO’s utilityandthechallenges they encounter.

2. Theoreticalperspective,backgroundandpriorresearch

Drawingonasocioculturalperspective,thisstudyrelatesL2learn- ingtothedevelopmentofabroadercommunicationrepertoirethatfunc- tionsasameansofmediating“distincttypesofintellectualandpractical activity” (Leontiev,1981,p.99).Inotherwords,peoplelearnasecond languagesothattheycanuseittomediatetheiractions.Forvocational students,someoftheseactionsarerelatedto(future)employment.

Acentraltenetinsocioculturaltheoryisthatoftheactivelearner (Daniels,2001;Edwards,2017)whoeagerlyparticipatesinthesocial constructionofknowledge(Lantolf&Thorne,2006),whilethelearn- ingoutcomesof studentswhoresistactiveparticipation willbe lim- ited.Topromote engagement,teacherscan become“directorsofthe socialenvironment” (Vygotsky,1997,p.339)whoemploytoolstohelp learners“engagewithwhatmattersnowandwillmatterintheirfu- ture” (Edwards,2017,p.156).InthecontextofNorwegianvocational programs,VOteachingcanbeconsideredonesuchtool.

A function of school is to enable learners to connect ev- eryday understanding to “powerful publicly recognized meanings” (Edwards,2017)—asexpressed,forexample,inthecurriculum—and later to apply these meanings in concrete activities in the every- dayworld(Vygotsky,1986).Thiscanbe achievedwhenteachersin- troduce real-lifeproblem-solving thatrequires thedirect application of school knowledge (Grubb et al., 1991),so that studentsdevelop their capacityto viewabstract learningas tools tobe used for real tasks (Derry, 2008).Fjørtoft (2017), though without using theterm VO,discusses howvocationalstudents, whofrequently traverse var- ious—anddisparate—learningsites, may benefitfrom teaching that aimstounitediversecontexts.Hesuggeststhatteacherscreateathird space—understoodasahybrid,in-betweenspacesuitableforrenegoti- atingidentities,relationsandpractice(seeBhabha,2004;Mojeetal., 2004)—wherepracticesfromthestudents’homes, workdomainsand schoolsubjectsarebroughttogethertobreakepistemicboundariesand expandstudents’learningresources.VOmaythushelpbridgethegap betweenthedifferentdomainsandpromoteintegratedlearning,thereby increasingtheculturalresourcessupportingstudentlearningprocesses.

2.1Whyintegration?

Duringthelastthreedecades,manyeffortshavebeenmadetoex- plainandarguetheneedforgeneralcontentinvocationalprograms.

Explanationstypicallyemphasisetheneedforadvancedgeneralskills inallcontemporarytradesandoccupations(Green,1998;Hiim,2014; Wheelahan,2015)andforasolidknowledgebasetobuilduponforstu- dentswhowish—orneedto—retrain(Fieldetal.,2010).Furthermore, thepossibilityofcontinuingontohighereducationisatopicofdiscus- sioninsomecountries(Nylund&Rosvall,2016;Steneetal.,2014).

With regard to teaching, stakeholders typically propose that in vocational programs, general knowledge should be contextualized within relevant occupational practices (Cedefop, 2019; Conroy &

Walker,2000; NOU2008:18,2008; Taylor& Parsons,2011; Vogt&

Kantelinen, 2012). One reason is that integration is thought toim- prove vocationalstudents’ willingnessto engagein general learning byprioritizingsubject relevanceandstudents’interests (Caseyetal., 2006; Claxton,2007; Dunleavy &Milton, 2009; Hoachlander, 1999; Quinn,2013; Robertsetal., 2005;Taylor &Parsons,2011).Second, integrationis thoughttosupport studentlearningby contextualizing howgeneralskillsfunctioninspecificoccupations(Hiim,2014),con- tributingtothedevelopmentofhigher-orderthinkingskillsanddemon- stratinghowknowledgetransfersacrossdomains(Grubbetal.,1991).A thirdreasonisthatintegratinggeneralandvocationalcontentisconsid- eredameansofimprovinggraduationratesfromvocationalprograms

(Grubbetal.,1991; NorwegianDirectorateforEducation andTrain- ing[UDIR],2014;Robertsetal.,2005).Theargumentisthatstudents increasetheirchancesofacademicsuccesswhentheyarea)moremo- tivatedforlearningandb)haveabetterunderstandingofhowtoapply theirlearningindifferentcontexts.

2.2Organizingintegration

Thetwokeyapproachestotheintegrationofgeneralandvocational skillsaretoembedgeneralcontentintheteachingofvocationalsub- jectsandletvocationalstudentsfollowgeneralsubjectsalongsidetheir vocationaloneswhilerequiringthesegeneralsubjectstohaveaVO.

EmbeddinghasbeenthefavoredapproachinEnglandandincoun- triessuchasAustralia,Aotearoa/NewZealandandIreland(Black&Ya- sukawa,2011).Ithasbeendefinedasteachingandlearningthat“com- binesthedevelopmentofliteracy,languageandnumeracy[LLN]with vocationalorotherskills” (Robertsetal.,2005).EmbeddedLLNtypi- callyinvolvespayingattentiontoliteracy,languageand/ornumeracy issueswhilestudentsworkontasksfromtheirvocationalcurriculum.

It isfrequently organizedasteam teachingwhereanLLN teacheris presentinthevocationalclassroomandworksalongsidethevocational teacher.Sometimes,vocationalteachersprovideLLNinstructionthem- selves(Bak&O’Maley,2015;Caseyetal.,2006).

TheUnitedStates(US)offersagoodexampleofthesecondstrat- egy,wheregeneral andvocational contentaretaught separatelybut withintegrationbeingachievedbyviewingseparatelytaughtsubjects aspartofalargerwhole(Grubbetal.,1991;Quinn,2013).Inshort, bothgeneralandvocationalteachersincorporateconceptsfromother disciplinesintotheircurricula(Conroy&Walker,2000),eitherasstand- aloneinitiativesoraspartofsubjectalignmentinwhichrelatedthemes aretaughtconcurrentlyacrosssubjects(Hoachlander,1999).

