Teacher education has redoubled efforts to prepare a predominantly monolingual teaching force for linguistic diversity in U.S. schools. Some jurisdictions are requiring specific teacher preparation, such as mandated Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) endorsement in Massachusetts, the context of this study. Previous research has explored the intersections of language ideologies and practice through such coursework. However, few studies have accounted for the underlying monolingual ideologies that inform U.S education. Therefore, this study employs a mixed methods approach to analyze language ideologies among 127 preservice and beginning teachers engaged in SEI methods coursework. Drawing on written reflections, survey data, and reported practices, this study offers a framework for exploring teacher language ideologies. This framework highlights a trajectory of lived ontologies, pedagogical orientations, and key contextual “filters” that may distort language ideologies in practice. The framework is operationalized through an analysis of monolingual ideologies across educational policy, practice, and teacher preparation.
AlimH. S. (2004). Hearing what’s not said and missing what is: Black Language in White public space. In KieslingS. F.PaulsonC. B. (Eds.), Intercultural discourse and communication: The essential readings (pp. 180-197). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
2.
AlimH. S.RickfordJ. R.BallA. (2016). Raciolinguistics: How language shapes our ideas about race. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
AlvermannD. E.MojeE. B. (2013). Adolescent literacy instruction and the discourse of “every teacher a teacher of reading.” In AlvermannD. E.UnrauN. J.RuddellR. B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1072-1103). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
4.
AyresL.KavanaughK.KraftK. A. (2008). Within-case and across-case approaches to data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13(6), 871-833.
5.
BaconC. K. (2017a). Dichotomies, dialects, and deficits: Confronting the “standard English” myth in literacy and teacher education. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 66, 341-357. doi:10.1177/2381336917719255
6.
BaconC. K. (2017b). Multi-language, multi-purpose: A literature review, synthesis, and framework for critical literacies in English language teaching. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(3), 424-453. doi:10.1177/1086296X17718324
7.
Baker-BellA. (2017). “I can switch my language, but i can’t switch my skin”: What teachers must understand about linguistic racism. In MooreE.MichaelA.Penick-ParksM. W. (Eds.), The guide for White women who teach Black boys (pp. 97-107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
8.
BanesL. C.MartínezD. 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.
BergmanM. M. (2008). The straw men of the qualitative-quantitative divide and their influence on mixed methods research. In BermganM. M. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications (pp. 3-21). London, England: SAGE.
10.
BiestaG. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 95-118). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
11.
BlommaertJ. (2005). Discourse. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BourdieuP. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
BriskM. E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
BunchG. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298-341.
15.
BuschD. (2010). Pre-service teacher beliefs about language learning: The second language acquisition course as an agent for change. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 318-337.
CheathamG. A.Jimenez-SilvaM.WodrichD. L.KasaiM. (2014). Disclosure of information about English proficiency: Preservice teachers’ presumptions about English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(1), 53-62.
18.
ChubbuckS. M. (2010). Individual and structural orientations in socially just teaching: Conceptualization, implementation, and collaborative effort. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3), 197-210.
19.
Cochran-SmithM.VillegasA. M. (2015). Framing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, part 1. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 7-20.
20.
ComreyA. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(5), 754-761.
21.
CreswellJ. W.FettersM. D.IvankovaN. V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. The Annals of Family Medicine, 2(1), 7-12.
22.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London, England: SAGE.
23.
DeVellisR. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
24.
EchevarríaJ.VogtM.ShortD. (2012). Making content comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model. Boston, MA: Pearson.
25.
EllisE. (2006). Monolingualism: The unmarked case. Sociolinguistic Studies, 7(2), 173-196.
26.
FaltisC. J.ValdézG. (2016). Preparing teachers for teaching in and advocating for linguistically diverse classrooms: A made mecum for teacher educators. In GitomerD.BellC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 549-592). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
27.
FarrM.SongJ. (2011). Language ideologies and policies: Multilingualism and education. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(9), 650-665.
28.
FisherR. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303-315.
29.
Fitzsimmons-DoolanS.PalmerD.HendersonK. (2017). Educator language ideologies and a top-down dual language program. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(6), 704-721.
30.
FloresB. B. (2001). Bilingual education teachers’ beliefs and their relation to self-reported practices. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(3), 275-299.
31.
GalS. (1992). Multiplicity and contention among ideologies. Pragmatics, 2(3), 445-449.
32.
GalgueraT. (2011). Participant structures as professional learning tasks and the development of pedagogical language knowledge among preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(1), 85-106.
