Exploring linguistically responsive teaching for English learners in rural,elementary classrooms: From theory to practice

Abstract

The rapid growth in the number of English learners (ELs) in urban and rural school classrooms and the continual homogenization of a White, female, teaching force in the United States create cultural and linguistic disconnections in the classroom. As research suggests, although classroom diversity and ELs’ academic needs could be addressed by teachers’ enactment of linguistically responsive teaching (LRT) practices, most mainstream classroom teachers are not adequately prepared to implement these practices. This study examined the teaching practices of teachers with English learners in rural, elementary classroom settings in the US to find evidence of linguistically responsive teaching. It also explored how rurality shaped teachers’ instruction of ELs. The findings illustrate limited and considerable evidence of LRT implementation in the teachers’ classrooms. Evidence shows that two focal teachers mostly implemented LRT through their teaching strategies and scaffolded instruction. Findings further demonstrate that rural factors like place-based awareness and the teachers’ rural upbringing influenced their instruction of ELs. Implications on the need for researchers to undertake further and critical examination of LRT both as a theoretical framework that guides teacher preparation and as a theory that guides educational research are discussed while recommendations for language teaching, pedagogy and teacher preparation are put forward.

Keywords

English language learners English learners language teaching linguistically responsive teaching rural teaching second language pedagogy

I Introduction

The change in the demographic picture of the school-age population in the United States, which is seen in the growth in the number of English learners (ELs) in public schools, resulted from the continuous trend of international immigration (Samson & Collins, 2012). About half of the immigrant population, considered the fastest-growing segment of public-school students, does not speak fluent English (Calderon, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011). In addition, the growth of new industries in rural areas of the US South and Midwest (Fogle & Moser, 2017) has increased the number of English learners in rural schools, ranging from 135% in North Carolina to 610% in South Carolina (Horsford & Sampson, 2013).

The increasing diversification of the public-school population and the continued homogenization of a White, female, monolingual teaching force (Cho & de Castro-Ambrosetti, 2005; Sleeter, 2001; Gay, 1997) creates cultural and linguistic disruption between students and teachers. Moreover, these contextual disconnections are aggravated if teachers do not have adequate preparation to engage students in culturally and linguistically appropriate ways in the classroom (Bergeron, 2008; Bryant, Moss & Zidjemas-Boudreau, 2015; Cooper, 2007; Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lucas & Villegas, 2002; Ukpokodu, 2011). Recently, scholars suggest that educational realities about effective instruction of ELs implicate the necessity of practices in linguistically responsive teaching (LRT; Lucas & Villegas, 2011). Thus, the need for empirical work examining the instructional practices of EL teachers that are reflective of LRT is essential in contextualizing linguistic diversity and its critical role in ELs’ learning experiences in urban and rural classroom settings.

However, there is a dearth of empirical research on the instructional practices of mainstream teachers that demonstrate the elements and principles of LRT in both urban and rural contexts (e.g. Coady et al., 2020; Hersi & Watkinson, 2012; Lucas, de Oliveira, & Villegas, 2014; Tandon, Viesca, Heuston, & Milbourn, 2017). Although LRT has gained considerable attention in the research literature (Bunch, 2010; Turkan, de Oliveira, Lee, & Phelps, 2014), it has not been extensively empirically examined (Tandon et al., 2017), and this is evident in how few previous studies were limited to exploring a couple of principles of LRT. The lack of studies related to LRT may be a consequence of limited prior attention given by researchers and practitioners to language issues, linguistic diversity, and the education of ELs (Lucas & Grinberg, 2008) in empirical, educational research. Overall, the limited literature demonstrated evidence of teachers’ implementation of only a few tenets of LRT, mostly in urban contexts (e.g. Giouroukakis & Honigsfeld, 2010; Zhang-Wu, 2017). In addition, these studies illustrate the possibility of implementing LRT in either mainstream classrooms or in classrooms that utilize language program models like a newcomer and a two-way immersion. What is missing from these studies is an understanding of LRT in rural classroom settings that demonstrate an in-depth description of teachers’ practices that support meaningful language learning for ELs. Based on prior research, studies have repeatedly shown that teachers’ instructional practices frequently do not help the academic needs of English learners, in part due to teachers having had little or no professional development on teaching practices that are linguistically responsive (Coady et al., 2011; Lucas, Villegas & Freedson-Gonzales, 2008).

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the teaching practices of teachers with English learners in rural, elementary classroom settings to find evidence of linguistically responsive teaching (LRT) that addresses the academic needs of ELs. It aimed to fill the gap in the academic literature on LRT for effective education of ELs as not only a theoretical framework but, more importantly, as a set of teaching practices that teachers employ in actual classroom settings. With the exponential growth of English learners taught by monolingual teachers who are under-prepared to provide responsive teaching practices in rural classroom settings, this study underscored the critical importance of LRT that could guide teacher preparation, educational research, and teachers’ professional development. The LRT framework is an educational paradigm that suggests a set of orientations and pedagogical knowledge and skills that teachers need to possess to effectively teach ELs despite the cultural and linguistic barriers that could impede effective learning.

Specifically, the study sought answers to the following questions:

What linguistically responsive teaching practices do rural teachers of English learners implement in the classroom?

How does rurality shape the instruction of English learners?

II Conceptual framework

This study is grounded in two important concepts: first, the emerging framework on LRT (Lucas & Villegas, 2010) and second, teaching ELs in rural spaces. The LRT framework (Lucas & Villegas, 2010) was the leading theory used to examine the teaching practices of EL teachers in rural, elementary classroom settings. Lucas and Villegas (2010) outlined seven fundamental principles that describe linguistically responsive teachers’ orientations, knowledge, and skills. Three tenets – sociolinguistic consciousness, value for linguistic diversity, and advocating for ELs – are categorized as orientations that highlight teachers’ dispositions necessary for making instructional decisions based on their understanding of linguistic diversity and its impact on the learning experiences of ELs. The other four tenets – learning about ELs’ backgrounds, identifying language demands in the classroom, knowing and applying the principles of second language learning, and scaffolding instruction for ELS – are categorized as pedagogical knowledge and skills which emphasize a set of specialized knowledge about language and how it works and language-related pedagogies that facilitate learning a social and an academic language in the classroom. Fundamentally, this means that linguistically responsive teachers have consciousness towards the nature of English learners while knowing both how to teach language and teach about language. The tenets of LRT and their descriptions are provided in Appendix 1.

