The current research on teacher knowledge and teacher accountability falls short on information about what teacher knowledge base could guide preparation and accountability of the mainstream teachers for meeting the academic needs of ELLs. Most recently, research on specialized knowledge for teaching has offered ways to understand the tasks of teaching that constitute the work of teaching a subject and a set of content-based problems. However, in this paper, we have argued that this domain does not address whether or not teaching academic content to English language learners (ELLs) involves any specialized knowledge for teaching. We sought to understand what specialized knowledge base for teaching, if any, is included in the work of teaching content to special student populations such as ELLs. In this exploration, we drew on the main perspective from literature about Systemic Functional Linguistics and academic language.
Purpose
Grounding the theoretical argument based on these two areas of research, we propose the teachers’ use of Disciplinary Linguistic Knowledge (DLK) for academic discourse of a discipline or content area. DLK is proposed as the knowledge base needed to facilitate ELLs’ understanding of oral and written discourse within a discipline and their accurate use of language to engage them in the disciplinary discourse.
Findings/Results
DLK refers to teachers’ knowledge of a particular disciplinary discourse and involves knowledge for (a) identifying linguistic features of the disciplinary discourse and (b) modeling for ELLs how to communicate meaning in the discipline and engaging them in using the language of the discipline orally or in writing. We offer examples illustrating how teachers’ knowledge of Disciplinary Linguistic Knowledge might manifest itself when teachers engage in the work of teaching content to ELLs.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The use of DLK as a specialized knowledge base for teaching content to ELLs might help to further specify the role of teachers’ knowledge of students within the larger research area of content knowledge for teaching. Also, operationalizing DLK as an assessment construct could address the need for next generation teacher assessments that aim to measure teachers’ knowledge base for teaching content to ELLs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Committee on Multicultural Education. (2002). Educators’ preparation for cultural and linguistic diversity: A call to action. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from http//:www.aacte.org/Programs/Multicultural/culturallinguistic.pdf
2.
AnstromK., DiCerboP., ButlerF., KatzA., MilletJ., & RiveraC. (2010). A review of the literature on Academic English: Implications for K–12 English Language Learners.Arlington, VA: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
3.
ArkoudisS., & DavisonC. (2002). Breaking out of the billabong: Mainstreaming in Australian schools. In CochranE. P. (Ed.), Mainstreaming (pp. 53–67). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
4.
AugustD., & HakutaK. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
5.
BaileyA. L. (2000). Language analysis of standardized achievement tests: Considerations in the assessment of English language learners. In ButlerF., AbediJ., & BaileyA. (Eds.), The validity of administering large-scale content assessments to English language learners: An investigation from three perspectives (pp. 79–100). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
6.
BaileyA. L., & ButlerF. A. (2003). An evidentiary framework for operationalizing academic language for broad application to K–12 education: A design document. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
7.
BaileyA. L., & HeritageM. (2008). Formative assessment for literacy, grades K-6: Building reading and academic language skills across the curriculum.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin/Sage Press.
8.
BallD. L. (1999). Crossing boundaries to examine the mathematics entailed in elementary teaching. In LamT. (Ed.), Contemporary mathematics (pp. 15–36). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
9.
BallD. L., HillH. H., & BassH. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide?American Educators, 29(1), 14–46.
10.
BallD. L., ThamesM. H., & PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
11.
BarronV., & MenkenK. (2002). What are the characteristics of the bilingual education and ESL teacher shortage?Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs.
12.
BriskM. E. (1998). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
BriskM. E., & ZisselsbergerM. (2011). We've let them in on the secret: Using SFL theory to improve the teaching of writing to bilingual learners. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 55–73). New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
ButlerF. A., StevensR., & Castellon-WellingtonM. (1999). Academic language proficiency task development process.Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
15.
ChamotA. U., & O'MalleyJ. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16.
ChoS., & ReichG. A. (2008). New immigrants, new challenges: High school social studies teachers and English language learner instruction. Social Studies, 99, 235–242.
17.
ChristieF. (1998). Learning the literacies of primary and secondary schooling. In ChristieF. & MissionR. (Eds.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 47–73). London: Routledge.
18.
ChristieF., & DerewiankaB. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum.
19.
ChristieF., & MartinJ. R. (1997). Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell.
20.
Cochran-SmithM., & LytleS. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
21.
CumminsJ. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14(2), 175–187.
22.
CumminsJ. (2000a). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
23.
CumminsJ. (2000b). Academic language learning, transformative pedagogy, and information technology: Towards a critical balance. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 537–548.
24.
de JongE., & HarperC. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough?Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101–124.
25.
de JongE., & HarperC. (2008). ESL is good teaching “Plus.” In BriskM. E. (Ed.), Language, culture, and community in teacher education (pp. 127–148). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
26.
de JongE., & HarperC. (2011). Accommodating diversity: Preservice teachers’ views on effective practices for English language learners. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 55–73). New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
de OliveiraL. C. (2012). The language demands of word problems for English language learners. In Celedón-PattichisS. & RamirezN. (Eds.), Beyond good teaching: Advancing mathematics education for ELLs (pp. 195–205). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
28.
