Learning From Students,Teachers,and Schools: Field-Based Teacher Education for Emergent Bilingual Learners

Abstract

Today’s schools are more culturally and linguistically diverse than ever before, prompting the need for teachers with the requisite expertise for work with emergent bilingual learners. As students grow in numbers and fill seats in classrooms spanning grades and disciplines, teacher educators must consider ways to prepare an increasing number of teachers, including those spanning licensure areas. This research probed one university’s efforts to prepare all teacher candidates for this growing subgroup of students through a field-based undergraduate teacher education program in the urban Midwest. Using artifact data from 29 program completers and survey and interview data from five focal teachers spanning licensure areas, this study investigated how particular facets of the field-based program promoted or deterred candidates’ learning across the 4-year program and into teachers’ first year of teaching. Implications center on how universities can leverage field-based teacher education to prepare future teachers for diverse classrooms.

Keywords

bilingual/English language learners case study curriculum field experiences preservice teacher education

In the United States and around the world, schools are more diverse than ever before. In the United States, 20% of students speak a language other than English with approximately half labeled as English learners (ELs) due to developing English proficiency as measured by standardized tests of listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Linquanti & Cook, 2013; National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). The fastest growing student subgroup in U.S. public schools with rates doubling over the past 15 years, ELs include more than 5 million students speaking more than 300 languages (American Community Survey, 2015; Migration Policy Institute, 2016). In urban, suburban, and rural areas, these emergent bilingual (EB) learners¹ bring rich cultural and linguistic backgrounds and abilities to classrooms. Nonetheless, they face challenges inherent in demonstrating achievement in literacy, math, science, and social studies in English while still developing proficiency (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010).

Situated in these changing demographics, leading scholars have called for all teachers to be prepared for EBs (e.g., deJong, Harper, & Coady, 2013; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-González, 2008; Manzo, Cruz, Faltis, & de la Torre, 2012). Indeed, teachers play an integral role in facilitating the learning, development, and achievement of EBs, although preparation for this student subgroup has been inconsistent in both preservice and in-service settings (deCohen & Clewell, 2007; Gándara & Maxwell-Jolly, 2006). Whereas various efforts exist for in-service teachers (e.g., Kibler & Roman, 2013; Lee & Buxton, 2013), initial teacher education plays an integral role in preparing the incoming teachers corps for linguistically diverse populations (Ball & Forzani, 2009). This includes the preparation of all teachers spanning grades and disciplines (Lucas et al., 2008).

Nevertheless, many teachers and candidates consider teaching EBs as someone else’s responsibility (Feiman-Nemser, 2018). This sentiment reflects traditional institutional structures where EBs are serviced by English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers, rather than embraced as the responsibility of all educators (Heineke, Coleman, Ferrell, & Kersemeier, 2012). But in today’s schools, teachers across disciplines and contexts need to make content accessible, promote language development, and maintain EBs on the same academic trajectory as English-dominant students (Heritage, Walqui, & Linquanti, 2015). Teacher preparation programs, then, must aim to interrupt this division by preparing all teachers to support students’ learning and language development within and across disciplines and settings (deJong & Harper, 2010; Hamann & Reeves, 2013). Researchers have investigated efforts to prepare a broader corps of teachers for EBs, typically focusing on particular subsets of candidates, such as elementary (e.g., Coady, Harper, & de Jong, 2011) or science teachers (e.g., Bravo, Mosqueda, Solís, & Stoddart, 2014).

Field-based approaches have been encouraged as a part of these efforts to prepare teachers for EBs (Ball & Forzani, 2009; García, Arias, Harris Murri, & Serna, 2010; Villegas, SaizdeLaMora, Martin, & Mills, 2018). Through direct contact with EBs in the field, candidates can grapple with existing misconceptions or deficit views of students and adopt inclusive views of their instructional responsibilities (Feiman-Nemser, 2018). As candidates become confident in their ability to teach EBs, they can see beyond the myth that successful teaching for EBs is just good teaching, which infers that teachers do not need to learn or do anything beyond what is deemed effective for English-dominant students (Harper & deJong, 2004). Nonetheless, fieldwork is often incorporated as singular, time-bound events such as projects or tutoring (e.g., Fitts & Gross, 2012; Sowa, 2009; Virtue, 2007), rather than interconnected experiences across programs. To our knowledge, no previous research has probed how longitudinal fieldwork with EBs influences the learning and practice of teachers across licensure areas.

This article focuses on the field-based approach of one initial teacher education program that prepares candidates spanning licensure areas for EBs. Building on extant scholarship that emphasizes the potential of fieldwork with EBs (Feiman-Nemser, 2018; García et al., 2010), this research investigates field-based teacher education that prioritizes EBs across the undergraduate curriculum. Distinct from previous approaches that utilize separate and shorter field experiences, this study explores how candidates’ understandings and practices are mediated by longitudinal field-based curriculum. We begin by detailing the focal program and conceptual framework, followed by sharing the methods and findings. We close with discussion and implications for teacher educators seeking to enhance teacher preparation for EBs.

The Focal Program

Teaching, Learning, and Leading with Schools and Communities (TLLSC) is a field-based teacher education program in the urban Midwest that prepares teachers for bilingual, early childhood, elementary, secondary, and special education settings. Predicated on a mutually beneficial partnership model (Kruger, 2009), efforts to redesign teacher education at this mid-sized, private university involved working with school and community partners from the onset, incorporating their needs and perspectives into the program. Partners specifically asserted the need for educators with expertise to serve their diverse student populations and high number of students labeled as ELs (see Table 1). This request, along with the growing literature encouraging the preparation of all teachers for EBs (e.g., Commins & Miramontes, 2006; Lucas et al., 2008), resulted in the decision to embed the state’s ESL endorsement requirements into TLLSC, such that candidates across licensure areas became eligible for the endorsement.

Table 1.

Partner Sites.

Pseudonym	School details	Student demographics
Argyle	Urban Public, P-8	44.7% Hispanic, 26.5% Black, 19.9% Asian; 32% EL
Bell	Urban Public, P-8	77.2% Hispanic, 10% White, 4.4% Asian; 36% EL
Butte	Urban Public, P-8	45.9% Hispanic, 24.6% Asian, 20.4% White; 46.4% EL
Camden	Urban Public, P-8	53.9% Hispanic, 23.7% Black, 10.1% Asian, 9.5% White; 54% EL
Cook	Urban Public, P-5	45.2% White, 16.4% Hispanic, 15.9% Asian, 14.8% Black; 15% EL
Corvalis	Urban Public, P-8	49.9% Black, 33.2% Hispanic, 9% White; 25% EL
Darvin	Urban Public, 9-12	41.6% Black, 33.8% Hispanic, 16.7% Asian; 45% EL
Eclipse	Suburban Public, P-8	38% White, 32.1% Black, 15.2% Hispanic; 3% EL
Fenton	Urban Public, P-4	48.8% Hispanic, 28.4% Black, 10.6% Asian; 57% EL
Flint	Urban Public, P-8	39.7% Asian, 31.1% Hispanic, 21.1% Black; 41% EL
Greene	Urban Public, P-8	68.5% Hispanic, 17.8% Black, 9.8% White; 24% EL
Hough	Urban Public, P-8	62.7% Hispanic, 31.5% Black, 2.8% White; 45% EL
Justice	Urban Public, 9-12	81.9% Black, 13.4% Hispanic; 11% EL
Milton	Suburban Public, 1-5	40.8% White, 31.3% Asian, 13.7% Hispanic; 22% EL
Nagle	Urban Public, 9-12	43.9% Hispanic, 26.4% Black, 16% Asian; 15% EL
Price	Urban Public, P-8	52.9% Hispanic, 24.8% White, 10.6% Black; 18% EL
Royce	Urban Public, 9-12	79.6% Hispanic, 11.2% Black, 5.9% White; 19% EL
St. Paul	Urban Catholic, P-8	72% White, 13% Hispanic, 11% Multiracial; no EL data
St. Mark	Urban Catholic, P-8	66% Hispanic, 16% White, 10% Multiracial; no EL data
Summit	Urban Public, P-8	42.3% Black, 26.5% White, 12.8% Asian; 9% EL

Note. EL = English learners.