The study further theorized that LRT could be examined differently in rural school settings, given the nature and characteristics of rural contexts that impact teachers’ practices. This conceptualization runs counter with the widespread view that LRT is intended for urban classroom settings where cultural and linguistic diversity is ubiquitous. While the LRT framework has been previously viewed as a model that could be applied in a classroom setting with English learners in diverse, urban settings, previous studies have not examined this framework with the rural context’s inherent dynamics that have a significant impact on EL teachers’ practices. Specifically, the study assumed that the intrinsic dynamics within a rural setting, e.g. ‘shared community context’ (Eppley, 2015, p. 75); teachers’ relationships with multilingual families (Coady, 2019); and place-based awareness as pedagogical (Greenwood, 2013; Gruenewald, 2003), could affect teachers’ instructional decisions and practices with ELs. Place-based pedagogies are also more focused on the development of teachers’ awareness towards places (Gruenewald, 2003) beyond the immediate and the local, with a clear and articulated sense of the relationship of the local to the global, and of the social lifeworld to the natural environment (White & Reid, 2008). For instance, a teacher who builds meaningful relationships with parents of Hispanic students may unconsciously solicit some information that determines pedagogical practices. This sense of community is attributed to the ways that rural communities are linked to their schools in ways not typical of urban areas (McCracken & Miller, 1988).

The researcher conceptualized in this study that critical regard for the dynamics of rural settings like place-based awareness and the renewed interest in rural education (Coady et al., 2019) introduces a new perspective for examining LRT in rural settings. The construct of ‘rural’ was not simply used as a backdrop for reviewing teachers’ implementation of LRT in their classrooms. It was also conceptualized as ‘constitutive places that shape identities and possibilities’ (Eppley, 2015, p. 70) and is ‘pedagogical’ because places teach educators who, what, and where they are, as well as how they might live their lives (Gruenewald, 2003). Yet, despite the changing demographics in rural schools that have seen greater multiculturalism and multilingualism (Fogle & Moser, 2017), teachers in these contexts have not had sufficient training to target the educational needs of students whose first language is not English (Rodriguez & Manner, 2010).

Overall, the researcher conceptualized that the teaching of English learners is contingent upon two major frameworks – first, teachers’ ability to implement the LRT framework’s orientation and pedagogical knowledge and skills, and second, the inherent dynamics of rural contexts. This conceptualization provides the foundation which supports the study’s primary goal of examining EL teachers’ practices in rural classroom settings that could further highlight the perceived educational advantages of LRT. Moreover, the study’s aim to empirically explore LRT in two rural teachers’ practices could spark the academic interest of researchers, teacher educators, and curriculum planners to seriously consider the integration of LRT into curriculum and instruction. See Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The conceptual framework of the study.

III Research site, design, and methods

This research is an exploratory case study that used qualitative methods. With this approach, the researcher employed a constructivist epistemological perspective (Crotty, 1998) to construct meaning from the unique experiences of the teachers and their understanding and application of LRT in their classrooms. As Johnson (1995) argues, if the researcher aims to ‘engage in research that probes for deeper understanding rather than examining surface features’ (p. 4), constructivism may facilitate that aim. In other words, a constructivist perspective suggests that each person perceives the world differently and actively creates their meanings from events around them through interaction with their surroundings (Denzin & Lincoln, 2013; Raskin, 2002; Young & Collin, 2004). The decision to use a constructivist-interpretive paradigm was consistent with the study’s goal of examining the teaching practices of EL teachers in rural school settings through the lens of LRT. More importantly, the study used an exploratory approach because few research studies have been conducted on LRT, and the existing academic literature is just beginning to emerge. The absence of empirical studies examining LRT in actual rural classroom contexts (Coady et al., 2019; Hersi & Watkinson, 2012; Lucas, de Oliveira, & Villegas, 2014) underscores that LRT is under-studied and not clearly articulated through empirical research.

1 Research context

The study was conducted in a rural school district in the southeastern US at Verona Elementary School ([pseudonym], VES). The school is geographically situated in the rural town of Verona (pseudonym), which is considered as a rural fringe setting defined as ‘a rural territory that is less than or equal to 5 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is less than or equal to 5 miles from an urban cluster’ (NCES, 2017, n.p.). In this rural school district, 25% of the school population are classified as English learners whose parents primarily work in rural farms in this southeastern state.

The study took place in two different classroom contexts in one rural elementary school: first, an inclusive mainstream 5th grade classroom facilitated by a White, female, monolingual teacher named Farrah (pseudonym), and second, a self-contained 4th grade classroom for English as a second language (ESL) facilitated by a White, female, monolingual teacher named Chanda (pseudonym). The rationale behind this decision was premised on research-based ideas that these two types of classrooms have different approaches to teaching ELs, given their differing characteristics. However, one common feature of these two differing contexts is that both classrooms have newcomer ELs. They came from countries outside of the US like Mexico, Guatemala, Puerto Rico, China, and the Philippines. By definition, newcomer ELs refer to recent immigrants around the US for a year or a decade and are immersed in classrooms with limited access to content learning and language and literacy development (Bigelow, 2010; Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007). Short and Boyson (2004) argue that newcomer ELs have specialized needs like ‘targeted intervention strategies beyond traditional ESL programs to accelerate their learning and graduate despite the limited time available’ (p. 12). In this study, the newcomer ELs have low linguistic and literacy proficiency as described by the teacher-respondents based on their achievement data in state-mandated assessments. Also, both classrooms had newcomer ELs because some of them arrived in the US in the middle of the school year and in 5th grade, there were very few ELs, thus, the school administration assigned them to the inclusive mainstream classroom.

The first context – a mainstream, inclusive classroom is defined in the US context as general education classrooms where ELs are taught alongside their native-English speaking peers. Farrah’s inclusive classroom comprises 65% White, English native speakers, 15% African-Americans whose first language (L1) is English, and 20% English learners, and half of them are newcomer ELs. The newcomer ELs were spending their fourth month in the US after their families migrated as farmworkers. This classroom shows evidence of low-incidence EL settings (Bérube, 2000; Haworth, 2009). In the north-central area of the southeastern US state where this study was conducted, mainstream classrooms have a low number of ELs (Coady, Harper & de Jong, 2016). These classroom settings are distinctive in more rural and suburban areas across many states in the US (Coady et al., 2016). Thus, school administrators push for mainstream, inclusive classrooms as instructional models because of the low number of ELs in schools (Hersi & Watkinson, 2012).

