Toward a Discourse Analysis of Language and Communication in the Development of Urban Teacher Candidates

• In Event: Teacher Education and Racial Justice: Insights From Multiple Institution Types and Program Designs

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to explore the role of language and communication as they relate to teaching racial justice to teacher education candidates attending a minority serving institution. As a School of Urban Education (UED), we leverage our commitments to serve student demographics to facilitate systemic and structural change in ways that intersect with the educational outcomes for culturally diverse preK-12 students. The objectives of the work of UED are to prepare educators to navigate race and equity in education and teach the state-approved content curriculum. While UED welcomes accountability to ensure high-quality teaching preparation, UED also seeks growth that pertains to preparation, support, recruitment, and retention of teachers of color and American Indian teachers in the profession.
Grounded in Emirbayer and Desmond's (2011) antiracist and decolonized teaching framework which prioritizes pedagogical practices that are in a constant state of “becoming,” meaning there is no one single stopping point. Kishomoto (2018) exclaims antiracist pedagogy is more than the inclusion of race-based content into courses, curriculum, and discipline. Instead, it is about how one teaches, especially in situations where race is not the primary subject matter; antiracist and decolonized teaching begins with the educator’s awareness and self-reflection of their social position and leads to application of this analysis in their teaching and community work. UED work seeks to provide teacher candidates the utilities to acknowledge their biases and privileges while amplifying minoritized voices, these are tenets of antiracist and decolonized teaching.
Using qualitative methods, UED draws data from discourse analysis. Here, UED studied how the faculty, staff, students, and community partners employed language to model and achieve antiracist and trauma-informed practices. Participants were asked to document their lexicon when interacting with teacher candidates. Specifically, they were asked to document (using field notes) the frequency of usage of purposive sampling antiracist language, as well as note their conversations with teacher candidates. Participants’ field notes and conversation transcripts were analyzed to determine the frequency of usage of antiracist language.
Results, preliminarily indicate that participants are using antiracist language as part of their daily language use. In addition, the nature of their antiracist language demonstrates intentionality in becoming more reflective of their social positioning, while acknowledging their privilege. Furthermore, the results suggest the faculty, staff, community partners, and teacher candidates are including antiracist language in their practices and pedagogies. To this end, teacher candidates can use their learned skills and practices when working with students and families in urban school and community settings. Lastly, it can be implied that experience in antiracist modeling can engage a reflective and reflexive practice that supports becoming an antiracist and decolorized individual and educator.
The scholarly significance of this study involves sharing how UED supports teacher candidates in becoming critical in their pedagogical practices around antiracist language usage and forms of communication (verbal and nonverbal). The overall goal is to uplift urban communities and validate their constitutional rights guaranteed by law.

Author

• Larry C. Bryant, Metro State University