At first glance, the Norwegian educational system for general–

vocationalintegrationseemscomparabletothatoftheUS.Uponcloser inspection,however,Norwayisaparticularlyinterestingcasebecause, incontrasttoboththeUSandEngland,ithasanationalsystemofsec- ondaryvocationaleducationandmandatoryintegrationofgeneraland vocationalsubjects(RegulationsoftheEducationAct,2006).Ineffect, thismeansthatvocationalteachersareobligedtoattendtocoreliteracy skillsintheirinstruction(similartoLLNinstruction),whilegeneralsub- jectteachersneedtoapplyVOtotheirsubjects.Thelatteristhefocus ofthisstudy.

2.3Priorresearch

Internationalresearchthataddressesgeneralsubjectsinuppersec- ondaryschoolvocationalprogramsisrelativelyscarce,andevenmore soforEnglishinparticular.Furthermore,muchofthisresearchisfive years oldor older.Overall, the findings arelargely negative, point- ingoutweaknessesordeficienciesincurrentimplementation.InMo- rocco,forinstance,asmall-scalestudyofoneschoolfoundthat,even thoughmostEnglishteachersbelievedintheintegrationofvocational andlanguagecontent,halffounditdifficulttooperationalize(ElKan- doussi,2017).HuaandBeverton(2013)concludedthatTaiwanesevo- cationalprogramsprioritizegeneralEnglishcompetenceandclaimed thatthisisgenerallythecaseinAsia.Widodo(2017)supportedtheir claim,arguingthatIndonesianEnglishteachersoptforgeneralEnglish instructionbecausetheylacktheknow-howtomarryvocationalandev- erydayEnglish.InEurope,Garschall(2008)describedagapinAustrian teacherandstudentperceptionsofvocationalEnglishlessons,finding thatwhileteacherswereconvincedthattheyincludedVOperspectives, not allthestudentsagreed.ResearchfromSwedensuggeststhatlan- guageteachershavelowexpectationsofvocationalstudents’abilities andthattheysimplifycontentandlanguagewhenteaching invoca- tionalprogrammes(Korp,2011;Niemi&Rosvall,2013;Norlund,2011; Nylund&Rosvall,2011,2016;Nylundetal.,2018;Rosvall,2015).In

England,acommissionfoundalackofseriouscommitmenttothede- velopmentoflanguageskillsinvocationalprograms,anditcalledfor moreprofessionalstaff development(InstituteforLearning[IfL],2013).

IntheUS,Platt(1996)describedhowL2Englishteachersinvocational environmentsaretoounfamiliarwiththeirstudents’futurevocations tobeabletointegratecontentandlanguage.Amongstthefewpositive studies,Quinn(2013)foundthatteachersperceivedthemselvestobe successfulwhentheywereabletoconnectgeneralcontentwiththeir students’vocationalinterests.InNorway, echoingmany of thestud- iesmentioned,commoncoresubjectteachersstatedthattheylikethe ideaofVOteaching(Olsen&Reegård,2013)butdescribeditaspeda- gogicallydemanding(Steneetal.,2014),withone-thirdreportingthat theydidnotknowhowtoteachinthismanner(Haugsetetal.,2014; Myren&Nilsen,2001).AqualitativestudyofthreeEnglishteachers (Wendelborgetal.,2014)evenconcludedthatVOcouldbelesssuc- cessful than‘regular’teaching, possibly becausetheapproach forces teachersout of theircomfort zones.Other studieshave documented teachers’discontentwiththeirownVOefforts(Olsen&Reegård,2013; Skålholtetal.,2013)orquestionedwhetherstudentspreferVOlessons atall(Utvær,2013).Othersquestionwhethergeneraleducationteach- ersunderstandvocationalprogrammeswellenoughtoadapttheirteach- ingappropriately(Haugsetetal.,2014;Myren&Nilsen,2001).Further- more,many generalteachershaveseenVOconflictingwith‘regular’

teaching,worryingthatincreasedattentiontovocationalpracticeswill neglectcentralsubjectlearning(UDIR,2017).

AlthoughthisreviewatteststoaworldwideinterestinVO,itsuggests thatteachers’commitmentandteachingarehamperedbyinadequate knowledgeandstructuralissues.Italsoconfirmstheneedtofurther investigateteachers’experiencesofusingVOasasystematic,integrated partofteachingL2English.

2.4Researchquestions

Emergingfromthereviewisaneedformorecomprehensiveknowl- edgeofteachers’perceptionsof—andexperienceswith—VOteachingof English.Theoverallresearchaimofthisstudyistoexaminetheinfor- mants’viewsandexperienceswithVOEnglishteachingtoaccesstheir goals,perceptionsofVO’sutilityandthechallengestheyencounter.To thisend,thestudyusesself-reporteddatafrom10Englishteachersin 10differentschoolsinNorwayincombinationwithclassroomobserva- tions.Thestudyaddressesthefollowingthreeresearchquestions(RQs):

RQ1:HowdotheseEnglishteacherinformantsdescribetheirgoals forVOteaching?

RQ2:Whataretheinformants’viewsontheusefulnessofVOinEn- glishteaching?

RQ3:Whatdotheinformantsseeascentralchallengestosuccessful VOinEnglishteaching?

3. Methods

Thisqualitativestudyreliesmainlyondatafrominterviewswith10 Englishteachersat10differentschoolswithvocationalbranches.Asa supplementarydatasource,wealsoobservedoneteachingtrajectory (between2and5lessons) foreachteacher,totalling29 lessons.The observationswheremadeaheadoftheinterviews.Whiletheinterviews elicittheinformants’viewsonVO,withparticularattentiontoitsaims, utilityandchallenges,theobservationsprimarilyprovidecontextualiza- tionfortheinterviewsandtoexpandonthekeyfindings.

