Content uploaded by T. Lucas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by T. Lucas on May 11, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Montclair State University], [Tamara Lucas]
On: 25 April 2013, At: 05:41
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Theory Into Practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20
Preparing Linguistically Responsive
Teachers: Laying the Foundation in
Preservice Teacher Education
Tamara Lucas a & Ana María Villegas a
a Montclair State University
To cite this article: Tamara Lucas & Ana María Villegas (2013): Preparing Linguistically Responsive
Teachers: Laying the Foundation in Preservice Teacher Education, Theory Into Practice, 52:2, 98-109
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770327
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Theory Into Practice, 52:98–109, 2013
Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University
ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online
DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2013.770327
Tamara Lucas
Ana María Villegas
Preparing Linguistically Responsive
Teachers: Laying the Foundation in
Preservice Teacher Education
It takes teachers many years to develop expertise
in the complex set of knowledge, skills, and ori-
entations needed to teach culturally and linguis-
tically diverse (CLD) students well. The process
begins in preservice preparation and continues
into the early years of teaching and throughout
a teacher’s career. This article examines preser-
vice teacher education as the first phase in the
continuum of teacher development for teaching
ELLs. Drawing on our framework of orientations
and pedagogical knowledge and skills for prepar-
ing linguistically responsive teachers (Lucas &
Tamara Lucas is an associate dean and professor, and
Ana María Villegas is a professor at Montclair State
University.
Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Tamara
Lucas, Associate Dean and Professor, College of Ed-
ucation and Human Services, Dept. of Educational
Foundations, 1 Normal Avenue, Montclair State Uni-
versity, Montclair, NJ 07043. E-mail: lucast@mail.
montclair.edu
Villegas, 2011; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-
Gonzalez, 2008), we show how Feiman-Nemser’s
(2001) framework of central tasks for learning
to teach can serve as a guide for identifying
tasks for learning to teach CLD students and for
guiding the construction of a coherent approach
to preparing teachers of CLD students that begins
in preservice programs, laying the foundation for
continued development throughout the teaching
career.
TWO M A JO R T REN DS H AVE intensified the
urgency to prepare all teachers for teach-
ing culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD)
students (Lucas & Grinberg, 2008; Villegas &
Lucas, 2011). First, the rapid growth in the num-
ber of students learning English as a second (or
third) language is having a major impact across
the country (Education Week, 2009; Pandya,
98
Downloaded by [Montclair State University], [Tamara Lucas] at 05:41 25 April 2013
Lucas and Villegas Preparing Linguistically Responsive Teachers
Batalova, & McHugh, 2011). Between 1990 and
2010, the limited English proficient population in
the United States increased by 80%, with an as-
tonishing growth of more than 200% in Alabama,
Washington, Utah, South Carolina, Nebraska,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina,
and Nevada (Pandya et al., 2011). Second, since
1980 educational policies have given increasing
prominence to accountability, standards, and test-
ing, narrowing the focus of approaches for edu-
cating ELLs. The No Child Left Behind Act of
2001, for example, emphasizes English language
learning over development of content knowledge
or academic skills (B. A. Evans & Hornberger,
2004); is silent on the role of students’ home
languages in learning (Crawford, 2008); requires
ELLs to take standardized tests after 3 years
in the United States (Wright, 2006); and does
not require expertise in language or culture for
teachers of ELLs (Harper, de Jong, & Platt, 2008;
Villegas & Lucas, 2011).
These trends have led to increased inclusion
of ELLs in general education classes, where
they are taught by teachers with little or no
preparation for teaching them (Freeman & Riley,
2005; Lucas & Grinberg, 2008; Platt, Harper, &
Mendoza, 2003). Increased inclusion has raised
awareness of the need for all teachers, not just
ESL and bilingual specialists, to develop ex-
pertise for teaching ELLs. Because so many
practicing teachers are unprepared to teach this
population, school districts bear much of the
responsibility for providing professional devel-
opment for teaching ELLs. But the process of
learning to teach in general, and learning to
teach CLD students in particular, should begin in
preservice preparation and continue throughout
a teacher’s career. In this article, we consider
preservice programs as the first phase in the
continuum of teacher development for teaching
ELLs. Drawing on our framework of orientations
and pedagogical knowledge and skills for prepar-
ing linguistically responsive teachers (Lucas &
Villegas, 2011; Lucas et al., 2008) and Feiman-
Nemser’s (2001) analysis of the central tasks of
learning to teach, we suggest a developmentally
appropriate pre-service curriculum for preparing
linguistically responsive teachers.