TLLSC utilizes a field-based apprenticeship model (Rogoff, 1995). In this way, undergraduate candidates are apprenticed into the profession of teaching across 4 years of active participation and learning in school and community contexts, starting Week 1 of their freshman year. Crafted using backward design to develop understandings and practices of effective educators in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts (Lucas et al., 2008; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), TLLSC is organized into three developmental phases. In the exploration phase, candidates from across licensure areas learn foundational principles, policies, and practices in birth-through-grade-12 (B-12) contexts. In the concentration phase, candidates focus on effective pedagogy within their chosen licensure areas. The specialization phase involves a 1-year internship and student teaching experience. Each developmental phase spans two to three semesters, with curriculum organized into 4- to 8-week field-based modules on particular topics.

Within these field-based experiences, the curriculum purposefully builds and spirals understandings and practices for EBs across 4 years. TLLSC utilizes a targeted and integrated approach to preparing candidates for this large and growing subgroup of students: targeted content prioritizes the development of EB-focused expertise, whereas integrated content merges EB-related knowledge and skills into disciplinary teaching and learning (Heineke, Kennedy, & Lees, 2013). Expertise for EBs is targeted early in the program when all candidates engage with the same curriculum focused on language development, culturally responsive practice, language assessments, and scaffolded instruction. As candidates progress into concentration and specialization phases, the curriculum spirals previously targeted learning to emphasize authentic practice in inclusive classrooms where EBs learn alongside peers.

Conceptual Framework

We situate this study within the sociocultural paradigm to understand candidates’ learning for EBs. Sociocultural theory recognizes knowledge as co-constructed, socially via interaction with others and culturally via situation in unique contexts (Vygotsky, 1978). We utilize Rogoff’s (1995) conceptual framework for observing sociocultural activity on three planes: (a) the community plane that apprentices individuals into institutional and cultural practices, (b) the interpersonal plane that guides participation in shared practice, and (c) the personal plane where individuals appropriate ideas and activities in their own practice. In the context of teacher education, we investigate these intersecting planes to understand candidates’ apprenticeship into the teaching profession, guided participation in teaching and learning activities, and appropriation of understandings into practice as classroom teachers (Heineke, Papola-Ellis, Cohen, & Davin, 2018).

Any activity in teacher education spans community, interpersonal, and personal planes, whereby various tools mediate candidates’ learning and promote the development of understandings and transformation of actions (Rogoff, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). This concept of mediation is integral to probe what pushes forward learning and development in the complex and dynamic context of teacher education, such as curricula, instructors, texts, assignments, and experiences (Heineke, Ryan, & Tocci, 2015). Shifting teacher education into schools and communities enhances this complexity, with field sites providing unique sociocultural contexts with particular norms, activities, and cultures, which subsequently influence other forms of mediation that candidates experience, such as programs and curricula for students (Davin & Kushki, 2018).

Within this larger conceptualization of teacher learning, we probe how candidates learn about EBs using the framework for linguistically responsive teacher education (Lucas et al., 2008). This framework puts forth essential understandings needed by general education teachers to serve the growing number of EBs in classrooms, as well as pedagogical practices that stem from these foundational principles of language development. Merged with sociocultural theory, we recognize that candidates learn by grappling with understandings and engaging in authentic practice with EBs over time (Rogoff, 1995). Candidates’ learning is mediated by targeted curriculum that develops understandings about language and integrated experiences to explore the backgrounds and needs of EBs, identify language demands in classroom tasks, and scaffold instruction for language development (Davin & Kushki, 2018; Lucas et al., 2008).

With this study, we investigate how field-based teacher education mediates teachers’ learning for EBs. As teacher education programs increasingly seek to prepare candidates in and for diverse schools, we aim to understand what factors influence the development of language-focused understandings and transformation of practices with EBs in classrooms (Rogoff, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). The following research questions guide this study: How do candidates learn about EBs during preservice teacher education situated in schools? What programmatic factors promote or deter teachers’ understandings about EBs? How does preservice preparation for EBs transfer into practice as classroom teachers?

Method

We employed a cross-sectional qualitative case study design (Merriam, 1998). The first stage of the research probed candidates’ learning using artifacts produced across the 4-year program. Participants were undergraduate education majors who completed the TLLSC program, specifically a series of experiences and artifacts focused on EBs (see Table 2). Drawing from the class of 2017, 29 candidates fit the established criteria and consented to participate. Candidates spanned elementary, bilingual, world language, special education, early childhood special education, and various disciplines of secondary education (i.e., English, math, and history). Representative of the larger population of TLLSC candidates, the sample was predominantly White women (i.e., 28 females, one male; 22 White, four Latina, two Asian).

Table 2.

Artifact Data.

Phase	Semester	Artifact
Exploration	Semester 1 Targeted focus on language	Developmental Observation Project Candidates record observations at field sites and analyze data using theories of language acquisition and development. Final product shares how area institutions support children’s language development and learning.
	Semester 2 Targeted foci on culture and advocacy; spiraling of language	School Environment Reflection Candidates photograph and describe artifacts to explain what photos reveal about the school. Candidates analyze artifacts with lenses on culturally responsive practice, social justice, and inclusive learning environments.
	Semester 3 Targeted focus on assessment; spiraling of language, culture, and advocacy	English Learner Case Study Candidates work with EBs to administer authentic assessment tasks and glean information regarding funds of knowledge, oracy, and literacy. Candidates use data to make suggestions for instruction.
Concentration	Semester 5 Targeted focus on instruction; spiraling of language, culture, assessment, and advocacy	Classroom Literacy Audit Candidates collect and analyze data on language and literacy practices in focal classrooms, including classroom libraries, small-group interactions, use of scaffolds, and so on.
		Content and Language Mini Unit Candidates plan and implement a series of data-driven, evidence-based disciplinary lessons designed to support language development and EBs.
	Semester 6 Integration of all facets	Disciplinary Unit Plan Candidates develop units using Understanding by Design with assessment and instruction to reach learning and language development goals in focal discipline.
	Semester 6 Integration of all facets	Interdisciplinary Unit Plan Candidates develop interdisciplinary units using the International Baccalaureate framework that includes the arts, language, and global connections.
Specialization	Semester 7 Integration of all facets	Practice edTPA Narratives Candidates practice the edTPA, including three tasks and commentaries on planning, instruction, and assessment.

