NOTE: This article has not been copyedited due to its length.

A persistent achievement gap between emergent bilingual learners (BLs) and native English speakers in U.S. schools impels teacher educators who seek to improve learning opportunities for BLs to study their efforts. The situation is especially dire in urban areas of Massachusetts where drop rates and reclassification of BLs with special needs have increased dramatically since bilingual education was replaced with sheltered English instruction (SEI) through a voter referendum in 2002 (Uriarte & Tung, 2009). As of 2013, the state education department mandated all teachers complete an SEI course to prepare them to work with emergent BLs. However, research on the effectiveness of this preparation is urgently needed. Accordingly, this self study, a form of practitioner inquiry that takes place in a higher education setting (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, see Madigan Peercy and Sharkey, this newsletter) focused on the following questions: What difference can one course make? To what extent did an SEI course taught within teacher education programs at a graduate school of education prepare linguistically responsive teachers (LRTs).

Lucas and Villegas (2011) outlined orientations, knowledge and skills of LRTs: that is, specialized language-based expertise needed to teach emergent BLs. In brief, LRTs must recognize how their own and students’ language and culture influence teaching and learning; build on BLs’ backgrounds and proficiencies (DeJong & Harper, 2005; Lucas & Villegas, 2011); scaffold instruction (Gibbons, 2015; Walqui, 2006); and integrate language and content instruction (Echevarría, Vogt & Short, 2013; Zwiers, 2014).

However, most U.S. teachers are monolingual English speakers with limited second language experience (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005); Language must become visible to teachers (Harper & De Jong, 2004) before they can teach language demands of classroom tasks and texts (de Jong & Harper, 2005; Santos, Darling-Hammond & Cheuk, 2012). A primary goal of the SEI course is to enable mainstream teachers to “see” language and explicitly teach it. Therefore, in the course we model how language instruction can be featured in lessons through language objectives, which focus on how students use language to access, engage in, and demonstrate content learning (Schall-Leckrone & McQuillan, 2014). Kinsella (2011) provided a useful template to create language objectives with two components: language functions and language features: for instance, “Students will describe characters in a novel using precise adjectives. WIDA Standards (2007; 2012) provide numerous examples of language functions within content lessons according to English proficiency levels. Language features are discrete language parts: phonemes, morphemes, grammar, syntax, and pragmatics that provide students (and teachers) with a meta-language to describe how words and word groups are formed and ordered. Academic language functions and features must be taught, so language is no longer the hidden curriculum preventing academic achievement (Schleppegrell, 2004; Zwiers, 2014).

Research design

A social justice vision guided this self study— conducted within my practice as a teacher educator at a private university in the northeastern United States—as I believe BLs should have the opportunity to develop language skills that equip them for school success, professional employment, and civic engagement. Consistent with practitioner inquiry, study participants were “regarded as knowers, learners, and researchers,” so both practitioners’ and participants’ views of these research questions were examined (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p.42). To what extent do participants in the SEI course develop orientations, knowledge, and skills of LRT teachers? Can they identify and teach language demands of classroom tasks? To understand how well participants were prepared to teach language during the SEI course, surveys and assignments were collected and analyzed from 2013-15.

The SEI course—offered in 4-credit elementary and secondary versions at our university— is designed to equip teachers with knowledge and skills to teach the growing population of emergent BLs in mainstream classrooms. Of 158 course participants who consented to participate in the study, most were female, aspiring elementary teachers between the ages of 29-37, and 92% were native English speakers. Data was collected in the classes of five bilingual course instructors with significant prior experience working with BLs in K-12 and higher education in US and international contexts.

Data Analysis

Mixed methods were used to examine teacher preparation to teach language. Pre and post course surveys were analyzed to better understand participants’ perspectives of SEI preparation; Specifically, paired T-tests were conducted using SPSS and open response survey portions were coded. In addition, five practitioners evaluated participants’ ability to teach language in a final lesson plan assignment. I further analyzed lesson plans from my courses to determine whether language objectives contained language functions and features and which types of language features were identified. Multiple viewpoints: practitioners’ and participants’ and mixed methods provided a comprehensive approach to assessing the influence of the SEI course on equipping teachers to teach BLs language.

Participants’ Views

Participants felt their ability to identify and teach language increased in the SEI course. Their survey responses (using a Likert scale: 1-strongly agree, 2- agree, 3- uncertain, 4- disagree, 5- strongly disagree) demonstrated a statistically significant change from the pre-to post survey (See Table 1).

Table 1: Statements regarding participants’ ability to identify and teach language

Participants agreed they could “identify basic structures and functions of language” and strongly agreed with this statement on the post-survey. Similarly, on the post survey, participants agreed they could “plan language objectives for . . . classes.” However, open responses on the post-survey suggested they would need support to apply coursework understandings of language in classrooms.

Participants felt they would benefit from more practice implementing language objectives with real students in classroom settings. As one student noted, “At this point, I feel like practice is the best teacher” (emphasis in the original). Similarly, another student suggested more opportunity to work directly with students during the course would have been beneficial. And another added, “Since I don’t have . . . classroom experience, I . . . need . . . support from an SEI expert [to] help me in a classroom situation.” Participants recognized the need to receive site-based coaching with real BLs in classroom settings.

