An Investigation of What Linguistically Responsive Teaching Looks Like in a Real Course Setting With Preservice Teachers

• In Event: 34.048 - Preparing All Teachers to Become Language Teachers: A National Perspective

Abstract

Objective
This study investigated to what extent linguistically responsive teaching framework (LRTF) (Lucas & Villegas, 2011) was evident in a real course setting and explored what course component(s) were perceived influential on preservice teachers’ (PSTs) dispositions, knowledge and skills about ELLs and teaching ELLs in mainstream.

Theoretical framework
The LRTF (Lucas & Villegas, 2011) incorporates the general understandings of sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (SLA) and includes the following seven elements: a) sociolinguistic consciousness, b) value for linguistic diversity, c) inclination to advocate for ELLs, d) learning about ELLs’ language backgrounds, experiences, and proficiencies, e) identifying the language demands of classroom discourse and tasks, f) applying key principles of second language (SL) learning, and g) scaffolding instruction to promote ELLs’ learning. The first three components are linguistically affirmative orientations, and the last four components detail knowledge and skills of linguistically responsive teachers.

Methods
Data for this study were collected from 24 PSTs enrolled in an introductory-level, semester-long course on teaching ELLs at a large urban public university in the Southwest U.S. Qualitative data, including pre-, mid-, and post-course written reflections and course evaluations, were coded and analyzed using the elements of the LRTF. The qualitative data were triangulated through a 37-item survey (Sahin-Adibelli, Huerta &Turgut, 2016) that aimed to assess teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and attitudes regarding SLA and ELLs before and after participating in the course.

Findings
The pre-course reflections revealed that the majority of PSTs did not feel confident in teaching ELLs because of lack of knowledge regarding ELL instructional strategies and SL development process. Additionally, most PSTs held misconceptions about ELLs and SL development by considering the education of ELLs as the responsibility of bilingual teachers rather than mainstream teachers.

Following the seven elements of the LRTF, data analysis revealed the course enabled the PSTs to develop the first five qualities of linguistically responsive teachers. The most positive finding of this study was the majority of PSTs started to consider themselves as responsible for teaching ELLs in mainstream. Regarding the last two elements of the LRTF (applying key principles of SL learning, and scaffolding instruction to promote ELLs’ learning), we could not find any evidence due the fact that the PSTs in the study did not have the opportunity to work with ELLs at the time of the study. Additionally, we identified the nine course components/features (e.g. language sensitivity exercises, ELL vignettes and case study tasks, interviewing ELLs) influenced the PSTs’ teacher identity negotiation in relation to ELLs. Quantitative findings also supported qualitative data by showing statistically significant positive changes in PSTs’ knowledge, beliefs and attitudes regarding ELLs and SLA after their participation in the course.

Significance of the Study
Our findings suggest how an introductory course on teaching ELLs could be designed to promote linguistically responsive teacher identity in teacher education programs. Note that becoming a linguistically responsive teacher is a continuous process; therefore, PSTs must be provided opportunities to work with ELLs in fieldwork placements to develop a strong sense of linguistically responsive teacher identity.

Authors

• REFIKA Turgut, University of South Carolina - Upstate

• Elif Adibelli Sahin, TED University