In contrast, the second context, the self-contained ESL classroom facilitated by Chanda, is atypical for this school. ELs were provided with specialized intervention and support via a highly prepared teacher and a full-time bilingual para-professional in this classroom. In particular, a self-contained ESL classroom used various classroom configurations where learners conducted academic work with other ESL students and were mainstreamed for non-academic subjects and non-instructional parts of the day. In addition, the teacher in the self-contained ESL classroom had to ‘level instruction’. This setup means that the teacher had to plan small-group and whole-group lessons given the varying ELs’ English language proficiency levels. This classroom context was also highly characterized by a pluralist discourse (Wright, 2015). Thus, ELs’ language and culture are used as rich resources for helping them learn English and academic content. Chanda’s classroom consisted of 25 English learners with varying literacy levels and language proficiencies. Of the number, 20% are considered newcomer ELs whose characteristics are similar to those of Farrah’s learners; 16% are classified as ESE or exceptional student education; 36% are classified as low proficient, while 28% are classified as highly proficient based on state-mandated assessment standards.

2 Study participants

The researcher intentionally selected the participants in the study through purposeful, convenient sampling (Patton, 2002). To recruit participants for the study, the researcher used a set of inclusion criteria to identify two teachers who had strong reputations as teachers with the likelihood of implementing LRT with EL students.

The two teachers in the study were participants in a professional development (PD) program facilitated by a large, public university in the southeastern US. The project was a federally-funded teacher education program that provided extensive teacher education to teachers and educators who worked in rural settings with EL students. The PD program aimed to build teacher-leaders (Palmer, 2018) in the context of low-incidence settings of EL students (Bérube, 2000). At the time of this study, the PD program was in year three of its five-year implementation. Participating educators had completed the first phase of coursework (six graduate-level courses) related to teaching EL students and leading peers.

Farrah was in her 7th year of teaching at the K-5 level, specifically teaching 5th grade. At the time of the study, she was spending her 2nd year of teaching at VES. Before teaching at VES, a grade 3-5 school, she taught in first grade for five (5) years at Brighton Elementary School ([pseudonym], BES), which is the K-2 feeder school of VES. She graduated with her Bachelor’s degree with an English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) endorsement, which requires elementary teachers to receive 300 hours of ESOL preparation by the state. During her in-service years, she attended a few World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) training. This professional development consortium includes a system of standards and assessments for ELs in US schools. Farrah grew up in a rural farming community in Verona in the southeast United States, where she also attended a rural elementary school. She described her ‘inadequate’ educational experience in a rural elementary school through descriptors like ‘okay’, ‘drill and kill’, ‘taught the old school way’. For instance, her teachers in Math implemented the ‘drill and kill’ system because they taught them through only one method. Whether they learned what was being taught to them or not, their teacher just moved on to the next lesson. Farrah also recognized that her inadequate elementary education was affected by teacher quality and lack of resources. She admitted that there was a ‘pretty small pool of teachers in her rural elementary school’.

On the other hand, Chanda was in her 20th year of teaching during the study, and like Farrah, her first teaching job was at BES, where she had the opportunity to tutor English learners while their parents took lessons on Rosetta Stone. She was assigned different positions, which enabled her to work with ELs on top of her teaching job. She also grew up in a rural community where she resides with her own family. With her desire to develop herself professionally, she also completed the 300-hour ESOL endorsement requirement, obtained WIDA training, and finished her master’s degree in educational leadership. Chanda equated her view of an excellent education to an educational experience that made her feel that her teachers essentially valued her.

3 Researcher positionality

The researcher is coming into the study as a colored, multilingual, non-dominant member of the US mainstream society attempting to understand the instructional practices of rural teachers in meeting the needs of ELs. While these characteristics are different from the attributes of the participants in this study, they are pretty similar to the features of the ELs, primarily in terms of learning English as a second language. This circumstance had significantly influenced how the researcher perceived the central phenomena that was investigated in the study.

The author’s position in the study is both a participant-observer and a researcher. As a participant-observer, it is worthy to note that the researcher has worked with the participants for three years since the PD project started. More specifically, during the study, the author served as a research assistant of the PD project where the two teachers are participants. In addition, the author has facilitated some workshops with the respondents and had brief, informal conversations with them during the activities conducted as part of the project. Thus, the author’s role in the PD continued even during the conduct of this study.

As a researcher, the author mainly served as a non-participant observer during the teachers’ classrooms’ fieldwork. The author maintained an external observer role and did not participate in any class discussion during the whole duration of the classroom observations.

4 Data collection

The researcher employed ethnographic methods of two-phase classroom observations to obtain detailed notes about the teachers’ instructional practices. In the first phase of classroom observation, which usually lasted for at least 45 minutes, the researcher utilized an EL-modified Danielson rubric designed to assess the teaching effectiveness of EL teachers (Coady et al., 2020). The researcher was part of the research team that modified the Danielson rubric. During the second phase of classroom observations, the researcher generated open field notes from the observations noted concerning teachers’ practices that were evident of LRT. Guided by the LRT framework, the researcher focused his observations on the teachers’ (1) instructional practices that were reflective of the orientations and pedagogical expertise of linguistically responsive teachers; (2) use of language(s); (3) relationships with students; and (4) nonverbal communication cues.

The researcher also conducted interviews as the second mode of data collection to obtain information about the lived experiences and viewpoints from the respondents’ perspectives. Each teacher was interviewed a total of eight times in their respective classrooms. One of the interviews was conducted before the commencement of the classroom observations. The other six interviews were conducted each week after two post-observations. The post-observation interviews were conducted to verify information obtained from classroom observations. They were mainly focused on the immediate and actual details of experience (Seidman, 2006) – the teachers’ essential teaching practices. The researcher conducted the eighth interview during the last day of each classroom observation. Throughout six interviews, each teacher was interviewed for a total of 72- 90 minutes. When combined with the initial and the final interviews, Farrah was interviewed for two hours and 14 minutes of total interview time, while Chanda was interviewed for almost three hours. All the interviews were audio-recorded and were transcribed verbatim. The researcher personally transcribed the first interview with each teacher. However, he used an online program called TranscribeMe! to transcribe the seven other interviews for each teacher. Nonetheless, the researcher carefully reviewed the transcribed interviews vis-à-vis the audio recorded files to ensure the transcriptions’ accuracy.

In this study, the researcher collected six lesson plans from each teacher, corresponding to the six weeks that the researcher observed their classrooms. Additionally, the researcher collected samples of their work in the previous online courses they completed with the PD program they participated in, such as their proposed inquiry projects in their course Guided Inquiry, their lesson plans in ESOL Methods, and their final products in the course Transforming the Curriculum. Although the teachers wrote these text documents for purposes outside the scope of this study, these written materials reflected each teacher’s beliefs and perceptions about teaching ELs. Thus, the researcher integrated data obtained from these artifacts into the data analysis process.