3.1Context

EnglishisacompulsorysubjectinNorwayfromthefirstgradeon- wards. Combined withconsiderable English exposure in andout of school(Brevik&Hellekjær,2018;Rindal,2014),thisresultsinhighEn- glishlanguageproficiencyamongchildren,adolescentsandadultsalike

(Bonnet,2004;EFEducationFirst,2020).InNorway,secondaryschool issplitintoloweranduppersecondary.Whilelowersecondaryschool (years8–10)iscomprehensiveandgeneralinorientation,studentsin uppersecondaryschool(years11–13)choosebetweengeneralstudies preparingforhighereducationandvocationalstudiesthatareawarded withvocationalcertificates.Intheschoolyear2020–2021,49percent ofyear11studentsattendedavocationalstudyprogram(UDIR,2020).

Vocationalstudiesincludesubjectsintrade-specifictheoryandpractice alongside sixcoresubjects—L1Norwegian,L2English, mathematics, naturalscience,physicaleducationandsocialscience.

DataforthisarticlewerecollectedundertheLK06curriculum,which wasrevisedin2020tobecomeLK20(UDIR,2006,2013,2019).Despite thisrevision,VOremainsascentraltoLK20astoLK06.UnderLK06,all uppersecondarystudentsfollowedacompulsorygeneralEnglishcourse comprising 140teaching hours.In vocationalprograms, these hours weredividedbetweenyears11and12.Thesubjectcurriculumpriori- tized(andstilldoes)communicativeandinterculturalcompetencealong withthedevelopmentofliteracyskillsandhistorical,culturalandso- cialcontentknowledge(UDIR,2006,2013).Studentsworkedtowards 27 competenceaims,groupedunderlanguagelearning,oralcommu- nication,writtencommunicationandculture,societyandliterature.It canalsobementionedthattheEnglishsubjectinNorwayisquitede- mandingintermsofitsfocusonlanguagedevelopmentaswellason knowledgeaboutculture,societyandliterature(Chvala,2020).

TheNorwegiancurriculumdescribesinstructionaloutcomeswithout specifying contentorteachingmethods.Thus,whenthelawrequires teacherstoadapttotheirstudents’studyprogram(Regulationsofthe EducationAct,2006,§1-3),individualteachers(orteamsofteachers) decidewhat,how,whenandtowhatextenttheydoso.Thismeansthat, inmostcases,dependingontheEnglishteacher’sconsiderations,some periodsandtopicswillhaveavocationalorientation,whileotherswill not.

3.2Procedure

Weutilisedapurposivesamplingstrategywiththreeselectioncrite- riatoidentifyschoolseligibleforparticipation:

1. anexpressedcommitmenttoVOteaching, 2. aclearvocationalidentityand

3. ageographicallocationineasternorwesternNorway.

Thethirdcriterionwasbasedontheexpectationthatregionaldif- ferencesin thelabourmarketmightaffectteachers’experiences.The resultsdonotsupportthisexpectationandarethereforenotdiscussed further.Initially,weidentified22prospectiveschools(withafairgeo- graphicaldistribution)thatmentionedVOasapriorityontheirwebsites andinvitedthemtoparticipate.Intheend,10teachersfrom10ofthese schoolsvolunteeredtoparticipate.

Thefirstauthorinterviewedthe10teachersusinganinterviewguide wehaddevelopedandpiloted.TheguideincludedquestionsaboutVO teachingpracticesandexperiences,VOlessonplanning,facilitatingand constrainingfactorsofVOandtheteachers’backgrounds.Theinter- viewsvariedinlengthfrom40to67min,averaging55min.Thefirst authoraudiorecordedandtranscribedalltheinterviewsinfull.Nine teacherschosetobeinterviewedinNorwegian,whileoneoptedforEn- glish.WetranslatedtheNorwegianquotesintoEnglishwiththeaimof conveyingmeaning,removingspeechelementssuchaspauses,fillers andfalsestartstoclearlypresentthecontent.

Ateachschool,thefirstauthorobservedonecohesivetrajectoryin each interviewee’sclassrooms.These lastedfrom twotofivelessons (180–450min)andweredescribedbytheinstructingteacherastyp- icalof theirpractice. Duringobservations,theresearchertook struc- turedfieldnotesonanobservationform,includingcontextualinforma- tion,thelesson’svocationalframing,descriptionsofactivities(withtime spent)andteacherandstudentutterancesasdirectquotations.Theob- servationsfunctionedasasharedframeofreferencefortheinterviews

Table1

DescriptionsofLessonsthatBuildonStudents’PriorVocationalKnowledge

Type of study programme Technical Non-technical

Teacher Anja Bernt Fredrik Georg Jana

Vocational link Practical knowledge of tools and machines

Practical knowledge of a relevant work method

Theoretical knowledge of workplace health and safety (H&S)

Practical and theoretical knowledge of relevant work strategy

Theoretical knowledge relating to a professional code of conduct Brief description of

observations

Individually, the students wrote instruction manuals describing a work procedure of their own choosing

In groups, the students prepared to present a practical task they had completed in the workshop

In plenary, the students applied H&S knowledge when discussing workplace safety in English

In groups, the students prepared and presented a strategy to be used at work with a relevant target group

The students worked with terminology, texts and discussions concerning how to be a role model

andwereusedtobothsupportandchallengesomeoftheself-reported data.

Theinterviewguideandobservationschemeareavailableuponre- questtotheauthors.

3.3Sample

Ofthe10participatingteachers,4taughtinwesternNorwayand6 taughtintheeast.Theirteachingexperiencerangedfrom3to25years, with9havingtaughtfor5yearsormoreand7formorethan10years.

Alltaughtmorethanonestudyprogrammebutwereobserved while teaching one of thefollowing programmes: Design, Artsand Crafts, ElectricityandElectronics,Health,ChildhoodandYouthDevelopment, RestaurantandFoodorTechnicalandIndustrialProduction.Theteach- ers,fourmalesandsixfemales,weregiventhefollowingaliases:Anja (female),Bernt(male),Carina(female),Dagny(female),Elin(female), Fredrik(male),Georg(male),Herman(male),Irene(female)andJana (female).Astheinformants’participationwasknowntostaff atseveral oftheschools,wewillnot,toensureanonymity,linkaliaseswithaddi- tionalinformationsuchaslocation,teachingexperienceornumbersof lessonsobserved(GeneralDataProtectionRegulation[GDPR],2018).