FaircloughN. (1999). Global capitalism and critical awareness of language. Language Awareness, 8(2), 71–83.
29.
FangZ. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.
30.
FangZ., & SchleppegrellM. J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
31.
FrancisD. J., RiveraM., LesauxN., KiefferM., & RiveraH. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/ELL1-interventions.pdf
32.
FreemanD. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching, 35, 1–13.
33.
GebhardM., WillettJ., PabloJ., CaicedoJ., & PiedraA. (2011). Systemic functional linguistics, teachers’ professional development, and ELLs’ academic literacy practices. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 55–73). New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
GeeJ. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York, NY: Routledge.
35.
GibbonsP. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: Students, teachers and researchers.London: Continuum.
36.
GrossmanP., ComptonC., IgraD., RonfeldtM., ShahanE., & WilliamsonP. W. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100.
37.
HallidayM. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
38.
HallidayM. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93–116.
39.
HallidayM. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London, UK: Edward Arnold.
40.
HallidayM. A. K., & HasanR. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of a language in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
HarklauL. (2000). From the ‘good kids’ to the ‘worst’: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 35–67.
42.
HarperC., & de JongE. (2009). English language teacher expertise: The elephant in the room. Language and Education, 23(2), 137–151.
43.
HeathS. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44.
HeritageM., SilvaN., & PierceM. (2007) Academic English: A view from the classroom. In BaileyA. L. (Ed.), The language demands of school: putting academic English to the test (pp. 171–210). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
HillH. C., SchillingS. G., & BallD. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30.
46.
JanzenJ. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1010–1038.
47.
JohnsonK. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 235–257.
48.
JohnstonB., & GoettschK. (2000). In search of the knowledge base of language teaching: Explanations by experienced teachers. The Canadian Modern Language Journal, 56(3), 437–468.
49.
KiefferM. J., & LesauxN. K. (2007). Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61, 134–144.
50.
KindlerA. L. (2002). Survey of states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services: 2000–2001 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs.
LeeO., PenfieldR. D., & BuxtonC. (2011). Relationship between “form” and “content” in science writing among English language learners. Teachers College Record, 113(7), 1401–1434.
53.
LucasT. (2011). Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators.New York, NY: Routledge.
54.
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. 55–73). New York, NY: Routledge.
55.
LucasT., VillegasA. M., & Freedson-GonzalezM. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373.
56.
McCarthyM. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
MoschkovichJ. N. (1999). Supporting the participation of English language learners in mathematical discussions. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(1), 11–19.
58.
MoschkovichJ. N., & Nelson-BarberS. (2009). What mathematics teachers need to know about culture and language. In GreerB., MukhopadhyayS., Nelson-BarberS., & PowellA. (Eds.), Culturally responsive mathematics education (pp. 111–136). New York, NY: Routledge.
59.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2006). NCTE position paper on the role of English teachers in educating English language learners (ELLs). Urbana, IL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/teacherseducatingell
60.
PhelpsG. (2009). Just knowing how to read isn't enough! Assessing knowledge for teaching reading. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(2), 137–154.
61.
PhelpsG., & SchillingS. (2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching reading. Elementary School Journal, 105, 31–48.
62.
ReevesJ. R. (2004). “Like everybody else”: Equalizing educational opportunity for English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 43–66.
63.
ReevesJ. R. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 131–142.
64.
ReevesJ. R. (2009). A sociocultural perspective on ESOL teachers’ linguistic knowledge for teaching. Linguistics and Education, 20, 109–125.
65.
RichardsJ. C. (2011). Competence and performance in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
66.
ScarcellaR. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework (Report No. 2003-1). Irvine, CA: The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
67.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12(4), 431–459.
68.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
69.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics learning and teaching: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 139–159.
SchleppegrellM. J., & de OliveiraL. C. (2006). An integrated language and content approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes5(4), 254–268
72.
SchwabJ. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 78(1), 1–23.
73.
ShortD., & FitzsimmonsS. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners—a report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
74.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
75.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
76.
SnowC., CanciniH., GonzalezP., & ShribergE. (1989). Giving formal definitions: An oral language correlate of school literacy. In BloomeD. (Ed.), Classrooms and literacy (pp. 233–249). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
77.
TellezK., & WaxmanH. C. (Eds.). (2006). Preparing quality educators for English language learners: Research, policies and practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
78.
TurkanS., & Iddings Da SilvaC. (2012). “That child is a yellow”: The conceptual metaphors and English language ideologies of the NCLB era. Theory into Practice, 51(10), 1–9.
79.
ValdésG. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
80.
ValdésG., & CastellonM. (2010). English language learners in American schools: Characteristics and challenges. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 18–34). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
81.
WalkerA., ShaferJ., & IiamsM. (2004). “Not in my classroom”: Teacher attitudes towards English language learners in the mainstream classroom. Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 130–160.
82.
WaxmanH. C., & TellezK. (2002). Research synthesis on effective teaching practices for English language learners. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.
83.
Wong-FillmoreL., & SnowC. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
84.
YoungsC. S., & YoungsG. A. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers’ attitudes toward ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 97–120.
