Second language teachers learn to teach for social justice through community field experiences

1 Access to English learning: A mirror to reflect inequalities across the world

In the era of globalization, English has been widely recognized as vehicle for communication across the world. As such, there has been a great demand for access to this globally used language, especially in areas where it is not the native language (L1). English has therefore been put into both policy and practice in education in several non-English speaking countries (Baldauf et al., 2011; Butler, 2015; Vandrick, 2014). On the one hand, the global spread of English has been acknowledged for a number of positive aspects, notably offering learners from non-English backgrounds opportunity for career advancement and engagement in the global community (Nguyen, 2016, 2017b; Canagarajah, 2012; Ricento, 2015; Seargeant & Erling, 2013). Rather than benefitting individual learners, English, in particular, created spaces for negotiation and potential harmony as in the sociopolitical context Sri Lanka, where it is considered a more neutral tool than other languages (Lo Bianco, 2011). On the other hand, there is great concern about inequality of access to English learning (Block, 2014; McKay, 2010; Murray, 2018; Sayer, 2018). That is, English learning has been criticized for contributing to a socioeconomic divide in many societies today. More specifically, children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds have a number of advantages in learning English such as exposure to this language from a younger age and often from the experience of travelling abroad. These factors contribute to their higher levels of English proficiency than children from a lower socioeconomic background.

Access to English learning entails a large number of socioeconomic disparities in several countries today, especially in the Asia-Pacific (McKay, 2010). In China for example, English has been regarded as ‘a symbolic capital’ that defines social classes of learners (Gao, 2014). As such, how learners invest, engage, and orient themselves toward English instruction often illuminates whether they are from a higher or lower socioeconomic class. The issue of inequality also prevails in Hong Kong where English has been assumed to be ‘the language of power and wealth . . . available to only to a small proportion of economically elite families’ (McKay, 2010, p. 105). In a similar vein, English in South Korea has long been observed as a socioeconomic class marker that perpetuates the divide between children from affluent families and those of lower income parents (Jeon, 2012).

Inequality in access to English is also prevalent in other geographical areas. For example, in India, English has long been seen as a gatekeeper to higher education and employment (Bhattacharya, 2013). Bangladesh is also a context in which the relation between English education and social disparity has become salient (Hamid & Baldauf, 2011; Hamid, Sussex, & Khan, 2009). In particular, children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds have greater opportunities for access to English through their parents’ investment in private tutoring. Such an advantage contributes to their higher English proficiency. In Latin America, higher-paying jobs tend to be offered to those with higher level of English proficiency, which they are more likely to gain from private schools (Sayer, 2018). Drawing on his research on the Mexican context, Sayer concluded that early English programs there have exacerbated the social class divide rather than creating a social transformation as expected by students, families, and some policymakers. In sub-Saharan Africa, a study on early English medium instruction in Cameroon, Kuchah (2018) found that the success of English programs was dependent on out-of-school affordances provided only by wealthy families. In this sense, the promotion of English medium instruction is deemed ‘an act of injustice against the poor’ (p. 9).

As in other non-English speaking countries, English language instruction has become one of the educational issues that have attracted the attention of the broader society in Vietnam. In particular, there has been a great concern about inequality since the emergence of English in the policy and practice of foreign language education together with the expansion of English language teaching to the primary school level (Nguyen, 2016, 2018). Compared to the general issue of educational inequality that has been documented by a substantial body of research and reports (Oxfam in Vietnam, 2017; Rolleston & Krutikova, 2014; Vu, 2004), inequality in access to English learning tends to be under-researched. In a study that specifically explored inequality in access to English education in Vietnam, Nguyen et al. (2014) found a huge divide between urban and rural areas as well as between social classes in English language education. For example, modern facilities and rich resources for teaching and learning together with highly qualified teachers are found in urban schools. Rural students, in contrast, learn English in inadequate conditions plus a lack of competent teachers. Moreover, family investment in children’s English learning is in stark contrast between the two areas.

The review above has sought to sketch out the issue of inequality in access to English language education in some major areas in the world. In this sense, English as a global language has become a ‘communicative resource that indexes middle and upper class positions in societies around the world’ (Block, 2014, p. 135). The disparity in access to English learning is regarded as socioeconomic inequality, which is a serious problem; but researchers in the field or even in socially just teaching tend to focus their attention on ‘obvious markers of difference’ such as gender or race (Gale et al., 2017, p. 2). Against this backdrop, McKay (2010) raises the question as to ‘how to provide less advantaged children in the society with equal access to English’ (p. 106). It is our belief that one important step in addressing this problem is for the examination of issues of social justice and equity to be incorporated into TESOL teacher education programs.

