This article was downloaded by: [University of Pennsylvania]On: 20 June 2013, At: 04:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Theory Into PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

Preparing Linguistically ResponsiveTeachers: Laying the Foundation inPreservice Teacher EducationTamara Lucas a & Ana María Villegas aa Montclair State UniversityPublished online: 24 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Tamara Lucas & Ana María Villegas (2013): Preparing Linguistically ResponsiveTeachers: 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. Anysubstantial 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 representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly 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 LucasAna María Villegas

Preparing Linguistically ResponsiveTeachers: Laying the Foundation inPreservice 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 MAJOR TRENDS HAVE 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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

4:39

20

June

201

3

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

4:39

20

June

201

3

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

4:39

20

June

201

3

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

4:39

20

June

201

3

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

4:39

20

June

201

3

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

4:39

20

June

201

3

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

4:39

20

June

201

3

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

4:39

20

June

201

3

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

4:39

20

June

201

3

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 diverse 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, and community in teacher education

(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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

4:39

20

June

201

3

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 diverse 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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

4:39

20

June

201

3

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia]

at 0

4:39

20

June

201

3