Received: 9 August 2019 | Accepted: 22 January 2020

DOI: 10.1111/flan.12441

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Two‐way immersion teacher preparation

Sally J. Hood

The Challenge
Preparation of two‐way immersion (TWI) teachers presents challenges for institutions
of higher education. What are some essential skills, knowledge, and dispositions needed
by effective TWI teachers? What experiences should teacher preparation programs
provide for novice TWI teachers? How important are field experiences in a TWI
classroom for preparing TWI teachers?

School of Education, University of

Portland, Portland, Oregon Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to docu-
Correspondence
Sally J. Hood, School of Education,
ment the skills, knowledge, and dispositions needed
University of Portland, 5000 Willamette for effective two‐way immersion (TWI) teacher
Boulevard, Portland, OR 97018. training based on the perspectives of those practi-
Email: hood@up.edu
cing in the field. The research questions explored
Funding information how preservice teachers, practicing TWI teachers,
American Council on The Teaching of
and TWI administrators perceived the skills,
Foreign Languages, Grant/Award Number:
ACTFL's 2018 Research Priorities Initiative knowledge, and dispositions needed for effective
TWI teaching, how they viewed the challenges for
TWI teacher preparation programs and the role of a
TWI field experience. The findings revealed that
field experiences in a TWI classroom are essential
for learning the complex pedagogy required for
effective dual language education. The findings also
showed that long‐term study abroad experiences in
regions other than the mother country are necessary
for expanding novice TWI teachers' language skills,
specifically the learning of other dialects. Additional
findings showed that TWI teachers' work extends
beyond typical teacher capabilities, such as the

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
© 2020 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages

Foreign Language Annals. 2020;1–21. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/flan | 1

2 | HOOD

teaching of academic content and literacy in two

languages. This study also found that passion is
fundamental for effective TWI teaching because it
can inspire teachers to advocate for the program
model and multilingualism. Based on the findings,
the researcher recommends that TWI teacher pre-
paration programs require specialized dual language
education courses and field experiences.

KEYWORDS
teacher development, teacher preparation, dual language/two‐way
immersion, all languages

1 | INTRODUCTION

The draft of The National Dual Language Education Teacher Preparation Standards (Guerrero
& Lachance, 2018) provides institutions of higher education with a challenging task. These
standards were developed through on‐going conversations with experts in the bilingual
education field beginning in 2015 in New Mexico and published for scholarly feedback. The six
standards are:

• Bilingualism and Biliteracy

• Sociocultural Competence
• Dual Language Instructional Practices and Pedagogy
• Authentic Assessment in Dual Language
• Professionalism, Advocacy, and Agency
• Program Design and Curricular Leadership (Guerrero & Lachance, 2018)

Each standard is divided into components, competencies, and crosswalks with the Guiding
Principles for Dual Language Education (Howard et al., 2018), along with the Interstate New
Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (inTASC), Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL), and American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
standards. The knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed by effective two‐way immersion (TWI)1
teachers expose the complexity of cultivating bilingual and bicultural citizens in the United States.
Simultaneously, a critical need for well‐prepared TWI teachers exists across the United
States (Commission on Language Learning, American Academy of the Arts & Sciences, 2017;
Lopez & Santibanez, 2018), particularly at the secondary level (Lyons, 2018). The most pressing
obstacle is finding teachers who have both the high level of language proficiency required to
teach subject matter in the partner language (PL),2 along with the required complex pedago-
gical skills (Fortune, 2012). An examination, conducted by the author, of university TWI tea-
cher preparation programs and corresponding state teacher licensing requirements revealed
that TWI teachers must possess at least an Advanced‐Mid language proficiency level as assessed
by the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI). Several states are funding the establishment of new
TWI K‐12 programs and extending those already in operation, which means more demand for
HOOD | 3

well‐prepared TWI teachers. One example is Washington state where the Washington State
Legislature passed the Dual Language in Early Learning and K‐12 Education law (Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2017), allocating grant funds for start‐up and expansion of
TWI programs. Over a third of Washington's districts plan to build or expand TWI programs in
the next 5 years (Ingram & Finnegan, 2019). One of the most difficult hurdles for the growing
number of TWI programs is the hiring of teachers who possess the high level of expertise
demanded by the field.