5 Data analysis

The researcher utilized a deductive method of data analysis (Crabtree & Miller, 1999) based on the LRT framework used in the study. However, there were few instances when a priori codes could not capture the nuances of the teachers’ practices. Because of this, the researcher employed an inductive approach and created new descriptive codes using keywords from the data. Combining both techniques enhanced the study’s rigor by keeping the conceptual framework in mind while allowing for the possibility of the emergence of new themes (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). In the initial phase of this process, the researcher read his field notes and interview transcripts twice, without marking anything nor highlighting essential ideas. This mode of reading allowed him to recollect his thoughts during the observations and the interviews. During the third reading, the researcher employed open coding (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) or first cycle coding (Saldaña, 2011) for instances of LRT implementation across all data sources by marking incidents that stood out for him based on his knowledge of the theoretical framework used in the study. For instance, the researcher highlighted sections in the field notes that indicated the teacher’s practices that supported EL learning. During the primary coding process, the researcher generated open codes like repeated instruction, examples, simplifying texts, and adapting simple language.

Next, the researcher employed focused coding by fusing the open codes obtained through primary coding with a set of a priori codes derived from the LRT framework. For instance, open codes were synthesized into focused codes like ‘giving clear & explicit instructions,’ ‘providing additional examples,’ ‘supplementing or modifying difficult texts,’ and ‘supplementing or modifying oral language.’

After the focused coding process, the researcher employed theoretical coding (Saldaña, 2013) to synthesize the focused codes into overarching themes to represent the study’s findings. He used seven theoretical codes to synthesize the emergent findings, with code names corresponding to the seven tenets or principles of LRT discussed in Section II. For instance, the focused codes cited in the preceding paragraph were theoretically coded as ‘Scaffolding Instruction,’ one of the tenets of the LRT framework.

To ascertain the credibility of the findings, the researcher employed data triangulation by using more than one method of data collection. This study used classroom observations with a prolonged period in the teachers’ classrooms and post-observation interviews to clarify observations. For instance, one teacher was observed for approximately 40 hours and was interviewed for 2 hours and 14 minutes. Text documents such as teachers’ weekly lesson plans and learning philosophy essays were also analysed to supplement the field observation and interview data. Another important triangulation step that the researcher undertook was respondent validation of analysed data. After data analysis, the researcher prepared a comprehensive codebook containing the focused and theoretical codes and their explanations, data sources, and typical exemplars. The two teacher-respondents reviewed the findings synthesized in the codebook and agreed with the results. Lastly, the researcher utilized an audit trail (Lincoln and Guba, 1985), a document containing all the detailed descriptions of data collection, data analysis, and decision-making processes during the conduct of the study.

IV Findings

1 Farrah’s limited evidence of LRT practices

Farrah implemented linguistically responsive teaching practices across only three central tenets of LRT, which include: (1) learning about ELs’ backgrounds to inform instruction; (2) knowing and applying principles of second language learning; and (3) scaffolding instruction (Lucas & Villegas, 2011).

a Learning about ELs’ linguistic and academic backgrounds

Farrah demonstrated an understanding of the variation in her ELs’ language and academic backgrounds that informed her teaching practices. One evidence of this practice was demonstrated in how she connected ELs’ background and prior knowledge to new learning. She elaborated about making connections:

I make many connections to activate their background knowledge and previous experiences. In Science, when we talked about hail and storms, I related it to the life of farmers in Verona because most of our ELs’ parents work on watermelon farms here. The stories on the farm during summer when watermelons break during hailstorms is just something that many of them are familiar with. (Post-observation interview # 6)

These connections facilitated activating ELs’ background knowledge, and previous experiences that helped them better understand concepts taught. These connections also facilitated comprehensible input because the ELs understood new information based on their prior experiences. For example, Farrah’s awareness of the nature of the work of her ELs’ parents was translated into teaching practices through relevant connections between the topic and ELs’ family backgrounds.

Yet, findings also reveal that she possessed a surface-level knowledge of her ELs based on information obtained from the school’s guidance counselor or the ESOL aide. In other words, she was constrained only to ‘knowing’ these sets of information but not critically and consistently utilizing them to inform her pedagogical decisions.

b Knowing and applying the principles of second language learning

Farrah demonstrated knowledge of second language (L2) learning principles and applied these in her teaching practices that reflected LRT, captured with an a priori code from the LRT framework – minimizing ELs’ anxiety by creating a safe and welcoming classroom. Teachers who are linguistically responsive need to create classroom environments that reduce ELs’ anxiety in mainstream classrooms. Farrah demonstrated evidence of building her classroom where ELs exhibited less or no anxiety that engaged them in learning. For instance, she showed caring towards Ariana (pseudonym), one of her newcomer ELs from Guatemala, who was detained in New York for two months before coming to VES. Farrah gave her special attention during her first few weeks in her classroom. She also provided her with support to cope with her new environment and attended to her social and academic needs. Farrah said, ‘Ariana is still very much kind of sheltering herself and protecting herself from everything that was going on, still feeling everything out’ (Post-Observation Interview # 2). Farrah further explained that Ariana was still very conscious of her actions in the classroom, but she was gradually coping with the help of her EL peers and with her constant interaction with her. Nonetheless, Farrah’s knowledge of the principles of L2 learning was limited to just minimizing ELs’ anxiety and demonstrating an ethic of caring; she did not show evidence of demonstrating the other critical tenets like attending to linguistic forms and functions in teaching ELs.

c Scaffolding instruction

Farrah implemented instructional scaffolding that demonstrated linguistically responsive teaching practices. Her teaching strategies supported language development, content comprehension and facilitated ELs’ learning experiences in the classroom. This finding is captured via two a priori LRT themes, which include ‘supplementing or modifying difficult written texts to make content accessible’ and ‘supplementing or modifying oral language to reduce language difficulty.’ For instance, Farrah used a teaching strategy to supplement or modify complex English texts for her English learners and native English-speaking peers. To enable ELs to understand specialized vocabulary in Math and Science, Farrah augmented her teaching strategies with learning materials that facilitated vocabulary enrichment which was evident in her extensive use of journals in Math and Science. For her, she believed that ELs were provided with language support through the information they wrote in their journals, which facilitated their comprehension, mastery, and retention of concepts and academic vocabulary.

