Introduction to “Preparation and Development of Mainstream Teachers for Today’s Linguistically Diverse Classrooms”

Abstract

English language learners (ELLs) are often placed in mainstream classrooms to be taught by teachers with little preparation for linguistic diversity. This essay discusses the negative consequences for ELLs of being taught by teachers who are unprepared to teach them, making a case for the urgent need to prepare a linguistically responsive teaching force. It also highlights the contributions the authors in this special issue make toward preparing mainstream teachers for today's linguistically diverse classrooms.

Key words:

• bilingual education
• English as a second language (ESL)
• English language learners (ELLs)
• English language proficiency
• English learners (ELs)
• preservice teacher preparation
• teacher education
• teacher learning
• teacher professional development

The presence of children and youths who speak a language other than English at home is undeniable in U.S. public elementary and secondary schools. Different labels have been used to describe these students. In the past, the federal government called them students of limited English proficiency. Recently, however, the more inclusive terms English language learners (ELLs) or simply English learners (ELs) have gained currency in schools. The authors in this special issue of The Educational Forum use these two terms to denote students for whom English is a second (or additional) language and who need more time to become proficient enough in English to fully benefit from subject matter instruction in English. ELLs are currently the fastest growing segment of the K–12 student population in this country (Calderón, Slavin, & Sánchez, 2011). In 1990, one in 20 public school students was an ELL. At present, this figure is about one in nine, or 4.6 million students (McFarland et al., 2017). Throughout the 20th century, ELLs were concentrated in urban schools; now they ­represent a growing number of students enrolled in suburban and rural schools as well (Kena et al., 2016). In fact, more than 76% of all U.S. public schools serve ELLs today (Taie & Goldring, 2017).

While the numbers of ELLs have climbed in the past two decades, speakers of native languages other than English have been in U.S. schools for much of the country’s history. In the absence of an official national language, educational language policies have shifted over time based largely on prevailing attitudes toward immigration and linguistic ­diversity (Rumbaut, Massey, & Bean, 2006). Early in U.S. history, liberal language attitudes allowed for languages other than English to be used in schools. In the first half of the 19th century, German–English bilingual schools existed in many states, and other European languages were also used to teach children in many immigrant communities (Kloss, 1977). In the late 1880s, anti-immigrant sentiments toward the rising numbers of newcomers from Eastern and Southern Europe resulted in the elimination of languages other than ­English in most schools; and with the onset of World War I, anti-German feelings brought the strong tradition of German–English bilingual education in this country to an end (­Crawford, 2000). In the 50-year period from 1918 through 1968, immersion in English—also known as the “sink or swim” approach—was the dominant mode of teaching ELLs in U.S. schools (Ovando, 2003).

Changes in the political climate resulting from the civil rights movement of the 1960s paved the way for the passage of the federal Bilingual Education Act of 1968 and a number of court cases that challenged the legality of the sink-or-swim approach to educating ELLs. By the late 1970s, it became increasingly common to place ELLs in bilingual and English as a second language (ESL) programs to be taught by teachers who were specifically prepared to teach students from linguistically diverse backgrounds. In most cases, students in these programs would be “transitioned” to mainstream classes only after developing sufficient English language skills to benefit from instruction in English. However, in the early 2000s schools began to place increasing numbers of ELLs in mainstream classrooms (Polat, 2010). (The article in this issue by Ana Maria Villegas, Kit SaizdeLaMora, Adrian D. Martin, and Tammy Mills discusses salient factors that precipitated this shift in practice.) Because teacher preparation programs have yet to catch up with this mainstreaming trend, classroom teachers who are now expected to teach ELLs find themselves unprepared for the task (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008; O’Neal, Ringler, & Rodriguez, 2008; Reeves, 2006; Rodriguez, Manner, & Darcy, 2010).

The lack of preparation for teaching ELLs reported by many mainstream teachers has profound implications for the academic outcomes and future life chances of these students. Because ELLs are simultaneously learning the English language and academic content taught in English, they need teachers who are adept at making subject matter comprehensible and meaningful to them while also supporting their development of proficiency in English. When teachers lack the knowledge and pedagogical skills this task demands, ELLs are positioned at a decided disadvantage in learning.

Teachers’ lack of preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms is problematic in another way. Not having confidence in their ability to instruct ELLs, mainstream ­teachers often place the responsibility for teaching these students on their bilingual and ESL ­colleagues, whom they view as possessing the expertise needed to do so (Hutchinson, 2013; Yoon, 2008; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). Lamentably, when classroom teachers fail to see themselves as responsible for teaching ELLs, they generally make little or no effort to scaffold instruction in ways that support ELLs’ learning.