Note. EB = emergent bilingual.

We used focal artifacts to investigate learning about EBs across the program (Norum, 2008). Using N-Vivo software, we thematically analyzed 278 artifacts using a coding scheme developed from the TESOL professional teaching standards (Fenner & Kuhlman, 2012) to discern evidence of candidates’ understandings of language and culture, as well as linguistically responsive practice via instruction, assessment, and advocacy (Lucas et al., 2008). We also sought to understand factors promoting and deterring candidates’ learning. Using advanced features of N-Vivo, we added data file characteristics and case attributes to indicate nuanced information about artifacts (i.e., semester, instructor, and field site) and candidates (i.e., demographics, licensure area, and endorsements). We ran queries to determine trends in candidates’ learning, resulting in percentages of codes organized by characteristic or attribute.

The second stage utilized survey and interview data with focal teachers to inquire into factors that influenced candidates’ learning and practice (see Table 3). We purposively selected five teachers from the larger sample, with representation of licensure areas (i.e., elementary, bilingual, middle school math, high school English, and special education) and demographics (i.e., 4 White females, 1 Latina). Responding to an electronic survey, teachers provided personal (e.g., language abilities) and classroom details (e.g., number of ELs by proficiency level), as well as rated teaching experiences and understandings for EBs (Hopkins & Dorner, 2019). They then participated in individual, open-ended interviews (Seidman, 2013) with prompts to share (a) trajectories of learning about EBs and (b) applications in classroom teaching. Interviews lasted 45 minutes on average and were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using N-Vivo. We used deductive and inductive analyses to make meaning of teachers’ perceptions and experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To align to the first stage, we deductively coded data using the TESOL professional teaching standards to capture candidates’ understandings and practices. We also inductively coded emergent themes responding to research questions, including mediating factors (e.g., curriculum, field sites) and influences on classroom teaching (see Table 4).

Table 3.

Survey and Interview Data.

Data point	Overall organization and prompts
Survey	• Details regarding participant, licensure, and teaching placement • Frequency of professional development and teaching experiences • Rating factors that support or constrain teaching practice • Rating statements regarding teacher preparation and expertise • Ideological statements about language education and students • Frequency of classroom practices used with English learners
Interview	• Tell me about your first year of teaching. • Walk me through a normal day of teaching. • Tell me about your teacher preparation program. • Tell me about your preparation for English learners. • Tell me about your approach to teaching English learners. • Let’s probe your understandings about English learners.

Table 4.

Coding Scheme.

Teacher expertise	Mediating factors	TLLSC influences
Standard 1: Language • Language as system • Language acquisition	Curriculum (by semester)	Job Decisions • Teacher licensure • Target population • Target school/district • Job attainment
Standard 2: Culture • Culture and learning	Instructors • Full-time faculty • Part-time faculty • EL/language experts • Context experts • Cooperating teachers	On-the-Job Decisions • Leadership • Collaboration • Professional learning
Standard 3: Instruction • Instructional design • Instructional implementation • Instructional materials	Field Experiences • Specific site • Specific experience • Student teaching	Overall Discourse • Asset/deficit-based • Social justice orientation • Advocacy for ELs • Bilingualism/biliteracy
Standard 4: Assessment • Assessment issues • Language assessments • Classroom assessments	Program Design • Targeted EL content • Integrated EL content • ESL for all teachers	Professional Needs • Suggestions for changes to the TLLSC program • Additional teacher preparation and training
Standard 5: Advocacy • ESL history and research • Partnerships and advocacy	Induction • School culture • Programs/curricula

Note. EL = English learners; ESL = English as a Second Language; TLLSC = Teaching, Learning, and Leading with Schools and Communities.

These multiple approaches to triangulating the data across stages bolstered the validity and trustworthiness of case study results (Merriam, 1998). Not only did the use of the TESOL standards align analyses of artifacts, surveys, and interviews, but we tested developing assertions on different data sources (Erickson, 1986). In addition to triangulating data sources, we utilized investigator triangulation to independently and collaboratively analyze data, cross-check coding, and draft and test assertions, as well as peer examination of evolving findings. As both researchers teach in the TLLSC program, we frequently discussed potential biases (Merriam, 1998). As EL/bilingual experts, we had in-depth knowledge of the program to support our investigation, paired with healthy skepticism of the efficacy of the targeted and integrated approach to preparing candidates. We maintained this critical lens with the overarching goal to improve our program and practice to best serve students, teachers, and schools.

Findings

Findings are organized into three subsections that respond to the research questions. The first two subsections explore candidates’ learning and development as teachers of EBs, probing the mediating role of the program’s curriculum and field experiences, respectively. The third subsection shifts to investigate how candidates’ learning and experiences in the field-based program transferred into their professional practice as first-year classroom teachers.

Candidates’ Learning Across the Program’s Curriculum

The TLLSC curriculum, which targeted and integrated understandings and practices for EBs across 4 years, emerged as important in promoting learning. Curriculum that targeted EBs was impactful and efficacious in mediating candidates’ learning, whereas more broad foci, including linguistic understandings and disciplinary applications, did not consistently connect to EBs. This sub-section explores the mediating role of the curriculum and the facets that promoted or deterred candidates’ learning during the (a) exploration phase and (b) concentration phase.

Exploration phase

In the exploration phase, which spanned the first three semesters of the 4-year program, candidates explored theory and practice for diverse students spanning the developmental spectrum. Semester 1 prompted candidates to explore how learners develop language from B-12 by investigating via meaningful interaction in various settings (e.g., museums, schools). Semester 2 engaged candidates in deconstructing identities as teachers, developing constructive learning environments, and analyzing culturally responsive instruction. Candidates explored how educators in diverse schools designed culturally responsive practice to support learning and language development (Gay, 2010). Semester 3 focused on policy and practice in diverse classrooms, centering on case study work with EBs. Candidates developed and used language-rich assessment tasks to glean students’ funds of knowledge and abilities by language domain (i.e., listening, speaking, reading, and writing; Collier & Thomas, 2007; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). Then, candidates analyzed data to design culturally responsive instructional interventions to target learning and language development.

With targeted foci on language, culture, and assessment, this initial phase used the same curriculum across sections with candidates heterogeneously across licensure areas, yielding themes in candidates’ learning (see Table 5). Semester 1 targeted understandings of language development, and queries of artifact data (i.e., Developmental Observation Project) indicated that 68.97% of the candidates developed understandings about EBs’ language acquisition. Semester 2 focused on culturally responsive practice with 93.1% of artifact data (i.e., School Environment Reflection) showing evidence of candidates understanding culture as it affects EBs’ learning. Semester 3 prioritized assessment, and EL Case Study artifacts indicated candidates’ understanding of assessment issues for EBs (100%), as well as practices with language proficiency assessments (93.1%) and classroom assessments (96.55%). In addition to evidence of deliberate foci on targeted TESOL standards, artifact data from Semesters 2 and 3 demonstrated curricular spiraling and subsequent development of related understandings, including instructional design (62.07%) and advocacy (62.07%) in Semester 2 and language acquisition (75.86%), culture as it affects learning (100%), instructional design (89.66%), instructional implementation (75.86%), and advocacy (68.97%).