GarcíaE.AriasM. B.Harris MurriN. J.SernaC. (2010). Developing responsive teachers: A challenge for a demographic reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 132-142.
35.
GarcíaO.JohnsonS. I.SeltzerK. (2016). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
36.
GibbonsP. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
37.
GodleyA. J.CarpenterB. D.WernerC. A. (2007). “I’ll speak in proper slang”: Language ideologies in a daily editing activity. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 100-131.
38.
GonzálezN. (2005). Children in the eye of the storm: Language socialization and language ideologies in a dual-language school. In ZentellaA. C. (Ed.), Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities (pp. 162-174). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
39.
GramlingD. (2016). The invention of monolingualism. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
40.
Hansen-ThomasH.CavagnettoA. (2010). What do mainstream middle school teachers think about their English language learners? A tri-state case study. Bilingual Research Journal, 33(2), 249-266.
41.
HendersonK. I.PalmerD. K. (2015). Teacher and student language practices and ideologies in a third-grade two-way dual language program implementation. International Multilingual Research Journal, 9(2), 75-92.
42.
HowardG. R. (2016). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
43.
IrvineJ. T. (1989). When talk isn’t cheap: Language and political economy. American Ethnologist, 16(2), 248-267.
44.
IrwinS. (2008). Data analysis and interpretation: Emergent issues in linking qualitative and quantitative evidence. In Hesse-BiberS.NagyS.PatriciaL. (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 415-540). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
45.
JanzenJ. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1010-1038.
46.
JiménezR. T.RoseB. C. (2010). Knowing how to know: Building meaningful relationships through instruction that meets the needs of students learning English. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 403-412.
47.
Jimenez-SilvaM.OlsonK.HernandezN. J. (2012). The confidence to teach English language learners: Exploring coursework’s role in developing preservice teachers’ efficacy. Teacher Educator, 47(1), 9-28.
48.
KroskrityP. V. (2004). Language ideologies. In DurantiA. (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 496-517). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
49.
LeeO. (2004). Teacher change in beliefs and practices in science and literacy instruction with English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(1), 65-93.
50.
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: Routledge.
51.
MacedoD. (2000). The colonialism of the English only movement. Educational Researcher, 29(3), 15-24.
52.
MartínezR. A. (2013). Reading the world in Spanglish: Hybrid language practices and ideological contestation in a sixth-grade English language arts classroom. Linguistics and Education, 24(3), 276-288.
53.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2015). Rethinking Equity and Teaching for English Language Learners (RETELL). Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/retell/
54.
MaxwellJ. A. (2011). Paradigms or toolkits? Philosophical and methodological positions as heuristics for mixed methods research. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24, 27-30.
55.
MenkenK.GarcíaO. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language education policies: Educators as policymakers. New York, NY: Routledge.
56.
MertensD. M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
57.
MojeE. B. (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 254-278.
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.
60.
PappamihielE. (2007). Helping preservice content-area teachers relate to English language learners: An investigation of attitudes and beliefs. TESL Canada Journal, 24(2), 42-60.
61.
RazfarA. (2005). Language ideologies in practice: Repair and classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 404-424.
62.
RosaJ. D.BurdickC. (2017). Language ideologies. In GarcíaO.FloresN.SpottiM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and society (pp. 103-124). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
63.
RosaJ. D.FloresN. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621-647.
64.
RuedaR.StillmanJ. (2012). The 21st century teacher: A cultural perspective. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 245-253.
65.
Schall-LeckroneL.McQuillanP. J. (2012). Preparing history teachers to work with English learners through a focus on the academic language of historical analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 246-266.
66.
ShinS. J. (2013). Bilingualism in schools and society: Language, identity, and policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
67.
SilversteinM. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In ClyneP. R.HanksW. F.HofbauerC. L. (Eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels (pp. 193-247). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
68.
SilversteinM. (1996). Monoglot “standard” in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In BrenneisD.MacaulayR. S. (Eds.), The matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology (pp. 284-306). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
69.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
ValdézG.BunchG.SnowC.LeeC.MatosL. (2005). Enhancing the development of students’ languages(s). In BransfordJ.Darling-HammondL. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 126-168). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
72.
WhippJ. L. (2013). Developing socially just teachers: The interaction of experiences before, during, and after teacher preparation in beginning urban teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 454-467.
73.
WileyT. G. (2014). Diversity, super-diversity, and monolingual language ideology in the United States: Tolerance or intolerance?Review of Research in Education, 38(1), 1-32.
74.
WorthamS. (2008). Linguistic anthropology of education. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37, 37-51.
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.
