See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272029972

Aiming for Equity: Preparing Mainstream Teachers for Inclusion or Inclusive

Classrooms?

Article  in  TESOL Quarterly · February 2015

DOI: 10.1002/tesq.223

CITATIONS READS

65 4,458

3 authors, including:

Maria Coady Ester de Jong

University of Florida University of Florida
42 PUBLICATIONS   434 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   1,510 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ESOL Infusion: Professional Development for Teacher Educators View project

Small Town, Big Dreams: A Documentary Film About Rural EL Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Coady on 07 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Aiming for Equity: Preparing
Mainstream Teachers for Inclusion or
Inclusive Classrooms?
MARIA R. COADY, CANDACE HARPER, AND ESTER J. DE JONG
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida, United States

Mainstream teachers throughout the world are increasingly expected

to differentiate instruction for primary-grade students with diverse
learning needs, including second or English language learners
(ELLs). Does teacher preparation translate into instructional prac-
tices for English language development? What do graduates of those
programs do differently, if anything, for ELLs in their classrooms?
This mixed-methods study examined the beliefs and practices of two
focal teacher graduates of a teacher preparation program that
included second language training. Findings show that teacher grad-
uates working with ELLs in primary classrooms with low numbers of
ELLs used some generic accommodation strategies and just-in-time
scaffolding techniques, but they rarely instituted specific ELL prac-
tices to facilitate the English language development of ELLs. The
authors discuss implications for second language educators.
doi: 10.1002/tesq.223

T eachers around the world are increasingly called upon to work

with students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds,
including second language learners whose learning needs differ from
those of traditional students. In the United States, most teachers are
inadequately prepared to work with students in the process of learning
English as a second language (ESL) (G!andara, Maxwell-Jolly, &
Driscoll, 2005). In fact, Karabenick and Noda (2004) report that teach-
ers lacked basic foundational knowledge about English language learn-
er (ELL) issues, despite the fact that 88% of the teachers in their
survey had taught ELLs. Teachers’ lack of professional knowledge and
credentials for teaching ELLs is especially concerning in light of
increasing U.S. federal requirements targeting teacher quality and
student accountability (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). The
continuing gap in achievement between ELLs and native English

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, xxxx 2015 1

© 2015 TESOL International Association
speakers (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010) points to the
urgent need to address this issue in both the United States and other
English-dominant countries where similar patterns have been identi-
fied (National Association for Language Development in the Curricu-
lum, 2013; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 2012; Timperley & Parr, 2009).
Over the past decade, scholars have begun to frame the knowledge
and skills that teachers require to effectively teach both language and
content to ELLs (Flores, Sheets, & Clark, 2010; Minaya-Rowe, 2002;
Wong-Fillmore & Snow, 2000). These frameworks emphasize both the
linguistic and cultural dimensions of schooling (Coady & Escamilla,
2005). Turkan, de Oliveira, Lee, and Phelps (2014) use the term “dis-
ciplinary linguistic knowledge” to emphasize the role of language in
teaching content and define it as
the specialized knowledge base for teaching content to ELLs . . .
teachers’ knowledge of the academic discourse of a discipline or con-
tent area . . . [and the] knowledge base that all teachers of ELLs need
to facilitate students’ understanding of oral and written discourse
within a discipline and their use of language in ways that allow them
to actively participate in the disciplinary discourse. (p. 9, emphasis in
original)
Turkan et al.’s definition underscores the important work of teachers
of ELLs to simultaneously facilitate ELLs’ language development and
content learning. Knowledge related to the sociolinguistic and cultural
aspects of ELL pedagogy is also considered important in various
frameworks outlining ELL teachers’ expertise (de Jong, Harper, &
Coady, 2013; Lucas & Villegas, 2013).
These conceptual frameworks hold promise for building a knowl-
edge base to inform teacher preparation programs that support preser-
vice teachers’ developing competence in teaching ELLs. However, it is
largely assumed that the ESL knowledge and skills developed in
teacher preparation programs will translate automatically into effective
instructional practices for ELLs. In fact, we know little about the tra-
jectory of development for the body of knowledge and skills that
teachers bring into their classrooms. Although a number of studies
(e.g., Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2008; Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Helig,
2005; Laczko-Kerr & Berliner, 2002; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy,
2001) have demonstrated the association of teacher preparation and
instructional practices that support student learning, few studies have
considered this relationship explicitly for ELL teacher preparation.
Most research on effective teacher preparation for ELLs in the
United States tends to focus either on practicing teachers without

2 TESOL QUARTERLY
reference to their professional preparation (Karabenick & Noda, 2004;
Walker, Shafer, & Iams, 2004) or on teachers’ attitudes toward ELLs
(Kibler & Roman, 2013) or toward cultural diversity in general. Excep-
tions are studies by Byrnes, Kiger, and Manning (1997) and Kara-
thanos (2009), which confirm the effectiveness of formal preparation
in second language teaching in positively affecting teachers’ attitudes
and practices.
The present study targets the gap in research on teacher prepara-
tion and teaching ELLs by having the explicit goal of examining the
perceptions and practices of teacher graduates from a teacher educa-
tion program that aims to prepare teachers to teach ELLs in main-
stream, primary-level classrooms. However, our goal in this study was
not to establish a causal link between teachers’ preservice preparation
to teach ELLs, their instructional practices targeting their ELLs’ learn-
ing needs, and related increases in ELLs’ language, literacy, and con-
tent area achievement. Rather, our goal was to identify and explore
evidence of teachers’ connections between the ELL-specific knowledge
and skills developed in their preparation program and the instruc-
tional practices they implement to facilitate ELL student learning. The
primary teacher preparation program included in this study was (like
most other teacher education programs in Florida state universities)
designed using an infused model in which ESL-specific knowledge and
skills have been aligned with related primary education teacher com-
petencies and incorporated into general education coursework and
preservice field experiences. The study sought to understand how
graduates’ perception of their preparation shaped their instructional
practices for students who were in the process of learning English as a
second language.

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

This study took place in the southeastern United States. The state
of Florida has a long history of serving large numbers of immigrant
families, principally from Central and South America (Migration Policy
Institute, 2007). Florida currently has the fourth largest immigrant
population in the United States (following California, Texas, and New
York), with approximately 20% of its 18 million residents born outside
of the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). In the 1980s, a coali-
tion of minority student advocacy groups, including the League of
United Latin American Citizens, identified a significant and persistent
academic achievement gap between native-English-speaking students
and their non-English-speaking peers in Florida. The advocacy groups
documented evidence of a systemic failure to provide equal

AIMING FOR EQUITY 3

educational access for linguistic minority students in Florida public
schools and sought legal remedies through federal court.
In 1990, an agreement was negotiated requiring all teachers of ELLs
to complete professional development in the area of second language
teaching and learning (U.S. District Court, 1990). The result was a set
of ESL teacher performance standards that were organized around five
curricular areas: applied linguistics, cross-cultural communication, ESL
methods, ESL curriculum and materials development, and ESL assess-
ment. As a result of this agreement, teachers in state-funded (public)
schools responsible for teaching English language arts to ELLs (i.e.,
primary teachers and secondary English language arts teachers) were
required to complete a minimum of 300 hours of professional develop-
ment in ESL. Secondary content teachers must complete 60 hours of
ESL professional development under the state requirements. The state
legislature later extended the original in-service requirements to all
preservice teacher education programs affiliated with a Florida public
university.
One such program is ProTeach, a 5-year primary teacher prepara-
tion program situated at a major Florida university. The ProTeach pro-
gram addresses all of the state ESL standards for teacher education, as
noted above, as well as the state standards required for reading. The
program is grounded in a conceptual framework of diversity and
equity, and all of the preservice teachers participate in field experi-
ences with diverse learners, beginning in the first semester of the pro-
gram. In the third semester of the program, the students begin
observing and assisting teachers in mainstream classroom settings with
ELLs in nearby school districts. The goal of the program is to prepare
primary teachers for inclusive classrooms where learners from diverse
backgrounds and with diverse learning needs work together in one set-
ting. Interestingly, despite more than a decade of implementation in
Florida schools, the effects of the mandated ESL professional require-
ments on teacher practices with ELLs have not been adequately stud-
ied. In addition, the effectiveness of the infused model of preservice
teacher education programs has not been established (but see Han-
cock, 2010; Verkler & Hutchinson, 2002). The current study investi-
gated the perceptions and instructional practices of two teacher
graduates from one such program. The two focal teachers were teach-
ing ELLs in primary classrooms at the time of the study.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study was framed by theories supporting teacher knowledge of

teaching and learning for English language learners. Though teachers’