2 | BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Given the call for highly trained TWI teachers, the author initiated a TWI teacher training
program in the School of Education at a small private university in a Pacific Northwest state.
The researcher first examined 10 current U.S. university TWI teacher preparation programs to
look for similarities among requirements. From this research, the author created a draft of TWI
teacher education pathways for pre‐service teachers that fit into the university's small teacher
education program. The researcher established a partnership with a nearby school district that
has two elementary TWI programs, two TWI middle school programs, and one TWI high school
program. The present research study ensued with the purpose of soliciting the perspectives of
those practicing in the field. The research questions explored:

1. How preservice teachers, practicing TWI teachers, and TWI administrators perceived the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for effective TWI teacher preparation.
2. How preservice teachers, TWI teachers, and TWI administrators viewed the challenges for
preparing effective TWI teachers.
3. How preservice teachers, TWI teachers, and TWI administrators viewed the role of a TWI
field experience.

3 | LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review first provides foundational knowledge about dual language education
(DLE) and its benefits. Next, the literature review presents some of the challenges for the
preparation of TWI teachers that have been identified through previous research. This literature
review also highlights current research findings that scholars have found to be pertinent for the
preparation of TWI teachers, such as developing critical consciousness. Although recent re-
search on the preparation of TWI teachers is scant, the literature review also contains sum-
maries of studies in which the findings overlap with the findings in the present study (such as
TWI teachers' multiple roles). Therefore, the literature review provides the reader with back-
ground knowledge about what is already known about TWI teacher preparation as well as what
is lacking, providing a context for why this study was needed.

3.1 | DLE

DLE in the United States, as outlined by Hamayan, Genesee, and Cloud (2013), is comprised of
three program types: foreign language immersion, developmental bilingual education, and TWI.
4 | HOOD

Foreign language immersion programs are designed for a linguistically homogeneous student
population of native English speakers who are learning the same second language (L2).
Developmental bilingual programs aim to develop the first language (L1) of speakers of the
same language (a language other than English). TWI programs are intended for native English
speakers and native L2 speakers (Tedick & Wesely, 2015) who learn the PL and English
together. Fortune and Tedick (2008) define a language immersion program as having instruc-
tional use of the L2 to teach subject matter for at least fifty percent of the school day. Instruction
in the L2 may range from 50% to 90% of the school day, giving rise to the program descriptors
“fifty‐fifty” and “ninety‐ten” (Potowski, 2004). The 90:10 model is more promising for ensuring
that learners reach grade‐level achievement in the L2 (Thomas & Collier, 2002). Regardless of
the program model, recent research has found that DLE programs provide benefits for all
learners, including those who receive special education services (Collier & Thomas, 2017).

3.2 | Advantages of DLE programs

The effectiveness of the TWI program model for promoting bilingualism, biculturalism, and
biliteracy, given several years of participating in an effective program, is well established through
research (Collier & Thomas, 2017; K. Lindholm‐Leary, 2016). Both native English speakers and
non‐native English speakers who begin a TWI program in kindergarten and continue through
fifth grade outperform their monolingual peers (who participate in English‐only programs) on
standardized tests in English (K. J. Lindholm‐Leary & Borsato, 2006). Moreover, research has
shown that the longer a non‐native speaker of English is taught in his or her first language, the
better they perform academically (K. Lindholm‐Leary & Genesee, 2010). Current research by
Burkhauser et al. (2016) revealed that students (regardless of language) participating in TWI
programs, beginning in kindergarten, reached an intermediate‐low proficiency level in all four
language skills, as measured by the Standards‐Based Measurement of Proficiency (STAMP) by
eighth grade. More generally, research increasingly reveals the benefits of speaking more than
one language, including increased creativity (Kharkhurin, 2015) and enhanced executive function
(Bialystok, 2016). Although DLE programs are ideal for offering young learners long‐term daily
language practice, DLE programs operate with on‐going challenges.