3.4Dataanalysis

Asthisstudyhasanemergentdesign,westartedthedataanalysisby listeningtotherecordedinterviewsandreadingthetranscriptsandob- servationalnotesseveraltimes.Next,wecarriedoutathematicanalysis oftheinterviews(Braun&Clarke,2012),performingdata-driveninitial coding.Theinitialsystematisingandmergingofthecodesresultedin fourpreliminarythemes(DefinitionsofVO,Justification,Reportedprac- ticesandExplainingownpractices)thatrelatedcloselytotheinterview guide’sstructure.Thesecould,therefore,beunderstoodasdomainsum- maries(Braunetal.,2019).Next,byengaginginareflexiveapproach, itwaspossibletomovefromthesedomainsummariestothemesthat addressedmeaningacrosstheinterviewguide,resultinginthreefinal codes.Datafromallfourinitialcodescontributedtothefirstandsecond code,VOaim(s)andTheutilityofVO,whiledatafromthelatterthree informedthecodeChallengestoVO.Finally,weappliedthenewcodes totheinterview(andobservational)dataandidentifiedexamplesthat couldrepresenttendenciesandoutliersinthematerial.

3.5Trustworthinessandethics

Wetooktwomainstepstoincreasethedata’strustworthiness.First, weusedapilotedinterviewguideandobservationtocollectthesame datatypeacrossschools.Second,sinceself-reporteddatamightreflect intentionsratherthanpractices(Johnson&Christensen,2017),wesup- plementedthese with observational field note data. As Lincoln and Guba(1985)suggest,weinvitethereadertousethecontextualinfor- mationanddetailsconcerningthemethodologyandresultstoassessthe transferabilityofourfindingstoothercontexts.

Allinformantssignedconsentformsandwereinformedoftheirright towithdrawconsentatanypoint.Throughouttheproject,cautionwas

exercisedtomaintaintherighttoprivacy.Furthermore,thestudywas approvedbytheNorwegianCentreforResearchData,anfollowedtheir ethicalguidelines(NationalCommitteeforResearchEthicsintheSocial SciencesandtheHumanities[NESH],2019).

4. Findings

WhileEnglishteachersinNorwayarerequiredtouseVOintheir teaching,theymaintainsignificantcontroloverhow,whenandtowhat extenttheydoso.Theaimofthisstudywasthustoaccesstheinfor- mants’goals(RQ1),theirperceptionsofusefulness(RQ2)andthechal- lengestheyencounter(RQ3)inrelationtotheapproach.Inotherwords, whileRQ1addresseswhattheteacherssetouttoachievewhenusing VOapproaches,RQ2exploreswhyitcanbeusedinthismanner.RQ3 presentstheteachers’viewsofchallengesthatposeathreatto—inthe eyesoftheteachers—successfulVOteaching.

ForreaderslessfamiliarwithVOteaching,Table1(below)presents examplesofobservedinstructionthatmayclarifythetypeofteaching theinformantsdescribeinsections4.1–4.3.

4.1HowdotheseEnglishteacherinformantsdescribetheirgoalsforVO teaching(RQ1)?

Theteachersdescribed threemaingoalsfortheirVOteaching:to promoteadaptiveteaching,tofacilitategeneralEnglishlanguagelearn- ingandtoteachvocationalterminology.Arguably,thefirstgoalshould beviewedasprimary,asithasimplicationsforhowtheotherscanbe pursued.

Withregardtotheirrationaleforpromotingadaptiveteaching,the teachersdescribedVOasatooltotailortheEnglishsubjecttotheirvo- cationalstudents’needsandexpectations.Nineteachersclaimedthat many oftheirstudentsstruggledwithEnglishin primaryschooland believed they wouldbenefitfromnew learningapproachesin upper secondaryschool.Moreover,theteachersbelievedthattheirstudents alsowantedschoolstobedifferentnowthattheyhadenrolledinavo- cationalprogramme.Toillustrate,Fredriksaid,“[Vocationalstudents]

don’twantlowersecondaryalloveragain,soyouhavetoaimforsome- thingnew,tomakethemfeelthatthisisdifferentfrombefore”.Her- manheldasimilarview:“Icanoftentellthatstudentswhostruggled [withmotivationandlearning]inlowersecondarygetaboostwhen theycomehereandexperiencethat,well,thedifferentsubjectswork together”.Carinaalsomentionedtheimportanceofchange:“VOisdif- ferentfromwhattheyareusedto,andthatispreciselyitsattraction.It’s new.Evenifthesubjectisfamiliar,itcomeswithnewandintriguing content”.Inotherwords,VOemergesasatoolthatteachersmayuseto adapttheirteaching.

TheirsecondgoalforVOistofacilitatethelearningofgeneralEn- glishlanguageskills.ItisacleartrendinthematerialthatVOteaching extendsbeyondwork-relatedEnglishusage.Infact—intheinterviews aswellastheobservations—itwasclearthattheteachersusedvoca- tionalthemesandmaterialstoachieveconventionallanguagelearning.

Asnotedbysomeinformants,VOteachingcanactasalineofdemarca- tionbetweenEnglishinloweranduppersecondaryschoolsbyreplacing

generalcontentthatstudentshavepreviouslystruggledwith,suchaslit- erarytexts(ElinandBernt),films(Georg)andworkwithpoliticaland socialissues(Fredrik),withvocationaltextsandthemes.Furthermore, Elinexplainedthat sheuses VOtoteachher students“howtocom- municateinEnglish”,whileCarinaandHermanreportedthatgeneral languagedevelopmentwasalwaysatthecentreoftheirVOteaching.

WhileAnjasimplysaidthatsheusedVO“toteachherstudentsEnglish”, BerntsawVO“asawaytogetthroughtothestudents” and“support thosewhostruggle”,for examplewhen theypractisedwriting skills.

EvenGeorg,theoneteacherwhoquestionedVO’smotivatingeffects, believedin itscapacitytoaidlearning:“If Idonotuse avocational orientation,[thesubject]becomestoodifficult[…].Workingwithvo- cationalthemescanbeabitslow,but[…]manystudentspassthecourse becauseofit”.