4 TESOL QUARTERLY
beliefs were not explicitly elicited and a formal discussion of teacher
beliefs lies outside the scope of this work, we acknowledge the mutual
influence of teacher beliefs on teachers’ instructional decisions on
behalf of ELLs. Similarly, instructional practice and experience can
affect teachers’ beliefs. In the context of general teacher education,
Cochran-Smith and Fries (2008) argue that teachers’ beliefs may act as
filters for their decision making and instructional practices with stu-
dents. Closer to the current work with English learners, Youngs and
Youngs (2001) draw associations between teacher beliefs and teachers’
instructional practices with minority students. They note that preservice
teachers’ experiences with diverse learners, including study abroad expe-
riences, appear to have a positive effect on teachers’ attitudes toward
ELLs. Although the precise relationship between beliefs, attitudes, and
teacher knowledge is still not clear in the field and a full review is outside
the scope of this study, work in this area continues to advance among
scholars (Kibler & Roman, 2013; Lucas & Grinberg, 2008).
We theorize that teacher knowledge of teaching and learning for
ELLs is part of a broader framework of teachers’ instructional prac-
tices for ELLs (Coady, de Jong, & Harper, 2011). The other two
dimensions that make up our framework are (1) teacher preparation,
background, and experiences, and (2) teacher knowledge of ELL stu-
dents. These three dimensions echo earlier work conducted by schol-
ars (Freeman, 1998; Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Woods, 1996) who
provided empirical support for the knowledge base of language teach-
ing. Specifically, those scholars note the significance of the teacher in
the teaching and learning process as well the sociocultural context
and situatedness of teachers’ work with ELLs. Again, work in this area
continues to emerge, and this study will contribute to the field by
investigating mainstream primary teachers of ELLs who have com-
pleted a teacher preparation program specifically designed to develop
teachers’ knowledge base of language teaching.
The relationship among the three dimensions of the framework is
depicted in Figure 1. This first dimension, teacher knowledge of teach-
ing and learning for ELLs, is the narrow lens that guided the current
research; we discuss this dimension of the framework in detail below.
The theoretical framework for this study underscores the principle
that well-prepared teachers of ELLs need specialized knowledge and
skills in teaching and learning in order to respond to ELLs’ unique
linguistic and cultural needs and to the changing classroom context.
The argument in favor of specialized knowledge and skills has been
made by several scholars in the field (de Jong & Harper, 2005; Lucas
& Grinberg, 2008; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008).
Although the development of the knowledge and skills underlying this
dimension varies greatly, there is broad consensus among scholars that

AIMING FOR EQUITY 5

 FIGURE 1. Knowledge of teaching and learning for ELLs.

teachers of ELLs need to understand how a second language is

learned, what role language and culture play in school, and the
associated instructional implications for those students (de Jong &
Harper, 2005, 2007; Harper, de Jong, & Platt, 2008; Lucas & Grinberg,
2008; T!ellez & Waxman, 2006).
We theorize that there are three subcomponents of this dimension.
The first is that quality teachers of ELLs understand the language itself
and how languages work. In this subcomponent, teachers of ELLs
need to cultivate a deep knowledge of the English language (Wong-
Fillmore & Snow, 2000), of second language acquisition processes (de
Jong & Harper, 2007; Lucas & Grinberg, 2008), of how a student’s first
language influences her or his acquisition of English (Cummins,
2000), and how knowledge of multiple languages can influence learn-
ing (Minaya-Rowe, 2006; Palmer & Mart!ınez, 2013). Lucas and Grin-
berg (2008) also note the importance of pragmatic and cultural
competence for teachers of ELLs.
The second subcomponent is the knowledge that language is both
the content and the medium for student learning (Coady & Escamilla,
2005; Coady, Harper, & de Jong, 2009; de Jong & Harper, 2005; Halli-
day, 1985; Harper et al., 2008; Mohan, 2001). In addition, teachers
who work with ELLs recognize the role of culture and how cultural
norms and differences affect these students’ language acquisition pro-
cesses and participation in school (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonz!alez,
1992; Nieto & Bode, 2011). In other words, this subcomponent illumi-

6 TESOL QUARTERLY
nates how language is central to teaching and learning, and how
teaching and learning practices are further shaped by culture. This
subcomponent, then, views this knowledge as critical to teachers’ work
with ELLs.
Finally, the third subcomponent relates to effective instructional
practices for ELLs. In particular, teachers of ELLs must be able to dif-
ferentiate instruction to meet ELLs’ various language learning needs
and to broker cultural differences. They do so by modifying language
input for comprehensibility (Krashen & Terrell, 1983; Lucas &
Grinberg, 2008; Minaya-Rowe, 2006), developing materials and modify-
ing lesson plans to meet ELLs’ distinct language learning needs
(Brower & Korthagen, 2005; Menken & Antu~ nez, 2001), and strategi-
cally implementing cooperative learning and grouping strategies
(Brower & Korthagen, 2005) that facilitate student learning. They also
provide opportunities for oral and written language practice (Coady
et al., 2007; de Jong & Harper, 2007; Verplaetse, 2008). Specialized
knowledge of assessment and feedback, including the role of standard-
ized tests and performance (alternative) assessments, and understand-
ing of assessment accommodations, are also characteristic of successful
teachers of ELLs (Abedi, Hoffstetter, & Lord, 2004; Brower &
Korthagen, 2005; Coady et al., 2011).
For the purpose of this study, we used the dimension of teachers’
knowledge of teaching and learning for ELLs with its three subcompo-
nents as our lens to explore teacher graduates’ stated understandings
of teaching ELLs and their actual practices for ELLs. Through the
analysis of data from two focal teachers, this study addresses the follow-
ing research question: How do ELL-prepared teacher graduates imple-
ment instructional practices to facilitate learning for the ELLs in their
classrooms?

METHODOLOGY
This study is part of a larger mixed-methods study that examined
the outcomes of one 5-year teacher preparation program designed to
prepare mainstream primary teachers to work with ELLs. The study
focused specifically on teachers’ practices. Two focal teachers were
selected through convenience sampling from a larger group of six
focus teachers who had graduated from the same teacher preparation
program. The selected teachers had been teaching for 2 and 7 years,
respectively. Both taught reading or mathematics to at least one ELL
in mainstream primary classrooms in north central Florida. At the time
of the study, each teacher had only one or two ELLs. Mainstream
classrooms with very limited ELL student representation have been

AIMING FOR EQUITY 7

referred to as low-incidence settings (B!erube, 2000; Haworth, 2005,
2009). Unlike large urban settings such as Miami, New York, or
London, with much larger numbers of ELLs, these low-incidence set-
tings are typical in more rural and suburban areas across much of the
United States. Hence, we sought to understand how teachers with
small numbers of ELLs perceived these students’ learning needs and
how they implemented specialized knowledge and teaching for those
ELLs in low-incidence primary classrooms.

