Pedagogical Language Knowledge as Emergent Working Theory of Practice for Language Development

• In Event: Teaching at the Crossroads of Language and Content: New Insights on Pedagogical Language Knowledge

Abstract

Background and Significance
Language development has become mainstream due to an increase in EBs (McFarland et al., 2017), inclusion of historically minoritized groups (Young et al., 2013), and language development standards (Bunch, 2013) in the modern educational discourse. Still, we lack a coherent, empirically informed theory of teaching for language development (Goldenberg & Coleman, 2010). Teachers feel unprepared to teach language (Pettit, 2011) influenced by deficit mindsets and accompanying failure to appreciate the complexity of language (Karabenick & Clemens Noda, 2004). This paper contributes to a discussion of a five-component framework for PLK (Galguera, 2011) as an emergent theory of action.

Methods
The data comes from the exploratory phase of a mixed-methods, comparative case study concerning PLK development among preservice teachers in Language Development Methods courses. The data includes classroom observations, curricular plans, and transcriptions of semi-structured interviews with two teacher candidates. Survey results were used to select participants.
Mary (pseudonyms), a 32-year-old White woman with a human communication degree, was Spanish-bilingual. Her field placement was at an elementary school, with majority English-learners. All her third-grade students were EBs. Mary’s cooperating teacher was a tenured teacher. Claire, a 25-year-old Black woman with an English degree and a linguistics minor, was proficient in French and Spanish. Claire’s high school field placement had a newcomer program, and all students in her tenth-grade English course were Latinx, Asian, and African. Claire’s cooperating teacher was known for her creativity and ability to work with difficult students. Both cooperating teachers had experience working with student teachers.

Findings
Mary’s and Claire’s linguistic ideologies valued linguistic and cultural diversity. They also stressed functional views of English use in and out of school. However, the teachers were concerned about constraining policies that placed parameters around language instruction (Kibler & Valdés, 2016). They furthermore struggled to see language-as-behavior in time, space, history, and location (Penycook, 2010), reflecting a view of language-as-structure. For instance, Mary worried about students simplifying Spanish verb morphology and number declinations.
Claire approached lesson planning through a translanguaging perspective (Poza, 2016), using her student’s cultural and background knowledge as resources to guide her work. She guided students in preparation for debates through use of complex texts (Bernhardt, 2011) and encouraged them to utilize translanguaging, media, and a variety of modes to effectively argue their points. Nevertheless, both teachers viewed assessment through a grade-oriented lens, rather than as a medium to examine their understandings of students’ language use and behaviors in more dynamic ways.

Implications
PLK as a theory of practice ideally occupies a liminal space, subsumed by social categories and district-wide policies and above classroom interactions (Pennycook, 2010). Explicit language teaching as practice and as action are crucial variables to consider in a novice teacher’s PLK development. Certain policies and perspectives on language and learners curtailed their capacities to develop PLK. This last point remains relevant to further investigations of the construct.

Author

• Tomas Galguera, Mills College