With a burgeoning U.S. population of emergent bilingual learners and others who use nondominant language forms, the need for language knowledge among teachers is acute. Beginning from the inside out by examining one’s own complex language uses may be a first step toward envisioning and later developing classroom cultures that support diverse language forms for diverse purposes. In all, 262 undergraduate education students used self-reflexive inquiry, documenting ways they and others use language, through language inventories, surveys, and essays. Participants were majority students of color, half bilingual. Students reported awareness of rich diversity and nuances of language uses, purposes, and fluidity across contexts. Although students often used a formal/informal contrast to describe language uses, this distinction was complicated. Understandings of language surfaced in writing as students engaged with linguistically diverse peers and situated their linguistic repertoires in sociopolitical context. Drawing on results and students’ reflections on the writings as tools, we offer implications for teacher education.
AchugarM.SchleppegrellM.OteízaT. (2007). Engaging teachers in language analysis: A functional linguistics approach to reflective literacy. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 6(2), 8-24.
2.
AndrewsS. (1999). Why do L2 teachers need to “know about language”? Teacher metalinguistic awareness and input for learning. Language and Education, 13(3), 161-177.
3.
AsherN. (2005). At the interstices: Engaging postcolonial and feminist perspectives for a multicultural education pedagogy in the South. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 1079-1106.
4.
AthanasesS. Z.BanesL. C.WongJ. W. (2015). Diverse language profiles: Leveraging resources of potential bilingual teachers of color. Bilingual Research Journal, 38(1), 65-87.
5.
AthanasesS. Z.de OliveiraL. C. (2011). Toward program-wide coherence in preparing teachers to teach and advocate for English language learners. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms (pp. 195-215). New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
BallA. F. (2009). Towards a theory of generative change in linguistically complex classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 45-72.
7.
BallA. F.SkerrettA.MartínezR. A. (2011). Research on diverse students in culturally and linguistically complex language arts classrooms. In LappD.FisherD. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 22-29). New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
BanesL. C.MartinezD. C.AthanasesS. Z.WongJ. W. (2016). Self-reflexive inquiry into language use and beliefs: Toward more expansive language ideologies. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(3), 168-187.
9.
BritzmanD. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach (Rev. ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press.
10.
BunchG. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37, 298-341.
11.
BunchG. C. (2014). The language of ideas and the language of display: Reconceptualizing “academic language” in linguistically diverse classrooms. International Multilingual Research Journal, 8(1), 70-86.
12.
BuschB. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 503-523.
CliftR. E.BradyP. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. M. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309-424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
ComminsN. L.MiramontesO. B. (2006). Addressing linguistic diversity from the outset. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 240-246.
Darling-HammondL. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18.
de JongE. J.HarperC. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough?Teacher Education Quarterly, 32, 101-124.
19.
de JongE. J.HarperC. A. (2011). “Accommodating diversity”: Pre-service teachers’ views on effective practices for English language learners. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 73-90). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
20.
de OliveiraL. C. (2011). In their shoes: Teachers experience the needs of English language learners through a math simulation. Multicultural Education, 19(1), 59-62.
21.
de OliveiraL. C.AthanasesS. Z. (2007). Graduates’ reports of advocating for English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(3), 202-215.
22.
EnrightK. A. (2011). Language and literacy for a new mainstream. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 80-118.
23.
Ernst-SlavitG. (1997). Different words, different worlds: Language use, power, and authorized language in a bilingual classroom. Linguistics and Education, 9(1), 25-47.
24.
FaltisC.ValdésG. (2016). Preparing teachers for teaching in and advocating for linguistically diverse classrooms: A vade mecum for teacher educators. In GitomerD. H.BellC. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 549-592). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
25.
FeistritzerC. E.GriffinS.LinnajarviA. (2011). Profile of teachers in the U.S., 2011. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.
26.
FloresN.RosaJ. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149-171.
27.
FránquizM. E.de la luz ReyesM. (1998). Creating inclusive learning communities through English language arts: From “Chanclas” to “Canicas.”Language Arts, 75, 211-220.
28.
FránquizM. E.SalazarM. D. C.DeNicoloC. P. (2011). Challenging majoritarian tales: Portraits of bilingual teachers deconstructing deficit views of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 279-300.
29.
GándaraP.Maxwell-JollyJ.DriscollA. (2005). Listening to teachers of English learners. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
30.
GodleyA. J.ReaserJ.MooreK. G. (2015). Pre-service English language arts teachers’ development of critical language awareness for teaching. Linguistics and Education, 32, 41-54.
31.
GodleyA. J.SweetlandJ.WheelerR. S.MinniciA.CarpenterB. D. (2006). Preparing teachers for dialectally diverse classrooms. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 30-37.
32.
GomezM. L.RodriguezT. L. (2011). Imagining the knowledge, strengths, and skills of a Latina prospective teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38, 127-146.
33.
GortM.GlennW. J. (2010). Navigating tensions in the process of change: An English educator’s dilemma management in the revision and implementation of a diversity-infused methods course. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(1), 59-86.