3.3 | Challenges for TWI teacher preparation

One challenge for DLE programs relates to the lack of time that language learners use the PL in
the classroom (Ballinger & Lyster, 2011; de Jong & Bearse, 2011; Potowski, 2004). The American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL, 2010) published a position statement
recommending that teachers and their students use the L2 at 90% plus, at all levels of
instruction. Research shows that this expectation presents a hurdle for teachers and students
(LeLoup, Ponterio, & Warford, 2013) that might be remedied by providing more opportunities
for structured and creative oral use of the TL, a stronger language policy in the classroom, and
teacher professional development focused on oral language practice activities and management
of them (K. Lindholm‐Leary, 2012). Several studies have shown that the powerful status of the
English language trumps the use of the PL (Ballinger, 2017).
Burkhauser et al. (2016) conducted a study of DLE programs (one‐way and two‐way) in a
large Pacific Northwest school district. One of their two research questions focused on the
HOOD | 5

extent that first through seventh‐grade teachers and students used the PL during instruction.
The researchers conducted 75 classroom observations (with a focus on language use), using an
observation protocol, over 1 year. Findings revealed that teachers mostly adhered to using the
PL (close to 100% of the time they were observed). Conversely, only 20% of the observed class
periods revealed students using the PL to speak to peers during pair or group work. Study
findings showed that students spoke with the teacher in the PL a higher percentage of time than
they did when speaking with peers. The researchers recommended that student oral language
use in DLE classrooms in this school district be an area of focus for teacher professional
development. Specifically, it would be advantageous for TWI teachers to learn strategies for
promoting, managing, and assessing student oral language use.

3.4 | Critical consciousness

Currently, there is much scholarly discussion about the importance of developing TWI teachers'
critical consciousness and providing opportunities for their self‐examination of linguistic
ideologies (Alfaro, 2019, 2018; Briceño, Rodriguez‐Mojica & Muñoz‐Muñoz, 2018; Cervantes‐
Soon et al., 2017; Faltis & Valdés; 2016; Hernández, 2017; Palmer, 2018; Palmer, Cervantes‐
Soon, Dorner & Heiman, 2019; Varghese & Snyder, 2018). Critically conscious TWI teachers
value their emerging multiliguals' (EMs)3 cultural backgrounds and language varieties and
infuse their funds of knowledge into pedagogy. Examination of linguistic ideologies involves
teachers analyzing beliefs about language learning and the value of language varieties in tan-
dem with an examination of the sociopolitical power of languages. Advocating for linguistic
diversity is a part of the aim, as well as investigating one's own cultural identity. Palmer et al.
(2019) asserted that critical consciousness in TWI programs requires: “(a) continuously inter-
rogating power, (b) historicizing schools, (c) critical listening, and (d) engaging with dis-
comfort” (2019, p. 124). The authors argued that critical consciousness needs to be a goal of
TWI programs, accordingly, developing critical consciousness should be a goal of TWI teacher
preparation.
Briceño et al. (2018) studied 11 heritage Spanish‐speaker teacher candidates' beliefs about
academic language and how those beliefs influenced their decisions to become bilingual tea-
chers. Through audio‐recorded semi‐structured interviews, the researchers found that teacher
candidates' Spanish varieties were not valued in the K‐12 education system, nor during college
Spanish language courses. The emphasis on the use of standard Spanish impacted their self‐
esteem and they felt unprepared to teach academic Spanish. The candidates' experiences with
the devaluing of their Spanish varieties pushed them to want to become bilingual teachers so
they could have opportunities to value their future K‐12 students' Spanish language assets. The
researchers recommended that bilingual teacher preparation programs validate heritage
Spanish speakers' language varieties and cultures, provide education courses taught in Spanish,
and include ample class discussions around linguism (2018).
Varghese and Snyder (2018) explored the development of four (three of whom were identified
as Latinx4) TWI preservice teacher candidates' professional identities and agency in connection
with their elementary level teacher education preparation program in Washington state. The
researchers' qualitative data collection included interviews and classroom observations (during
the candidates' practica) over the course of 1 year. Findings revealed that the teacher education
program lacked TWI‐focused courses, and this oversight carried over into the practica during
which the candidates received little feedback related to TWI pedagogy. Similar to the Briceño
6 | HOOD

et al. (2018) study, teacher candidates felt their Spanish varieties were downgraded during the
practica which resulted in them believing they did not have the type and level of Spanish needed
for teaching in a TWI program. Varghese and Snyder (2018) also found that the teacher candi-
dates possessed a strong agency, because of their histories of marginalization in the classroom.
The authors concluded with the recommendation that bilingual teacher preparation programs
build in opportunities for teacher candidates to explore their own identities, particularly in
connection with the history of bilingual education in the United States.