The Initial Phase of the Teacher
Development Continuum: Preservice
Preparation of Linguistically
Responsive Teachers
Preservice teacher education prepares novices
for entry into teaching. Yet there is no coher-
ent system of “serious and sustained learning
opportunities” for teachers in the United States
(Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p. 1014). Several schol-
ars have attempted to determine the nature of
teacher learning across their careers to inform
the design of teacher preparation and professional
development (e.g., Berliner, 1986, 1994; Fuller,
1969; Huberman, 1989; Kagan, 1992). Using dif-
ferent conceptual lenses, these scholars have de-
scribed teacher development as a series of stages.
Although these stage models have advanced the
understanding of teacher development, they have
also been critiqued on several grounds, including
the assumption of a “stepwise” development
through “fixed sequences of stages” (Dall’Alba
& Sandberg, 2006, p. 385); focus on attributes
of individuals and exclusion of contextual fac-
tors (Dall’Alba & Sandberg, 2006); and lack
of attention to phenomena that do not support
stage models, such as variation within novice
and expert groups (Dall’Alba & Sandberg, 2006),
teachers’ diverse backgrounds (Watzke, 2004),
and the recurring, cyclical nature of teachers’
issues and concerns (Conway & Clark, 2003;
Dall’Alba & Sandberg, 2006; Grossman, 1992;
Watzke, 2004). Huberman (1989) cautioned that
“the identification of phases and sequence [in
teacher development] must be handled gingerly,
as an analytic heuristic” (p. 32) and that “modal
trends ::: are suspect” in that they describe only
composites, not any particular individuals (p. 53).
These critiques serve as a caution against
taking a reassuring but oversimplified view of
teacher development as a series of discrete stages
characterized by particular concerns or learning
tasks (e.g., Fuller, 1969; Kagan, 1992). Never-
theless, to develop a coherent teacher learning
continuum, teacher educators must decide how
to organize preservice and in-service learning
activities. Feiman-Nemser’s (2001, p. 1014) pro-
posed framework of “central tasks” of teacher
99
Downloaded by [Montclair State University], [Tamara Lucas] at 05:41 25 April 2013
Professional Development for Teachers of CLD Students
development for preservice, induction, and pro-
fessional development programs can serve as a
useful guide.
Unlike the stage models previously discussed,
Feiman-Nemser’s (2001) framework is not a psy-
chological model of teacher learning, but “a cur-
riculum for learning to teach over time, anchored
in a vision of reform-minded teaching” (p. 1048).
Avoiding the problems associated with stage
models, this curriculum is contextualized within
a view of teaching that is “content-rich [and]
learner-centered” and that emphasizes “concep-
tual understanding,” critical thinking, problem
solving, and learning about “things that matter”
to teachers (p. 1015). Feiman-Nemser described
the continuum as a process for preparing teachers
to be “practical intellectuals, curriculum devel-
opers, and generators of knowledge in practice”
(p. 1015). It revisits learning tasks (e.g., develop-
ing, enacting, extending, and refining a teaching
repertoire), thus incorporating the cyclical nature
of learning. Feiman-Nemser acknowledged the
importance of the context of teacher and student
learning, as reflected in her emphasis on learning
about learners, studying teaching, and learning in
and from practice.
This “curriculum for learning to teach over
time” provides a framework for organizing the
central tasks of learning to teach ELLs, offering a
coherent approach to preparing teachers of ELLs
to replace the prevailing piecemeal approach
(Education Week, 2009; Lucas, 2011). Given
the many competing pressures on preservice
preparation—e.g., improving effectiveness with-
out increasing time or cost, giving more attention
to students with disabilities, situating teacher
preparation in schools—teacher educators must
be strategic in advocating for more attention to
preparing teachers to teach ELLs. To make the
most of the precious time they have with preser-
vice teachers and the small proportion of it that
can realistically be devoted to teaching ELLs,
they need to ensure that the time is well-spent.
Feiman-Nemser’s (2001) framework provides
a systematic way to design the curriculum to
incorporate desired content while preventing un-
necessary redundancy. To take this approach,
a group of teacher educators must articulate
what they want future teachers to learn about
teaching ELLs. Such a vision is a prerequisite to
determining the central tasks of learning to teach
ELLs. Our conception of the expertise of lin-
guistically responsive teachers—which we have
elaborated elsewhere (Lucas & Grinberg, 2008;
Lucas & Villegas, 2011; Lucas et al., 2008)—
represents our attempt to articulate such a vision.
Although we recognize the central role of culture
in teaching and learning, and the deep connection
between culture and language, our framework
focuses squarely on linguistic issues. Our goal is
to spotlight the language-related issues that are
too often lost in the larger conversation about
culturally responsive teacher preparation.
In Table 1, we list and briefly explain the
three orientations and four types of pedagogical
knowledge and skills that we see as fundamental
to linguistically responsive teaching (LRT),
and show how they align with the TESOL–
NCATE standards for P–12 Teacher Education
Programs (http://www.tesol.org/advance-the-
field/standards/TESOL–NCATE-standards-for-
p-12-teacher-education-programs). Because the
LRT framework and the TESOL–NCATE
Standards are intended to inform the preparation
of different types of teachers—mainstream
classroom teachers, on the one hand, and ESL
teachers, on the other—one should not expect
them to be equivalent. Nevertheless, as the
alignment suggests, the LRT framework is
consistent with the TESOL–NCATE standards,
all of which are reflected in the framework.