Setting

The focal teachers, Kate and Suzy (pseudonyms), taught in

primary schools in two different school districts. Although school-
level policies and programs influenced both teachers’ classrooms
(Table 1 provides additional details on the teachers and their
classrooms), both teachers acknowledged having a certain degree of
flexibility to make instructional decisions at the classroom level, as
long as students met learning standards set by the Florida Depart-
ment of Education. For instance, literacy instruction was shaped by
regional educational policies (the school district) and included a lit-
eracy program designed around learning centers for Suzy’s kindergar-
ten–second-grade classroom and a commercial reading program for
Kate’s combined fourth–fifth-grade classroom. Nevertheless, both
teachers explained that they had the flexibility to determine how
they implemented those programs in their respective classrooms.
With respect to external resources, Suzy made use of a weekly parent
volunteer in her classroom and a special education aide who assisted
in the learning centers. There were no additional ESL program
resources available at her school (e.g., specialist instructors to work
with ESL learners).
In contrast, Kate’s school attempted to provide ESL support for
ELLs by offering an Internet-based English language software package,
Rosetta Stone. ELLs generally went to the computer lab during their
language arts period and a bilingual paraprofessional was available to
assist the ELL students while they worked on Rosetta Stone. The dis-
trict coordinator for English for speakers of other languages (ESOL)
indicated that Rosetta Stone was not intended to be a substitute for
modified classroom (sheltered content) instruction for ELLs. Kate’s
students participated in a combined fourth- and fifth-grade classroom
targeting students who were considered to be “academically capable
but underachieving” whom she noted “could be underachieving for
many factors . . . with the ELL because of language in the third grade
and then other students . . . because of their backgrounds, their

8 TESOL QUARTERLY
TABLE 1
Teacher, Classroom, and School Demographic Profiles

Teachers Suzy Kate

1. Grades teaching K–2 multiage classroom 4/5 loop (Omega
Program)
2. Years of teaching experience 3 4
3. First language English English
4. Self-reported second Intermediate Spanish Advanced Spanish
language and proficiency level
5. Specialization within the Educational technology ESL
primary JustTeach program
6. Race White Hispanic
Classrooms
1. Number of ELLs in 2 (a second ELL arrived 1
classroom mid-year)
2. Aide or paraprofessional No (half year with special Yes (bilingual
education aide for ESE student) paraprofessional)
Schools County A (suburban) County B (rural)
1. Grade levels within school K–5 3–5
2. Title I funding Yes Yes
3. Adequate yearly progress No No
4. Free/reduced lunch rate 48% 62%

homes” (Kate, interview). Kate also had a bilingual aide and a school
counselor available regularly in her classroom to provide one-on-one
instruction as needed by students.
The two teachers worked with one or two ELLs (see Table 2). Suzy
had only one ELL in her classroom at the start of the study. Suzy esti-
mated Jorge to be at the speech emergent level of English proficiency.
A second beginner ELL, Mar!ıa, entered Suzy’s classroom in the mid-
dle of the academic year. In contrast, Kate had only one ELL in her
classroom, Adriana. Kate described Adriana’s English ability level as
“actually pretty good” in writing (Kate, interview), but lower in read-
ing. Kate commented that Adriana’s conversation seemed “very much
high functioning,” but her academic language was at the “early profi-
ciency” level (Kate, interview). Neither teacher referenced ELLs’ per-
formance on the English language proficiency test taken by ELLs for
ESL program entry and exit. When asked directly, Kate admitted that
she did not know Adriana’s reading or writing scores (assessed for all
ELLs in Grades 3–5), and neither teacher knew the ELLs’ listening
and speaking ability, assessed for all ELLs.

Participants

The two focal teachers reported the ability to speak a language

other than English (LOTE). Of the two teachers, Kate, who was

AIMING FOR EQUITY 9

TABLE 2
Ell Background Data

ELLs’
backgrounds Jorge (boy) Mar!ıa (girl) Adriana (girl)
1. Teacher Suzy Suzy Kate
2. Origin of Venezuelan/ Honduras/ Puerto Rico/Spanish
country/L1 Spanish Spanish
3. Grade First K Fifth
level of ELL
4. English Teacher does not Teacher does Teacher does not
proficiency level receive test scores; not receive receive test
(described beginning level test scores; very scores; intermediate
by teacher) Oral: he has beginning to advanced
a “problem” level Oral: fluent in social
Writing: very (nonverbal English) conversations;
low; “too much however, academic
Spanish in oral proficiency is
his writing” not as high as
Reading: at conversation language
grade level Writing: good; ELL
received a 4 (on 6.0 scale)
on her FCAT writing
Reading: high level
one student

Latina, reported on her survey that her Spanish proficiency was

advanced. Suzy, who was White, stated that her Spanish language abil-
ity was at the intermediate level (see Table 1 on teachers’ back-
grounds).
Both teachers believed they were well prepared to work with ELLs.
Drawing from the survey responses and transcripts from the teacher
interviews, data indicate that they believed the teacher preparation
program was adequate overall in terms of how well it prepared them
to work with ELLs, and the program was perceived to be strong in sev-
eral areas.
Suzy noted on her survey that she felt “most prepared” to structure
classroom activities for ESL students in order to facilitate interaction
with non-ESL students. She also noted strong preparation in her abil-
ity to modify her use of spoken English through paraphrasing and sim-
plifying language, and in her ability to expand ELLs’ oral language by
extending student responses and repeating key ideas orally. Kate indi-
cated equally strong preparation for structuring classroom activities
and extending student responses; however, she felt slightly less pre-
pared (3.0 on a 4.0 scale on the survey) in repeating key words orally
for ELLs.
Overall, Kate’s responses were higher than the average across key
instructional areas, including lowering the language difficulty of

10 TESOL QUARTERLY
questions, providing additional wait time, and teaching reading
comprehension strategies. Additional items the two focal teachers
rated high in terms of preparedness and efficacy were those related to
the use of cooperative learning strategies and students’ culture in the
classroom. In the sections below we explore three themes related to
these areas: planning for ELL instruction, the use of students’ linguis-
tic and cultural resources, and the implementation of cooperative
learning activities.

Data Analysis

For each focal teacher, data sources included a 98-item survey that
captured teachers’ self-reported perceptions of their efficacy and pre-
paredness to work with ELLs (see Project DELTA, 2014). Data also
included two 30- to 60-minute interviews conducted at the beginning
and end of the data collection period (fall and spring). The inter-
views focused on teachers’ sense of preparedness and beliefs about
working with ELLs as well as their classroom practices. Sample first-
round interview questions of teachers included: Who are your ELLs?
Where are they from? What is their oral proficiency level in English?
What are their literacy levels in English and in the first language? Is
there any preplanning or background information we should know
about? How do you prepare your daily lessons given that you work
with ELLs? (See Project DELTA, 2014, for more detailed interview
questions.)
At least four videorecorded observations were conducted per semes-
ter for each teacher during mathematics and reading instruction.
Thus, at a minimum, 8 hours of observational data were collected for
each teacher, divided fairly evenly between math and reading/literacy
instruction. One of the two focal teachers had participated in a preli-
minary phase of the study; thus, four additional observations and two
additional interviews were available as data. Recordings of teacher
interviews and observations were transcribed and available for analysis.
In total, 150 pages of transcripts and 38 pages of typed, detailed field
notes from observations in mathematics and reading/language arts
classes as well as 101 pages of interview transcripts constituted the data
for both focal teachers and were used in the analysis.
Coding of observation data began with viewing each video observa-
tion and reviewing the corresponding transcripts in pairs. Each video-
recording and each transcript was viewed by two graduate research
assistants and at least one faculty member. Transcripts were coded
independently by paired researchers who cross-checked their coding
with each other. Disagreements, new codes, or possible redefinitions