2 Community field experiences in teacher education

A robust literature exists in the US and several other countries that has documented the value of community field experiences in pre-service teacher education, under particular conditions, in transforming the teaching perspectives and practices of teacher candidates (TCs) toward more culturally responsive and socially just teaching that enhances the academic and social-emotional learning of students (e.g. Cochran-Smith et al., 2016a; Harfitt, 2018; Sharkey, Clavijo Olarte, & Ramírez, 2016). Community field experiences vary greatly in their structure and purposes and range from TCs making brief visits to community settings to observe and possibly talk with people to spending an extended period of time living in the communities in which TCs are learning to teach (Zeichner & Melnick,1996). Sometimes TCs work exclusively with pupils in after school and community settings (e.g. providing tutoring services), and sometimes they also interact with and learn from adults, become familiar with the resources and expertise in the community (Zeichner, Payne & Brayko, 2015; Zygmunt & Clark, 2016; Zeichner et al., 2016).

Research has shown that there are several conditions that seem to be important for community field experiences to have a transformative effect on TCs in helping them become more culturally responsive teachers who are able to disrupt through their teaching practice some of the inequities that affect students from non-dominant groups and students who live in areas impacted by poverty. These conditions include careful planning and structuring of the community experiences, preparation of the TCs for the experiences, and careful mediation of the experiences by teacher educators including guided reflection. Unless these conditions are present, unstructured and unmediated community experiences in teacher education can strengthen and reinforce negative patterns that support inequities rather than disrupt them (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016b; Zeichner, 1996).

3 Social justice teaching and teacher education

Social justice teaching and teacher education have been frequently used terms in recent years in many countries throughout the world. Although these terms have been commonly used to describe the goals of teaching and teacher education, they have often been used in very vague and ambiguous ways without explicit discussion of what they mean in particular contexts (Zeichner, 2009). While a discussion of the various ways in which these terms have been conceptualized and used is beyond the scope of this article, we briefly describe below the conception of socially just teaching and teacher education that we used in this study. Our work here is adapted from the Boston College (BC) model of socially just teaching and teacher education (Cochran-Smith et al., 2009a, 2009b). We have sought to adjust this model that was developed in the US to be more relevant to a country like Vietnam, a socialist one-party state with a centralized state run educational system, and a national curriculum.

There are three core components of social justice teaching according to the BC model. The first component – a multidimensional view of student learning as the goal of teaching – focuses attention on providing all students with access to opportunities to learn both basic skills and complex thinking and reasoning skills. This is contrary to the situation in some counties where ethnic minority students and students living in poverty are provided with an education that is often limited to the acquisition basic skills while students from more advantaged families and students from dominant groups are given opportunities to develop deeper knowledge of subject matter and complex reasoning and analysis skills. This multidimensional view of learning also goes beyond academic learning to include the social and emotional development (e.g. compassion and empathy) of students and their civic development (e.g. democratic skills and values) to function as citizens in their society. Finally, this multidimensional view of student learning includes learning that builds in positive ways on students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds instead of positioning students’ backgrounds in deficit ways (Gay, 2018).

The second dimension of teaching for social justice in the BC model is a complex view of teaching practice that goes beyond the use of particular teaching skills to include teachers’ beliefs about their work, their knowledge of subject matter and how students learn, and their knowledge of their students’ backgrounds and cultures. This dimension of social justice teaching also includes the quality of the relationships that teachers are able to develop with students and their parents, their expectations for the learning of particular students, and how they implement the teaching practices they learn in their program. This view of teaching as complex work challenges the commonsense view of teaching that is widely used in parts of the world where teaching is viewed as solely dependent on the teachers’ knowledge of subject matter and their rote application of teaching skills regardless of the context in which they are implemented.

