“…Similar to a broader framework of knowledge, skills, and dispositions for effective teaching in general (Bransford, Darling‐Hammond, & LePage, ), the framework for LRI comprises three dimensions:(a) understanding ELLs [English language learners] from a bilingual and bicultural perspective; (b) understanding how language and culture shape school experiences and inform pedagogy for bilingual learners; and (c) ability to mediate a range of contextual factors in the schools and classrooms where they teach. (de Jong et al., , p. 89)…”
Section: The Knowledge Base For Linguistically Responsive Instructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(a) understanding ELLs [English language learners] from a bilingual and bicultural perspective; (b) understanding how language and culture shape school experiences and inform pedagogy for bilingual learners; and (c) ability to mediate a range of contextual factors in the schools and classrooms where they teach. (de Jong et al., , p. 89)…”
Section: The Knowledge Base For Linguistically Responsive Instructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This set of knowledge and skills needed by a linguistically responsive teacher has been organized into a three‐part framework for enhanced expertise for teachers of emergent multilinguals in elementary settings (de Jong et al., ). Similar to a broader framework of knowledge, skills, and dispositions for effective teaching in general (Bransford, Darling‐Hammond, & LePage, ), the framework for LRI comprises three dimensions:(a) understanding ELLs [English language learners] from a bilingual and bicultural perspective; (b) understanding how language and culture shape school experiences and inform pedagogy for bilingual learners; and (c) ability to mediate a range of contextual factors in the schools and classrooms where they teach.…”
Section: The Knowledge Base For Linguistically Responsive Instructionmentioning
Internationalization trends worldwide have brought more multilingual students into English‐medium university classrooms in the United States and elsewhere. Faculty across the disciplines increasingly have the dual challenge of developing both content and advanced academic language. Ample precedent in P–12 education suggests developing instructors’ knowledge of (a) students as language learners, (b) instructional techniques grounded in second language acquisition theory, and (c) contextual factors necessary for helping instructors implement linguistically responsive instruction (LRI). This study probes the extent to which prior work transfers to the tertiary setting, focusing on participating faculty members’ beliefs about multilingual students, LRI, and context. The authors collected survey data from 197 faculty at a mid‐size comprehensive university in the midwestern United States and analyzed written comments provided by participants. They found that, on the whole, faculty participants displayed deficit views regarding students’ linguistic and academic abilities and questioned the appropriateness and feasibility of several of the LRI techniques. Many rejected the notion that language instruction was within the scope of their responsibilities and expressed a strong preference for support provided outside of class time. The authors discuss the results in terms of the notions of rigor, college readiness, and faculty development in LRI.
“…Similar to a broader framework of knowledge, skills, and dispositions for effective teaching in general (Bransford, Darling‐Hammond, & LePage, ), the framework for LRI comprises three dimensions:(a) understanding ELLs [English language learners] from a bilingual and bicultural perspective; (b) understanding how language and culture shape school experiences and inform pedagogy for bilingual learners; and (c) ability to mediate a range of contextual factors in the schools and classrooms where they teach. (de Jong et al., , p. 89)…”
Section: The Knowledge Base For Linguistically Responsive Instructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(a) understanding ELLs [English language learners] from a bilingual and bicultural perspective; (b) understanding how language and culture shape school experiences and inform pedagogy for bilingual learners; and (c) ability to mediate a range of contextual factors in the schools and classrooms where they teach. (de Jong et al., , p. 89)…”
Section: The Knowledge Base For Linguistically Responsive Instructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This set of knowledge and skills needed by a linguistically responsive teacher has been organized into a three‐part framework for enhanced expertise for teachers of emergent multilinguals in elementary settings (de Jong et al., ). Similar to a broader framework of knowledge, skills, and dispositions for effective teaching in general (Bransford, Darling‐Hammond, & LePage, ), the framework for LRI comprises three dimensions:(a) understanding ELLs [English language learners] from a bilingual and bicultural perspective; (b) understanding how language and culture shape school experiences and inform pedagogy for bilingual learners; and (c) ability to mediate a range of contextual factors in the schools and classrooms where they teach.…”
Section: The Knowledge Base For Linguistically Responsive Instructionmentioning
Internationalization trends worldwide have brought more multilingual students into English‐medium university classrooms in the United States and elsewhere. Faculty across the disciplines increasingly have the dual challenge of developing both content and advanced academic language. Ample precedent in P–12 education suggests developing instructors’ knowledge of (a) students as language learners, (b) instructional techniques grounded in second language acquisition theory, and (c) contextual factors necessary for helping instructors implement linguistically responsive instruction (LRI). This study probes the extent to which prior work transfers to the tertiary setting, focusing on participating faculty members’ beliefs about multilingual students, LRI, and context. The authors collected survey data from 197 faculty at a mid‐size comprehensive university in the midwestern United States and analyzed written comments provided by participants. They found that, on the whole, faculty participants displayed deficit views regarding students’ linguistic and academic abilities and questioned the appropriateness and feasibility of several of the LRI techniques. Many rejected the notion that language instruction was within the scope of their responsibilities and expressed a strong preference for support provided outside of class time. The authors discuss the results in terms of the notions of rigor, college readiness, and faculty development in LRI.
“…Increasingly, these students are being moved into mainstream classes with native-English speaking peers (de Jong, Harper, & Coady, 2013;Peercy & Martin-Beltrán, 2012;Platt, Harper, & Mendoza, 2003), thus all teachers-and not just language specialists-are rapidly becoming responsible for teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students. A remaining problem is that most elementary teachers receive little or no preparation to guide them in doing so (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008;Lucas & Villegas, 2013).…”
Although the underpreparation of teachers to work with English learners is a documented problem in teacher education, little research has addressed teacher educators' perspectives in guiding prospective teachers to educate English learners. This case study of one 13-month elementary certification program highlights teacher educators' efforts and challenges in providing preservice elementary teachers with opportunities to learn about educating students learning English as an additional language. A key finding is that all teacher educators who participated in this study felt responsible for and made efforts to guide teacher candidates to educate linguistically diverse students in elementary classroom settings, but they did not work toward this goal collectively or cohesively. Implications for integrating preparation of teachers to work with English learners in preservice teacher education, such as distributed leadership among faculty, are discussed.
“…These courses, further, are positively associated with teachers' self-efficacy beliefs about their EL teaching practice (Flores & Smith, 2009). For example, graduates of a teacher education program designed to infuse CLD teaching practices into all education courses reported generally positive outcomes regarding their feelings of preparedness to work with diverse learners upon graduation (de Jong, Harper, & Coady, 2013). These graduates reported feelings of efficacy with respect to teaching practices like providing wait time, although they reported concerns with other effective practices such as bilingual proficiency.…”
This article examines online discussions during a teacher education class for experienced teachers seeking licensure in teaching English learners. It seeks to understand experienced teachers' constructions of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. Using discourse analysis to emphasize talk as situated and action-oriented, the article indicates how belief claims expressed during experienced teachers' online discussions construct specific versions of what it means to be a CLD student. Findings further suggest that participants managed their authority to speak about students' needs in patterned ways. These findings have implications for teaching and learning, particularly for the preparation of experienced teachers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