Table 5.

Artifact Coding, Exploration Phase.

Source	Focus	Example
Semester 1 Developmental Observation Project	Language	“There was a story telling area that allowed kids to explore and tell stories of their own which proves Piaget’s general idea as well as Krashen’s monitor hypothesis idea of not correcting kids at every moment and allowing them to explore, even if how they were exploring is wrong, it encourages learning.”
Semester 2 School Environment Reflection	Culture	“The next picture I chose is of a multicultural book bin. I chose this picture because as a bilingual teacher, I will encounter students with very different cultures, and it will be my job to celebrate these unique cultures as well as blend them to create a cohesive classroom.”
Semester 3 EL Case Study	Assessment	“To complete her work to the level she desires, Anna may need to be provided an assessment accommodation by receiving extra time in completing writing assignments. This may also mean her work may be shorter than that of her peers due to her developing control of the language.”

Note. EL = English learners.

The EL Case Study in Semester 3 emerged as the poignant curricular experience of the exploration phase. In interviews with program graduates, four of the five teachers recalled this experience as positive and central to their development of understandings and practice for EBs. Cristina, a secondary English teacher, reflected,

I was with a little girl, and she mentioned in that [funds of knowledge] interview that she plays tennis with her dad. And that was probably the only thing she mentioned because she was so shy and so nervous about this [interview]. And then I found an assessment about a tennis lesson, and she was so pumped. And that was a really good moment of relevancy, and obligation to kids specifically.

As a sophomore, she used her foundational understandings about language and culture to design and implement classroom assessments for her focal student, whose excitement to engage in the culturally relevant task deepened Cristina’s understandings and related practices. Whereas Cristina recalled the power of cultural relevancy, Tamara, a middle school math teacher, used similar procedures for assessing students’ language as a first-year teacher. She explained,

I remember doing the project with a student where we had the oral, written, reading, and funds of knowledge assessments . . . I ended up having to screen students [using language proficiency assessments], so I got certified for that [ACCESS testing], and I was like, “Oh great, I remember doing this. It’s not that hard.”

The case study stood out due to alignment with Tamara’s classroom practice, where she enacted understandings of language and assessment. Across three semesters of targeted learning in the exploration phase, Semester 3 maintained explicit focus on EBs, rather than language and culture more broadly conceived, as well as allowed candidates to work extensively with one student.

Concentration phase

In the concentration phase, candidates deepened understandings in early childhood, elementary, secondary, bilingual, or special education. Whereas Semester 4 varied by program area, Semesters 5 and 6 maintained similar threads across programs with application to specific contexts. Semester 5 focused on instruction to support EBs’ language development across content areas. Candidates learned WIDA language proficiency standards and instructional strategies to support language development, then applied this knowledge to design and implement lessons emphasizing language across disciplines (Lucas et al., 2008). Semester 6 prompted candidates to integrate content, cultures, languages, and literacies by focusing on both disciplinary and interdisciplinary teaching using backward design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). The ultimate goal was for candidates to develop effective pedagogical practices within particular contexts, such as secondary history or bilingual classrooms.

The concentration phase prioritized instruction (see Table 6), while spiraling facets such as language, culture, and assessment, as candidates deepened focus on their licensure areas. Semester 5 targeted EBs in literacy and content instruction, and 85.29% of candidates’ artifacts (i.e., Literacy Audit, Mini Unit) showed evidence of effective instructional design and 69.61% of instructional implementation for EBs. Reflecting the shift to concentrate on discipline-specific teaching, Semester 6 integrated lenses on EBs with mixed consistency: 78.95% of the artifacts (i.e., unit plans) showed evidence of candidates’ learning around instructional design for EBs, with other standards hit to varying degrees including culture as it affects learning (31.58%), instructional implementation (40.35%), and instructional materials (22.81%). Nonetheless, 29 of 29 candidates showed evidence of understanding and applying principles of instructional design for EBs at some point in the concentration phase, along with 28 of 29 candidates showing evidence of instructional implementation. Nonetheless, whereas bilingual, elementary, English language arts, history, and world language candidates demonstrated spiraled understandings of language, culture, and assessment, early childhood, special education, and mathematics candidates’ artifacts did not evidence the spiraling of EB expertise. Early childhood and special education programs have specialized licensure requirements embedded in the concentration phase which likely deterred from strategic spiraling of EB-related content.

Table 6.

Unit Plan Coding, Concentration Phase.

Focus	Examples
Instructional Design	• Language objectives, that is, goals for students’ language development • Language scaffolds, for example, strategic grouping by language, graphic organizers
Instructional Implementation	• Data analysis, that is, pre- and post-assessment of learning and language development, including EBs • Reflection on instructional efficacy with EBs, for example, pacing, grouping accommodations
Instructional Materials	• Culturally relevant and bilingual texts • Multi-modal resources, for example, visuals, technology • Scaffolded materials, for example, modified texts, vocabulary bookmarks, anchor charts, sentence frames

Note. EB = emergent bilingual.

In interviews, teachers focused on experiences in Semester 5, with indirect inferences to Semester 6. The most memorable activity in the concentration phase was using WIDA tools and related strategies in Semester 5. Four of five teachers recollected designing and implementing instruction with a language lens. Valerie, a Kindergarten dual-language teacher, recalled enacting a literacy mini-unit for a small group of Kindergarten students: “My partner and I pulled a Spanish [speaking] group [of students] but we taught in English. I remember we designed a lot of our unit using strategies such as front-loading vocabulary and using visuals and modeling all that.” The corresponding artifact data supported her use of linguistically responsive practices, including analyzing language demands, writing language objectives, using language proficiency data, and incorporating scaffolds. Valerie, as well as all other focal teachers, remembered and valued learning about WIDA. Beth, an elementary teacher, asserted, “Just knowing the acronym even makes you feel more confident when you go into a school.” With WIDA standards and tools regularly used in area schools, candidates felt well-prepared to incorporate them in classroom practice. Teachers’ recollection of these experiences reflected the targeted nature of Semester 5, in contrast to the integrated nature of Semester 6.

Candidates’ Learning via Diverse Field Experiences

In addition to the integral role of curriculum, data indicated the field-based nature of those experiences as integral to mediating learning. By situating teacher education in diverse schools, candidates interacted regularly with EBs, including those from diverse backgrounds. Of the 20 sites housing EB-focused modules for study participants, schools averaged 28.75% ELs with an estimated 100 home languages spoken (Illinois Report Card, 2018). This subsection explores candidates’ learning mediated by (a) early clinical experiences in the first six semesters and (b) the internship and student teaching experience in the final two semesters.

Early clinical experiences

Being in the field with EBs influenced candidate learning, beginning as early as their first semester in the field-based program. Artifact data indicated the mediating role of practical experiences and interactions with students, including language-focused observations in formal and informal learning settings (Semester 1), exploration and reflection on school environments and cultures (Semester 2), classroom assessments and case studies (Semester 3), and instruction with diverse students (Semesters 5 and 6). In addition to findings from artifact data, teachers used interviews to reflect on the value of being in the field with EBs. Beth, an elementary teacher, recalled an experience at Nagle High School in the first weeks of her freshman year:

I remember being in a science class, and it was really eye-opening because, I mean, they have ELs that are from yesterday. And she was trying to teach a science class, and she was trying to explain the rules of the lab because it was the beginning of the year, and someone didn’t know what goggles was . . . That was really eye opening because you think you’re going to get up there and you’re going to teach your subject, and that’s going to be the end of it, and that’s just not how it is with any student, let alone an EL student.