The third and final component of the BC model of social justice teaching is an understanding by teachers of the inherently political nature of teaching and the recognition that whatever teachers do in their classrooms is inevitably connected to the larger social and political context and affects the life chances of their students. Teachers with political consciousness understand how what they do every day in their classrooms either supports or helps to disrupt the educational and social inequalities that exist in most nations, and teachers working for social justice choose to engage in practices that will help disrupt these inequalities (Gutierrez, 2013). Our conception of social justice teacher education in this article is one that seeks to prepare teachers to engage in social justice teaching as defined above.

Together with the aforementioned BC model, this study is also grounded in the model of ‘socially inclusive teaching’ constituted by three interrelated components, i.e. ‘belief, design, and action’ (Gale et al., 2017, p. 1). As explained by the authors, socially inclusive pedagogy was derived from the conception of ‘pedagogic work’ advanced by Bourdieu and Passeron (1990) (as cited in Gale et al., 2017). The three elements comprising socially inclusive teaching are defined as follows:

In this study, we focus our attention on ‘belief’, but data analysis also sought to highlight indications of ‘design’ and ‘action’ embedded in the ‘belief’ of the participants.

Building on the literature and the educational context of Vietnam, we conducted this research study, which aims to explore to what extent and how pre-service TESOL teachers developed their belief about teaching for social justice through community field experiences. In order to achieve this aim, the study addresses the following research questions:

4 Context and participants of the study

The research project was conducted in a division of L2 teacher education in a university in Vietnam. To maintain confidentiality for the research site, the pseudonym ‘Sandy University’ was used in this article. The TESOL program is recognized both as the core to the division and prestige of the institution. Its mission is to prepare EFL teachers who will join the teaching force throughout the country. Under the Frame Curricular scripted by the Ministry of Education and Training, the content of the TESOL curriculum is divided into two components: background knowledge and professional knowledge (Ministry of Education and Training, 2006). The latter embraces knowledge and skills related to TESOL or language teaching that are arranged into compulsory courses. Integral to the component of professional knowledge is a teaching practicum in senior secondary schools (Nguyen, 2014).

The participants of this study were a cohort of 38 TCs who commenced their undergraduate studies in the academic year of 2014 and graduated in 2018. Their age at the time of participation in the research ranged from 21 to 23; and they were in the third year of the TESOL program. A noticeable feature of the cohort is a gender imbalance: 34 females and 6 males. This imbalanced ratio reflects that fact that females dominate the teaching force in Vietnam, especially in the field of language teaching (Nguyen, 2016). The socioeconomic background of the TCs (around three-fourths) can be described as ‘middle-class’, ‘working’, and ‘middle-income’. The rest can be described as ‘below average’ and ‘socioeconomically disadvantaged’. The TCs who were born and grew up in cities or urban areas were approximately equal to those from rural areas.

1 Teaching perceptions prior to community field experiences

Data gathered from class discussion in the first week of the course ‘An Introduction to Language Teaching Methodologies’ show that the TCs perceived the primary mission of teaching as ‘providing knowledge to students.’ This core function of teaching was elaborated by the TCs as the provision of knowledge of subject matter: ‘Teaching means giving knowledge of specific subjects to students such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and literature.’ This source of disciplinary knowledge taught to students would be a platform for their academic and professional advancement in the future. Teachers’ principal role associated with this mission was as a ‘knowledge provider.’ As educated to teach English, the TCs understood their teaching as ‘imparting knowledge of the English language to students.’ More specifically, the knowledge in this discipline included four basic skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and other components of any given language such as vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. Their teaching also involved preparing students to become linguistically and culturally competent in English so that they would participate in the global community. From this perspective, knowledge transmitted to students covered both linguistic and cultural aspects.

In addition to the ‘transmission of knowledge’ conceptualized as the primary goal of teaching careers, the TCs, to varying degree, mentioned secondary tasks that teachers were required to carry out both in and beyond the classroom. These encompassed moral and humane values introduced in each lesson by which students would learn to become ‘good citizens.’ The role of teachers in this way is, in their opinion, as ‘a moral guide’, which has been recognized for generations in the sociocultural context of Vietnam (Phan, 2008). A member of the cohort raised her moral awareness of teaching, ‘As teachers, besides knowledge, we have to teach them values and morality.’ Moral aspects were also accommodated to the specificity of English language teaching in the sense that students would be expected to know how to preserve ‘their national values and identities in the era of globalization.’ At this point, five out of 38 TCs pinpointed ‘critical thinking’ as an integral part of English language teaching. One of them explained, ‘Teachers do not pay attention to critical thinking skills, so we must combine them with knowledge of English language.’ The TCs also emphasized the advantages of the English language in terms of orienting students toward critical thinking.