Asathirdgoal,theteachersaimedtouseVOasameansofteaching vocationalterminology.WhileVOmostoftenemergedasapedagogi- caltooltohelpstudentsdeveloptheirgeneralEnglishcompetence,the teachers(minusGeorg)allagreed thatvocationalterminologyrepre- sentedavaluablesupplementtothestudents’generalknowledge.Elin putthisasfollows:

Iprioritisevocabularyinstruction.Iwantmystudentstoknowthe namesofdifferent[relevanttools]inEnglish.Itissimplynotgood enoughtoask[acolleague]tohandyouathingy.[…]Igladlysacri- ficetextbooktextsorshortstoriesandpoemsbecauseIbelievethat vocabularyknowledgeisthetoolboxmystudentsreallyneed.

Overall,theteachers(allbutGeorg)describeddomain-specificvo- cabularyknowledgeasessentialforeffectiveworkplacecommunication inEnglishandevenasimportantforworkplacesafety(CarinaandElin).

Furthermore,allmentionedthattheirstudentsarelikelytospeak,write and/orreadEnglishatwork,whichwouldrequirespecialisedvocabu- laryinadditiontogenerallanguageskills.Domain-specificvocabulary isthusunderstoodasagenuinecontributiontostudents’vocationaled- ucation.Nevertheless,evenvocabularyteachingwasframedasafactor contributingtoVO’s transformationof theEnglishsubject,asCarina contendedthatthis,too,represented“somethingcompletelydifferent fromwhatthestudentswereusedto[inlowersecondaryschool]”.

TosummariseRQ1,theinformantsreportedthattheirgoalswithVO weretouseitforadaptingEnglishlanguageteachingtotheneedsof vocationalstudentsandasameansofteachinggenerallanguageskills andvocationalterminology.TheteachersconsideredVOtobe quite effectiveinthisregard.

4.2Whataretheinformants’viewsontheusefulnessofVOinEnglish teaching(RQ2)?

Theteachersdescribedthreefactorsthathelpexplaintheusefulness ofVOinEnglishteaching:itbuildsoninterests,promotesrelevanceand providesextrascaffoldingforlearningEnglish.

First,theteachersdescribedVO’susefulnessasemanatingfromits linktostudents’interests.AsFredriknoted,“Everyonepreferstospeak aboutthingstheyareinterestedin[…].Itisasimpleandeffectiveway ofgetting[students]engagedandinterested”.Hermanexpressedasim- ilarviewby describingVOasa motivationaltool:“I believethatas anEnglishteacherinavocationalprogrammeIhavetodrawonmy students’interests.Whenyoufindthatyouhaveatool[VO]thatcan increasestudentmotivation,thensurely,youuseit”.Tocapitaliseon studentinterests,alltheinformantsexceptCarinaemphasisedtheim- portanceofgettingtoknowtheirstudents’VOpreferences,notonlyin termsofthemesbutalsorelatingtoworkmethods.Similarly,Berntand Carinaarguedthatnon-vocationalinterests(also)havethecapacityto sparkengagement,implyingthatteachersshouldalsogettoknowthese.

Next,theteacherssuggestedthatanimportantaspectofVO’suse- fulnesscomesfromitsabilitytohelpstudentsunderstandtherelevance ofEnglish.Theclaimisthatrelevanceiscrucialforengagement,but, asElinputsit,“vocationalstudentsdonotseetherelevanceof‘regu-

lar’schoolEnglish”.Therefore,toincreasetheirstudents’senseofsub- jectrelevance,theteacherssaidtheyconstructedsituationswhereEn- glishandvocationalthemesconvergeandusedthemintheirteaching.

AccordingtoFredrik,though,genuinerelevancecanonlybeachieved whenEnglishlessonsbuildoncontentalreadycoveredinthestudents’

vocationalsubjects.Inthelessonsweobserved,halffollowedthisrec- ommendation.Table1presentsbriefdescriptionsofinstructioninthese five classroomstoshow how theEnglishteachersincorporated con- tentfromtheirstudents’vocationalsubjectsintotheirlanguagelessons.

Tosafeguardanonymity,theobservedinstructionsaredescribednon- specifically.

AsTable1shows,Anja,Bernt,Fredrik,GeorgandJanawereob- servedtoanchortheirEnglishlessonsintheirstudents’vocationalsub- jects,inthiswayinvitingtheirstudentstousevocationalexperiencesas aspringboardforEnglishwriting(AnjaandJana)andcommunication activities(Bernt,Fredrik,GeorgandJana).

Last,someteachers(notincludingCarina,IreneandJana)described VO’susefulnessforprovidinganextrascaffoldforlearningbyallowing studentstodrawonvocationalbackgroundknowledgewhiledeveloping Englishlanguageskills.Accordingtotheteachers,thissupportisespe- ciallyimportantforstudentswhoareunsureoftheirEnglishlanguage abilitiesbutknowtheirvocational subjectswell.Bernt,for example, mentionedhowastrugglingstudentgaveagoodEnglishpresentation aboutsomethingshehadproducedintheworkshop.Heconcludedthat

“it[VO]reallymakesallthedifference.Shewouldneverhavebeenable toachievesomethinglikethistalkingaboutsomethingabstract,likea text”.ThisquoteillustrateshowBerntattributedhisstudent’sachieve- menttoVOteaching.Similarly,8outof10teachersperceivedaclose, positive relationshipbetweenVOteachinghandandgradingandex- ams.Anja,forexample,saidthatstudents’gradesincreasewhenthey workwithvocationaltopics,soshetendstodotheseinthespring,close tothefinalassessment.IrenealsoaddressedthelinkbetweenVOand assessmentbutfocusedonitssignificanceforexaminations:

MystartingpointisthatImustpreparestudentstopassthewritten examination.Iknowthat[oneoftheelectivetasks]isalwaysaVO task[…].So,frommyperspective,iftheymanagetodescribeajob usingasuitablevocabulary[…],theyareequippedtopass.