With an understanding of what they want
teachers to learn about teaching ELLs (such as
our conception of linguistically responsive teach-
ing), a group of teacher educators can then decide
what candidates can realistically learn in preser-
vice programs. In Table 2, we have mapped the
elements of our conception of LRT onto Feiman-
Nemser’s (2001) framework of central tasks for
preservice preparation and have identified tasks
for learning to teach ELLs in the preservice phase
of teacher development. Like Feiman-Nemser,
we offer this analysis as a stimulus for discussion,
not a template to be rigidly followed.
As the table shows, the LRT elements readily
align with the five tasks articulated by Feiman-
100
Downloaded by [Montclair State University], [Tamara Lucas] at 05:41 25 April 2013
Lucas and Villegas Preparing Linguistically Responsive Teachers
Table 1
The Expertise of Linguistically Responsive Teachers, With Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)–National Council for the Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE) Standards Alignment (Lucas & Villegas, 2011;
Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008)
Orientations of Linguistically Responsive Teachers
TESOL–NCATE P–12
Teacher Education
Standards (2009)
1. Sociolinguistic
consciousness
An understanding that language, culture,
and identity are deeply
interconnected; and an awareness of
the sociopolitical dimensions of
language use and language education.
Standard 2. Candidates :::
[understand] how cultural groups
and individual cultural identities
affect language learning and
school achievement.
2. Value for linguistic
diversity
Belief that linguistic diversity is worthy
of cultivating, and accompanying
actions reflecting that belief.
(no equivalent)
3. Inclination to advocate for
English language learners
Understanding of the need to take action
to improve ELLs’ access to social and
political capital and educational
opportunities, and willingness to do
so.
Standard 5.b. Candidates : : :
demonstrate the ability to build
partnerships with colleagues and
students’ families, serve as
community resources, and
advocate for ELLs.
Pedagogical knowledge and skills of linguistically responsive teachers
1. A repertoire of strategies
for learning about the
linguistic and academic
backgrounds of ELLs in
English and their native
languages
Understanding of the importance of
knowing about the backgrounds and
experiences of ELLs, and knowledge
of strategies for learning about them.
Standard 4.c. Candidates know
and can use a variety of
performance-based assessment
tools and techniques to inform
instruction : : :
2. An understanding of and
ability to apply key
principles of second
language learning
Knowledge of key psycholinguistic,
sociolinguistic, and sociocultural
processes involved in learning a
second language, and of ways to use
that knowledge to inform instruction.
Standard 1.b. Candidates
understand and apply theories
and research in language
acquisition and development to
support their ELLs’ English
language and literacy learning
and content-area achievement.
3. Ability to identify the
language demands of
classroom tasks
Skills for determining the linguistic
features of academic subjects and
activities likely to pose challenges for
ELLs, including identifying key
vocabulary, understanding syntactic
and semantic features of academic
language, and the linguistic
expectations for successful
completion of tasks.
Standard 1.a. Candidates
demonstrate understanding of
language as a system, including
phonology, morphology, syntax,
pragmatics, and semantics :::
(continued)
101
Downloaded by [Montclair State University], [Tamara Lucas] at 05:41 25 April 2013
Professional Development for Teachers of CLD Students
Table 1
(Continued)
Pedagogical knowledge and skills of linguistically responsive teachers
TESOL–NCATE P–12
Teacher Education
Standards (2009)
4. A repertoire of strategies
for scaffolding instruction
for ELLs
Ability to apply temporary supports to
provide ELLs with access to learning
English and content taught in English,
including using extralinguistic
supports such as visuals and hands-on
activities; supplementing written and
oral text with study guides,
translation, and redundancy in
instruction; and providing clear and
explicit instructions.
Standard 3.a. Candidates know,
understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to
plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment
for ELLs. They plan for
multilevel classrooms with
learners from diverse
back-grounds using
standards-based ESL and
content curriculum.
Standard 3.b. Candidates know,
manage, and implement a
variety of standards-based
teaching strategies and
techniques: : : : Candidates
support ELLs’ access to the core
curriculum by teaching language
through academic content.