In other instances, Farrah also employed scaffolding strategies like using detailed explanations and providing additional examples when she discussed the division of fractions. She based this decision on her students’ formative test results, which showed that they were still less proficient in dividing fractions. During the sixth post-observation interview, she elaborated that she implemented a detailed explanation as a technique because she found it very appropriate for ELs. They struggled with both the language and content, particularly for complex word problems in Math that required their skills in dividing fractions. In addition, she also slowed down her pace during discussions because she believes that it helps put concepts across clearly. Again, Farrah’s scaffolding practices like using ELs’ home language or employing code-switching or translanguaging that foster cultural connections were not evident.

Overall, Farrah demonstrated minimal evidence of LRT in her teaching practices, which are superficial and lack in-depth use of linguistically responsive teaching skills. Furthermore, her extensive use of explicit instruction was accompanied by few ESOL teaching techniques considered just good teaching.

2 Chanda’s considerable evidence of LRT practices

The teaching practices of Chanda reflected the orientations and language-related knowledge and skills that constitute the LRT framework. Chanda’s teaching practices demonstrated evidence across five tenets, which include: (1) valuing linguistic diversity; (2) inclination to advocate for ELs; (3) learning about ELs’ linguistic and academic backgrounds; (4) knowing and applying principles of second language learning; and (5) scaffolding instruction (Lucas & Villegas, 2011). Although she demonstrated evidence of identifying language demands inherent in classroom tasks, there was limited evidence of this practice in her classroom. Only two of the most significant findings on Chanda’s practices will be discussed because of the journal’s word limitations.

a Valuing linguistic diversity

Chanda’s LRT practices were evident in how she valued linguistic diversity in her classroom. She demonstrated evidence of this tenet by her positive attitudes towards bilingualism and her affirming stance towards her ELs’ development of bilingualism. Across the 12 classroom observations, Chanda consistently used cognates in English and Spanish to teach specialized vocabulary terms in Science and academic terms across content areas. In using these cognates, she provided ELs many opportunities to utilize their first language (L1) and second language (L2) to access content by understanding academic terms in both languages. For example, she used cognates in science and social studies, e.g. aquaplane/aquaplano, biology/biologia, ceremony/ceremonia, and colony/colonia; in Math, Chanda’s anchor chart showed evidence of language diversity as provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

A bilingual anchor chart in Math in Chanda’s classroom.

Apart from using cognates, Chanda also provided her ELs with bilingual learning resources across content areas. For example, in social studies, Chanda provided her students with learning materials and graphic organizers for formative assessment in English and Spanish. In reading, she provided the newcomer ELs and exceptional student education (ESE) students with Spanish versions of all the books that they read in class. In Science, whenever Chanda utilized handouts, she provided ELs with a bilingual version. As she read the content in English, she instructed the newcomer ELs to follow along in Spanish using their handouts. A sample of a formative assessment written in Spanish is provided in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Sample of a modified assessment in social studies for newcomer ELs.

Chanda’s positive attitudes towards bilingualism affirmed her critical stance towards the value of language and cultural diversity as springboard to teaching ELs. Her disposition to nurture ELs’ bilingual development was anchored on her respect for and interest in her EL’s home languages despite her limited ability to use their language. Chanda continually showed evidence of her efforts to learn about their language during her spare moments by enriching her vocabulary in Spanish and Chinese, among others.

b Inclination to advocate for ELs

Findings show that Chanda’s teaching practices demonstrated her inclination to advocate for ELs. First, Chanda adapted instructional materials and assessments to address her ELs’ needs. She modified assessment materials for her newcomer ELs who have below grade-level reading proficiency in English. By doing this, she demonstrated a critical awareness of the oppressive standardized assessment for ELs and acted upon this by modifying the materials to fit their proficiency levels. Moreover, she consistently implemented an ongoing assessment of student learning by embedding formative assessment within instruction to provide her an opportunity to evaluate if learning was taking place among her ELs. She wrote in her learning philosophy essay, ‘When learners do not respond as planned, different strategies can be used or more guided practice can be provided.’ She admitted that she constantly relied on student feedback to help guide her instruction and pick materials that engage, excite, and help her ELs think critically and grow.

By adopting instructional materials and assessment for ELs’ needs, Chanda demonstrated linguistic responsiveness in her teaching practices by her initiatives in creating teaching materials and modifying assessment materials that accommodated ELs’ varying levels of proficiency. In addition, she changed assessment materials for her newcomer ELs and ESE students with below grade-level reading proficiency in English. These practices exhibited her critical awareness towards oppressive standardized assessments for ELs that is persistent in US education. She elaborated, ‘. . . so it’s constantly recreating or inventing the wheel because I can’t find it anywhere else created at the level that I need for these students’ (Post-observation Interview # 3). Additionally, she exerted efforts to continuously help her understand the lives and experiences of ELs outside the classroom, which include: (1) using differentiated formative assessments, (2) creating opportunities for open discussions and purposeful interactions in the classrooms, (3) consciously designing seating plans and grouping students that allowed her to observe ELs’ behavior and social interactions, and (4) taking the time to know them well. Chanda’s inclination to advocate for ELs, a principle that is under-examined in previous LRT studies, is strongly evident in her teaching practices, and she attributes this outlook to her progressivist stand where she constantly reflects on student progress and adjusts her strategies when learners do not respond as planned.

Overall, the LRT practices of Chanda exhibited engrained sensitivity towards the critical factors that influence teaching ELs in her classroom. Her personal yet entrenched advocacy to help her ELs grow academically enabled her to challenge educational inequities that persistently compromise ELs’ access to quality instruction.

3 Rurality and teaching English learners

Findings of how rurality shaped the teachers’ instruction of ELs are understood in the context of four themes: (1) place-based awareness; (2) limitations of rurality; (3) joint support from school leaders, professionals, and practitioners from nearby communities; and (4) teachers’ rural upbringing. The notion of rurality is embedded in each theme, particularly in ways that certain elements distinct to rural contexts have either directly or indirectly affected teachers’ instruction of ELs. For instance, rural settings have a distinct and shared sense of community (Eppley, 2015) that affects teachers’ decisions and teaching practices. Only place-based awareness and rural upbringing are discussed because of word limitations.

a Place-based awareness

Both teachers in the study demonstrated place-based awareness that shaped their instruction of English learners. Place-based awareness refers to the teachers’ awareness of the rural geographic area where they teach and the understanding that their ELs, roles as teachers, and the school are part of a broader rural context. Place-based awareness, which also entails teachers’ knowledge of the contexts they teach, enabled them to develop knowledge and skills that could enhance their teaching of diverse students. For example, the teachers’ place-based awareness was evident in two aspects: first, their experiences with school consolidation – a trend in rural educational settings – and second, an awareness of rural spaces.

