Language Culture Education Institute - Cardinal Stritch University

Transforming knowledge and practice:
Teacher educators engaged in
collaborative self-study to understand
linguistic diversity
Leah Romaine
Language, Culture and Education Institute
April 9, 2011

Introduction
Rationale and significance
ifi
Research problem/question
Theoretical basis and perspective
Research design and methodology
Preliminary findings and implications
Questions and feedback

The faces of K-12 students are changing.
Nationally
1973-2004: Percentage of students of color in U.S.
public schools rose from 22% 43% (Banks, 2009)
2000-2009: 9 million immigrants entered the U.S.
10% of those from European nations
190,000 were under 16 years old (U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 2009)
From 1989-2008, the number of children aged 5-17
speaking a language g other than English at home rose
from 3.8 to10.9 million (NCES, 2009)

Changing g demographics
Regionally
67,559 immigrants settled in WI from 2000-09 (U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, 2009)
Percent increases in Latino population 2000-09 (U.S. Census,
2010)
• Milwaukee County 42.3%
• Waukesha County 49.4%
• Sheboygan County 60.3%
• Dane County 75.7%
22 5% of MPS students were Latino in 2008 09 up
22.5% of MPS students were Latino in 2008-09, up
from 13.3% ten years earlier (MPS District Report Card, 2008-09)

The faces of their teachers are not.
Most teachers in K-12 schools are…
Monolingual English speakers (Clayton, Barnhardt, &
Brisk, 2008)
White (Sleeter, 2001/2008)
Female (Feistritzer & Haar, 2005)
Middle/upper-middle class (Feistritzer & Haar, 2005)

Under-preparation Ude pepaa of ELLs
2009 NAEP Reading: Wisconsin
Wisconsin:
Average Score
4 th grade
Reading
8 th grade
Reading
Caucasian 227 271
Hispanic 202 250
2009 NAEP Science: Milwaukee
Milwaukee :
4 th Grade
8 th Grade
Average Score Science Science
Caucasian 158 143
Hispanic 132 127

National significance
Call for an examination of teacher education
programs and the degree to which they prepare
all students to meet the needs of linguistically
diverse students
(Abbate-Vaughn, 2008; Adger, Snow, & Christian, 2002; Ardila-Rey, 2008; Brisk, 2008; deJong & Harper, 2005/2008; Fillmore &
Snow, 2002: Garcia, Arias, Murri & Serna, 2010; Harper & deJong, 2004/2009; Nevárez-La Torre et al., 2008)
Need to examine teacher educators’ knowledge
base related to linguistically diverse students
(Brisk, 2008; Costa et al., 2005; Gollnick, 2002; Nevárez-La Torre et al., 2008; O’Hara & Pritchard, 2008; Richardson, 2002)

Local significance
Upcoming NCATE review
NCATE Standard Met Target Area for Improvement Rationale Programs
1
Y N 1. Summary candidate data are not
1. While different types of candidate data
Initial /
Candidate Knowledge, Skills
Advance
and Dispositions
4
Diversity
provided consistently across all
programs to demonstrate candidate
knowledge, skills and dispositions.
Y N 1. The unit does not ensure that
candidates have opportunities to
work with diverse students
are collected and tracked for individual
candidates within programs, key
assessments data beyond course
evaluations and end of program surveys
are not regularly summarized within or
across all programs for clear
demonstration of candidates’ knowledge,
skills and dispositions
1. Candidates in advance programs are not
assured of an opportunity to work with
students from diverse ethnic, racial,
gender and socioeconomic groups.
Advance
2. The unit does not ensure that
candidates have opportunities to
interact with diverse faculty
2. The composition of faculty in terms of
racial/ethnic diversity does not insure that
all candidates have an opportunity to
interact in classroom settings on campus
with faculty representing diverse ethnic
and racial groups
Initial/
Advance

Local significance
2008-2009 2009 Graduate Survey data
“As a special educator, it would be nice to have more instruction in
working with the ELL population.”
In response to, “Graduates understand that students learn
differently.”
• 23% responded that “teaching ELLs” was not applicable.
• 10% felt poorly prepared in this area.
Faculty awareness
“We seem to do very well in terms of integrating issues of cultural
diversity into our courses, but the language piece is often missing.”
(Faculty member from SoE, February 2010)

Personal interest
Experiences with highly qualified teachers who
struggle to meet the needs of ELLs
Commitment to social justice (Agarwal, Epstein, Oppenheim, Oyler, & Sonu, 2010;
Chubbuck, 2010; Cochran-Smith, Shakman, Jong, Terrell, Barnatt, & McQuillan, 2009)
Opportunity to both share and expand my knowledge
base in collaboration with colleagues (Cochran-Smith, Albert, Dimattia,
g ( , , ,
Freedman, Jackson, Mooney, Neisler, Peck, & Zollers, 1999; Louie, Drevdahl, Purdy, & Stackman, 2003;
MacPherson, 2010)

Research problem
“Any effort to prepare mainstream teachers to
work with CLD students has to start with teacher
preparation programs” (Clayton et al., 2008, p. 25; AACTE, 2002; Brisk, 2008;
O’Hara & Pritchard, 2008; Nevárez-La Torre et al., 2008; Vavrus, 2002)
BUT
F l ’ b d h h h
“Faculty can’t be expected to teach what they
don’t know.” (Anstrom, 2004, p.xi)

Faculty knowledge of linguistic diversity
Teacher educators at the university i level
l
have vastly different and often limited
degrees of knowledge of research related
to linguistic diversity and its relationship to
the course content that they teach
(Brisk, 2008; Costa et al., 2005; Nevárez-La Torre et al., 2008; O’Hara &
Pritchard, 2008)