She went on to describe how this observation prompted her to consistently empathize with EBs and frontload language in her third-grade classroom; in other words, this experience supported the development of her understandings about language development and demands in disciplinary instruction, which influenced her practice 5 years later.

Candidates’ learning was also mediated by interaction with diverse EBs, including those from various countries of origin, cultural backgrounds, and home languages. In the School Environment Reflection during Semester 2, all 29 candidates described the cultural and linguistic diversity of school sites as rich resources for teaching and learning. Situated at six public schools, the average Semester 2 school site had 32% ELs with ample linguistic diversity. For example, one candidate at Darvin High School, a neighborhood public school, positively expounded upon the rich diversity of cultures and languages, noting the stark difference from her homogeneous community. She described the experience as initially being “scary,” sharing that teachers’ and students’ perspectives made her realize the incredible possibilities of embracing multiple cultures in the classroom. As a freshman, she asserted that the experience changed her understandings about being a teacher, specifically regarding the role of elevating and including students’ diverse backgrounds: “Culture gives a wealth of knowledge and lessons; without embracing and celebrating culture, life and school can be dull.”

The diversity of field sites mediated candidates’ learning, as well as carried over into classroom teaching. All interviewees described the value of particular field sites, specifically those with a rich array of cultural backgrounds and home languages, including urban and suburban schools. Tamara, a biracial Latina who grew up in Chicago, recalled her time at Camden Elementary in Semester 3, where candidates worked one-on-one with EBs:

There was a lot of ELs there, not just Spanish speakers. I had a student, the student I focused on [for the case study] came from Pakistan. That was a good experience too, because that is so diverse in Rogers Park, so you can see that ELs aren’t just Spanish speakers, like they happen to be for this school this year. But the teacher that I was with there, she did a really good job at accommodating for them, so she was a good resource.

Through fieldwork, Tamara learned about the diversity of EBs, as well as classroom practices to build from this diversity. Demonstrating the diversity of field sites in Semester 3, candidates worked with students from Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Vietnamese, French, Yoruba, Hindu, Nepali, Swahili, Somali, Malaysian, and Twi backgrounds. As described earlier, this case study experience—situated in and mediated by the cultural and linguistic diversity of partner schools—stood out to teachers years later.

Although diverse EBs at field sites served as an important form of mediation, the alignment between school sites and curricular experiences also mattered. Beth, who majored in elementary education, questioned her Semester 5 placement at a Catholic school, which did not test and label students’ language proficiency:

When I had my EL [instruction] module, it was at a private school, and they didn’t have any ELs in my classroom so it was kind of hard . . . I think that for those EL modules you’d have to go somewhere that almost has an unreal amount of ELs.

Further exploration into Beth’s assertion yielded the finding that all 29 candidates demonstrated evidence of understanding and enacting instruction for EBs in Semester 5, including those in Beth’s section at St. Mark; however, candidates placed in public schools demonstrated additional understandings and practices reflective of the spiraled curriculum, including language as a system (33%), classroom assessment (28%), and instructional resources (22%), in contrast to no evidence from candidates at the Catholic school. One other Catholic school, St. Paul, served as a site for TLLSC in Semester 3 for the case study, and artifact data indicated positive results for candidates’ learning (e.g., 92% of the candidates in public schools demonstrated understanding of language proficiency assessment versus 100% of the candidates in Catholic schools). It is important to note that this section was facilitated by a full-time faculty member, versus a first-time adjunct in the Semester 5 section, who likely better maneuvered nuances of field site with curriculum.

Internship and student teaching

Similar to the findings from exploration and concentration phases, candidates benefited from fieldwork with diverse EBs in the specialization phase, or the 1-year internship, during candidates’ senior year. In Semester 7, candidates began participating in classrooms to initiate the academic year, spending 3 days a week on site with cooperating teachers with regular visits from university supervisors and weekly seminars with faculty experts. In Semester 8, candidates spent 5 days a week student teaching, building on interactions with students and cooperating teachers from the fall semester. Abigail explained how this approach supported her development as a high school special education teacher:

I’m better with the kids who are really difficult at first, but when you get them to buy in, because they’ve never done anything at their level, they really love it, which is something that I learned at Darvin last year, which is because of Loyola’s teacher prep program, because I had a year to do it, and I had a year to watch the kids and see which kids I connected with the most.

Others described how the internship allowed them to see the school year unfold from beginning to end, connect with, and build rapport with students, and work collaboratively and form meaningful professional relationships with cooperating teachers.

When considering teachers’ learning about EBs in the 1-year internship, similar themes of diversity and alignment emerged. Twenty-one of the 29 candidates interned in urban public schools, as well as one in an urban Catholic school and seven in diverse suburban public schools; these schools had an average of 27% of the students labeled ELs. The five focal teachers worked at a representative sample of partner schools, including urban and suburban elementary, middle, and high schools (see Table 7). Cristina reflected on her internship experience:

Newman was again, in that moment, exactly the school that I wanted to be at, and honestly a school that I want to eventually go back to, because it was crazy diverse, like I can’t even believe the number of languages that are spoken, versus the school I’m at now, it’s not diverse. It’s about 50% Black and 50% Latino. That’s not at all diverse actually. So that was a really different experience, and while it did prepare me a lot for Caldwell, that’s a big change in student population.

Table 7.

Focal Teachers’ Placements.

Name and role	Student teaching	First-year teaching
Abigail High School Special Education	Urban public school 41.6% Black 33.8% Hispanic 16.7% Asian 45% EL	Urban public school 41.6% Black 33.8% Hispanic 16.7% Asian 45% EL
Beth Third Grade	Urban public school 42.3% Black 26.5% White 12.8% Asian 9% EL	Suburban public school 44.5% White 39.5% Hispanic 10.8% Asian 44% EL
Cristina High School English	Urban public school 35.6% Hispanic 30.7% Asian 19.6% White 28% EL	Urban public school 67.3% Hispanic 30% Black 1.3% White 11% EL
Tamara Middle School Mathematics	Urban public school 36.6% Black 32.6% Hispanic 22.8% White 5% EL	Urban public school 86.4% Hispanic 11% Black 2.4% White 48% EL
Valerie Dual-Language Kindergarten	Suburban public school 40.7% White 35.8% Hispanic 12.9% Black 25% EL	Suburban public school 67.3% Hispanic 26.8% White 1.9% Asian 51% EL

Note. EL = English learners.

In her development as a high school English teacher, she considered her internship placement as integral to recognizing and responding to students’ rich and diverse backgrounds. Also placed at a diverse high school, Abigail noted the impact of Darvin’s cultural and linguistic diversity, as well as the large number of students labeled as ELs and as having special needs—both around one third of the student population.