Farrah discussed preparing her ELs to navigate the ‘real world outside’, which influenced her teaching practices. Specifically, Farrah was concerned about her ELs’ preparedness to navigate a more challenging context ahead of them when they go to sixth grade in Verona Middle-High School ([pseudonym], VMHS), a school that three years prior had been consolidated from a single middle school and a single high school. Farrah’s awareness of the relationship of VES to VMHS as essential institutions of their rural community was tied to her concern for the welfare of her ELs. She knew that her ELs’ only option was to move to VMHS as they reached the middle school stage in their education. Because of this, ELs have to be immersed in a school setting with schoolchildren who were far older than them, and this could impact their learning experiences. She was also aware that the situation in VMHS was ‘not kind to ELs’ because ‘it could eat them alive’ (Interview #2). For instance, VMHS and Verona High School had only one ESOL teacher who provided ESOL services to both schools because of school consolidation. Thus, ELs have limited learning opportunities that are responsive to their language needs.

In the same vein, Chanda demonstrated awareness of rural spaces. From the outset, Chanda was conscious of the inter-relatedness of her role as a teacher, her ELs’ learning experiences, and the rural community. She was aware of the impact that relationships in the community had on the school and consistently articulated awareness of the broader context of the rural community. Chanda asserted that ‘there’s not a separation’ among the school, the community, parents, teachers, and schoolchildren, and rural schools often are community centers. For her, the starting point of this attachment is the relationship that teachers build with parents and community members. When she learned that one of her EL’s parents worked on a blueberry farm down from her house, Chanda visited the place at least twice to speak with the parent. Chanda’s awareness of the rural space was also translated to her teaching. She admitted that she does not give students homework because ELs would either return to school the next day with undone or incomplete assignments. But more importantly, she was conscious that ELs’ parents might not assist their children in their homework because most of them worked in agricultural farms and had to work for longer hours, which means having less time for their children.

b Rural upbringing

Chanda’s place-based awareness evident in her teaching practices seemed to have been shaped by her early childhood experiences in a rural community. Chanda’s perspectives about her early experiences as a learner in a rural community underscored the interrelatedness of the community and its members, the school, students, and their parents. While she admitted that her rural community had fewer resources to offer, she still felt that she had an adequate education through the community’s support to her while she was studying. She strongly asserted, ‘I do feel like the community did support when they could invest in resources, but they supported even more in just maintaining a level of high expectation for learning, and the teachers met those expectations’ (Post-observation Interview # 3). She also talked emphatically about her K-12 teachers and the kind of education she received in which her teachers were invested in her as a person, and these are the very same qualities she aspired for in teaching ELs. Meanwhile, Farrah’s rural upbringing as an experience that taught her the value of hard work and responsibility were mirrored in her teaching practices, particularly in how she expected her ELs to exert more effort to learn English despite the limitations in her pedagogy. In other words, her limited demonstration of LRT is reflective of the ‘boot strapping’ concept that she applied to her English learners.

V Discussion

Findings from this study warrant a critical examination of LRT, both as a theoretical framework that guides teacher preparation and as a theory that guides educational research. The findings also imply significant questions about LRT in rural, educational contexts. The two focal teachers demonstrated limited evidence of LRT practices, particularly on the orientations and dispositions that are imperative in effectively teaching ELs in rural classrooms. Lucas and Villegas (2011) insist that if teachers do not go the extra mile to develop their LRT orientations, they will find difficulty applying their classrooms skills. Yet, these findings also suggest that the LRT framework appears to be daunting and overwhelming because teachers are being asked to implement teaching strategies that they are not familiar with or have limited exposure to. From the outset, not enough attention was being paid to teacher preparation or teacher PD that address the linguistic needs of ELs (Coady, Li, & Lopez, 2018; Lucas et al., 2008). Therefore, this study brings to the fore of educational research the value of LRT as an integral component of language teaching and learning.

1 Challenges to implementation: What is missing in LRT?

Both focal teachers failed to demonstrate one critical aspect of LRT – sociolinguistic consciousness (Lucas & Villegas, 2010). This disposition enables teachers to recognize that language use and language education operate in broader sociopolitical contexts. In other words, teaching ELs in mainstream or specialized classroom contexts is shaped by cultural and political processes in the larger community. For instance, the anti-immigrant rhetoric intensified by Trump’s political agenda could influence teachers’ disinclination to recognize the existence of multiple languages within US classrooms because of persistent migration. Farrah spoke about how government issues since the election of Trump as the US President had caused fears among families about their security in the rural town where the study was conducted. Yet, her cognizance of these concerns was not demonstrated in her teaching practices, particularly in advocating for ELs through concrete and unmistakable evidence. What teachers might need to reflect on about implementing LRT in their classrooms with ELs is a balanced enhancement of their teaching skills and sociolinguistic consciousness and the inclination to advocate for ELs and actively work towards improving their educational experiences amidst the interminable anti-immigrant sentiment in rural contexts in the US.

Meanwhile, Chanda’s teaching practices deficient in sociolinguistic consciousness relate to the absence of rigid strategies that allow ELs to navigate linguistic demands of oral and written discourse to promote their language and academic content and skills development (Cummins, 2000; Wong-Filmore & Snow, 2005). To be designated as linguistically responsive teachers, they need to possess a baseline knowledge of language forms and functions and employ this wisdom to plan and implement teaching strategies responsive to ELs’ realities. Although Chanda already developed a level of comfort in searching for and analysing resources for language demands that help her ELs effectively access vocabulary and concepts, her perspectives and observed practices illustrated her limited stance towards recognizing other critical linguistic features essential for literacy development and English acquisition.

2 Teaching ELs in rural contexts

The nature of this study, particularly on the need to emphasize the concept of rurality as influential to the teachers’ instruction of ELs, requires a focus on the idea of place-based (Comber, Reid, & Nixon, 2007; Shamah & MacTavish, 2009) and place-conscious (Greenwood, 2013; Gruenewald, 2003; White & Reid, 2008) pedagogy. However, an analysis of the study’s findings seems to point towards place-based awareness as influencing the two focal teachers’ instruction of ELs. However, again, it is worth noting that there was limited evidence of LRT in the teachers’ practices, so rurality might have shaped their teaching practices that did not focus on language instruction or linguistic responsiveness. In other words, while this study initially considered place-based pedagogy as a construct to analyse how rurality shaped teachers’ LRT practices, findings do not sufficiently support its use in the study. This is because both teachers did not demonstrate evidence of place-based consciousness. Instead, they showed evidence only of place-based awareness. Thus, place and place-based education appear as an essential feature of instruction for ELs because it shapes and frames what teachers can do and how they teach.