In general, the notion of teaching perceived by the TCs was greatly influenced by social norms and conventional concepts. Drawing on this conceptual frame, the TCs elaborated their understanding of teaching, making it appropriate to English language teaching. In the Vietnamese context, the principles and ideas analyzed above are widely accepted as the core to teaching belief, which would ‘frame good teaching’ (Gale et al., 2017, p. 5). In sum, there was hardly anything explicitly related to inequality or social justice emerging in their beliefs about teaching.

2 English learning perceived and invested in local communities: ‘We discovered a lot of inequalities in the local community’

3 Transformation in teaching belief: Embracing equity and social justice

Data collected from focused-group interviews demonstrate a marked transformation in the TCs’ teaching belief, which had hitherto involved mainly imparting knowledge to students. However, after the field trip, their understanding of teaching transformed in accordance with the spirit of social justice teaching. Such transformation was congruent with the findings of previous research that highlighted pre-service teachers’ changes of beliefs of social justice subsequent to their involvement in justice-oriented courses (Frederick, Cave, & Perencevich, 2010; Mills, 2013). In particular, the five groups all pinpointed the importance of equal opportunity for quality schooling to all children regardless of race, social class, or geographical location. ‘All students, whether they are from rich or poor families . . . the Kinh majority or minorities . . . countryside or cities . . . must be equally treated in school,’ said Group 1. The phrase ‘equally treated’ demonstrates the TC’s awareness of equality of schooling, one of the basic tenets of socially just teaching.

A member of Group 3 substantiated this principle of socially just teaching, ‘Some students are underserved in their class just because of their disadvantaged backgrounds. Teachers must attend to them rather than sticking to a uniform practice for all students.’ For underprivileged students, they also emphasized that teaching, whether English or other subjects, should aim at helping them to ‘transform their lives and communities’ rather than merely provide knowledge. This way of teaching, when situated in the educational context of Vietnam, is highly commendable as teachers tend to adhere to a prescribed curriculum for all schools.

In order to lessen schooling inequalities more effectively, the TCs advocated teachers as social workers within and beyond the school boundary. A member of Group 5 said, ‘. . . Teachers, especially those working in disadvantaged areas, need to work with other social organizations in order to help disadvantaged students.’ In this way, social work was considered integral to teaching if teachers were actually committed to struggling for educational equality. This duty was, according to Groups 3 and 4, particularly important for teachers working students in rural areas and minority communities. More significant was teachers working with leaders of both the education system and the local government to struggle for the rights of underprivileged students. ‘Inequalities may be caused by policies made by the administration and leaders. In some cases, teachers should negotiate with them to fight for underprivileged students’ rights,’ said a member of Group 5.

A member of Group 4 raised more strident voices for bringing equality to children of ethnic minorities: ‘Teaching minority students requires teachers to understand the families and communities with whom they work.’ This notion of teaching is plausible because failure tends to have resulted from teachers’ lack of knowledge of the cultures of minorities (Lavoie, 2011; Luong & Nieke, 2013). This group therefore advocated a pedagogy that takes students’ lives and experiences into account. As they observed, a large proportion of teachers are members of the Kinh majority. Not surprisingly, pedagogical practices used in their classroom were more appropriate to Kinh students than to minority students. Against this backdrop, this group contended that teachers must bring minority students’ learning cultures into the classroom. In this way, their belief moved towards ‘diversity of learners and ways of learning’, aligning with the practice whereby ‘learners learn best when learning activities require them to be actively engaged’ (Gale at al., 2017, p. 5). This group also saw strengths and advantages of minority students learning languages, especially English due to their bilingual competence. However, the current exam-oriented practice plus teachers’ inadequate understanding of minority learners prevented this group of students from fulfilling their multilingual potentials. That is, the schooling practice that tends to prepare all students for various kinds of tests did not give this population of students a chance to show their strength in using languages relevant to real-life situations. Therefore, when working with minority students as L2 learners, teachers need to acknowledge their bilingual competence. When interviewed, this group proposed a number of actions for transforming the practice of English teaching in disadvantaged minority communities. More significant was their advocacy of a pedagogical practice grounded in local culture and ethnic identity of minority communities. Their belief indicates a possibility for a design of socially inclusive teaching, which ‘values difference while also providing access to and enabling engagement with dominance’ (Gale et al., 2017, p. 3). For example, their lesson plan would be adapted to the learning characteristics of minority students as in the excerpt below:

When teaching students of ethnic minority, we won’t strictly [rigidly] follow the prescribed syllabus. Instead of explaining complicated grammar to them through formal lecturing, we should diversify our their teaching practice to interest students. For example, teachers should modify and integrate grammatical points into speaking activities that simulate their real-life experience. (A member of Group 4)

The above excerpt demonstrates that the TC valued the learning culture and values of minority students while also engaging them in the dominant practice and high-status knowledge. That is, similar to their friends of ethnic majority, minority students also gain access to ‘grammar’, which is considered high-status knowledge of language teaching in this context. However, diverse learning activities or teaching methods should be built on their particularity, i.e. learning ‘grammar’ through real-life simulation.

It is interesting that a member in this group noted that national textbooks used for English teaching were, to some extent, not appropriate to disadvantaged minority students. This problem is traced to the established practice of textbook writing, which draws on the shared knowledge, learning culture, and perspectives of the majority group. Once listening to the opinion of this TC, other members also expressed their concern about materials that might widen the gap between majority and minority students. Therefore, in their prospective practice, they would collaborate with their colleagues, attending to this matter. Although the TCs were in the third year of their TESOL program at the time of interview, there was evidence that they would turn their belief into practice. For example, two members suggested that materials should be modified to the local practice of minority students:

I read the English textbook used for Grade 7 or 8 . . . I can’t remember exactly. The lesson was writing a process and students were taught to write a process of printing a document. I’m sure that most students in ethnic minority communities haven’t used a computer at home or seen a printer. So teachers should replace it with a process relevant to students’ daily life like farming. (A member of Group 4)

We [teachers] should introduce a process of making foods, including their traditional foods as well as foreign foods like Sushi or Pizza. Students, whether from minority or majority backgrounds, love to explore new things, so this activity would be effective. (Another member of Group 4)

In the above excerpts, two TCs, from a perspective of the ethnic majority group, found the learning activity presented in the prescribed textbook inappropriate to minority students, thereby offering alternatives. They both understood the focus of this lesson, i.e. teaching students how to describe a process in English. As they pointed out, the learning objective would be more likely to be achieved by using various examples in students’ daily life rather than the only way, i.e. ‘printing a document’. In other words, these prospective teachers recommended alternative processes based on students’ daily life rather than passively using ‘one-size-fits-all’ textbooks. The alternatives do not necessarily mean that computer or information technology should be replaced with farming or food making. Indeed, as part of the national curriculum, computer literacy as a subject is also provided to students of ethnic minority. Indeed, the first TC advocated the practice of culturally responsive teaching, which highlights the use of sources appropriate to and available in a local culture. The second TC also capitalized on both local and foreign resources so that students would have rich, diverse experiences. Through these excerpts, the TCs espoused not only a principle of schooling opportunity for all but also a teaching practice that foregrounds rich learning resources in local communities. Based on the general premise of socially just teaching shared with other groups of TCs, Group 4 proposed practices specific to minority students.

Group 3 placed an emphasis on community engagement as a part of expertise for teachers working with students in rural areas. A member said, ‘Many students in the countryside are left behind because English is too difficult for them, so teachers need to be engaged in rural villages to understand students and their learning problems.’ As can be seen, two group’s understandings of English language teaching to some extent aligned with culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2018), which has been acknowledged as part of teaching for social justice. That is, knowledge of learners and their learning culture should be regarded as resources for teachers to modify the syllabus and find pedagogies or methods of instruction specific to different groups of minority students. Similar to Group 4, who worked with disadvantaged minority students, the TCs of Group 3 developed a belief that teachers need to focus on students’ assets inherent in their particular knowledge and skills (Gale et al., 2017). Their belief embraces indicators of actions described as ‘tactics that seek to not simply identify students’ prior knowledge, interests, or needs, but to engage students’ own senses in their sense-making of the world’ (Gale at el., 2007, p. 7).

