Assessing Preservice Teacher Enactment of Linguistically and Culturally Responsive Practices Supported in Teacher Education Coursework

• In Event: 49.088 - Roundtable Session 17
  In Roundtable Session: 49.088-11 - Preparing Classroom Teachers to Succeed With Second Language Learners: Research From a Faculty Learning Community

Abstract

Content and objectives: What preservice teachers learn during their university training does not always translate into their classroom practices (Bryan, 2003; van Hover & Yeager, 2003; Zeichner & Tabachnik, 1981, 7). Addressing this challenge, this paper 1) demonstrates methods for assessing whether preservice teachers implement practices shown to be effective for emergent bilinguals; 2) explores progress and challenges that one program’s preservice teachers faced while enacting instruction for emergent bilinguals (Yin, 1994).

Data: Across two years, we observed (once) and interviewed (once) 22 preservice teachers purposefully sampled across program areas (special ed., elementary, secondary history, etc.). Observational notes were entered onto a modified SIOP form (Sheltered Instructional Observational Protocol, see Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2006); SIOP is a framework specifying 30 features of effective emergent bilingual instruction. We displayed data to convey degree of implementations by SIOP feature across two years of data collection. Emergent coding and search for disconfirming evidence were used to clarify facilitators and challenges to enactment of effective practice in interview data.

Findings: Preservice teachers used some practices that support emergent bilinguals, and the second year cohort used more features than the first. For instance, at least 17 of 22 students across cohorts—more than three quarters—of the student teachers fully implemented the following SIOP features: age appropriate concepts; a variety of techniques; scaffolding; applying knowledge and language in the classroom; conducted assessments. Five of the seven least frequent practices relate to supporting language development and comprehension. Our discussion of preservice teachers’ perspectives on current practices and the challenges they experienced similarly suggests areas other programs may need to address (Yin, 1994), including nuancing preservice teachers’ ideas about use of visuals while teaching and use of students L1 in the classroom.

Conclusion: Collecting data directly from observations and interviews of preservivce teachers can inform a teacher education programs’ ongoing efforts to improve teacher preparation for linguistic diversity. We close with a short discussion of how such data collection could be done: with limited resources; in support of different research agendas; and in support of program accreditation.

Author

• Eileen Mercedes González, University of Saint Joseph