Applying the Linguistically and Culturally Responsive Math Teaching Model to Training Teachers With English Language Learners and Their Actual Math Teaching

• In Event: 52.049 - Improving, Inquiring, and Innovating (3 Is) Teacher Educators and Teachers Through an Ever-Evolving Professional Learning Community

Abstract

A demand exists to better prepare elementary teachers to improve math content and pedagogical teaching practice for increasing numbers of English language learners (ELLs) (Grossman, Schoenfeld, & Lee, 2005). The purpose of this presentation is to share how QTEL grant graduates demonstrate linguistically and culturally responsive math teaching (LCRMT) strategies in their classrooms with ELLs. A LCRMT framework is developed based on research on linguistically responsive teaching (Commins & Maramontes, 2006; Author & Simons, 2014), culturally responsive pedagogical content knowledge of mathematics (Aguirre, Zavala, & Katanyoutnant, 2012; Schleppegrell, 2007; Turner & Drake, 2016), and sociocultural constructivists’ perspectives on student interactions (Engestrom, 2001; Lemke, 1990; Polman, 2004; Vygotsky, 1978 ). The LCRMT framework has two dimensions: three mathematics-related competences for the 1st dimension and three how-to factors for the 2nd dimension. The first dimension has math content competence, math discourse competence, and math pedagogical competence (Aguirre, Zavala, & Katanyoutnant, 2012; Halliday, 1978; Schleppegrell, 2007)). The 2nd dimension includes how-to actors: ‘know in-depth’, ‘develop cognitive and procedural demands’, and ‘examine and develop crosscultural and sociopolitical beliefs’ (Commins & Maramontes, 2006; Author). The three how-to actors under each of the math-related competences are described in Table 1. The dichotomy of math content, math discourse, and/or math pedagogy is complex and not easily separated (Moschkovich, 2007), and the LCRMT framework can be used as a planning and assessment tool for teaching mathematics to ELLs.

This qualitative study’s research question is: “How do elementary inservice teachers demonstrate their LCR math teaching practice in classes with ELLs after they graduated from the QTEL program?” Twelve elementary preservice and eight inservice cohort teachers with ELLs, who were mostly white, female, and monolingual, participated in the 2015 QTEL program. Observation data was the main data source, and interview data was triangulated to answer the research question. ‘Activity Theory’ is used for examining and reporting qualitative data (narratives and observations) through identified “activity systems” (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010, p.90).

Coding provided two activity systems (Engestrom, 1987) to compare: the university theory-based teacher training (Triangle 1) and what graduates actually taught (Triangle 2). The first activity system had texts, LCRT strategies, and math content pedagogy knowledge for Tools, teachers in QTEL training for Subject, LCRMT competences for Object/Goal, cooperative learning; LCRT, and LCRMT for Rules, and TESOL instructors for Division of Labor. The second activity system for QTEL graduates had lessons, manipulatives, books, and computers for Tools, teachers for Subject, math teaching for Object/Goal, classroom, order, routine, rules for talking for Rules, and teacher or learner-directed teaching for Division of Labor (Figure 1). Graduated teachers preferred school-provided routines and rules to LCRMT strategies; used SIOP, but did not give individualized language anchors for ELLs. Researchers were puzzled to find LCRMT strategies for ELLs lacking. A contribution of this presentation is this juxtaposed finding, a gap between University training and actual math teaching, which will provide a benchmark for conversations about teaching academic content and social languages to increasing diverse student population.

Authors

• Kim Hyunsook Song, University of Missouri - St. Louis

• Sarah A. Coppersmith, University of Missouri-St. Louis