Their transformed perceptions of English language teaching embraced values pertaining to equity and social justice, which concern a number of global issues such as gender, race, and politics. Through English lessons, the TCs advocated an approach to teaching that imparted greater awareness of the contemporary affairs of the world to students:

Teaching English also includes lessons about how people are struggling for equity or a better world today. For example, in a series of lessons about social life across the world, teachers should help students understand how marginalized groups are struggling for their voice and rights. In this way, students would emphasize with unlucky or marginalized people in Vietnam and in the world. (A member of Group 1)

The ‘marginalized groups’ were interpreted by this group as ‘minority groups in a society dominated by a majority’, ‘homosexual people such as gays or lesbians’, and ‘women who are deprived of their rights in many areas’. Through this extract, we can see that the TCs linked teaching with fostering emotional development in the sense that students would develop empathy and compassion in addition to intellectual capacity.

1 Belief in students’ assets rather than their deficits

Drawing on socially inclusive teaching as pedagogic work, the findings highlight the TCs’ belief that ‘all students bring something of value to the learning environment’ (Gale et al., 2017, p. 3). As a result of their field community experiences, the TCs’ belief embraces essential qualities of socially just teaching in the sense that they believed in ‘diversity of learners and ways of learning’ (p. 5). As in their written reports and interviews, the TCs held a view that learning goals would be achieved if students were actively engaged in learning activities. The TCs’ involvement in an exam-oriented practice both as both students and prospective teachers helped them redefine the goal of socially just teaching, which would make a contribution to transforming students’ lives and their communities rather than ‘serving an institutional purpose of allocating grades’ (p. 5). These are the basic tenets of ‘belief’, one of the three constituents of ‘socially inclusive teaching’ (p. 5). As pointed out in the findings section, the TCs’ belief indicates potentials for ‘design’ and ‘action’. Drawing on their teaching beliefs, we can see that they are likely to employ ‘both-ways’ approach to designing their pedagogy built on ‘both dominance and difference’ (p. 7). Thus, they would provide students with both knowledge and skills valued by the dominant group and multiple knowledge and discourses of minority groups. Their belief also embraces specific actions and practices that would work with students’ learning and their communities. In general, the framework of socially inclusive teaching provides macro insights into the TCs’ beliefs about socially justice teaching.

The study is also grounded in a conception of social justice teaching that was built on the Boston College conception of teaching for social justice (Cochran-Smith et al., 2009a, 2009b). The discussion below provides micro insights into the participants’ beliefs about social justice teaching based on this conception.

2 A multidimensional view of student learning as the goal of teaching for social justice

On the premise of teaching for social justice employed as the theoretical framework for this study, the cohort of TCs advanced their teaching belief, which is congruent with ‘a multidimensional view of student learning as the goal of teaching’ (Cochran-Smith et al., 2009a). Based on this view, they posited that ‘all students should have access to rich opportunities to learn basic skills and complex thinking and reasoning’ (Cochran-Smith et al., 2009a, p. 239). In order to achieve this goal, teachers need to take other factors into consideration such as whether students who have ‘special learning needs’, are ‘considered at risk by the system’, or live in poor communities’ (p. 239). As analyzed in the findings section, each group of TCs called for attention to the variety of underprivileged students, including students from poor neighborhoods in cities, ethnic minorities, and from rural areas. They understood that the goal of socially just teaching would be accomplished only when the needs these groups of underserved students are better catered to in the schools.

As a core to multidimensional view of students’ learning, teaching for social justice first and foremost aims at developing knowledge of subject matter and inquiry skills for every student. This belief is inherent in the pre-service teachers’ perceptions of teaching prior to their community field experiences. That is, as ‘a provider of knowledge’, the TCs posited that English language knowledge in combination with critical thinking skills, moral values, and intercultural competence would be the fore of their mission in every class. In addition to academic content, multidimensional view of student learning as the goal of socially just teaching also means promoting the socio-emotional and civic development of students. The notion of socio-emotional development that the TCs would enact in their classrooms was centered in a mutual understanding between students regardless of their different backgrounds. Also, students taught by TCs would be compassionate and empathic towards marginalized or underprivileged groups living across the world today.