But what is striking about the study’s findings regarding rurality relates to how the focal teachers transcended the limitations of rural school districts for teacher development. The major challenge that many rural teachers face related to limited resources, PD opportunities, and collaborative enhancement of teaching skills did not impede the focal teachers’ drive to implement LRT among their ELs. Instead, as some scholars contend, the focal EL teachers saw themselves as individuals who built relationships with the surrounding community and nurtured a sense of place-awareness (e.g. Eppley, 2015; White & Reid, 2008) by situating their work contextually to mirror the lived realities of EL students and families specifically for rural settings (Coady, Lopez, Marichal, Heffington, 2019). Furthermore, the focal teachers capitalized on the unique sociological dynamic (Burton, Brown & Johnson, 2013) by establishing a professional network with professionals and non-professionals who can provide them assistance to address their ELs’ needs. For instance, they tapped the bilingual expertise of the program coordinators of the PD program who translated for parents and guardians in Spanish and Chinese during parent conferences of the PD program. The focal teachers also nurtured meaningful relationships with the school principal who was a strong advocate of ELs. Because of this, the principal constantly provided Chanda’s classroom with an ESOL para-professional who offered linguistic assistance to her and the students. Additionally, the school principal regularly monitored Farrah’s classroom and her ELs’ progress and literacy development.

VI Implications and critical recommendations to education and pedagogy

This study has advanced new perspectives on teachers’ linguistically responsive teaching practices. Apart from offering a different angle by which this educational framework could be examined, it has also highlighted the value of the dynamics of rurality and how they shaped and influenced the implementation of LRT with English learners. The study further suggests that the social, political, and cultural conditions in rural schools and communities could impact EL teachers’ perspectives, beliefs, and teaching dispositions. Their previous and current experiences within these settings could shape their worldviews towards issues confronting both their school and the community. Yet, concerns related to teachers’ development of their orientations and dispositions often compromised by their attention to teaching strategies have to be addressed through continuous professional development activities focused on acquiring the needed dispositions to implement LRT.

The researcher thus recommends that further studies on LRT be conducted in rural areas and suburban areas across the globe. Cross-contextual studies that include monolingual and multilingual countries might also be necessary to enable educational researchers to develop comparative research and contribute to the LRT literature. In terms of teaching, the study recommends the need for school administrators of educational institutions with high- and low-EL incidence to design and implement PD opportunities for EL teachers and integrate the inherent characteristics of rural contexts within the LRT framework. Sustained professional learning communities within and among rural teachers geared towards developing teacher leaders in rural schools (Coady et al., 2019) should also be considered. The study recommends that reforms in teacher preparation programs focusing on teacher candidates’ development of the LRT orientations, skills, and knowledge are needed in terms of teacher education. In particular, teacher education courses need to incorporate linguistic courses (Lucas & Villegas, 2011) or ESOL-infused courses (Coady, Harper, & de Jong, 2011) across the curriculum. These efforts are vital in developing preservice teachers’ baseline knowledge of language forms and functions that enable them to analyse language demands inherent in classroom tasks (Lucas & Villegas, 2011) and subsequently develop sociolinguistic consciousness to advocate for ELs.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Linguistically responsive teaching tenets and descriptions.

Tenets	Description
A. Orientations:
Sociolinguistic consciousness	• Understanding that language, culture, and identity are interconnected;• Knowledge of sociopolitical dimensions of language use and instruction.
Value for linguistic diversity	• Respect for and interest in ELs’ home language;• Belief that linguistic diversity is worthy of cultivating and acting upon this belief by validating and affirming ELs’ home language.
Advocating for ELs	• Taking action to improve ELs’ access to social and political capital and opportunities.

B. Pedagogical knowledge and skills:
Learning about ELs’ backgrounds	• Connecting ELs’ prior knowledge and experiences to new material;• Understanding ELs’ linguistic needs to inform instruction that meet these needs.
Identifying language demands in the classroom	• Explicitly identifying and teaching language tasks needed for classroom activities.
Knowing and applying principles of second language learning	• Promoting language, content and skill development for ELs;• Understanding the fundamental difference between conversational language proficiency and academic language proficiency;• Providing ELs access to comprehensible input that is beyond their current level of competence;• Encouraging social interactions in the classroom to develop ELs’ social and conversational language proficiency;• Knowing that strong skills in L1 or home language could facilitate L2 learning;
	• Creating a safe and welcoming classroom climate for ELs;• Explicitly attending to linguistic form and function in teaching ELs.
Scaffolding instruction for ELs	• Extra-linguistic support, e.g. visual tools, graphic organizers, illustrations and videos;• Modifying difficult texts and oral language to make them more comprehensible, e.g. speaking slowly or using gestures to accompany oral speech;• Giving clear, explicit instructions;• Designing purposeful activities and cooperative learning that allow ELs to interact with their peers;• Helping reduce anxiety that hampers learning for ELs;• Encouraging the use of students’ home languages.

Source. Lucas & Villegas, 2013.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the two focal teachers who served as the primary informants in the study. He also expresses his gratitude to his academic advisor and colleague in the PD program, who guided him throughout the study.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Mark Preston S. Lopez

References

Bergeron

B.S.

(2008). Enacting a culturally responsive curriculum in a novice teacher’s classroom encountering disequilibrium. Urban Education, 43, 4–28.

Bérube

(2000). Managing ESL programs in rural and small urban schools. TESOL.

Bigelow

(2010). Mogadishu on the Mississippi: Language, racialized identity, and education in a new land. Wiley-Blackwell.

Bryant

L.C.

Moss

Zidjemas-Boudreau

A.S.

(2015). Understanding poverty through race dialogues in teacher preparation. Critical Questions in Education, 6, 1–16.

Bunch

G.C.

(2010). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37, 298–341.

Burton

Brown

Johnson

(2013). Storylines about rural teachers in the United States: A narrative analysis of the literature. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 28, 1–18.

Calderon

Slavin

Sanchez

(2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of Children, 21, 103–127.

Cho

de Castro-Ambrosetti

(2005). Is ignorance bliss? Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward multicultural education. The High School Journal, 89, 24–28.

Coady

(2019). Connecting school and the multilingual home: Theory and practice for rural educators. Multilingual Matters.

10.

Coady

Harper

de Jong

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

11.

Coady

Harper

de Jong

(2016). Aiming for equity: Preparing mainstream teachers for inclusion or inclusive classrooms? TESOL Quarterly, 50, 340–368.

12.

Coady

Lopez

(2018). Twenty-five years after the Florida Consent Decree: Does preparing all teachers work? FATE Journal, 3, 26–56.