AIMING FOR EQUITY 11

were brought to the larger research team for discussion and recalibra-
tion to establish coding inter-rater reliability.
Research team meetings were held weekly or biweekly over a period
of approximately 18 months to discuss issues that arose in the coding
process; questions about the definitions of codes were brought to the
larger research team for discussion. The definitions helped to establish
patterns and determine what, for example, was the difference between
a teacher’s prompting of an ELL to respond to a teacher-generated
question, as opposed to a teacher’s probing of an ELL to respond to a
teacher question. These differences (prompting versus probing) high-
lighted how teachers informally gauged ELLs’ learning of content and
language use.
The NVIVO software codebook included the following 10 teacher
practice categories: assessment; use of linguistic and cultural resources
in teaching; instructional strategies for comprehensible input, for les-
son implementation, for background knowledge, for questioning, and
for literacy and language development; classroom management; cogni-
tive strategy instruction; and grouping strategies. The codes were
derived directly from the data across the two teachers. We clarified
codes over an extensive, 18-month period, utilizing existing categories,
and expanding or collapsing categories as coding criteria were refined
during the analysis. We associated codes with the theoretical frame-
work, comparing within and across cases. We focused more closely on
the categories that emerged across these two focal teachers. The cate-
gories that emerged as most reflective of instructional strategies
included using students’ linguistic and cultural resources, instructional
strategies for language and literacy development, and grouping strate-
gies. We also identified those segments in the videos where the teacher
specifically addressed the ELL during class instruction and we analyzed
these further. We marked where data confirmed or conflicted with our
framework on teachers’ knowledge of language teaching and learning.
For the interview data, the following emergent codes were included:
rationale for practices, evaluation of teacher preparation program, disposition,
and use of languages other than English (LOTE). We examined patterns
within and across the teacher data and identified high frequency codes
in the observation and interview transcript data.

FINDINGS
Our findings focus on the themes that emerged through the inter-
views and observations related to the teachers’ practices for ELLs. We
refer to these four findings thematically as ELL instruction on the go, use
of language other than English (LOTE), learning mainstream culture through

12 TESOL QUARTERLY
exposure, and grouping. Our analysis indicates that planning for ELLs
tended to occur at the micro level, which resulted in many missed
opportunities for both language support and cultural bridging. Fur-
ther, we found differential treatment of students’ home languages in
the two classrooms. Finally, our analysis of the two focal teachers’
practices suggests that both teachers rely on mere exposure to English
and Euro-American cultural experiences instead of explicit instruction
or negotiating linguistic and cultural norms to meet the needs of
ELLs.

ELL Instruction as On the Go Accommodations

Our analysis of the data indicates that both teachers ensured the
inclusion of ELLs through the use of small groups, and they stated
that they implemented teaching strategies to make the content in
reading and mathematics lessons comprehensible for all learners. In
this, the two focal teachers paralleled those from other graduates
(see also Coady et al., 2011). ELLs participated in all of the class-
room activities. Some differentiation for their ELLs occurred outside
of regular class time (before school tutoring for Adriana), as in-class
individual work (Suzy working with Mar!ıa individually on math while
other students were working at learning centers), or as brief periods
of pull-out English support (Adriana went to the computer lab sev-
eral times each week during her language arts block to use the
Rosetta Stone English language software program provided by the
district).
It was thus important to both teachers that the ELLs were included
in regular classroom activities, just like their peers, to ensure an inclu-
sive learning environment. Despite their preparation to make accom-
modations for ELLs at different English proficiency levels, however,
the teachers did little to plan for ELLs’ linguistic development and
cultural learning during class time through differentiated instruction
or assessment. Language development was not an integral part of
either teacher’s instructional approach, despite being prepared in a
teacher preparation program that included attention to second lan-
guage learning and teaching practices. We illustrate this finding by
examining a lesson integrating vocabulary clarification and strategy
instruction.

Vocabulary clarification. The two focal teachers’ instruction for

ELLs consisted of largely unplanned or extemporaneous clarifications
to make concepts understandable or to attend to word meaning. What

AIMING FOR EQUITY 13

triggers a change in instruction is the ELL’s reaction to what is hap-
pening. As Suzy commented,
Obviously if they are sitting there with a blank piece of paper, and they
are looking at you like “I don’t know what you just said,” you know
obviously you are gonna pull them aside and work one on one. (Suzy,
interview)
Observation data indicate that most language development strate-
gies for ELLs occurred without specific preplanning in lessons, pre-
modified materials used in instruction, or predetermined language
objectives based on individual ELL language learning needs. An
excerpt from field notes of an observation of one of Kate’s small-group
reading lessons illustrates this approach. In this scene, Adriana was
seated on the floor just to the left of Kate. The group was reading an
excerpt from the poem “Paul Revere’s Ride,” by Henry Wadsworth
Longfellow. Adriana appeared confused by the cultural and historical
references in the poem, in addition to the 19th century English and
uncommon words found in the poem. This is evident in the following
small-group lesson, where Adriana asks the teacher about a “lantern”:

Adriana (A): What’s a lantern?

Kate (K): What’s a lantern, Adriana is asking. Can you [general
student solicitation] describe it for her [Adriana]?
Student (S): Um, it’s a, it’s a um light inside of a vase type thing.
A: Oh, those? I think I saw them in movies.
K: In the movies? Okay. And they walk around with a lantern, it’s like
in a vase shape, what’s in it? we said oil and it has a wick. It’s in a
candle, right? And then you light the top of the wick, the oil helps
to heat the fire.
In this lesson, the teacher halted the lesson in order to clarify the
vocabulary word lantern for Adriana. Kate had not anticipated, how-
ever, that the word might be unfamiliar to Adriana.
In the following vignette, Suzy used whole-group instruction to
introduce the topic of Thanksgiving (a U.S. historical national holi-
day), to build vocabulary related to that holiday, and to provide stu-
dents with instructions for completing a crossword puzzle on this topic
in one of their literacy centers. In the following lesson, Jorge, the
ELL, was sitting on the floor in the back of the group and listening to
peer responses to the teacher’s prompting questions. Suzy did not pre-
pare or use visual aids (such as pictures, drawings, videos, or objects)
during this segment, though she did use gestures to clarify vocabulary
when students appeared confused.

14 TESOL QUARTERLY
 Suzy (Su): All right. Ms. J’s friends, today for reading, for activity today,
I have a crossword puzzle where Ms. X [special education aide] is
going to be in the back helping with the crossword puzzle. It’s got real
tough things like umm [reading from the crossword puzzle] Thanksgiv-
ing. Mashed blank. What do we eat at Thanksgiving? Mashed . . .

Students (Ss) (Choral response): Potato.

Su: Potatoes. Good, you got it. Who is the star of the Thanksgiving
dinner?
Ss: Chicken.
Su: (surprising voice) Chicken? [Suzy acts shocked.] Oh?
Ss: Turkey.
Su: Turkey. Raise your hands if you eat turkey at Thanksgiving. Some
friends might eat chicken at Thanksgiving, but do we eat turkeys,
too?
Ss: Yeah.
Su: Turkey, you know gobble, gobble, gobble [making sounds with
gestures of a turkey]. Okay. What is a popular Thanksgiving
dessert? Blank pie.
Student (S): Apple pie.
Su: Apple pie?
S: Pumpkin pie.
Su: Caroline, ding ding ding, pumpkin pie. Okay, umm. It would be a
harm to cook turkey without one of these. What do we need to
cook a turkey?
S: Frying pan?
Su: You put a giant turkey in a frying pan? [Suzy responds with
surprise.]
Ss: [laughing, giggling]
Su: That’s the biggest frying pan that I’ve ever seen. Frying . . . Where
do we put a turkey? No, what do we do to cook a turkey?
Ss: Oven.
Su: The oven, thank you. Not the microwave. Your microwave is going
to be bigger than this whiteboard. Okay. This is the activity today.
Okay? What are we doing in library?
Ss: Read, read, read!!! (Suzy, observation)

AIMING FOR EQUITY 15

 During this exchange, Jorge did not volunteer to respond to the
teacher’s questions, nor was he asked any questions directly. As
indicated by Suzy, Jorge had trouble understanding spoken English, so
it is possible that the absence of modifications to Suzy’s oral language
to increase comprehensibility contributed to his nonparticipation. In
similar fashion, Suzy’s whole-group instruction, which she used to set
up the learning centers for the kindergarten–second-grade literacy
time, was directed at all students. Noted was the absence of modified
oral language use (an ELL-specific instructional strategy) and second
language teaching techniques, including the sitting location of the
ELLs in the front of the group to support his learning.
Because they clarified words as their lessons unfolded, Kate and
Suzy relied primarily on oral language (synonyms, extended speech, or
repetition) rather than visuals, graphic organizers, or other nonverbal
tools to help make their instruction more comprehensible. The latter
would have required planning conducted in advance (e.g., identifying
appropriate pictures, photos, or bringing in realia). Another unin-
tended consequence of this approach was that teachers’ explanations
thus focused on meaning (semantics) of the word; examples of tar-
geted focus on form (parts of speech, collocations, etc.) to extend
vocabulary development rarely occurred.