Practitioners’ viewpoints

Practitioners evaluated how well participants identified and taught language in lesson plans that were drafted, taught, reviewed by peers, revised then submitted. Lesson components such as: language objectives, academic vocabulary and language features were rated with a rubric, as follows: 1 (Unsatisfactory), 2 (Developing Skills), 3 (Proficient), and 4 (Distinguished).

Figure 1: How Practitioners Rated Participants’ Ability to Teach Language

Practitioners felt most participants demonstrated proficiency in planning language objectives, teaching academic vocabulary and significant language features. Elementary teachers generally seemed more skilled at identifying language than secondary participants perhaps due to prior coursework on teaching reading. In addition, participants seemed more successful at crafting language objectives than teaching specific academic vocabulary or language features. That is, they could identify important academic vocabulary or language features but not fully demonstrate how to teach them in lessons. As participants suggested, they would benefit from coaching with real students in schools to develop facility embedding language-focused instruction throughout lessons. Finally, I evaluated lesson plans more critically than other practitioners, demonstrating a need to calibrate our rubric usage.

To understand how students conceptualized language in lesson plans, I also analyzed how 56 students from four course sections that I taught in 2014 created language objectives, specifically, whether language objectives contained language functions and features (see Figure 2), and which types of features appeared in their objectives (see Figure 3).

Figure 2: Language Objectives: Functions and Features

Most participants included language functions in their language objectives— how WIDA standards with which students worked throughout the course are expressed. Participants’ ability to identify language features increased in subsequent iterations of the course, which I attribute to instructional improvements not student differences. SEI course revision has focused on supporting students in identifying and teaching language features through language objectives, so I also examined what types of language features were identified in language objectives (See Figure 3).

Figure 3: Type of Language Features Identified in Language Objectives

Eighty-four percent of language objectives featured vocabulary words or grammatical components of clauses or sentences (i.e. parts of speech). Phonemes or morphemes, such as how to form plurals or create word families with particular sounds, were a linguistic focus for early childhood educators, a much smaller subset of participants.

The importance of teaching language demands of content texts and tasks to emergent BLs has been established (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008; Harper & De Jong, 2004). As practitioners, we became more adept at teaching how to create language objectives over time. While the SEI course promoted mainstream teachers’ awareness of their role as language teachers (de Jong & Harper, 2005) and some ability to create language objectives, participants sought more support to put language-based teaching strategies into practice in classrooms. Participants and practitioners agreed: one course is insufficient. At this point, we seem to be preparing linguistically aware teachers rather than linguistically responsive ones.

Implications

A coherent approach to preparing linguistically responsive teachers requires learning to be reinforced in multiple contexts from coursework to the classroom. Participants recognized the benefit of language objectives but felt they should have been introduced earlier and practiced throughout their program of studies. Language knowledge and skills should be infused throughout teacher education programs, which requires professional development for all teacher educators. Participants also sought opportunities to put coursework learning into practice with real students and receive on-site support, which would require more coordination between K-12 and higher education settings. Further practitioner research—studies in both teacher education and K-12 classrooms— are recommended to improve learning opportunities for the increasing number of emergent BLs taught in mainstream classes in Massachusetts and beyond.

References

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, C & Zeichner, K. (2005). Executive summary: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education (pp. 1-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

De Jong, E. J. & Harper, C.A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English- language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 101-124.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M.E. & Short, D.J. (2013). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP Model (4^th Edition). Pearson: Boston, MA.

Fang, Z. & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A

language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. 39-63.

Gibbons, P. (2015). 2^nd Edition. Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language leaners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Harper, C. & DeJong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English language learners. Journal of Adult & Adolescent Literacy, 48(2), 152-162.

Kinsella, K. (2011). Linguistic scaffolds for writing effective language objectives. Unpublished document.

Lucas, T. & Villegas, A.M. (2011). A framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In T. Lucas (Ed.) Teacher preparation for linguistically-diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators. New York: Routledge.

Santos, M., Darling-Hammond, L. & Cheuk, T. (2012). Teacher development to support English language learners in the context of the Common Core State Standards. Understanding language: Language, literacy, and learning in the content areas. Stanford University working papers.

Schall-Leckrone, L & McQuillan, P.J. (2014). In J. Nagle (Ed.) Creating collaborative learning communities to improve English learner instruction: College faculty, school teachers, and pre-service teachers learning together in the 21st century. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Schleppegrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Uriarte, M. & Tung, R. (2009) “English Learners in Boston Public Schools in the Aftermath of Policy Change: Enrollment and Educational Outcomes, AY 2003-AY2006.” The Mauricio Gaston Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston, MA.

Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instructional for English language learners: A conceptual framework. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.

WIDA English Language Proficiency Standards (2007/2012). Available at http://www.wida.us

Wright, W. E. (2015). 2^nd Edition. Foundations for teaching English Language Learners. Research, theory, policy, and practice. Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing.

Zwiers, J. (2014). 2^nd ed. Building academic language: Meeting Common Core Standards across disciplines, grades 5-12. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Laura Schall-Leckrone is an assistant professor and program director of TESOL and bilingual education at the Graduate School of Education at Lesley University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She has worked as a bilingual educator and curriculum director in U.S. public schools. Her research focuses on teacher preparation and pedagogy that promotes critical literacies for bilingual learners.