The multidimensional view of student learning as the goal of teaching for social justice theorized by Cochran-Smith et al. (2009a) also comprises civic development inherent in ‘democratic skills and values’ (p. 240). This area is, to some extent, the least prominent in our findings due to the geopolitics of the local context where issues related democracy and equity seem not only to be neglected in the school curriculum but also to be undermined in the broader society. In short, the multidimensional view of student learning as the goal of socially just teaching proposed by the TCs includes basic skills in combination with complex and reasoning skills. Students’ socio-emotional development was manifested in the cultivation of compassion and empathy in students’ behavior. Civic components need to be more pronounced in their multidimensional view of student learning because the findings showed just little evidence for their plan to teach students, especially the disadvantaged groups, democratic values.

3 A complex view of teaching practice

The second core component of teaching for social justice concerns a complex view of teaching practice. First, teachers of languages or other disciplines must have essential knowledge about subject matter. As mentioned previously, the TCs had a strong background in English as it is used in the Vietnamese context. During their teacher preparation, they were provided with theories and also involved in generating knowledge about curriculum, pedagogical strategies, and teaching methods. All of these exhibited their mastery of classroom practices and skills that would potentially form their teaching practice. Upon joining the teaching force, they would be engaged in school communities, establishing relationships with their colleagues for professional development. This marks the third component ‘knowing to learn within inquiring communities’ over the course of their career trajectories (Cochran-Smith et al., 2009a, p. 241).

Another important element of teaching practice for social justice pertains to ‘interpretive frameworks’ held by teachers (p. 241). According to Cochran-Smith et al. (2009a), teachers of social justice need to challenge themselves and their teaching by considering their beliefs and practice in relation to communities and the broader society. More importantly, they should interpret the purposes of education and interpret their practice in relation to these purposes.

The participants in this study initially took a stance that their teaching was confined to the ‘provision of knowledge’ to students. However, their experience in observing local communities contributed to shifting their positions toward teaching in ways that disrupted educational inequalities. Based on their transformed interpretive frameworks, they incorporated social justice aims into their teaching plans. They believed that, teachers should work with social organizations to support greater equity within schooling and in the broader society. Specific to their teaching practice was their resistance to ‘universalist perspectives’ on pedagogical practices and curriculum that fail to ‘account for the knowledge traditions and experiences of marginalized groups’ (pp. 241–242). That is, the TCs in this study critiqued current pedagogies as well as curriculum used in the schooling system that do not adequately attend to socioeconomically disadvantaged children, especially those in rural locations and of ethnic minorities. Above all, they hoped that their teaching practice underpinned by their transformative interpretive framework would contribute to lessening inequalities and transforming communities for the better.

4 A political view of teaching

Teaching for social justice theorized by Cochran-Smith et al. (2009a) is ‘more than service’ (p. 242). Indeed it is deemed an ‘a political activity’ whereby teachers are expected to work as advocates and activists in addition to their primary role as educators. In order to enact teaching as a political activity, teachers have to be politically conscious and committed to diminishing inequalities and recognizing ‘the knowledge and interest of multiple social and cultural groups’ (pp. 242-243). From their perspectives as prospective teachers, the TCs would cross the classroom and school boundary, and collaborate with social organizations and communities to fight against injustices and inequalities. Regarding the marginal status of minority ethnic students in the schooling system, the TCs called for recognition of the knowledge and cultural identities of these students. The TCs showed their willingness to turn their belief into practice inherent in their suggestions for curriculum, syllabus, and pedagogies appropriate to this group. In their a political view of teaching, materials or textbooks would be changed to reflect cultural diversity of minority groups as well as injustices experienced by disadvantaged minority students. In this way, their political view on socially just teaching would be transferred into practice.

As such, pedagogical practices must attend to students’ learning cultures and their diverse backgrounds rather than adhering to a universal perspective. As advocates and activists, they also showed their respect and recognition for multiple groups beyond the geographical boundary of Vietnam as evidenced by their suggestion for integrating global issues into classroom practices. More specifically, they hoped that their students as a result of their lessons in the English language would engage with underprivileged groups in the world. Integral to a political view of teaching is ‘critiquing the process of schooling and asking questions about whose interests are being served and whose needs are being met by different teaching practices’ (p. 243). Based on their observation of educational inequalities in communities, the TCs in the current research raised the question of whose interest was being served in the current system. Regarding the current status of education and English learning in communities, they raised the question as to whether it was only to facilitate advantaged students being able to study overseas and participate in the global community of the privileged groups. In their role as advocates and activists, the TCs believed that their teaching would ultimately bring learning opportunities and better life chances to all students rather than serving the interest of only some groups.