Inattention to linguistic diversity in teacher
preparation programs
Addressed d in a single “session” of a course
Addressed at the end of a course
Eliminated due to the need to cover other “more
important” content
Absent from course goals and objectives
(Abbate-Vaughn, 2008; Adger, Snow, & Christian, 2002; Ardila-Rey, 2008; Brisk, 2008; deJong &
( g , ; g , , , ; y, ; , ; g
Harper, 2005/2008; Fillmore & Snow, 2002;Garcia et al., 2010; Harper & deJong,
2004/2009; Nevárez-La Torre et al., 2008; Patel Stevens, 2008)

Consequences of the problem
Teachers certified for general education
classrooms are unprepared to meet the needs of
CLD students (Ardila-Rey, 2008; deJong & Harper, 2005/2008; Harper &
deJong, 2004/2009)
ELL students do not receive the opportunities to
learn and achieve as their monolingual, Englishspeaking
peers (Ardila-Rey, 2008; Delpit, 1995; Gándara & Maxwell-
Jolly,2002; García, 2001)

Research question
How does collaborative self-study study
impact teacher educators’ knowledge
of linguistic diversity and their ability
to address this topic in university-level
teacher preparation courses?

Theoretical perspective
p
Critical (Brock, McMillon, Pennington, Townsend, & Lapp, 2009; Gollnick, 2002)
Social constructivist (Au, 1998; Cochran-Smith et al., 1999; MacPherson, 2010;
Vygotsky, 1978)
Collaborative (Brisk, 2008; Costa et al., 2005; Nevárez-La Torre et al., 2008; O’Hara &
Pritchard, 2008)
Self-study (Cochran-Smith et al., 1999; Hamilton, 1999; Louie et al., 2003)
Inquiry as stance (Cochran-Smith, h 2003; LaBoskey, 2009)
Discourse analysis (Gee, 2008/2011a/2011b)

Theoretical basis
Personal Development
Practicum Office Director Department Chair Faculty
School Personnel
Course transformation
Program Transformation: Curricular and Programmatic Changes
* Clinical faculty *Focus throughout course of study on
professional development
needs of CLD students
*Special field-based
*Field-based courses working with CLD students
programs
* Content coordination across courses
(Brisk, 2008, p. 252)
Pre-service teachers
K-12 ELL students
School staff
professional
development

Linguistic diversity: Core components
1) Conversational vs. academic language g proficiency
2) Comprehensible input + meaningful output
3) Social interactions to support ELD
4) Strong knowledge of L1 supports achievement in L2
5) Decreasing students’ affective filter supports language
learning
6) Language needs to be explicitly taught, not learned
) g g p y g ,
incidentally through exposure
(Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008)

Power of collaborative inquiry
Teacher educators increase their knowledge
of and ability to incorporate research and
theory related to CLD students into their
courses upon participation in collaborative
professional development opportunities
(Brisk, 2008; Costa et al., 2005; LaBoskey, 2009; LaBoskey, Davies-Samway, & Garcia,
1998; Nevárez-La Torre et al., 2008; O’Hara & Pritchard, 2008)

Methodology: Why self-study?
Powerful vehicle for teacher education reform
Aligned with a social constructivist, inquiry stance
Fosters “self-knowledge and informed practice…our
moral responsibility as teachers of teachers” (Cole & Knowles, 1998,
p. 233)
Promotes teacher educators’ focus on both their
content/disciplinary knowledge and their practice
(Cole & Knowles, 1998; Gipe, 1998; LaBoskey, 2009; LaBoskey et al.,1998; Louie, Drevdahl, Purdy, & Stackman,
2003)

Target population
p
Teacher educators in the College of Education and
Leadership
At a small, private university
In the mid-western United States
Who teach at least one course in an undergraduate
or graduate program that t certifies candidates for a
K-12 teaching license

Iterative phases of self-study
study
Phase One: Question identification and
knowledge development
(Costa et al., 2005; Brisk, 2008; Nevárez-La Torre et al., 2008; O’Hara & Pritchard, 2008; LaBoskey, 2009; LaBoskey
et al., 1998)
Phase Two: Course revisions
(Cochran-Smith et al., 1999; Louie et al., 2003; MacPherson, 2010)
Phase Three: Implementation
p
(Brisk, 2008; Costa et al., 2005; Nevárez-La Torre et al., 2008; O’Hara & Pritchard, 2008)

Data collection
Initial survey (O’Hara & Pritchard, 2008)
Interview (Nevárez-La Torre et al., 2008)
Original syllabi (Brisk, 2008; Nevárez-La Torre et al., 2008; Costa et al., 2005)
Audio/videotapes of group interactions
Researcher’s field notes
Artifacts (research articles read, handouts, etc.)
Researcher’s reflective journal
Participants’ videotapes of their instruction using the revised
syllabi
Rfl Reflective portfolio fli (Gipe, 1998; LaBoskey, 2009; Nevárez-La Torre et al., 2008)
“Exit” interview

Preliminary findings
Ownership of the work
Various understandings of
The meaning of the term diversityit
How students should be prepared to meet the needs of
diverse learners
Diversity as an “add on”
Individual and collective approaches to curriculum reform

Anticipated implications
Bring attention to collaborative self-study as
An effective model for faculty PD
A valid research methodology
Increase teacher educators’ understanding of linguistic
diversity and the role of language in the education of
all children
Increase teacher candidates’ ability to serve ELLs
Provide ELLs with more equitable opportunities to learn
Provide ELLs with more equitable opportunities to learn
in the mainstream classroom

References
Please contact me at lmromaine@wolfmail.stritch.edu
if you would like more detail regarding the references
that informed this presentation.

Questions and comments