TosummariseRQ2,theinformantsreportedthattheusefulnessofVO restson/comesfromitsabilitytodrawonstudents’vocationalinterests andtoutilisethesetopromoteEnglishasausefulsubjectinvocational programmes.Furthermore,theteacherssaidtheywereabletoutiliseVO toscaffoldlearninginawaythatisparticularlysupportiveforvocational studentswhohavestruggledwithEnglishinthepast.

4.3WhatdotheinformantsseeascentralchallengestosuccessfulVOin Englishteaching?(RQ3)

WhiletheteachersdescribedVOasausefulteachingapproach,all wereawareofthechallengestosuccessfulimplementation.Fourchal- lengesemergedfromtheteachers’self-reportedexperiences:theneed tobecomefamiliarwithvocationalprogrammesandissueswithcollab- oration,studentchallengesandlearningmaterials.

ThefirstchallengetoVOconcernstheteachers’needtobecomefa- miliarwiththevocational programmeswherethey teach.Thistakes timeandeffort.Theintervieweesmentionedthattheydidnotlearnvo- cational contentduringteacher trainingandthatevenafteryearsin service,theystillexperiencedknowledgegaps.Evenso,theirfirstyears wereparticularlytroublesome.Anjasaid,“Inmyfirstyear,Itaughtall [five]ofourprogrammesandhadtolearneverythingfromscratch.I don’t thinkmyVOteachingwas verygoodthat year”.Furthermore, Irenecalledformorepeersupportfromcolleaguesasshedescribedher firstyearsofteachingvocationalstudents:“Youarebasicallythrownin there.Nooneadvisesyouonwhattodosoyougropeinthedarkfor awhile”.Ideally,noviceteachershavetimeandenergytobecomeself- reliant,butVOtopicscaneasilystealtimefromthisprocess.AsJana

pointedout,“[VO]requiresalotmorepreparationthangeneralEnglish […]andyouwillnotfeelasconfidentintheclassroomsaswhenyou teachgeneraltopics”.

Anothercommon experience, described by Anja,Dagny, Fredrik, Georg,HermanandIrene,isthatEnglishteachersarenotnecessarily assignedtoteachthesamevocationalprogramme(s)severalyearsina row.Continuitywas,however,describedasimperativeforgettingto knowaprogrammeandtoformbondswithkeyvocationalteachers.

Georg,forexample,said,“Iwouldhavelikedtoworkwithonepro- grammeyearafteryearbecauseitwouldmakeiteasiertodesigngood lessonplans.Itwouldhavebeenagreatrelief”.Hermansawprogramme continuityasnecessaryforteachercollaborationtooccur: “It’sgreat whenyougettoworkwiththesameprogrammeovertime.Theyyou gettoknowtheprogrammeandtheotherteachers”.Insum,theteach- erswantgreatercontinuityinwhichprogrammestheyteachtoallow forVOspecialisation.

Thesecondchallengeconcernscollaboration.Theteachers(minus Herman)describedchallengesintheircollaborationwithotherteachers.

Themostcommonissuewaslackofcontactwiththerelevantvocational teachers.Anja,Bernt,FredrikandGeorgstatedthatin theirschools, vocationalteacherswereknownfortheirlackofinitiative,burdening generalsubjectteacherswithfullresponsibilityfor anycollaborative efforts.Moreover,AnjaandGeorgsensedthatsomevocationalteachers preferrednotbeingcontacted,whichwasdemotivating.Collaboration wasalsohamperedbystructuralissuesattheschoollevelthatprevented Englishandvocationalteachersfromdevelopingeffectivecollaboration schemes.Akeyissuewastimeformeetings.Anja,Carina,Dagny,Elin andGeorgallmentionedthattherewerenotimeslotsforteachersto meetacrosssubjects.Anjaputitthisway:“Itisverydifficulttomeet throughouttheschoolyear.Iteachwhen[thevocationalteachers]don’t andtheotherwayaround.Thereisnevertimetositdown”.Twoschools hadformalisedinterdisciplinarymeetings (Fredrik’sandIrene’s),but thesemeetingswerenot usedforlessonplanning.InIrene’scase,for example,theywereinsteadspentdiscussingstudents’behaviourand grades.

ThethirdchallengetoVOconcernsstudentswhoarenotcommit- tedtotheir vocationalprogramme. AllexceptDagnyandElinnoted thatmostclassroomsincludestudentswithlowmotivationforthepro- grammetowhichtheywereadmitted.Accordingtomostoftheteach- ers,VOhaslittlemotivationalpowerforthesestudents.BothAnjaand Carinaquestionedtheimportanceof VOforunmotivatedstudentsor studentswhoarelookingtochangeprogramme.Anjasaid,“Youalways havesomestudentswhowanttochangeprogramme[…]VOdoesnot helpatallforthesestudents”.Similarly,Carinaargued,“Notallstudents aredevotedtotheprogrammetheyarein.Forsomeitwasanarbitrary decision[…],andthenIquestionhowrelevanttheyperceive[VO]to be”.

The fourth andfinal challenge toVO, mentioned by Anja, Elin, Fredrik,Georg,IreneandJana,concernslearningmaterial.Although theteachershadaccesstotextbooksthatincludedsomevocationalcon- tent,thebookswereoftendescribedasmediocre.Elinknewonevo- cationalprogrammesowellthatshewasabletospotinaccuraciesin herstudents’Englishtextbooks.Shesaid,“Ican tellthattheauthors areEnglishteachersandnotvocationalspecialists.So,Ifrequentlyhave tousematerialfromothersources”.Thisquoteisalsopertinenttothe experiencesofAnja,Fredrik,Georg,IreneandJana,whoallsaidthey supplementedtheirtextbookswithothermaterial.Irene,forexample, recalled,“MuchofwhatIhaveusedIhavefoundbygooglingaimlessly.

I’vespentanawfullotoftimeonthecomputerbutfoundverylittleof use”.Whengoodresourcesarescarce,teachersmayhavetosettlefor materialwithwhichtheyarenotentirelyhappy.Anja’sexperienceis illustrative:

Itishardtoadmit,butveryoften myinstruction[…]isplanned aroundwhateverIfindandcandointhetimeIhaveavailablerather thanwhatisactuallyrelevantforthestudents’vocationallearning.