A third fundamental problem related to mainstream teachers’ lack of preparedness for linguistically diverse classrooms has to do with the deficit views many of them hold of ELLs (Lee, Luykx, Buxton, & Shaver, 2007; Lucas, Villegas, & Martin, 2015; Rodriguez et al., 2010). When future and/or current teachers are not given opportunities to critically inspect their beliefs about ELLs and linguistic diversity as part of their initial preparation for teaching and/or ongoing professional learning, those unexamined views imperil ELL students’ academic success (Sharkey & Layzer, 2000; Walker, Shafer, & Iiams, 2004). Research shows that teachers who see students through deficit lenses tend to emphasize what those learners cannot do rather than what they already do well. Lacking faith in the students’ ability to achieve, these teachers are more likely to form low academic expectations of the children and ultimately treat them in ways that stifle their learning (Fang, 1996; Madom, Jussim, & Eccles, 1997; Nespor, 1987). The consequences for ELLs of being taught by teachers who are ill-prepared to teach them are magnified in the current global information-based economy, in which people lacking a strong education are apt to become part of the unemployed or underemployed classes. Given the stakes involved, all ­teachers—not just bilingual and ESL specialists—must be prepared for today’s linguistically diverse classrooms. Not to provide them with the needed preparation raises serious concerns about educational equity.

The intent of this special issue of The Educational Forum is to put the spotlight on the urgent need to educate mainstream teachers of ELLs. As a set, the five articles in this ­issue offer valued insights into how to develop a linguistically responsive teaching force. ­Although each article stands on its own merit, there is a logical flow in their ordering. The issue begins with two reviews of empirical literature on the preparation and development of mainstream teachers for linguistic diversity. The first article, by Ana Maria Villegas, Kit SaizdeLaMora, Adrian Martin, and Tammy Mills, critically inspects the types of expertise and opportunities provided to preservice teachers for learning to teach ELLs through university-based teacher preparation programs. In parallel fashion, the article by Tamara Lucas, Kathryn Strom, Meghan Brakovitch, and Jennifer Wnuk systematically evaluates the nature of the expertise and outcomes of opportunities offered to practicing teachers for learning to teach ELLs through professional development initiatives. By using the central tasks of learning to teach across the professional continuum proposed by Feiman-Nemser (2001) to frame their respective analyses, the authors of these two articles give readers a comprehensive and conceptually coherent view of what is known to date about preparing mainstream teachers for ELLs, from initial preparation through continuing professional development. Both reviews identify promising learning opportunities, highlight gaps in the empirical literature, and offer a number of useful directions for future research. Not surprisingly, the two articles confirm that this body of research is in its infancy, with the preponderance of studies published after 2008. Since then, much has been learned that could be used to help guide practice.

The other three articles present empirical studies on different but related topics. The article by Ester de Jong, Cindy Naranjo, Shuzhan Li, and Aicha Ouzia takes up the ­development of ELL-related expertise of university-based teacher educators who are responsible for preparing future mainstream teachers to teach ELLs, a topic on which little research has been conducted to date. Specifically, the study examines the experiences of general teacher ­educators in Florida, one of a few states in the country that require teacher preparation programs to infuse ESL-related content into education courses and require faculty who teach those courses to complete 45 hours of professional development on ELL instruction. For the most part, teacher educators meet this requirement by completing a set of online modules and participating in working sessions planned and led by ESL faculty at their respective institutions. Using a mixed-methods design to learn about the practices employed in this novel statewide initiative, the researchers surveyed ESL faculty from across the state who played a crucial role in the professional development efforts at their sites and conducted follow-up interviews with a sample of them to explore in more depth trends emerging from the survey and to identify successes and challenges experienced at the institutional level. The findings suggest that the initiative succeeded in deepening general teacher educators’ understanding of foundational issues related to the education of ELLs, but fell somewhat short of attaining the desired curricular transformation. As noted by the authors, the mandated nature of the training promoted a compliance mentality whereby once the 45 hours of professional learning had been met, participants did not seek additional opportunities to learn. The authors also found that while the online modules gave faculty some flexibility regarding when to complete the mandated professional development, the standardized nature of the modules—which accounted for much of the training at most institutions—failed to address the wide diversity of participants’ learning needs. This timely and informative article has much to offer not just states but also institutions of higher education committed to supporting general teacher educators in transforming the teacher education curriculum for linguistic diversity.