Nemser (2001). She argued, first, that preservice
teachers should analyze their preexisting beliefs
and form new visions of teaching (Feiman-
Nemser, 2001, p. 1016). We contend that, as
part of this process, teacher candidates must
begin to develop sociolinguistic consciousness,
value for linguistic diversity, and the inclina-
tion to advocate for ELLs. This involves ex-
amining and reflecting on their beliefs and val-
ues related to language and linguistic diversity,
which, like beliefs about teaching, are largely
unexamined. For example, they may believe
that learning a second language is a cognitive
task in which sociocultural factors (e.g., the
relationship between cultural identity and home
language) are relatively inconsequential (Norton,
2000), that language is a neutral medium of
communication (rather than a powerful marker
of a person’s identity), and that linguistic di-
versity among poor immigrants and their chil-
dren is a problem to be solved by exclu-
sive focus on English in schools (Crawford,
2008).
If teachers bring these beliefs into their class-
rooms, they are unlikely to be successful teachers
of ELLs. On the other hand, when preservice
teachers interrogate these and other types of
beliefs about linguistic diversity, they can begin
to develop new visions for becoming linguis-
tically responsive teachers. One such vision is
sociolinguistic consciousness, which we define
as (a) an understanding that language, culture,
and identity are deeply interconnected; and (b) an
awareness of the sociopolitical dimensions of
language use and language education (Lucas &
Villegas, 2011). Because the norms and values
of a cultural group are passed on from one
generation to the next through language, a per-
son’s language is deeply entwined with his or
her sense of identity and affiliations with social
and cultural groups (Valdés, Bunch, Snow, &
Lee, 2005). This connection is evident, for ex-
102
Downloaded by [Montclair State University], [Tamara Lucas] at 05:41 25 April 2013
Lucas and Villegas Preparing Linguistically Responsive Teachers
Table 2
Preservice Preparation: Tasks for Learning to Teach and for Learning to
Teach English Language Learners (ELLs)
Tasks for Learning
to Teach
(Feiman-Nemser, 2001)
Elements of the Expertise
of Linguistically
Responsive Teachers
(Lucas & Villegas,
2011; Lucas, Villegas, &
Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008)
Tasks for Learning to
Teach ELLs in Preservice Programs
Analyzing beliefs and
forming new visions
Sociolinguistic
consciousness
Value for linguistic
diversity
Inclination to advocate
for ELLs
Reflecting on and interrogating one’s
preconceptions about ELL students, language
diversity, and the role of languages other than
English in schools.
Cultivating favorable views of linguistic diversity
and respect for students’ home languages.
Analyzing sociopolitical dimensions of language
use and language learning.
Exploring the needs and possibilities of
advocating for ELLs.
Developing subject
matter knowledge for
teaching
Identifying classroom
language demands of
particular disciplines
Cultivating awareness of language as a focus of
analysis.
Developing tools for analyzing academic
language.
Analyzing the language of academic disciplines.
Developing
understandings of
learners and learning
Learning about ELLs’
linguistic and academic
backgrounds
Understanding and
applying principles of
second language
learning
Developing an understanding of variability
among ELLs.
Building an initial repertoire of strategies for
learning about ELLs.
Developing an understanding of what teachers
need to know about ELLs to help them learn.
Examining sociocultural and psycholinguistic
processes of learning a second language while
also learning the content of academic disciplines.
Developing a beginning
repertoire
Scaffolding instruction Becoming familiar with a basic set of practices
and tools to support ELLs’ learning.
Applying these practices and tools, with support
and mentoring by teachers and teacher educators.
Developing the tools to
study teaching
Identifying classroom
language demands of
particular disciplines
Analyzing the language of the classroom.
Analyzing the language of academic disciplines.
ample, when two speakers of Spanish or another
language shift to their common mother tongue
even though both are fluent in English, and
when speakers of standard English transition into
their childhood dialects when interacting with
family members. Language is also intimately
connected to the larger sociopolitical context.
The languages of wealthy and powerful groups
come to be seen as superior to the languages of
poor and powerless groups because of the relative
sociopolitical power of the speakers of those
languages, not because of any inherent qualities
of the languages themselves (Fasold, 1990). Lan-
guage discrimination, intentional or not, is one
103
Downloaded by [Montclair State University], [Tamara Lucas] at 05:41 25 April 2013
Professional Development for Teachers of CLD Students
means for speakers of the dominant language in a
particular sociopolitical context to maintain their
privileged position (Nieto, 2002). This dynamic
is reflected, for example, in historical and con-
temporary efforts to restrict the uses of languages
other than English in schools (Crawford, 1992).
The volatile debates regarding language policies
ostensibly focus on language, but the underlying
issues are power and privilege associated with
speakers of particular languages (Nieto, 2002).
Sociolinguistically conscious teachers recognize
the role of the aforementioned factors in a per-
son’s investment in learning a second language
(Norton, 2000).