34.
GrossmanP. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. M. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: Report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425-476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
GrumetM. R. (1988). Bitter milk: Women and teaching. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
36.
GumperzJ. J. (1964). Linguistic and social interaction in two communities. American Anthropologist, 66(6), 137-153.
37.
HaddixM. (2010). No longer on the margins: Researching the hybrid literate identities of Black and Latina preservice teachers. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(2), 97-123.
38.
HeathS. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
HollinsE.GuzmanM. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. M. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 477-548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
LampertM. (2000). Knowing teaching: The intersection of research on teaching and qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 86-99.
42.
LauS. M. C. (2016). Language, identity, and emotionality: Exploring the potential of language portraits in preparing teachers for diverse learners. The New Educator, 12(2), 147-170.
43.
LeeO.LuykxA. (2007). Science education and student diversity: Race/ethnicity, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. In AbellS. K.LedermanN. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 171-197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44.
LuM.-Z. (1994). Professing multiculturalism: The politics of style in the contact zone. College Composition & Communication, 45(4), 442-458.
45.
LucasT.GrinbergJ. (2008). Responding to the linguistic reality of the mainstream classroom: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. In Cochran-SmithM.Feiman-NemserS.McIntyreJ. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring issues in changing contexts (pp. 606-636). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
LucasT.VillegasA. M. (2011). A framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 55-72). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
47.
MartinezD. C.MoralesP. Z.AldanaU. S. (2017). Leveraging students’ communicative repertoires as a tool for equitable learning. Review of Research in Education, 41, 477-499.
48.
MartínezR. A. (2010). Spanglish as literacy tool: Toward an understanding of the potential role of Spanish-English code-switching in the development in academic literacy. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(2), 124-149.
49.
Martínez-ÁlvarezP.CuevasI.Torres-GuzmánM. (2017). Preparing bilingual teachers: Mediating belonging with multimodal explorations in language, identity, and culture. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(2), 155-178.
50.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
51.
MoschkovichJ. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27, 24-30.
52.
NietoS.BodeP. (2012). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
53.
OrellanaM. F.MartinezD. C.LeeC.MontañoE. (2012). Language as a tool in diverse forms of learning. Linguistics and Education, 23(4), 373-387.
PalmerD. (2011). The discourse of transition: Teachers’ language ideologies within transitional bilingual education programs. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(2), 103-122.
56.
PalmerD.MartínezR. A. (2013). Teacher agency in bilingual spaces: A fresh look at preparing teachers to educate Latina/o bilingual children. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 269-297.
57.
PeercyM. M.TroyanF. J. (2017). Making transparent the challenges of developing a practice-based pedagogy of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 26-36.
58.
PinarW. F. (1994). Autobiography, politics, and sexuality. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
59.
RazfarA.RumenappJ. C. (2012). Language ideologies in English learner classrooms: Critical reflections and the role of explicit awareness. Language Awareness, 21(4), 347-368.
60.
RuizR. (1984). Orientations in language planning. Bilingual Research Journal, 8(2), 15-34.
61.
RymesB. (2010). Classroom discourse analysis: A focus on communicative repertoires. In HornbergerN. H.McKayS. L. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 528-546). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
62.
RymesB.FloresN.PomerantzA. (2016). The common core state standards and English learners: Finding the silver lining. Language, 92(4), 257-273.
63.
StillmanJ.AndersonL. (2015). From accommodation to appropriation: Teaching, identity, and authorship in a tightly coupled policy context. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(6), 720-744. doi:10.1080/13540602.2015.1044330
64.
TanA. (1999). Mother tongue. In GillespieS.SingletonR. (Eds.), Across cultures (pp. 26-31). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
65.
TinsleyH. E. A.WeissD. J. (2000). Interrater reliability and agreement. In TinsleyH. E. A.BrownS. D. (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 95-124). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
66.
ValdésG. (2004). Between support and marginalization: The development of academic language in linguistic minority children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(2-3), 102-132.
67.
ValdésG.BunchG.SnowC.LeeC.MatosL. (2005). Enhancing the development of students’ language(s). In Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 126-168). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
68.
VasquezO. A.Pease-AlvarezL.ShannonS. (2008). Pushing boundaries: Language and culture in a Mexicano community. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1994)
69.
VillegasA. M.LucasT. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Albany: State University of New York Press.
70.
Vomvoridi-IvanovićE. (2012). Using culture as a resource in mathematics: The case of four Mexican–American prospective teachers in a bilingual after-school program. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(1), 53-66.
WongJ. W.AthanasesS. Z.BanesL. C. (2017). Developing as an agentive bilingual teacher: Self-reflexive and student-learning inquiry as teacher education resources. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13670050.2017.1345850
73.
YoungV. A.BarrettR.Young-RiveraY. S.LovejoyK. B. (2014). Other people’s English: Code-meshing, code-switching, and African American literacy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
74.
ZeichnerK. M. (2009). Teacher education and the struggle for social justice. New York, NY: Routledge.
75.
ZentellaA. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