Whereas secondary teachers pinpointed diversity as integral in internship placements, elementary teachers focused on alignment with first-year teaching positions, describing placements as directly preparing them for classroom teaching. For Valerie, teaching in the same bilingual program model was integral in her preparation; in both student teaching and first-year teaching, she taught dual language using a 90/10 model (i.e., 90% Spanish, 10% English). Beth described the fortuitous alignment between her student and first-year teaching in that they used the same curriculum; although these schools were separated by 22 miles with one in the city and one in the suburbs, this alignment supported Beth during induction. She quipped, “I almost knew a little bit more coming in from college right away,” which allowed her to focus on making the curriculum accessible to her third graders labeled as ELs and having special needs.

Candidates’ Learning Transferred Into Classroom Practice

As reflected in the previous subsections, the field-based curriculum and concomitant experiences with EBs influenced graduates into induction. All five teachers sought positions to work with EBs, resulting in jobs spanning K-12 across the city and suburbs with both Spanish-dominant and linguistically diverse EBs averaging 40% of the schools’ populations. Of the larger sample of 29 candidates, 22 secured jobs at linguistically diverse schools (13 urban, nine suburban) in contrast to four at non-diverse schools (three without employment data), with graduates working at schools with EL populations averaging 24%. Eight graduates secured jobs at TLLSC partner schools where they had previous field experiences, as well as six landing jobs in partner districts. Abigail, a high school special education teacher in a highly diverse school, had initially imagined working with a more homogeneous population until her experiences in TLLSC prompted her to reflect: “Well, who’s going to work with the kids at Darvin?” By being embedded in diverse school settings for 4 years, candidates—primarily White women from the suburbs—sought out jobs that would allow them to continue work with EBs.

Of the five focal teachers, Cristina worked with the least amount of EBs. Whereas others had positions in schools with almost half of students labeled as ELs, Cristina worked with non-EL Latinx and Black students at an International Baccalaureate (IB) urban high school. She lamented that she did not currently work with EBs and reflected on her TLLSC program experiences:

I was just [loving] working with ESL populations. And it became something I’m really passionate about. And then transfer that to Newman [student teaching], where it’s incredibly diverse. Tons of English language learners. And nobody speaks the same L1 [home language]. And it’s just wild. I liked that. I like that challenge of trying to figure that out. Those are kind of the moments I think I remember the most about [TLLSC].

Despite not working with currently labeled ELs, she recognized her teacher preparation as bolstering her job prospects in a crowded field of English teachers. She shared, “When I was advertising myself as a job candidate, it was awesome to be like ‘Oh did I mention I have a degree in secondary education and a degree in English. And I’m an ESL teacher. And I’m IB certified.’ ” Evidencing TLLSC’s social justice lens, Cristina described deconstructing race and cultural relevance in her job interview by “being really reflective already about white savior complex and being a white woman in a field full of white women.”

Beyond seeking out and securing jobs with EBs, focal teachers indicated regular use of sound pedagogical practices in their first year of teaching. Via survey prompts, teachers self-reported regularly using students’ home languages, amplified texts, vocabulary supports, sentence structures, interactive discussion, scaffolding, visuals and realia, modeling, questioning, and multiple grouping strategies (i.e., individual, pairs, small group, whole group, including heterogeneous and homogeneous groups by academic and language needs). Less consistent practices included using cognates, word parts, and word associations between languages, which aligned to artifact analyses in the first stage of the study indicating the need to target candidates’ understandings of language as a system and subsequently metalinguistic awareness between students’ languages. In interviews, teachers noted the value of learning about assessment and instruction for EBs, recognizing the alignment with initiatives in schools. Abigail aligned the Semester 3 case study to her role as a high school special education teacher charged to collaborate with teachers and promote the learning of a large caseload of linguistically diverse students. She explained, “Knowing how that [language proficiency] assessment is done has been helpful in my conversations with other staff members, in my understanding of how to test my own kids. That [experience] was helpful for that reason in particular.”

Collaboration with colleagues emerged as a frequent theme with focal teachers. Teachers discussed co-planning, co-teaching, and collaboration, including efforts focused on EBs. In elementary schools, Valerie and Beth worked regularly with grade-level teams with support from coaches and push-in ESL and special education teachers. In middle school, Tamara collaborated with grade-level and departmental teams and external community volunteers. In high schools, Abigail and Cristina engaged in regular co-teaching, which prompted Cristina to assert, “This is what education should look like.” These collaborative efforts not only supported first-year teachers but also situated them as leaders due to their expertise for EBs. Tamara, a math teacher, explained how she espoused formal and informal leadership roles:

I was put on the board with the EL and bilingual teachers. I feel like it was particularly my job to either, even now, if there’s an IEP meeting, I’ll be there as the EL teacher, or I was on that committee, I was screening a lot of students. But also, I feel the morale of the teachers of the school I’m at right now is pretty low. So I feel like we’re, some are very deficit-minded, and I feel like you could just have casual conversations. It’s like, “Yeah, but have you thought about this?” Or some advocacy with other teachers. I don’t know their experiences, but it’s coming in with, “Well, they [EBs] have something to bring.”

In addition to her formal leadership role in the committee charged with screening and discussing supports for EBs, Tamara recognized the need to informally challenge colleagues’ deficit-based thinking. These advocacy efforts prompted an invitation from her principal to lead efforts in shifting the school to dual-language programming.

Another emergent trend were the challenges faced in the first year of teaching. Teachers depicted school and district contexts plagued by teacher or administrator turnover. In classrooms, teachers maneuvered supports for students dealing with trauma, while also negotiating how to teach with mandated curricula in elementary settings or plan multiple classes in secondary settings. Although not recalling explicit preparation for these realities, teachers indicated that the rigor and field-based nature of TLLSC equipped them for success. Abigail asserted,

I know that I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing right now if I didn’t go to Loyola. I know that I wouldn’t be able to teach five preps. I know that I wouldn’t have run QRI data for 625 kids. I know that I wouldn’t have known what to do or known that it [QRI findings] was an issue even, which I think is the biggest thing right now.

Tamara emphasized the field-based nature of the program in bolstering her confidence and ability to take on challenges in the classroom. She shared,

I love that we had so much interaction in schools. Any teachers I tell, in my family, or friends who didn’t go to Loyola, they’re like, “What?” when I tell them about all the schools we’ve been in; that was awesome, because even by my first year I felt so confident going into this year, just that I have been exposed to students and kids of all different ages. So I didn’t feel nervous being at the front of a classroom or anything.

When faced with challenges, teachers tapped into their repertoire of experiences and learning from the TLLSC program. Despite these challenges, all teachers endured in the profession. They built and utilized support networks at their schools and from the TLLSC program, including faculty mentors and peers from across the program.

Discussion

With this study, we investigated field-based teacher education for EBs to probe factors that influenced preservice learning and in-service practice. Findings indicated the value of exposure to diverse EBs in schools, paired with strategically designed curricular experiences to interact with students in meaningful ways. Within the targeted and integrated approach, poignant and effective experiences were those that explicitly prioritized EBs in curriculum and fieldwork, in contrast to those focusing broadly on language development or disciplinary instruction. Candidates’ learning during teacher education carried into induction, influencing job decisions and daily practice. Not only did teachers seek out jobs in schools with large populations of EBs, they described collaborating with colleagues and supporting students via linguistically responsive practices aligned to learning across the 4-year program.

