Pre‐service teachers enactment of language‐ and literacy‐integrated science instruction in linguistically diverse science classrooms

Abstract

The Next Generation Science Standards and increasing linguistic diversity of students in United States science classrooms require language‐focused science instruction for which many secondary science teachers are not prepared. To date, minimal research has addressed how to best support secondary science pre‐service teachers (PSTs) in teaching in linguistically diverse classrooms despite the fact that most PSTs will have the opportunity to teach emergent bilinguals (EBs) at some point in their careers. The purpose of this multiple case study was to determine at what level and in what ways three secondary science PSTs were able to integrate language and literacy into their science instruction following their participation in two language‐ and literacy‐integrated science methods courses. PSTs' instruction was analyzed using an observation rubric and supported by instructional materials, interviews, and reflections. Results indicated that, following the intervention, PSTs were able to enact most language‐ and literacy‐integrated science practices at the targeted level. However, the ways in which they did so varied and at times led to missed opportunities for EBs' participation in key scientific practices. Implications for teacher educators and researchers are addressed.

Examining preservice science teachers' implementation of language‐ and literacy‐integrated science through a cultural historical activity theory lens

“…While results on the extent to which PSTs implemented the TELLIS practices in their student teaching placements, and in what ways they did so, are detailed in another manuscript (see Rutt & Mumba, 2021a), overall analyses revealed that all three PSTs were able to enact most TELLIS practices at the targeted Implementing level (or higher) at least once over the course of their four‐lesson units, with average implementation falling at the mid‐ to high‐ Beginning level for most practices (see Table 3). Differences were identified among PSTs' level of enactment for some practices.…”

“…Particular attention was given to the collective affordances and constraints that the mediating elements of the activity systems provided in PSTs' attempts to obtain the object of their activity systems (i.e., LLIS instruction, as operationalized by the TELLIS framework, at the Implementing level or above). While results on the extent to which PSTs implemented the TELLIS practices in their student teaching placements, and in what ways they did so, are detailed in another manuscript (see Rutt & Mumba, 2021a), overall analyses revealed that all three PSTs were able to enact most TELLIS practices at the targeted Implementing level (or higher) at least once over the course of their four-lesson units, with average implementation falling at the mid-to high-Beginning level for most practices (see Table 3). Differences were identified among PSTs' level of enactment for some practices.…”

“…Of note, however, is that Erin described her TPA unit, in which students used engineering design integrated science to research and develop a house to withstand a hurricane, as an exception to the instruction she typically implemented during her student teaching experience. That is, though Erin still framed her unit around an activity Ms. Smith typically used in her own instruction, the requirements of the TPA unit outlined by the teacher preparation program provided space for Erin to develop instruction in a way that was more aligned with her own perspective of good science teaching (Rutt & Mumba, 2021a). As a result, the scores for Erin's TPA unit might provide a false impression of what Erin felt able to do in her student teaching setting.…”

Multilingual learners' epistemologies in practice in the context of computational modeling in an elementary science classroom

“…Specifically, MLs participate meaningfully by deploying multiple modalities, including gesture (e.g., Ünsal et al, 2018), visual representation (e.g., Ryoo & Bedell, 2018), and embodied representation (e.g., Varelas et al, 2022); multiple registers of language, including both everyday and specialized registers (e.g., Brown & Ryoo, 2008; Cardozo‐Gaibisso et al, 2020); and multiple named languages, such as Spanish and English (e.g., Rutt & Mumba, 2022; Suárez, 2020)—all in the context of goal‐directed interactions with peers (e.g., González‐Howard & McNeill, 2016) and artifacts in their environment (e.g., Ryoo & Bedell, 2018). This shift from a deficit‐oriented to asset‐oriented view of MLs is evident in the evolving terminology used to refer to these students (González‐Howard & Suárez, 2021; Grapin, 2021; WIDA Consortium, 2020), from “English learner,” which emphasizes what students are perceived to be lacking (i.e., English), to “multilingual learner,” which emphasizes what resources they bring (i.e., multiple and varied meaning‐making resources).…”