Reading strategy instruction: Missed opportunities. Another exam-

ple of not making language learning a priority became evident in
Kate’s strategic approach to reading. Kate frequently modeled strate-
gies and asked students to use graphic organizers as tools for reading
comprehension strategies. The following data excerpts are from an
observation conducted in Kate’s classroom during a reading lesson.
They show a typical progression in her strategy lessons: Kate’s students
working independently to complete individual main idea graphic orga-
nizers as she read a story aloud. The excerpt below is Kate speaking to
the class and to her ELL (Adriana).
So go ahead, get a sheet of paper and we’re gonna do a main idea
graphic organizer. Middle bubble with the main idea, four details.
[Teacher holds up thumb to show one main idea, then four fingers to
show four details.] Middle bubble main idea, four details [Teacher
holds up four fingers again] . . . Okay, so we are going to look at the
main idea and details. We are going to look at the main idea and
details. Do your main idea graphic organizer . . . and while we’re read-
ing, while I am reading, excuse me, I want you [directed to the ELL,
Adriana] . . . to make sure that you pay careful, careful attention to
what you think the main idea is gonna be. Okay? . . . And you write it
in your middle bubble. Uh hmm . . . and as I’m reading, you may go
ahead and include the details around. (Kate, observation)

16 TESOL QUARTERLY
 Before she began reading the story, Kate talked to students through
the process of previewing the text (title, pictures) in order to set
expectations for reading and to predict possible main ideas. She
solicited suggestions and asked students to justify and evaluate pro-
posed main ideas. As she read aloud, Kate made explicit references to
relevant details in the story and reminded students that they must
include at least four details on their graphic organizers. She encour-
aged students to share ideas for details with the class and praised
many of them. Kate used the graphic organizer to reinforce students’
ability to identify the main idea as key reading strategy. She reinforces
this emphasis on cognition (thinking) and comprehension also in her
interview.
Our little reading has a graphic organizer. And it has that, the little
thing, the little box, and arrow pointing to the next box, so cause and
effect. What causes one thing and the other. So that helps a lot with
using a lot of different graphic organizers, to help them understand
what they are reading. (Kate, interview)
Although the graphic organizer activity served to reinforce students’
reading comprehension and writing strategies, it provided little oppor-
tunity for student talk (peer interaction) or specific use of academic
language use that might be required or extended through the use of a
graphic organizer. Tang (1992), for instance, shows that students can
be encouraged to use adverbial phrases of time and prepositions of
time when describing a timeline graphic organizer.

“I’ll Say, en Ingl!

e s,” or the Use of a Language Other Than English

The teachers’ preparation program stresses the value of bilingualism

and the important role that ELLs’ native language and literacy plays
in English development and identity. Both teachers displayed positive
attitudes toward the use of a LOTE. Kate’s survey response to “commu-
nicating with my ESL students’ family members even if they are not
able to communicate in English” was scored 4.0 on the 4.0 survey
scale, indicating that she felt highly effective in this area.
Although both teachers spoke Spanish as an additional language,
the data reveal how they used Spanish for different purposes. Kate,
the Latina teacher, used Spanish as a resource to connect with ELLs’
parents but not as a learning tool in the classroom. However, when
recounting the use of Spanish in her classroom as an instructional tool
with a newcomer ELL in the past, Kate described her experiences as
follows:

AIMING FOR EQUITY 17

 I wanna say it was 3 years ago, when he first came, no English level at
all. I mean he just didn’t know anything. He cried the first week to the
school because he was so frustrated. And that was me speaking to him
in Spanish. But he was just so embarrassed, I guess, and frustrated. He
didn’t understand what everyone was saying. He didn’t understand
what I was saying when I spoke in English, so again, if you ask, did I
get the resources from the school? Unfortunately, no. It was me . . .
our school, our class structure, the rest of the students were also won-
derful to him . . . and now he is in seventh grade and doing phenome-
nal in middle school. (Kate, interview)
Kate’s view was that the use of Spanish was an early resource to
assist and comfort the ELL; however, ongoing use of the first language
impeded his ability to integrate into her inclusion classroom. She
noted that ultimately it was the class structure, not the use of Spanish,
which influenced his ability to participate and to eventually succeed in
school. So although Kate indicated that Spanish use was helpful to
communicate with an ELL’s parents, she was not inclined to use it as
a learning tool with ELLs based on her experience with a former ELL
and did not see it as a strategy to develop language. The use of Span-
ish was a short-term resource necessary for comprehension, but it was
also a barrier to learning over the long term. Our observations con-
firmed her stance; no instances of the use of Spanish with the ELL
were noted with her intermediate-level ELL.
In contrast, Suzy, who had learned Spanish as a foreign language in
the United States, enjoyed speaking Spanish with Spanish-speaking
ELLs and used Spanish as an instructional resource. She was observed
occasionally teaching basic Spanish words to the other students in her
classroom, though this was not an explicit part of the curriculum. In
fact, Suzy indicated that she used Spanish in much of her instruction
with her newcomer beginner ELL, Mar!ıa:
I’m using a lot of Spanish with her. I mean we’re doing addition strate-
gies so you know I’ll say cuatro m! a s cuatro. She has the blocks and stuff
and then whatever I say in Spanish I ask her to try to repeat it to me in
English, you know, so I’ll say cuatro m! a s cuatro and she’ll say ocho, and
I’ll say en Ingl!
e s and she’ll say eight. (Suzy, interview)
Observational data confirm that Suzy supported the beginning ELL
with Spanish instruction in a one-to-one context, particularly to help
Mar!ıa with her mathematics. She used it as an effective strategy to
mediate the content; she did not use it to scaffold further first lan-
guage use or literacy development; Mar!ıa’s worksheets and products
were all in English. This use of LOTE may have been encouraged both
by Suzy’s enthusiasm for bilingualism as well as by Mar!ıa’s lower profi-
ciency levels.

18 TESOL QUARTERLY
Learning Mainstream Culture Through Exposure

The third theme from this study pointed to ELLs’ learning about
mainstream U.S. culture through exposure rather than targeted
instruction. Cultural goals were invisible in the two classrooms. Kate
indicated that although she used multicultural reading materials and
texts, this choice was secondary to the content of the materials (school
and grade-level curricula) she needed to teach. She noted:
So I look for the content first. I need to make sure that it was a good
one with the skills I am looking for. And of course I look for pictures
and graphics and make sure they are attractive and I’ll keep their
attention with the story. The multicultural aspect comes in when, I
think, depending on the season of the year. (Kate, interview)
Kate indicated on her survey that the cultural background of her ELL
was an important consideration in curricular decisions, but the reality
was that content considerations took precedence over cultural consid-
erations for this student. The vignettes above, specifically depicting
Paul Revere’s ride and the U.S. historical event of Thanksgiving,
underscore how cultural events and activities were not explicitly taught
to ELLs. Instead of being more responsive to cultural difference and
culturally responsive instructional practices, the ELLs’ culture was
invisible in the mainstream classroom. The teachers either assumed
that ELLs had access to the same cultural background knowledge as
all other learners or chose not to directly address such gaps by build-
ing cultural background knowledge for ELLs.