13.

Coady

Lopez

Marichal

Heffington

(2019). Preparing teacher leaders for English language learners in rural settings. Theory and Practice in Rural Education, 9, 44–60.

14.

Coady

Miller

Zeyuan

, et al. (2020). Can English language teacher effectiveness be observed? Validation of an ELL-modified Danielson group model. TESOL Quarterly, 54, 173–200.

15.

Comber

Reid

Nixon

(2007). Literacies in place: Teaching environmental communications. Primary English Teaching Association.

16.

Cooper

J.E.

(2007). Strengthening the case for community-based learning in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 245–255.

17.

Crabtree

Miller

(Eds.) (1999). Doing qualitative research. 2nd edition. Sage.

18.

Crotty

(1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage

19.

Johnson

S.D.

(1995). Will our research hold up under scrutiny? Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 32, 3–6.

20.

Ladson-Billings

(1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491.

21.

Cummins

(2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.

22.

Denzin

N.K.

Lincoln

Y.S.

(2013) (Eds.). The landscape of qualitative research. 4th edition. Sage.

23.

Eppley

(2015). ‘Hey, I saw your grandparents at Walmart’: Teacher education for rural schools and communities. The Teacher Educator, 50, 67–86.

24.

Fereday

Muir-Cochrane

(2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, 80–92.

25.

Fogle

L.W.

Moser

(2017). Language teacher identities in the southern United States: Transforming rural schools. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 16, 65–79.

26.

Gay

(1997). Multicultural infusion in teacher education: Foundations and applications. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 150–177.

27.

Gay

(2010). Culturally responsive teaching. 2nd edition. Teachers College Press.

28.

Giouroukakis

Honigsfeld

(2010). High-stakes testing and English language learners: Using culturally and linguistically responsive literacy practices in the high school English classroom. TESOL Journal, 1, 470–499.

29.

Greenwood

D.A.

(2013). A critical theory of place-conscious education. In Stevenson

R.B.

Bordy

Dillon

Wals

A.E.J.

(Eds.), International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 93–100). Routledge.

30.

Gruenewald

D.A.

(2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32, 3–12.

31.

Haworth

(2009). The quest for mainstream EAL pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 111, 2179–2208.

32.

Hersi

Watkinson

(2012). Supporting immigrant students in a newcomer high school: A case study. Bilingual Research Journal, 35, 98–111.

33.

Horsford

S.D.

Sampson

(2013). High-ELL-growth states: Expanding funding equity and opportunity for English language learners. Voices in Urban Education, 37, 47–54.

34.

Lincoln

Y.S.

Guba

E.G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

35.

Lucas

Grinberg

(2008). Responding to the linguistic reality of mainstream classrooms: Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners. In Cochran-Smith

Feiman-Nemser

McIntyre

D.J.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 606–636). Routledge.

36.

Lucas

Villegas

A.M.

(2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 20–32.

37.

Lucas

Villegas

A.M.

(2010). The missing piece in teacher education: The preparation of linguistically responsive teachers. National Society for the Study of Education, 109, 297–318

38.

Lucas

Villegas

A.M.

(2011). A framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In Lucas

(Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms (pp. 55–72). Routledge.

39.

Lucas

Villegas

A.M.

(2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 52, 98–109.

40.

Lucas

de Oliveira

L.C.

Villegas

A.M.

(2014). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers in multilingual contexts. In Mahboob

Barratt

(Eds.), Englishes in multilingual contexts (pp. 219–230). Springer.

41.

Lucas

Villegas

A.M.

Freedson-Gonzalez

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

42.

McCracken

J.D.

Miller

(1988). Rural teachers’ perceptions of their schools and communities. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 5, 23–26.

43.

Merriam

S.B.

Tisdell

E.J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. 4th edition. Josey-Bass.

44.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2017). The condition of education 2017 at a glance. National Center for Education Statistics. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017144_AtAGlance.pdf (accessed September 2021).

45.

Palmer

A.K.

(2018). Teacher leaders are critical to improving English language arts instruction. English Journal, 104, 10–24.

46.

Patton

M.Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd edition. Sage.

47.

Raskin

J.D.

(2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism. American Communication Journal, 5, 373–388.

48.

Rodriguez

Manner

J.C.

(2010). Professional development in Eastern North Carolina: Collaboration in ESL. In Castell

Ballantyne

(Eds.), Professional development in action: Improving teaching for English language learners. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.

49.

Saldaña

(2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.

50.

Saldaña

(2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2nd edition. Sage.

51.

Samson

J.F.

Collins

B.A.

(2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language learners: Applying research to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness. Center for American Progress.

52.

Seidman

(2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. 3rd edition. Teachers College Press.

53.

Shamah

MacTavish

K.A.

(2009). Purpose and perceptions of family social location among rural youth. Youth and Society, 50, 26–48.

54.

Short

D.J.

Boyson

B.A.

(2004). Creating access: Language and academic programs for secondary school newcomers. Center for Applied Linguistics.

55.

Short

Fitzsimmons

(2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. Carnegie Corporation.

56.

Sleeter

C.E.

(2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 94–106.

57.

Tandon

Viesca

K.M.

Hueston

Milbourn

(2017). Perceptions of linguistically responsive teaching in teacher candidates/novice teachers. Bilingual Research Journal, 40, 154–168.

58.

Turkan

de Oliveira

L.C.

Lee

Phelps

(2014). Proposing a knowledge base for teaching academic content to English language learners: Disciplinary linguistic knowledge. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–30.

59.

Ukpokodu

(2011). Developing teachers’ cultural competence: One teacher educator’s practice of unpacking student culturelessness. Action in Teacher Education, 33, 432–454.

60.

White

Reid

(2008). Placing teachers? Sustaining rural schooling through place-consciousness in teacher education. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 23, 1–11.

61.

WIDA Consortium. (2009). Understanding the WIDA English language proficiency standards: A resource guide. WIDA Consortium. Available at: https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/cdesped/download/pdf/cld_widaresourceguide.pdf (accessed September 2021).

62.

Wong-Filmore

Snow

(2005). What teachers need to know about language. In Adger

C.T.

Snow

C.E.

Christian

(Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp. 7–54). Center for Applied Linguistics.

63.

Wright

W.E.

(2015). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy, and practice. Caslon Publishing.

64.

Young

R.A.

Collin

(2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social constructionism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 373–388.

65.

Zhang-Wu

(2017). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching in practice: A case study of a fourth grade mainstream classroom teacher. Journal of Education, 197, 33–40.