3.5 | TWI teachers' multiple roles

Lachance (2017a) conducted a qualitative case study with two TWI school principals in North
Carolina. One of her research questions explored the principals' recommendations for TWI
teacher preparation. Data collection included interviews, observations, and document analysis.
Open‐ended coding procedures revealed that both principals stressed that TWI teachers need to
be well‐prepared to teach academic language in the L1 and PLs. The principals also re-
commended that TWI teacher preparation programs include an emphasis on how to develop
EMs biliteracy, how to effectively work with emerging multilinguals' families, how to develop
and use authentic assessments, immersion methodology, and that they need to require long‐
term clinical practice. Based on this research, Lachance recommended that TWI teacher pre-
paration programs redesign coursework so that it reflects the current demands of the TWI field.
She suggested that collaboration between multiple stakeholders and augmented clinical prac-
tice would improve TWI teacher preparation.
Faltis and Valdés (2016) stressed that teachers of language learners require knowledge about
sociolinguistics, first language acquisition, second language acquisition, and bilingualism.
Galguera (2011) put forward the concept of “pedagogical language knowledge,” which involves
introspection on the meaning of language, its development, and diversity, the role of language
in learning academic content, and skills with scaffolding strategies for a variety of student
language proficiencies, strengths, and needs. Faltis and Valdés unpacked pedagogical language
knowledge by suggesting specific ways to scaffold, including using “extralinguistic support”
(2016, p. 575), withdrawing scaffolds, “transfer of responsibility” to students, and interactive
feedback (2016, p. 575). The authors suggested including teacher inquiry research to assist
teacher candidates in developing pedagogical language knowledge. This process involves
creating questions focused on instructional practices, collecting and analyzing data, adapting
instruction, and sharing knowledge with colleagues. The authors concluded by stating that
teacher educators are “the first‐line advocates” (2016, p. 581) for emerging multilinguals. The
findings from Lachance's (2017a) research, along with Galguera's (2011) concept of pedagogical
language knowledge, create distinct and varied roles for TWI teachers, including an extended
time practicing in the field.

3.6 | Importance of practical experience

Lachance (2017b) also conducted a qualitative case study with six elementary TWI teachers as
the participants, three from North Carolina and three from New Mexico. Using interviews,
observations, and document analysis, Lachance sought the teachers' recommendations for TWI
teacher preparation programs. The teachers felt that during their preparation, the courses were
HOOD | 7

too general and did not provide them with the pedagogical knowledge and skills they needed as
novice TWI teachers, especially in the areas of language acquisition, biliteracy, TWI pedagogy,
use of authentic materials, and scaffolding. All the participants asserted they needed more
clinical fieldwork in TWI classrooms. Lachance concluded that TWI teacher preparation pro-
grams must increase the clinical fieldwork and revamp coursework. She also recommended that
study abroad experiences that focus on pedagogy and academic language development would
enhance in‐service TWI teachers' bilingualism and biliteracy.

3.7 | Need for further research

Studies on the preparation of TWI teachers are scant. Faltis and Valdés (2016) claimed that,
“clearly, more and better research is needed if teacher educators are to be better informed about
how to most effectively prepare preservice teachers for teaching in linguistically diverse
classrooms” (2016, p. 551). As Faltis and Valdés asserted, “it is morally bankrupt to wait for
empirical research to inform teacher educators what to do to prepare teachers, when we are so
clearly failing to appropriately teach many students” (2016, p. 552). The qualitative study
reported here sought to contribute to the DLE literature by investigating the essential skills,
knowledge, and dispositions needed for effective TWI teacher preparation. Data collection was
based on the following research questions:

1. How do preservice teachers, practicing TWI teachers, and TWI administrators perceive the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for effective TWI teacher preparation?
2. How do preservice teachers, TWI teachers, and TWI administrators view the challenges for
preparing effective TWI teachers?
3. How do preservice teachers, TWI teachers, and TWI administrators view the role of a TWI
field experience?