Grouping Practices: Content or Language?

Small-group work was observed in both classrooms. In Suzy’s class-
room this took the form of learning centers in which small groups
of students worked together on teacher-designed tasks. In Kate’s
classroom, students worked in pairs as well as in small groups. Analy-
sis of the observation and interview data related to teachers’ group-
ing practices reveals that the teachers considered several factors in
their decisions to group students (such as students’ skills in math or
reading and how students within the group interacted together). The
teachers’ criteria for grouping students rarely, if ever, included ELLs’
language proficiency levels or their English language learning objec-
tives. Given the small number of ELLs in each class, it was unclear
whether teachers would have made different grouping decisions if
criteria had included students’ first languages or their English
proficiency levels.

AIMING FOR EQUITY 19

 Kate acknowledged that she made only minor, if any, instructional
modifications on behalf of her ELL student Adriana, whose English
ability level was below grade level in reading. For instance, with respect
to grouping for reading instruction, Kate noted, “I don’t know that I
have placed her to any particular, especially on the floor. I don’t tell
[the students] where to sit unless I see there is an [behavior] issue
going on with two students.” She continued, “Adriana always says,
‘come and sit next to me, come and sit next to me’ [but] I don’t do it
on purpose per se” (Kate, interview). Observation data of small-group
reading instruction in Kate’s class verified the basis of her instructional
decision making.
Suzy made similar decisions regarding grouping students. When
asked about the choices she made regarding grouping, Suzy noted,
“They’re based according to grade level when I pull them out for
small-group instruction, but for the regular squads, since we’re a K-1-2,
I always make sure there is at least one second[-grade student] in each
group so that they can kind of be the leaders for the activity that
they’re doing” (Suzy, interview). Suzy added that her grouping deci-
sions were based on students’ content ability levels as opposed to their
language learning needs. She further revealed that homogeneous
grouping was reserved for direct and small-group instruction. Observa-
tion data confirm that grouping for literacy centers was based on goals
of mixed ability for all students. For example, the beginner ELL Mar!ıa
was always placed with first- and second-grade native speakers of
English. While cross-age grouping structures had the potential to
scaffold Mar!ıa’s English language learning, the teacher’s goal was
grouping for mixed ability rather than for the ELL’s English language
development. Again, content area learning goals set for all students
were prioritized over language learning goals for ELL students. In fact,
neither teacher acknowledged or was observed grouping ELLs accord-
ing to English language development criteria or for second language
development goals.
English language ability or language and literacy development goals
were less likely than other categories of consideration valued at lower
importance, such as grouping for classroom management. Teachers’
grouping considerations emphasized content learning over language
learning.

DISCUSSION
This study was concerned with the practices of two focal teachers
who had completed their primary education teacher certification
program with infused ESL preparation, leading to a specialist teaching

20 TESOL QUARTERLY
credential. In principle, their successful completion of the preservice
program prepared them to teach ELLs in mainstream classrooms.
They taught in classrooms with only one or two ELLs. We recognize
that the low-incidence nature of ELLs in these teachers’ classrooms
does not represent all inclusion classrooms in the United States.
However, it reflects an important reality of many classrooms in which
ELLs are placed or served, particularly in rural and semirural contexts
(Wagner, 2006). This study found that these teachers’ instructional
practices were grounded in a general education paradigm featuring
“best practices” in response to students’ linguistic and cultural learn-
ing needs. As a result, ELLs’ English language and literacy develop-
ment and cultural learning needs were not systematically addressed in
these teachers’ classrooms, and the potential of inclusion to equalize
learning opportunities was not fully realized in the mainstream class-
room context.
Both teachers’ approaches to teaching ELLs were characterized by
an absence of planned instructional modification targeting English
language and literacy development. The focal teachers in this study
clarified vocabulary in the moment and used their knowledge of ELLs’
native language (Spanish) to meet their immediate learning needs
strategy, but this was not a planned instructional practice to facilitate
second language (English) learning. Elsewhere, this ability to make
instructional adjustments as they interact with students has been
referred to as microscaffolding, or soft scaffolding (de Jong, 2012;
Sharpe, 2006). Examples of macroscaffolding, or the intentional,
planned design of instruction to mediate language demands in the
content areas for ELLs, did not emerge from the data. Attention to
language development using (planned) nonverbal supports and
through explicit academic language modeling and direct instruction
(e.g., by frontloading), using engaging learning activities, and/or
extended discussions were not observed. A contrastive language learn-
ing activity, such as the use of cognates, would build upon ELLs’ first
language to learn English. In these classrooms, ELLs’ linguistic and
cultural needs were not an integral part of the classroom but rather
peripheral, to be addressed only when miscommunication or misun-
derstanding was obvious to the teacher. We argue that both teachers
assumed that their “regular” lesson plan would be appropriate for all
students, including ELLs. Teachers did not appear to consider imple-
menting the types of instruction listed above, which were advocated
for ELLs and were presented in more detail in their preservice prepa-
ration program.
Our analysis also reveals that the “good teaching” strategies the
teachers used were not modified for ELLs. Both teachers indicated on
their surveys and in interviews that they used visual aids and graphic

AIMING FOR EQUITY 21

organizers as instructional strategies. Observations confirmed their use
of these tools in whole-class reading and math instruction for all
students without systematically modifying graphic organizers or other
learning strategies or structures to meet the language and literacy
needs of the ELLs. Kate’s use of graphic organizers provided an
example of an instructional practice that was considered useful for all
students; it was not differentiated to target ELLs’ varying language
ability levels (as with simplified or elaborated text, embedded glossa-
ries, or pictures).
Similarly, the two teachers implemented small-group instruction.
The use of small-group instruction is a strategy that can facilitate dif-
ferentiated and scaffolded learning for ELLs at different English profi-
ciency levels. But these teachers used students’ math or reading level
and/or students’ personalities as grouping criteria. Thus group work
was used to support all students’ conceptual learning, in spite of the
fact that appropriate “mainstream” use of cooperative learning
assumes sufficient command of the target language to participate in
class discussions and learning tasks (Slavin, 1995). The literacy centers
in Suzy’s classroom are an example: ELLs were included in small
groups but were unsupervised in learning tasks. As a result, the ELLs
were left without access to essential scaffolding for content learning or
targeted English language development. Missing from teachers’ class-
room practices and from their discourse when discussing their group-
ing practices were specific considerations of language and literacy
scaffolding and development.
We argue that instructional activities that are unplanned and
unmodified for ELLs do not reflect a language-informed perspective
for teaching ELLs in mainstream classrooms (Harper & de Jong,
2004). In fact, in the written, open-ended responses on the survey,
Kate noted that good instruction for ELLs was good for all students:
“Many of these practices are exhibited in my classroom for all students
—native and non-native alike. A lot of below-level activities are an
excellent resource provided to for ELLs” (Kate, interview; original
emphasis retained). This finding reveals a need to clarify our own dis-
course as teacher educators. We suggest that a distinction between
inclusion settings and inclusive practices within those classrooms for
ELLs is needed (Harper & Platt, 1998; Kavale & Forness, 2000).
Inclusive teaching in mainstream classrooms requires that teachers
go beyond good general education practices and including ELLs phys-
ically in classroom activities. In an inclusive classroom, ELLs’ language
and literacy development and cultural learning needs are addressed
through systematic and planned instruction. In our study, teachers
were aware of and felt prepared to use a range of strategies to
improve the comprehensibility of their instruction and ensure that