In the next article, Steven Z. Athanases and Johanna W. Wong explore how and to what ­extent teacher candidates learn from and about linguistically diverse students through teacher inquiry. The study was conducted in the context of a 10-month post-baccalaureate teacher education program that has two teacher inquiry courses, the first addressing a ­variety of inquiry methods and the second requiring teacher candidates to use those methods in an inquiry project. Twenty-three preservice language arts teachers who were registered for the second inquiry course while completing a semester-long student teaching experience participated in this study. As part of their inquiry, teacher candidates collected a variety of data for students in their practice teaching class, including written work products. They also conducted a close analysis of collected work products and documented the students’ learning and achievement to identify linguistic resources the learners possessed for subsequent use in teaching them. Using data from teacher candidates’ inquiry reports, including memos describing focal students’ backgrounds, interests, academic performance, interaction patterns, and growth over time, the researchers illustrate how many of the teacher candidates moved from an uncritical acceptance of rubrics narrowly focused on technical aspects of language while ignoring ELLs’ creative use of language and writing probes that were irrelevant to the students’ lives to ultimately recognizing ELLs’ means of expression as resources to build on in their teaching. Although study participants were not always able to articulate how they might use what they learned about ELLs’ language to make their teaching more authentic and responsive to them, Athanases and Wong conclude that the use of teacher inquiry, along with reflective analysis and planning, affords preservice teachers opportunities to broaden traditional notions of writing assessment and what counts as writing and to develop affirming views of ELLs.

The final article, by Erik Haas, Julie Goldman, and Christian Faltis, focuses on a writing program for middle school ELLs implemented in more than 60 school districts in California. This comprehensive program, which is adopted by schools and implemented school-wide, features high-leverage practices informed by genre-based writing, sociocultural learning theories, and research on best practices for ELL literacy and content development. It also includes a professional learning component designed to develop the capacity of teachers in the school to cultivate ELL students’ academic literacy in the context of their respective subject areas. To promote whole school change, professional learning activities are offered to teachers and administrators as a means of developing a common understanding of effective writing practices for ELLs. Teacher teams also engage in professional learning cycles in which they experience the high-leverage writing practices themselves, assess samples of ELL student writing with the use of a common rubric, discuss identified students’ strengths and needs, collectively develop an action plan to improve students’ learning, and then implement the plan in their respective classes. In this article, the authors present the results of an evaluation study that employed an experimental design to examine the effectiveness of the program in changing the practices of English language development (ELD) teachers and improving their students’ learning outcomes. The findings showed that after 2 years in the program, participating ELD teachers systematically implemented more high-quality writing practices than their counterparts who had not been part of the program. Additionally, ELLs taught by program teachers outperformed their ELL peers in the control group in measures of English language proficiency. The authors also present evidence of a small treatment effect on the overall literacy of ELLs in favor of the students taught by program teachers. Since new programs typically take five years to reach full implementation, the authors conclude that with time this innovative program promises to substantially improve ELL students’ linguistic and academic achievement.

The issue concludes with two commentaries that expand on the ideas presented by the authors of the five theme articles discussed above. Sharon Feiman-Nemser, a leading scholar in teacher education who has written extensively about teacher learning and the curriculum and pedagogies of teacher education, focuses her comments specifically on the two reviews of empirical research on (preservice and practicing) mainstream teachers of ELLs, both of which used the teacher-learning model she developed as an organizing framework. Then María Estela Brisk, a highly respected scholar with expertise in the development of literacy and bilingualism, looks across the five articles, offering reflections and comments on issues raised by the authors.

Collectively, the articles in this special issue make a strong case for the need to develop a linguistically responsive teaching force, offer some insights on what is known from research that could be used in this task, and identify important questions for future ­research. My hope is that the ideas presented raise educators’ awareness about the ­precarious ­situation ELLs find themselves in when placed in mainstream classes to be taught by teachers who are not equipped to teach them, and motivate us all to act on their behalf.

Ana María Villegas

Guest Editor

Ana María Villegas is a Professor in the Department of Secondary and Special Education and the Director of the PhD Program in Teacher Education and Teacher Development at Montclair State University. Prior to joining MSU in September 1996, she was a Senior Research Scientist with the Division of Education Policy Research of Educational Testing Service. A former classroom teacher in the New York City Public Schools, she has worked for more than 40 years to improve the education of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Dr. Villegas’ scholarship raises questions about educational research, policies, and practices that are often unexamined and offers novel ways of thinking about persistent issues. Her work in teacher education has helped to re-­envision the field by placing student diversity at the heart of the teaching-learning process and providing a framework for how to systematically infuse attention to issues of diversity throughout the teacher preparation curriculum. Her research on teacher diversity has shaped national and state policies and practices related to the recruitment and preparation of a teaching force. The racial/ethnic teacher diversity index she developed has offered the education community a way to measure state and local efforts to diversify the teaching force.

Over the years Dr. Villegas has received awards for her scholarship, including the Early Career Award by the AERA Committee on the Role and Status of Minorities in Research; the ETS Research Scientist Award; and the Margaret B. Lindsay Award for Distinguished Research in Teacher Education from the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. She was named AERA Fellow in 2012 and invited to the KDP Laureate Chapter in 2015.