One powerful classroom activity that can
support the development of sociolinguistic con-
sciousness among preservice teachers is the lan-
guage shock or language immersion experience
(see de Oliveira & Shoffner, 2009; Gort, Glenn,
& Settlage, 2011). This activity gives future
teachers first-hand experience trying to partici-
pate in a lesson taught in a language they do not
understand. The instructor, or someone else who
is bilingual, teaches a portion of a class session in
a language other than English, and then engages
the participants in reflection on and discussion
of the experience. The visceral and personal
nature of the experience inevitably elicits feel-
ings of frustration, embarrassment, inadequacy,
and anxiety among the participants, and enables
deep discussion concerning language, identity,
and feelings of belonging. The experience also
forcefully illustrates the essential role of scaf-
folding instruction to make content accessible for
learners who are not proficient in the language of
instruction (which we discuss in the following).
In the context of Fieman-Nemser’s (2001) first
task for learning to teach, preservice teachers also
need to examine their beliefs about, and vision
of, linguistic diversity. Linguistically responsive
teachers see linguistic diversity as a valuable
resource and recognize that it derives from culti-
vating bilingualism in individuals. Such value for
linguistic diversity can promote trust of teachers
by students and heightened expectations of stu-
dents by teachers (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). A
time-honored approach to exploring one’s beliefs
and values is reflection, particularly reflective
writing (Spalding & Wilson, 2002; Villegas &
Lucas, 2002; Zeichner, 1987)—whether through
blogs and other online venues (Hsu, 2009) or
more traditional journals. By providing guidance
regarding the content and nature of the reflection
and offering thoughtful responses, teacher educa-
tors can encourage future teachers to engage in
critical reflection on their beliefs and assumptions
about linguistic diversity, ELLs, and their roles
as future teachers of ELLs. Contact with people
of linguistically diverse backgrounds has also
been found to influence teachers’ attitudes toward
ELLs (Byrnes, Kiger, & Manning, 1997; Youngs
& Youngs, 2001); thus, teacher educators can
also foster development of positive views of
linguistic diversity by ensuring that preservice
teachers have meaningful opportunities to inter-
act with linguistically diverse groups, whether
in school-based or community-based field expe-
riences, accompanied by guided discussion and
debriefing (C. Evans, Arnott-Hopffer, & Jurich,
2005).
Preservice teachers also need to examine
their perceptions of themselves as advocates for
ELLs (de Oliveira & Athanases, 2007). Many
classroom teachers, unfortunately, appear to see
ELLs as someone else’s responsibility (typically,
the ESL teacher; see Hamann & Reeves, this
issue) and to accept ELLs’ lack of access to
meaningful and challenging learning opportuni-
ties (de Jong & Harper, 2008). Instead, teach-
ers need to believe that they can, and should,
advocate for ELLs. When they see students’
languages devalued in school, for example, they
need to be prepared to speak up and “act on
behalf” of ELLs (de Oliveira & Athanases,
2007, p. 206). Community-based learning expe-
riences accompanied by facilitated discussions
of those experiences can support development
of an advocacy stance (Rogers, Marshall, &
Tyson, 2006). Through such experiences, preser-
vice teachers develop a more nuanced, contextu-
alized understanding of ELLs, their families, and
communities, gaining insight into the challenges
they face and the resources they bring to those
challenges—insights that can enhance their em-
pathy and desire to advocate for ELLs (Rogers
et al., 2006).
104
Downloaded by [Montclair State University], [Tamara Lucas] at 05:41 25 April 2013
Lucas and Villegas Preparing Linguistically Responsive Teachers
Feiman-Nemser’s (2001) second task for pre-
service teacher preparation is developing subject
matter knowledge for teaching. For teaching
ELLs, this includes knowledge not only of the
content of school subjects, but also of the lin-
guistic features and language demands of relevant
academic disciplines. The language of school is
fundamentally different from conversational lan-
guage (Cummins, 2000), and different academic
genres are characterized by different linguistic
features (Schleppegrell, 2004). For example, a
lab report in science class requires the use of
technical, specialized, scientific vocabulary; pas-
sive verbs; expression of analytic, empirical re-
lationships (e.g., cause/effect, classification); and
a highly formalized organization. In contrast, an
account of an historical event for a history class
uses more generally accessible vocabulary; active
verbs; expression of a wide variety of relation-
ships (e.g., chronological, thematic, and causal);
and a narrative organization (see Schleppegrell,
2004). To help ELLs participate in learning
activities, teachers must be able to analyze lan-
guage so that they can determine the linguistic
features of the discourse of their disciplines
and of classroom activities that are likely to be
challenging for ELLs. This requires focusing on
language as an object of analysis, not simply
an unanalyzed medium of communication, and
developing tools for analyzing language. Because
the teaching of grammar has come to be seen as
a quaint practice of earlier generations and no
other study of language as language has replaced
it in undergraduate education (Wong-Fillmore &
Snow, 2005), most teacher candidates are likely
to need some formal guidance in developing
these skills. A growing number of teacher ed-
ucators are teaching teachers to apply Systemic
Functional Linguistic analysis to support the aca-
demic language development of ELLs (see Brisk
& Zisselsberger, 2011; Gebhard, Willett, Jiménez
Caicedo, & Piedra, 2011; Schleppegrell, 2004).