22 TESOL QUARTERLY
ELLs were (socially) included in small-group learning tasks and whole-
class activities. In our observations, ELLs were indeed included in
small-group structures and provided with the same content area
curriculum and instruction available for all students. However, in the
absence of specific second language and literacy scaffolding, we
question whether these classrooms can be considered truly inclusive
learning environments for ELLs.
An important implication of our study is the need to acknowledge
and address the complexity of the relationship between teacher prepa-
ration and classroom practices (Sleeter, 2014). The two focal teachers
in this study had met Florida’s ESL teacher credential requirements
through a specialized teacher education program, and they were aware
of the need to include ELLs in their instruction. These teachers
reported feeling well prepared with the specialized knowledge and
skills needed for an inclusion classroom. Yet their practices did not
reflect considerations related to the specific needs of ELLs. It is possi-
ble that the low-incidence nature of both teachers’ classrooms may
have affected the teachers’ practices in this regard. We acknowledge
that in settings where there are large numbers of ELLs, teachers may
be more likely to draw on ELL-specific instructional strategies. Based
on data from these two focal teachers, we surmise that in classrooms
with low numbers of ELLs, such as in rural or new destination school
settings (Williams, Steigenga, & Vasquez, 2009), teachers can easily
overlook the language and cultural resources and needs of ELLs and
fail to differentiate them from those of other learners—that is, special
education students, struggling readers, and low-socioeconomic-status
or otherwise disadvantaged students. Low-incidence ELLs may remain
invisible in these settings because their presence does not naturally
prompt a consideration of their linguistic or cultural needs through-
out the day but only in isolated circumstances or as the result of spe-
cific teacher-student interactions. It is notable that all students who
participated in Kate’s special program were performing below expecta-
tions. Like the other students, the ELLs were recognized as requiring
additional academic support, but this support did not translate into
English language objectives or specific language teaching strategies.
This conflation of ELLs with “struggling” students has been observed
in other reform efforts as well that were intended to increase achieve-
ment (see Coady et al., 2009).
One implication is the importance of contextualizing teacher educa-
tion for ELLs and preparing mainstream teachers to recognize and
negotiate the student diversity they will encounter in their classrooms
(de Jong et al., 2013). Another implication is that teacher preparation
programs provide future teachers to interrogate the terms used to
describe effective practices in ESL and mainstream classrooms. For

AIMING FOR EQUITY 23

example, terms like activating prior knowledge, building background, vocabu-
lary selection, cooperative learning, and differentiated instruction need to be
critically examined from the perspective of ELLs. Relying on a few iso-
lated ESL courses, such as an ESL methods course or a cross-cultural
communication course, to prepare future teachers of ELLs is therefore
unlikely to be adequate. It is our opinion that preservice teachers must
receive a clearer message in their programs: Inclusive classrooms are
not simply different learners in the same physical space; rather, inclu-
sive classrooms underscore differentiated teaching strategies for stu-
dents with different learning needs. ESL teacher competencies must be
addressed systematically throughout the program, with the rationale
and application of specific second language development strategies
considered across the curriculum. ESL knowledge and skills must be
strategically integrated with other core teaching and learning experi-
ences such that ELL issues are naturally identified, explored, and rein-
forced throughout the program (Lucas et al., 2008).
The focal teachers in our study did participate in multiple field
experiences during their teacher preparation program, yet those evi-
dently did not provide enough modeling or scaffolding for them to
acquire the skills of differentiated instruction for ELLs. Field experi-
ences are one of the most powerful elements of teacher preparation
programs in terms of learning potential for teachers; therefore, we
concur with Gay (2002), Hadaway (1993), and others who have advo-
cated for more highly structured field experiences and specialized
assignments for teacher candidates that provide models of effective
instruction for ELLs and help teacher candidates develop inclusive
teaching practices (Coady et al., 2009).

CONCLUSION

As classrooms become increasingly linguistically and culturally

diverse, teacher preparation programs must ensure that teachers
make conscious and informed instructional decisions based on ELLs’
learning needs. This process may be facilitated given the current glo-
bal emphasis on building academic language and, in the United
States, addressing common core standards that seek to build aca-
demic language (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013;
Schleppegrell, 2004). Preservice teachers need to develop the knowl-
edge and skills that will enable them to fully realize the potential of
inclusive classrooms. Teacher preparation programs that aim to
prepare mainstream teachers to engage in inclusive practices for
ELLs need to address the ongoing challenge of ensuring that ELLs’
learning needs and specialized instructional are salient and visible

24 TESOL QUARTERLY
throughout the program. Teacher candidates need to be able to
make decisions for ELLs based on their understanding of why certain
instructional practices might be more effective than others for ELLs.
They need to implement and reflect on instruction that specifically
targets ELLs’ language and literacy development goals in the context
of complex learning environments such as inclusive mainstream
classrooms.

THE AUTHORS

Maria R. Coady is an associate professor of ESOL/bilingual education and profes-

sor-on-assignment for international education at the University of Florida. She is
also a Fulbright specialist scholar. Her research includes preparing mainstream
teachers for English learners and building partnerships for immigrant, Latino
family engagement.

Candace Harper is an associate professor of ESL/bilingual education at the Uni-

versity of Florida. Her research addresses teacher preparation and the develop-
ment of expertise and collaboration for teachers of K–12 English learners. She has
taught ESL/EFL and worked with teachers of English learners in the United
States, Australia, Bosnia, and France.

Ester J. de Jong is professor of ESOL/bilingual education and director of the

School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida. Her research inter-
ests include language policy, bilingual education, and mainstream teacher prepa-
ration for bilingual learners. Her book Foundations of Multilingualism in Education:
From Principles to Practice focuses on working with multilingual children in K–12
schools.

REFERENCES

Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C. H., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for
English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 1–28.
doi:10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla059
B!erube, B. (2000). Managing ESL Programs in rural and small urban schools. Alexan-
dria, VA: TESOL, Inc.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). Teacher
preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
31, 416–440. doi:10.3102/0162373709353129
Brower, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference?
Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153–224. doi:10.3102/00028312042001153
Byrnes, D. A., Kiger, G., & Manning, M. L. (1997). Teachers’ attitudes about lan-
guage diversity. Teachers and Teacher Education, 13, 637–644. doi:10.1016/S0742-
051X(97)80006-6
Coady, M., de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. (2011). Preservice to practice: Mainstream
teacher beliefs of preparation and efficacy with English language learners in
the state of Florida. Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 223–239. doi:10.1080/
15235882.2011.597823

AIMING FOR EQUITY 25

Coady, M., & Escamilla, K. (2005). Audible voices, visible tongues: Exploring social
realities in Spanish-speaking students’ writing. Language Arts, 82, 462–471.
Coady, M., Hamann, E. T., Harrington, M., Pacheco, M., Pho, S., & Yedlin,
J. (2007). Successful schooling for ELLs: Principles for building responsive
learning environments. In L. S. Verplaetse & N. Migliacci (Eds.), Inclusive
pedagogy for English language learners: A handbook of research-informed practices
(pp. 245–255). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coady, M., Harper, C., & de Jong, E. J. (2009). Quality teacher preparation for
ELLs: Preliminary findings from Florida. National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition. AccELLerate, 2(2), 8–10.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2008). Research on teacher education: Changing
times, changing paradigms. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, J. McIn-
tyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring ques-
tions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 1050–1093). New York, NY: Routledge.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). Common core state standards initiative.
Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Programs/The_Common_
Core_State_Standards_Initiative.html
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review
of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–44. Retrieved
from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/viewFile/392/515
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, G., Gatlin, S. J., & Helig, J. V. (2005). Does
teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for
America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42),
1–51. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu
de Jong, E. J. (2012). Teacher discourse and peer interaction in linguistically
diverse classrooms. In Y. Bogum & H. Kim (Eds.), Teachers’ roles in second lan-
guage learning: Classroom applications of sociocultural theory (pp. 191–212). Char-
lotte, NC: Information Age.
de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English
language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education
Quarterly, 32(2), 101–124.
de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2007). ESL is good teaching “plus”: Preparing stan-
dard curriculum teachers for all learners. In M. E. Brisk (Ed.), Language, culture,
and community in teacher education (pp. 127–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
de Jong, E. J., Harper, C. A., & Coady, M. R. (2013). Preparing mainstream teach-
ers for CLD students: Enhancing the knowledge and skills that teachers of
CLDs must have. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 89–97.
Flores, B. B., Sheets, R. H., & Clark, E. R. (2010). Teacher preparation for bilingual
student populations: Educar para transformer. New York, NY: Routledge.
Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding. Pacific
Grove, CA: Heinle & Heinle.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge base of lan-
guage teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–417. doi:10.2307/3588114
G!andara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English
language learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and profes-
sional development needs. Retrieved from http://www.cftl.org/centerviews/
july05.html
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Edu-
cation, 5(2), 106–116. doi:10.1177/0022487102053002003