TosummariseRQ3,theteachersdescribedascriticalcertainchal- lenges at an organisational level, specifically programme continuity andcollaborationissues.Furthermore,theyrecognisedthatVOisnot equally effectivefor allstudents anddescribed problemsin locating qualitylearningmaterial.

5. Discussion

Acrosstheinterviews,theteachersexpressedpositivesentimentsto- wardsVOinvocationalL2Englishteaching,andtheydescribedprac- ticesindicativeofcommitmenttotheapproach.However,theirexperi- encesalsohighlightthechallengesthatteachersarelikelytofacewhen theyseektointegrateEnglishandvocationalsubjects.

5.1VOasafavouredapproachinvocationalprogrammes

InresponsetoRQ1(HowdotheseEnglishteacherinformantsde- scribetheirgoalsforVOteaching?),thestudydescribeshowthemain goalfortheseteachersistouseVOasatooltoadaptgeneralEnglish languageteachingtovocationalstudents’interestsandneeds.Further, theteachersdescribedtwosubordinatebutstillimportantgoals:using VOtoteachgeneralEnglishlanguageskills,and,second,toteachwork- relatedterminology.InresponsetoRQ2(Whataretheinformants’views ontheusefulnessofVOinEnglishteaching?),thestudyfoundthatthe teachersascribeVO’susefulnesstoitsabilitytobuildonstudents’inter- ests,promoteEnglishasarelevantsubjectandsupportthosewhostrug- gle.InresponsetoRQ3(Whatdotheinformantssee ascentralchal- lengestosuccessfulVOinEnglishteaching?),theteacherspresented fourmainchallenges. First,becoming familiarwithavocationalpro- grammetakestimeandfrequentlymoretimethantheteachershave.

Second,theteachersdescribeanabsenceofcollaborationwithvoca- tionalcolleagues,whichalsohamperstheirabilitytolearnaboutthe programmes.Third,theteachersdoubtthatVOhasmuchtoofferstu- dentswhoarenotinterestedintheirvocationaleducation,and,fourth, sixteachersdescribedthequalityandavailabilityofteachingresources asproblematic.

Compared toprevious researchfrom Norway,not tomentionin- ternational research, our informants express more favourable sen- timents towards VO teaching (see Haugset et al., 2014; Myren &

Nilsen,2001;Olsen&Reegård,2013;Skålholtetal.,2013).Further- more,theydescribeteachingpracticesindicativeofwell-developedVO repertoiresandseemlessapprehensiveaboutteachinginthismanner (whencomparedtointernationalresearchsuchasElKandoussi,2017; Haugset et al., 2014; Hua & Beverton, 2013; IfL, 2013; Myren &

Nilsen,2001;Platt,1996).These practiceshavenot,however,devel- opedovernightbutemergedgraduallyfromtheirteachingofvocational students.

5.2Bridgingtheknowledgegap

Theinterviewssuggestthatourinformantsfoundtwomeasurespar- ticularlyhelpfulinbridginganinitialknowledgegapintheirvocational understanding.First,theteacherssaidthattheyaremorelikelytode- velopasolidVOrepertoireiftheyhavetheopportunitytoteach the sameprogramme(s)severalyearsinarow.BecausefewEnglishteach- ershaveinitialknowledgeofvocationalprogrammesandworkplaces, theyneedtimetodiscoverrelevantlinksbetweenEnglishandtheirstu- dents’vocationaleducation.Furthermore,ifteachersaretobenefitfrom themainstrengthsofVO—thatitincreasesrelevanceandstudentinter- est—theywilldependuponbeingallowedtospecialiseinoneorafew programmes.

Second,tofacilitaterelevantteaching,theteachersrecommended basing Englishlessonson contentfrom thestudents’vocationalsub- jects.Forthem,thisis asimplewaytoensurethattheydrawonap- propriatecontent,especiallywhentheyarelessfamiliarwithacertain

programme.Interestingly,onlyhalftheteachersfollowedthelatterad- viceintheobservedlessons(Table1).Thiscould,ofcourse,haveseveral explanations,butastheteachersstressthesignificanceofbuildingona vocationalcurriculumforstudents’learning,thereisreasontoquestion whyhalfdidnotdoso.

5.3AddedvalueofVOinL2Englishteaching

ByinvestigatingEnglishteachers’viewsofandexperienceswithVO, thisstudyshedslightontheaddedvaluethatVOcontributesinteach- ing.First,theteachersbelievethatVOcanbeagamechangerforstu- dentswhoareinsecureabouttheirEnglishlanguageskills,becausethe approachcentresonmaterialthestudentsknowwell(i.e.vocational contentknowledge).TheimportantmechanismhereisthatVOenables lessonswherestudentshavepriorknowledgeandthuscan feelmore confidentintheirabilitiestoparticipatein class.Consistentwithre- searchthathasshownhowincreasedconfidencecanstrengthenpartic- ipationandenduranceinschool(Schunk&Pajares,2009),theteachers seemtosuggestthatVOhasthepotentialtofacilitateavirtuouscircle whereconfidenceandinvestmentinlearningprovemutuallyreinforc- ing.

AnotherimportantfindingconcerningVO’saddedvalueisthatthe teachersbelievethatVOcanimprovestudentengagement.Inempiri- calresearch,studentengagementhasbeendescribedasanantidotefor studentboredomanddisconnectioninschool(Appletonetal., 2008; Tzeetal.,2014) andconducivetopromotingpersistence,effortand achievement(Chaseetal.,2014;Fredricksetal.,2004).Whileitisbe- yondthispaper’sscopetoaccountforthisresearchindetail,wesimply statethatafactorthatisfrequentlyfoundtopromoteengagementis (perceived)subjectrelevance(Taylor&Parsons,2011).Researchhas foundthatinstructionutilisingreal-lifescenariosismoreconduciveto engagementthanothertypesofinstruction(Claxton,2007;Dunleavy&

Milton,2009;Willmsetal.,2009),soteacherswillbenefitfromplanning lessonsthatspeaktostudents’interests,experiences,goalsandconcerns.