Current findings are significant as teacher educators increasingly seek to both situate professional learning in schools and prepare candidates for EBs. Rogoff’s (1995) framework of three intersecting planes of sociocultural activity supported our sense-making of field-based learning, practice, and the mediating factors that influence both. On the community plane, fieldwork apprenticed candidates into the cultural organization of schools, prompting them to draw from culturally organized activities and tools to make meaning and participate in practice (Rogoff, 1995). In this study, findings indicated that candidates learned about EBs via exposure to authentic facets of teaching and learning in schools, including diverse EBs, cooperating teachers, program models, curricular documents, assessment tools, and school environments. For example, candidates’ apprenticeship into diverse schools prompted understanding of diversity within the EL label and the role of all teachers in serving this population. This finding aligns with previous scholarship that asserts the value of clinical experiences in the preparation of teachers for EBs (Daniel, 2014; García et al., 2010; Sowa, 2009; Virtue, 2007).

But candidates’ learning did not occur by simply being in schools. As sociocultural theory reminds us, spontaneous occurrences observed in classrooms must be transformed into professional expertise via mediation (Davin & Kushki, 2018; Vygotsky, 1978). In this study, findings showed that as candidates participated in school communities, strategically designed curriculum mediated learning within these experiences (Zeichner, 2010). Take the example of Beth’s recollection of an event from her freshman year, where she observed teachers and students negotiating meaning while introducing laboratory equipment. Although this was indeed memorable, she needed support to connect that spontaneous occurrence with the pedagogical practice of recognizing language demands and front-loading vocabulary for EBs in early stages of language acquisition. The Developmental Observation Project promoted transforming that observation into conceptual understandings about language, likely mediated by discussions and debriefs with her instructor (Heineke et al., 2015). As TLLSC did not separate coursework and field experiences, but rather embraced a dynamic field-based curriculum enacted in schools, candidates’ experiences and understandings were mediated in real time (Zeichner, 2010).

The interpersonal plane of field-based teacher education showed teaching as collaborative activity where candidates learn through guided participation in school practices (Rogoff, 1995). In this study, findings indicated the importance of interactive work in schools with students, teachers, and leaders with strategically designed curricular experiences to guide candidates’ participation. These experiences were not novel to the TLLSC program but integrated into the curriculum as evidence-based practices to effectively prepare candidates for EBs, including the EL student case study (e.g., Fitts & Gross, 2012; Jurchan & Morano, 2010) and discipline-specific literacy instructional design (e.g., Bravo et al., 2014; deJong et al., 2013). Aligning with previous research, we found that these approximations of practice moved candidates beyond observations to instead do the authentic work of teaching of EBs in developmentally appropriate chunks (Grossman et al., 2009), which subsequently promoted candidates’ understandings and actions for working with EBs in classrooms.

Nonetheless, candidates’ learning did not occur because of individual assignments, such as case studies or instructional plans, but rather due to a trajectory of experiences tailored to candidates’ zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). TLLSC faculty crafted the program using backward design with the intention to spiral understandings and practices for EBs across the curriculum (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), and the longitudinal study design allowed explorations beyond individual experiences or courses (Villegas et al., 2018). Consider the previously discussed experiences that prompted candidates to observe language development across settings (Semester 1), reflect upon methods to embrace diversity in schools (Semester 2), assess individual EBs’ abilities (Semester 3), and facilitate EBs’ language development (Semester 5). These field experiences apprenticed candidates into teaching with increasing autonomy and authenticity, as well as built upon learning from subsequent experiences (Rogoff, 1995). Within the unique developmental design of the TLLSC program, candidates demonstrated evidence of the spiraled curriculum and consistent exposure to EBs over time. However, findings indicated the need to make the EB focus more explicit in certain modules where candidates evidenced less consistency in artifacts and teachers had scant recollections in interviews.

On the personal plane, candidates changed through participation in various facets of teaching and learning, with each activity preparing them for future teaching as they uniquely appropriated understandings and practices (Rogoff, 1995). In this study, we followed TLLSC graduates into induction to see how field-based teacher education influenced this appropriation, adding to a small body of literature connecting preservice and in-service work with EBs (e.g., Hopkins, 2012). Although appropriation looked different depending on candidates’ classroom contexts, disciplines, and students, trends in preservice learning mirrored trends in self-described in-service practice, including positive (i.e., scaffolded instruction, language assessment, incorporation of culture) and negative occurrences (i.e., metalinguistic awareness). For TLLSC faculty, this finding provides valuable information to bolster the curriculum and ensure explicit attention to pertinent understandings, such as the interconnection between students’ languages (Commins & Miramontes, 2006; Kibler & Roman, 2013). But this also indicates that the conceptual framework to prepare all teachers for EBs through linguistically responsive teacher education (Lucas et al., 2008) is effective when applied in the context of field-based teacher education with strategically designed curriculum and longitudinal exposure to EBs.

As the population diversifies and programs seek to integrate EB-related understandings and practices, recommendations center on how to strategically design field-based teacher education as means to prepare all candidates as effective teachers of EBs. This begins with collaboration across teacher education programs, with EL/bilingual faculty leading efforts to develop field-based curriculum and build capacity with early childhood, elementary, secondary, and special education faculty (Costa, McPhail, Smith, & Brisk, 2005). Through these collaborative efforts, teacher educators can move beyond individual course innovations with bounded candidates and instead design programmatic approaches to spiral EB-related content into curriculum for candidates across licensure areas. But clarity and transparency are integral to these efforts; faculty must explicitly share where, how, and why EBs are targeted and integrated across curricular and field experiences for faculty, candidates, and partners to recognize how various understandings and pedagogical practices connect to and inform work with EBs. Finally, those interested in field-based teacher education should develop and maintain mutually beneficial partnerships with schools that (a) provide candidates with direct access to diverse EBs and (b) provide schools with expert educators that promote EBs’ learning.

Although this research provides important insight into using field-based experiences to prepare teachers for EBs in initial preparation programs, readers should be aware of particular limitations and consider future lines of research. Despite the rich qualitative data collected during and after the preparatory program, additional data sources could further enhance our findings, such as ongoing interviews with candidates, classroom observations with teachers, and achievement data from students. Furthermore, this study focuses on a single program in the urban Midwest. Whereas findings are not generalizable to other cases, they can ring true in other contexts, particularly in diverse urban and suburban locales (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2001). We contend that the TLLSC program can serve as a rich, preliminary example of field-based, linguistically responsive teacher education, as teacher educators collectively seek to prepare teachers for the changing world.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Loyola University Chicago for the summer research stipend that allowed focused work on this project, as well as a number of colleagues who supported the research in various ways: Vesna Cejovic, Nancy Goldberger, Megan Hopkins, Robbie Jones, Ali Kushki, and Hannah Luchtenberg.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Amy J. Heineke

Notes

Author Biographies

Amy J. Heineke is an associate professor of Bilingual/Bicultural Education at Loyola University Chicago. Her research focuses on language policy and teacher preparation for students labeled as English learners. Her scholarship is informed by her prior work as a classroom teacher of English learners in Phoenix, Arizona.