26 TESOL QUARTERLY
Hadaway, N. (1993). Encountering linguistic diversity through letters: Preparing
preservice teachers for second language learners. Equity and Excellence in Educa-
tion, 26(3), 25–30. doi:10.1080/1066568930260305
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, England:
Edward Arnold.
Hancock, S. (2010). Perceptions about teaching and learning to teach English language
learners in elementary classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of Florida, Gainesville.
Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching ELLs. Jour-
nal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152–162.
Harper, C. A., de Jong, E. J., & Platt, E. (2008). Marginalizing English as a second
language teacher expertise: The exclusionary consequence of No Child Left
Behind. Language Policy, 7, 267–284. doi:10.1007/s10993-008-9102-y
Harper, C., & Platt, E. (1998). Full inclusion for secondary school ESOL students:
Some concerns from Florida. TESOL Journal, 7(5), 30–36.
Haworth, P. (2005). Developing praxis for a few non-English speaking background
students in the class. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 2(1), 31–33.
Haworth, P. (2009). The quest for a mainstream EAL pedagogy. Teachers College
Record, 111, 2179–2208.
Karabenick, S. A., & Noda, P. A. C. (2004). Professional development implications
of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward English language learners. Bilingual
Research Journal, 28(1), 55–75. doi:10.1080/15235882.2004.10162612
Karathanos, K. A. (2009). Exploring US mainstream teachers’ perspectives on use
of the native language in instruction with English language learner students.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12, 615–633.
doi:10.1080/13670050802372760
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of the
inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 279–296. doi:10.1177/
074193250002100505
Kibler, A. K., & Roman, D. (2013). Insights into professional development for
teachers of English language learners: A focus on using students’ native lan-
guage in the classroom. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(2), 187–207.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition
in the classroom. London, England: Prentice Hall Europe.
Laczko-Kerr, L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). The effects of “Teach for America” and
other under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of
harmful public policy. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37), 1–55.
Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu
Lucas, T., & Grinberg, J. (2008). Responding to the linguistic reality of main-
stream classrooms: Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners.
In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of
research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp.
606–636). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers:
Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 52
(2), 98–109. doi:10.1080/00405841.2013.770327
Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive
teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learn-
ers. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 361–373. doi:10.1177/0022487108322110
Menken, K., & Antu~ nez, B. (2001). An overview of the preparation and certification of
teachers working with limited English proficient (LEP) students. Washington, DC:
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

AIMING FOR EQUITY 27

Migration Policy Institute. (2007). Actual immigration to the United States: The real
numbers. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FS16_USImmi-
gration_051807.pdf
Minaya-Rowe, L. (2002). Teacher training and effective pedagogy in the context of student
diversity. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Minaya-Rowe, L. (2006). Training teachers through their students’ first language. In
K. T! ellez & H. Waxman (Eds.), Preparing quality educators for English language learn-
ers: Research, policy and practice (pp. 23–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mohan, B. (2001). The second language as a medium of learning. In B. Mohan,
C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream:
Teaching, learning, and identity (pp. 107–126). London, England: Pearson.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonz!alez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for
teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. The-
ory Into Practice, 31, 132–141. doi:10.1080/00405849209543534
National Association for Language Development in the Curriculum. (2013). EAL
achievement. Retrieved from http://www.naldic.org.uk/research-and-informa-
tion/eal-statistics/ealachievement
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest of education statistics: English
language learners. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/
tables/dt09_124.asp
Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2011). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicul-
tural education (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Programme for
international student assessment (PISA) results from 2012. Retrieved from http://
www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm
Palmer, D., & Mart!ınez, A. R. (2013). Teacher agency in bilingual spaces: A fresh
look at preparing teachers to educate Latina/o bilingual children. Review of
Research in Education, 37, 269–297. doi:10.3102/0091732X12463556
Project DELTA. (2014). Resources for teachers and teacher educators. Retrieved from
http://education.ufl.edu/project-delta/resources-for-teachers-and-teacher-edu-
cators/
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspec-
tive. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sharpe, T. (2006). “Unpacking scaffolding”: Identifying discourse and multimodal
strategies that support student learning. Language and Education, 20(3), 211–231.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Co-operative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Sleeter, C. (2014). Toward teacher education research that informs policy. Educa-
tional Researcher, 43, 146–153. doi:10.3102/0013189X14528752
Tang, G. (1992). Teaching content knowledge and ESOL in multicultural class-
rooms. TESOL Journal, 2(2), 8–12.
T!
ellez, K., & Waxman, H. C. (2006). Preparing quality educators for English language
learners: Policies and practices. New York, NY: Routledge.
Timperley, H. S., & Parr, J. M. (2009). Chain of influence from policy to practice
in the New Zealand literacy strategy. Research Papers in Education, 24(2), 135–
154. doi:10.1080/02671520902867077
Turkan, S., de Oliveira, L. C., Lee, O., & Phelps, G. (2014). Proposing a knowl-
edge base for teaching academic content to English language learners: Disci-
plinary linguistic knowledge. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–30.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (1990). League of
United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) et al. vs. State Board of Education et al. Con-
sent Decree. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/aala/lulac.asp

28 TESOL QUARTERLY
 U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). The newly arrived foreign-born population of the United
States. Retrieved http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-16.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Federal guidelines for improving teacher quality.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg20.html
Verkler, K. W., & Hutchinson, C. (2002). You can lead a horse to water but . . . :
ESOL faculty mentors reflect on their experiences. SRATE Journal, 11(1), 16–
28.
Verplaetse, L. S. (2008). Developing academic language through an abundance of
interaction. In L. S. Verplaetse & N. Migliacci (Eds.), Inclusive pedagogy for Eng-
lish language learners: A handbook of research-informed practices (pp. 167–180). New
York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wagner, S. (2006). What happens when there are only a few English language
learners in a school district? In E. Hamayan & R. Freeman (Eds.), English lan-
guage learners at school: A guide for administrators (pp. 217–219). Philadelphia, PA:
Caslon.
Walker, A., Shafer, J., & Iams, M. (2004). “Not in my classroom”: Teacher attitudes
towards English language learners in the mainstream classroom. NABE Journal,
2(1), 130–160.
Williams, P., Steigenga, T., & Vasquez, M. (2009). A place to be: Brazilian, Guatema-
lan, and Mexican immigrants in Florida’s new destinations. New Brunswick, NJ: Rut-
gers University Press.
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research:
Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle: University of Washington,
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved from http://depts.wash-
ington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPrep-WFFM-02-2001.pdf
Wong-Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language.
Retrieved from http://people.ucsc.edu/~ktellez/wong-fill-snow.html
Woods, W. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and
classroom practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Youngs, C. S., & Youngs, G. A. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers’ attitudes
toward ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 97–120.

AIMING FOR EQUITY 29

View publication stats