Developing understanding of learners and
learning is Feiman-Nemser’s (2001) third task
for learning to teach. For teachers of ELLs, this
requires learning about ELL students’ linguistic
and academic backgrounds and about the pro-
cesses of second language learning. Preservice
teachers need to understand the variation in
ELLs’ academic experiences, literacy skills, and
ways of using their home languages and English.
They need a repertoire of strategies for getting
to know ELLs, some of whom may not yet be
able to communicate in English. These strategies
may include asking students to use visuals to
illustrate their experiences, having them write
about experiences in their home language and
asking someone to translate, and identifying a
bilingual community member who can serve as
a guide and liaison to the child’s family and
community.
In addition to understanding learning in gen-
eral, teachers of ELLs should understand ba-
sic principles and processes of second-language
learning—for example, that students with home
language literacy skills can more easily and
quickly learn to read and write in a second
language than those without such skills, and
that conversational fluency in a second language
develops much more quickly than academic lan-
guage skills (for more details, see Lucas &
Villegas, 2011; Lucas et al., 2008). With this
knowledge, teachers can distinguish challenges
of typical second-language learning, atypical lan-
guage difficulties, and difficulties with academic
content.
Developing a beginning repertoire, Feiman-
Nemser’s (2001) fourth task, refers to initial
knowledge of pedagogical approaches that pro-
mote student learning. For linguistically respon-
sive teachers, this means developing strategies for
scaffolding instruction to make the curriculum
accessible to ELLs, even though they have not
yet mastered English. ELLs need particular types
of language-related scaffolding that their fluent
English-speaking peers may not need, includ-
ing extralinguistic supports such as visuals and
hands-on activities, supports for written text such
as study guides, supports for oral text such as
redundancy and repetition in instruction, and
clear and explicit instructions (Gibbons, 2002;
Verplaetse & Migliacci, 2008). To develop facil-
ity with scaffolding, preservice teachers ideally
need the guidance of skilled mentor teachers
who can model scaffolding with ELL students
and scaffold teacher candidates’ own efforts to
105
Downloaded by [Montclair State University], [Tamara Lucas] at 05:41 25 April 2013
Professional Development for Teachers of CLD Students
teach ELLs (Walqui, 2011). The reality is that
few teacher education programs have access to
sufficient numbers of these mentors. Until those
numbers increase, programs can make it a prior-
ity to place preservice candidates in clinical sites
where they will have contact with ELLs and with
some linguistically responsive teachers.
Finally, in contexts with ELLs, developing
tools to study teaching—the last of Feiman-
Nemser’s (2001) central tasks (p. 1019)—
includes not only developing “skills of observa-
tion, interpretation, and analysis,” but also skills
for analyzing the language of their academic dis-
ciplines and the linguistic demands of classroom
activities, as mentioned previously. To study
their teaching of ELLs, teachers must have the
ability to examine language-related factors that
influence teaching and learning, such as sentence
structure and complexity in academic writing,
types of cohesive devices used in different genres
(e.g., temporal devices in narratives as compared
to logical devices in expository essays), and spe-
cialized uses of vocabulary in specific disciplines.
After developing a framework of central tasks
for learning to teach ELLs in preservice teacher
education as we have done in Table 2, teacher
educators will have a guide for creating learning
opportunities for teacher candidates to develop
the needed orientations, knowledge, and skills.
This is an equally important step in developing a
coherent plan for preparing linguistically respon-
sive teachers. Although a discussion of the pro-
cess of systematically integrating the substance
of linguistically responsive teaching is beyond
the scope of this article, the growing literature on
the preparation of classroom teachers for teach-
ing ELLs provides some guidance for teacher
educators (e.g., Athanases & de Oliveira, 2011;
Brisk, 2008; Costa, McPhail, Smith, & Brisk,
2005; de Oliveira & Athanases, 2007; Homza,
2011; Lucas, 2011; Lucas & Grinberg, 2008;
Lucas & Villegas, 2011).
Conclusion
In this article, we have attempted to show
how Feiman-Nemser’s (2001) framework of cen-
tral tasks for learning to teach can serve as
a guide for identifying tasks for learning to
teach ELLs in preservice programs. Although
we cannot extend the framework for learning
to teach ELLs beyond preservice preparation
here, Feiman-Nemser’s (2001) tasks for novice
and experienced teacher learning could similarly
inform the identification of appropriate foci for
learning to teach ELLs in those subsequent career
phases. Preservice teacher educators and school-
based educators could collaborate to further de-
velop and implement the framework for those
phases.