Accordingtoourinformants,VOtendstofunctionwellinthisrespect, buttheyadmitthatthereareconsiderabledifferencesinhowstudents respond.ThisisareminderthatVOneithereliminatestheneedforac- commodationtoindividualneedsnortheneedforcarefulconsideration ofhowtoachievethedesiredlearningoutcome.

5.4Dealingwithchallenges

Fromapracticalandorganisationalviewpoint,perhapsthemostim- portantcontributionofthisstudyisitsdescriptionofchallengestoVO.

Iftheseareunderstood,teachersandschoolleaderscanworktowards reducingthemandboostVO’spositiveimpactsatthesametime.No- tably,thestudyshowshow9outof10informants—whowereafterall recruitedfromschoolsthatprioritiseVO—experiencedlowlevelsofcol- laborationwithvocationalteachers,whichtheyfrequentlyattributedto howtheirschoolsareorganised.Forexample,Englishteachersrarelyin- teractwithvocationalcolleaguesandseldomshareofficesorattendthe samemeetings.Inaddition,someteachersreportedanabsenceofqual- ityteachingresources.Insum,itseemsthatourinformantstypically utiliseVOteachingwithoutpeersupport—orindeedsupportfromtext- booksandsimilar—placingthefullresponsibilityforintegratingvoca- tionalandEnglishlanguagemattersonthem.Consequently,VOteach- ingisvulnerabletoindividualteachers’abilitiestounderstand voca- tionalquestionsandtheircapacitiestocreateathirdspaceforgeneral andvocationalcontenttocometogether(i.e.Fjørtoft,2017).

Onthebasisofthisstudy,wecontendthatimprovedcollaboration mayreducetheimpactof allthechallenges toVOthattheteachers mentioned.Itcouldfacilitateincreasedfamiliaritywithvocationalpro- grammes,increaseaccesstosuitablelearningmaterialandprovide a betterstartingpointformotivatingallstudents.Interestingly,thiscon- tentionissupportedbythefactthatHerman—theonlyteacherdescrib- ingacloserelationshipwithhisvocationalcolleagues—reportedfewer

challengestoVOthandidtheotherteachers.However,asthemajority lackedcollaborativeexperience,itneedsfurtherinvestigation.

Dealingwithchallengesshouldbeapriority,consideringourinfor- mants’belief thatmany vocationalstudentsaremoreengagedwhen lessonsintegrategeneralandvocationaltopics.Indeed,inlightofso- cioculturaltheoryandtheimageoftheactivelearner(Edwards,2017; Vygotsky,1997),teachershavegoodreasontoemployVOif,infact, itencourages increasedengagementin learningactivities.Centralto socioculturaltheoryisthenotionofparticipationinsocialinteraction asessentialforlearning(Derry,2008;Edwards,2017),and,according totheinterviewedteachers,VOhasthepotentialtoincreasestudents’

activeparticipation. Iftheir descriptionsholdtrue,theysuggestthat VOmaycontributetolearningbyincreasingengagementandinvolve- ment. Certainly,this underlinestheimportanceof understandingthe challengestoVOandhowschoolscanworktominimisethenegative impactofthesechallenges.

5.5Limitations

This studyhastwopossiblelimitations.First,theinformantsmay not reflectthelargerpopulationofEnglishL2teachers,asallvolun- teeredforparticipationandwererecruitedfromschoolsthatprioritise VO.However,thisisnotnecessarilyaproblem,astheteachersrepre- sentastrategicsamplerecruitedbecauseoftheirexperienceswiththe phenomenonunderstudy.Furthermore,regardlessofcontextualfactors suchasage,teachingexperienceandgeographicallocation,therewas greatconsistencyin theteachers’experiencesandviewpoints,which adds tothefindings’trustworthiness.Discrepanciesbetweenthis and earlier,morenegativestudiesareconsistentwiththeinformantshaving hadmoretimetodeveloptheirVOrepertoire.

A secondlimitation concerns self-reporteddata. Itis well known thatteachers’espousedtheoriesandtheories-in-useoftendonotmatch (Borg, 2015). Tocompensate, we conductedclassroom observations aheadoftheinterviewsandallowedthesetoinformthecollectionand interpretation of theinterview data. Furthermore,some observation dataareincludedintheresultssectionandareusedtoexplainormodify theself-reporteddata.Moreover,theconsistencyinthedifferentteach- ers’experiencesisanargumentinfavouroftheoreticaltransferabilityto comparablecontexts.Thus,withinthelimitationsofaqualitativestudy withasmallsample,wecontendthatthisstudyoffersusefulinsightinto howL2EnglishteachersperceivevariousaspectsofVOteachingandthe challengestosupportiveVOteachinginL2classrooms.

6. Conclusion

Thestudydocuments10L2Englishteachers’experienceswithVO approachesinvocationalEnglishclassrooms.Theyfoundthemainad- vantage ofVOtobeits usefulnessinadaptingEnglishteachingtofit vocationalstudents’preferences.Onereasonisnovelty,asitallowsfor theteachingoftopicsthatappearnovelandengagingtothestudents.

Indeed,VOispresentedasafrontrunnerinthisrespect.Relatedly,the teachersclaimedthatVOsupportsstudentswhohavestruggledwithEn- glishinthepastbycastingthesubjectinadifferentmouldanddrawing onthemesandmaterialbelievedtosupportlearning.Finally,theteach- ers considereditamajoradvantage thatVOlessonsareanchoredin students’vocationalexperiences,asthisisbelievedtocreateascaffold forlearning.However,thestudyalsosuggestsroomforimprovementin thisarea.

ThestudyidentifiescertainchallengestoVO.Mostconcerningisthe lackofcollaborationbetweengeneralandvocationalteachers.Without collaboration,itbecomesmuchmoredifficultforEnglishVOlessonsto build oncontentknowledgedevelopedinvocationalsubjectsandfor teacherstocreateathirdspaceforgeneralandvocationalcontentto meet.Whileitisbeyondthispaper’sscopetoelaborateontheroleof teachercollaborations,weneedmoreresearchinthisarea,forexam- ple,toinvestigatehowcollaborationcanbecomeacentraltenetinVO