Elina Giatsou earned an Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from Loyola University Chicago, where she worked for 4 years as a graduate assistant and adjunct professor for undergraduate and graduate courses. Her research interests focus on teacher preparation for English learners, linguistics, and teacher identity.

References

American Community Survey. (2015). Detailed languages spoken at home and ability to speak English for the population 5 years and over for United States: 2009 to 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Ball

D. L.

Forzani

F. M.

(2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 497-511.

Bravo

M. A.

Mosqueda

Solís

J. L.

Stoddart

(2014). Possibilities and limits of integrating science and diversity education in preservice elementary teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 601-619.

Coady

Harper

de Jong

(2011). From preservice to practice: Mainstream elementary teacher beliefs of preparation and efficacy with English language learners in the state of Florida. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(2), 223-239.

Collier

V. P.

Thomas

W. P.

(2007). Predicting second language academic success in English using the Prism Model. In Cummins

Davison

(Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 333-348). Boston, MA: Springer.

Commins

N. L.

Miramontes

O. B.

(2006). Addressing linguistic diversity from the outset. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 240-246.

Costa

McPhail

Smith

Brisk

M. E.

(2005). Faculty first: The challenge of infusing teacher education curriculum with scholarship on English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 102-118.

Daniel

S. M.

(2014). Learning to educate English language learners in pre-service elementary practicums. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31, 5-28.

Davin

K. J.

Kushki

(2018). Framing our approach to teacher education: Sociocultural theory and the field-based apprenticeship model. In Heineke

A. J.

Ryan

A. M.

(Eds.), Teaching, learning, and leading with schools and communities (pp. 35-46). New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

deCohen

C. C.

Clewell

B. C.

(2007). Putting English language learners on the educational map: The No Child Left behind Act Implemented. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

11.

deJong

E. J.

Harper

C. A.

(2010). “Accommodating diversity”: Pre-service teachers’ views on effective practices for English language learners. In Lucas

(Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 73-90). New York, NY: Routledge.

12.

deJong

E. J.

Harper

C. A.

Coady

M. R.

(2013). Enhanced knowledge and skills for elementary mainstream teachers of English language learners. Theory Into Practice, 52, 89-97.

13.

Erickson

(1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Wittrock

M. C.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York, NY: Macmillan.

14.

Feiman-Nemser

(2018). What does research tell us about educating mainstream teachers to work with ELLs? The Educational Forum, 82(2), 227-234.

15.

Fenner

D. S.

Kuhlman

(2012). Preparing effective teachers of English language learners: Practical applications for the TESOL P-12 professional teaching standards. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

16.

Fitts

Gross

L. A.

(2012). Teacher candidates learning from English learners: Constructing concepts of language and culture in Tuesday’s tutors after-school program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39, 75-95.

17.

Gándara

Hopkins

(2010). The changing linguistic landscape of the United States. In Gándara

Hopkins

(Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 7-19). New York, NY: Teachers College.

18.

Gándara

Maxwell-Jolly

(2006). Critical issues in developing the teacher corps for English learners. In Téllez

Waxman

H. C.

(Eds.), Preparing quality educators for English language learners: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 99-120). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.

19.

García

Arias

M. B.

Harris Murri

N. J.

Serna

(2010). Developing responsive teachers: A challenge for a demographic reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 132-142.

20.

García

. (2011). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a name? TESOL Quarterly, 43, 322-326.

21.

Gay

(2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

22.

Grossman

Compton

Igra

Ronfeldt

Shahan

Williamson

(2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111, 2055-2100.

23.

Hamann

E. T.

Reeves

(2013). Interrupting the professional schism that allows less successful educational practices with ELLs to persist. Theory Into Practice, 52, 81-88.

24.

Harper

deJong

E. D.

(2004). Misconceptions about teaching English language learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48, 152-162.

25.

Heineke

A. J.

Coleman

Ferrell

Kersemeier

(2012). Opening doors for bilingual students: Recommendations for building linguistically responsive schools. Improving Schools, 15, 130-147.

26.

Heineke

A. J.

Kennedy

Lees

(2013). Preparing early childhood professionals for the culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms and communities of Illinois. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 15. Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v15n2/heineke.html

27.

Heineke

A. J.

Papola-Ellis

Cohen

Davin

(2018). Linguistically responsive professional development: An apprenticeship model. Improving Schools, 21, 32-47.

28.

Heineke

A. J.

Ryan

A. M.

Tocci

(2015). Teaching, learning, and leading: Preparing teachers as educational policy actors. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 382-394.

29.

Heritage

Walqui

Linquanti

(2015). English language learners and the new standards: Developing language, content knowledge, and analytical practices in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

30.

Hodkinson

(2001, December). The strengths and limitations of case study research. Paper presented at the Learning and Skills Development Agency Conference, Cambridge, UK.

31.

Hopkins

(2012). Arizona’s teacher policies and their relationship with English learner instructional practice. Language Policy, 11, 81-99.

32.

Hopkins

Dorner

(2019). Measuring effects of English-learner focused professional development across contexts. Paper accepted to AERA Conference, April 2020, San Francisco.

33.

Illinois Report Card. (2018). Illinois report card: District snapshot. Retrieved December 2, 2018 from https://www.illinoisreportcard.com.

34.

Jurchan

Morano

T. A.

(2010). The case study: Bringing real-world experience into the teacher preparation program. TESOL Journal, 1, 71-84.

35.

Kibler

A. K.

Roman

(2013). Teachers of English language learners: A focus on using students’ native languages in the classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 32, 187-207.

36.

Kruger

(2009). Effective and sustainable university-school partnerships: Beyond determined efforts by inspired individuals. Canberra: Teaching Australia.

37.

Lee

Buxton

C. A.

(2013). Integrating science learning and English language development for English language learners. Theory Into Practice, 52, 36-42.

38.

Linquanti

Cook

H. G.

(2013). Toward a common definition of English learner: Guidance for states and state assessment consortia in defining and addressing policy and technical issues and options. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

39.

Lucas

Villegas

A. M.

Freedson-González

(2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 361-373.

40.

Manzo

R. D.

Cruz

Faltis

de la Torre

(2012). Professional development of secondary science teachers of English learners in immigrant communities. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 5, 41-48.

41.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

43.

Migration Policy Institute. (2016). Immigrant population by state. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-state-1990-present?width=1000&height=850&iframe=true

44.

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

Neff

Gonzalez

(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 132-141.

45.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). English language learners. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_204.27.asp

46.

Norum

K. E.

(2008). Artifact analysis. In Given

L. M.

(Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 24-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

47.

Rogoff

(1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In Goodnow

P. M. J.

Kessel

(Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139-164). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

48.

Seidman

(2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

49.

Sowa

(2009). Understanding our learners and developing reflective practice: Conducting action research with English language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 1026-1032.

50.

Villegas

A. M.

SaizdeLaMora

Martin

A. D.

Mills

(2018). Preparing future mainstream teachers to teach English language learners: A review of the empirical literature. The Educational Forum, 82, 138-155.

51.

Virtue

(2007). Using “ESOL rounds” to prepare middle level candidates for work with English language learners. Middle Grades Research Journal, 4, 1-24.

52.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

53.

Wiggins

McTighe

(2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

54.

Zeichner

(2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 89-99.