Policymakers and teacher educators increas-
ingly recognize the need to attend to teacher
learning across preservice, induction, and later
stages of teachers’ careers, and to prepare all
teachers to teach ELLs. Unfortunately, few poli-
cies support coherent, interconnected, integrated
systems of teacher preparation and develop-
ment, and little research has examined local
efforts to build such systems, for example,
through university–school district partnerships.
Still, growing numbers of teacher education pro-
grams are devoting some attention to preparing
all teachers for ELLs. We urge policymakers,
educational researchers, and those who prepare
teachers in universities and school districts to
make it a priority to examine the possibilities for
achieving a coherent teacher development con-
tinuum for teaching ELLs. Teachers are prepared
to begin teaching in preservice programs; that
is, they emerge from teacher education programs
as novices, not as accomplished teachers. After
entering the classroom, they must continue de-
veloping their expertise as teachers. Given the
limited time available in preservice programs to
focus on teaching ELLs, they certainly need to
continue building their repertoire for teaching
ELLs. They are ripe for opportunities to sys-
tematically build on their preservice learning as
they further develop and refine their expertise as
linguistically responsive teachers. We hope the
possibilities raised in this article will stimulate
much-needed discussion, research, and practice
supporting the design of a coherent system for
preparing teachers to teach ELLs across the
teacher development curriculum.
106
Downloaded by [Montclair State University], [Tamara Lucas] at 05:41 25 April 2013
Lucas and Villegas Preparing Linguistically Responsive Teachers
Notes
1. We use the terms English language learners and
culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students
to refer to students whose home language is a
language other than English. We use the term
limited English proficient when it is used by sources
cited.
2. See Villegas and Lucas (2002) for a discussion of
the concept of sociocultural consciousness.
References
Athanases, S. Z., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2011). Toward
program-wide coherence in preparing teachers to
teach and advocate for English language learn-
ers. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for
linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for
teacher educators (pp. 195–215). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert peda-
gogue. Educational Researcher, 15, 5–13.
Berliner, D. C. (1994). The wonder of exemplary per-
formances. In J. N. Mangieri & C. C. Block (Eds.),
Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students
(pp. 163–186). Ft. Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Brisk, M. (Ed.). (2008). Language, culture, and
community in teacher education. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brisk, M. E., & Zisselsberger, M. (2011). “We’ve
let them in on the secret”: Using SFL theory
to improve the teaching of writing to bilingual
learners. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation
for linguistically diver se classrooms: A resource for
teacher educators (pp. 111–126). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Byrnes, D. A., Kiger, G., & Manning, L. (1997).
Teachers’ attitudes about language diversity. Teach-
ing and Teacher Education, 13, 637–644.
Conway, P. F., & Clark, C. M. (2003). The jour-
ney inward and outward: A re-examination of
Fuller’s concerns-based model of teacher develop-
ment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 465–
482.
Costa, J., McPhail, G., Smith, J., & Brisk, M. E.
(2005). The challenge of infusing the teacher ed-
ucation curriculum with scholarship on English
language learners. Journal of Teacher Education,
56, 104–118.
Crawford, J. (1992). Hold your tongue: The politics of
“English Only.” Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Crawford, J. (2008). Advocating for English learners:
Selected essays. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Mat-
ters.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy:
Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Dall’Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling pro-
fessional development: A critical review of stage
models. Review of Educational Research, 76, 383–
412.
de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2008). ESL is
good teaching “plus.” In M. E. Brisk (Ed.), Lan-
guage, culture, a nd community in teacher ed ucation
(pp. 127–148). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
de Oliveira, L. C., & Athanases, S. Z. (2007). Grad-
uates’ reports of advocating for English language
learners. Journal of Teacher Education,58, 202–
215.
de Oliveira, L. C., & Shoffner, M. (2009). Addressing
the needs of English language learners in an En-
glish education methods course. English Education,
42, 91–111.
Education Week. (2009). Quality counts 2009. Portrait
of a population: How English-language learners are
putting schools to the test. Education Week, 28(17).
Bethesda, MD: Editor.
Evans, B. A., & Hornberger, N. H. (2004). No
Child Left Behind: Repealing and unpeeling federal
language education policy in the United States.
Language Policy,4, 87–106.
Evans, C., Arnot-Hopffer, E., & Jurich, D. (2005).
Making ends meet: Bringing bilingual education
and mainstream students together in preservice
teacher education. Equity and Excellence in Edu-
cation, 38, 75–88.
Fasold, R. (1990). The sociolinguistics of language.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to prac-
tice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and
sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103,
1013–1055.
Freeman, D., & Riley, K. (2005). When the law
goes local: One state’s view on NCLB in practice.
Modern Language Journal, 89, 264–268.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A devel-
opmental characterization. American Educational
Research Journal, 6, 207–226.
Gebhard, M., Willett, J., Jiménez Caicedo, J. P., &
Piedra, A. (2011). Systemic functional linguistics,
107
Downloaded by [Montclair State University], [Tamara Lucas] at 05:41 25 April 2013
Professional Development for Teachers of CLD Students
teachers’ professional development, and ELLs’ aca-
demic literacy practices. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher
preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A
resource for teacher educators (pp. 91–110). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding
learning: Teaching second language learners in
the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-
mann.
Gort, M., Glenn, W. J, & Settlage, J. (2011). Toward
culturally and linguistically responsive teacher ed-
ucation: The impact of a faculty learning commu-
nity on two teacher educators. In T. Lucas (Ed.),
Teacher preparation for linguistically diver se class-
rooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 178–
194). New York, NY: Routledge.
Grossman, P. L. (1992). Why models matter: An
alternate view of professional growth in teaching.
Review of Research in Education, 62, 171–179.
Harper, C. A., de Jong, E. J., & Platt, E. J. (2008).
Marginalizing English as a second language teacher
expertise: The exclusionary consequences of No
Child Left Behind. Language Policy, 7, 267–284.
Homza, A. (2011, April). Disentangling the thread
of linguistic difference from the tapestry of diver-
sity: One program’s documentary account. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
LA.
Hsu, H. (2009). Preparing teachers to teach literacy
in responsive ways that capitalize on students’
cultural and linguistic backgrounds through weblog
technology. Multicultural Education & Technology
Journal,3, 168–181.
Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of
teachers. Teachers College Record, 91, 31–57.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among pre-
service and beginning teachers. Review of Research
in Education, 62, 129–169.
Lucas, T. (2011). Language, schooling, and the prepa-
ration of teachers for linguistic diversity. In T.
Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically
diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educa-
tors (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lucas, T., & Grinberg, J. (2008). Responding to the
linguistic reality of mainstream classrooms: Prepar-
ing all teachers to teach English language learners.
In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & J.
McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher
education: Enduring issues in changing contexts
(3rd ed., pp. 606–636). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2011). A framework for
preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In T.
Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically
diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educa-
tors (pp. 55–72). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M.
(2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education:
Preparing classroom teachers to teach English lan-
guage learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59,
361–373.
Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching:
Critical perspectives for a new century. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning:
Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. New
York, NY: Pearson Educational.
Pandya, C., Batalova, J., & McHugh, M. (2011).
Limited English proficient individuals in the United
States: Number, share, growth, and linguistic di-
versity. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Insti-
tute.
Platt, E., Harper, C., & Mendoza, M. B. (2003).
Dueling philosophies: Inclusion or separation for
Florida’s English language learners. TESOL Quar-
terly, 37, 105–133.
Rogers, T., Marshall, E., & Tyson, C. A. (2006). Dia-
logic narratives of literacy, teaching, and schooling:
Preparing literacy teachers for diverse settings.
Reading Research Quarterly,41, 202–224.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling:
A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spalding, E., & Wilson, A. (2002). Demystifying
reflection: A study of pedagogical strategies that
encourage reflective journal writing. Teachers Col-
lege Record, 104, 1393–1421.
Valdés, G., Bunch, G., Snow, C., & Lee, C. (2005). En-
hancing the development of students’ language(s).
In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.),
Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 126–
168). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Verplaetse, L. S., & Migliacci, N. (Eds.). (2008).
Inclusive pedagogy for English language learners:
A handbook of research-informed practices. New
York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2011). Preparing class-
room teachers for teaching English language learn-
ers: The policy context. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher
preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms:
A resource for teacher educators (pp. 35–52). New
York, NY: Routledge.
108
Downloaded by [Montclair State University], [Tamara Lucas] at 05:41 25 April 2013
Lucas and Villegas Preparing Linguistically Responsive Teachers
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating cul-
turally responsive teachers: A coherent approach.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Walqui, A. (2011). The growth of teacher expertise
for teaching English language learners: A socio-
culturally based professional development model.
In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguisti-
cally diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher ed-
ucators (pp. 160–177). New York, NY: Routledge.
Watzke, J. L. (2004). Longitudinal research on begin-
ning teacher development: Complexity as a chal-
lenge to concerns-based stage theory. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 23, 106–122.
Wong-Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2005). What teachers
need to know about language. In C. T. Adger, C. E.
Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need
to know about language (pp. 7–54). Washington,
DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Wright, W. E. (2006). A catch-22 for language learn-
ers. Educational Leadership, 64, 22–27.
Youngs, C. S., & Youngs, G. A. (2001). Predictors
of mainstream teachers’ attitudes toward ESL stu-
dents. TESOL Quarterly 35, 97–120.
Zeichner, K. (1987). Preparing reflective teachers: An
overview of instructional strategies which have
been employed in preservice teacher education.
International Journal of Educational Research, 11,
565–575.
109
Downloaded by [Montclair State University], [Tamara Lucas] at 05:41 25 April 2013