4 | M ETHODS

4.1 | Participants

Grounded theory was employed as a qualitative research methodology because the intent
was to generate hypotheses from the participants' knowledge and experiences (Auerbach &
Silverstein, 2003). The grounded theory method “involves developing hypotheses after the
data are collected” (2003, p. 7). In this study, hypotheses were developed from what the
participants stated during discussions and in written documents. Although the researcher
created the research questions before data were collected, Auerbach and Silverstein assert
that researchers using a grounded theory method may not know the right questions to ask
until data are collected and analyzed. Thus, the research questions for this study were
adjusted after data collection and data analysis based on participants' responses. In grounded
theory methodology, researchers do not use the literature to generate hypotheses because
the premise is to identify problems that are “open and unclear” (2003, p. 15). To conclude,
grounded theory was chosen by the researcher because participants had direct contact
with TWI programs and the researcher wanted to “learn about their lived experience”
(2003, p. 15).
8 | HOOD

The researcher recruited three university juniors to participate in this investigation. All
three had recently returned from a six‐week study abroad experience in Quito, Ecuador. The
male, majoring in secondary education, had also completed a 4‐week internship in Spain. The
two females, majoring in elementary education, had taken a DLE foundation course the pre-
vious year. All three enthusiastically agreed to a 72‐hr field placement in TWI classrooms. They
were paid stipends for their gas to drive to the schools and compensated for a time commitment
of 1 year of journaling, participation in six focus group discussions, and completing a pre‐ and
postsurvey. The money paid to the university students came from a small grant that the re-
searcher received prior to the study. The principal of Herman Elementary School (where TWI is
a strand within the school), the principal of Gibson Middle School that houses a TWI program,
and 10 TWI teachers also agreed to participate in the study (the names of both schools are
pseudonyms). The teachers and administrators' experience working in TWI programs ranged
from 2 to 14 years, with a mean of 7 years.

4.2 | Procedures

Data collection involved one interview, focus group discussions, journal prompts, and a pre‐
and postsurvey. First, the researcher conducted an hour‐long interview with the elementary
school principal that was digitally recorded. The researcher took hand‐written notes during the
interview while using a semi‐structured interview protocol that the researcher created based on
the research questions (see Appendix A). A couple of weeks after the interview, the researcher
conducted a one‐hour focus group discussion with both administrators and six teachers. The
discussion took place at Herman Elementary School. A week later, the researcher conducted
another focus group discussion at Gibson Middle School with four other teachers. The same
questions were used for both discussions and each discussion was digitally recorded and
transcribed by the researcher (see Appendix B). The reason for two separate discussions was
due to scheduling constraints. The researcher began the focus group discussion by asking the
participants for feedback on a draft of the TWI pathways she developed for the university's
School of Education. This was followed by a discussion using the focus group protocol as a
guide. All prompts, focus group discussion questions, and surveys were developed by the
researcher to extract details that would answer the three research questions. One of the dis-
advantages of focus group discussions is that one or more participants may dominate the
conversation, inhibiting others from expressing their experiences or opinions (Pearson &
Vossler, 2016). However, one of the main advantages, from a social constructivist view, is that
opinions are likely to be socially constructed through the interactions of a group (Pearson &
Vossler, 2016). The author believes that the participant dynamics inherent in a focus group
discussion contributes to richer findings particularly when the participants all share a common
expertise, which in this case was DLE.
The university juniors completed their 72‐hr field experiences in TWI classrooms. The two
females were placed at Herman Elementary School with two of the TWI teachers who parti-
cipated in one of the focus group discussions. The male university student was placed at Marvin
Middle School, which is in the same school district and which also houses a TWI program. His
cooperating teacher also participated in one of the focus group discussions. The university
students' field placements occurred before the research began. The university juniors hand
wrote responses to questions on the pre‐ and postfield experience surveys (see Appendices C
and D). The focus group discussions with the university juniors took place once per month,
HOOD | 9

three during the fall semester, and two during the spring semester; the discussions took place in
the researcher's university office (see Appendix E). The journal prompts were sent to the
university juniors via an email attachment, one after they began their field experiences and the
second one at the mid‐term of the field experiences (see Appendix F). The research was ap-
proved by the university's IRB and the school district's research approval process. All data
collection instruments used in the present study can be freely downloaded on the IRIS Data-
base; iris‐database.org.

4.3 | Analyses

Data were analyzed using a coding procedure outlined by Auerbach and Silverstein (2003)
which has a step‐by‐step process. After transcribing focus group discussions, the researcher
identified relevant text in each data set by using the highlighting function on Word documents.
For each set of data, the next step comprised reading through all relevant text to find “repeating
ideas” (2003, p. 54). A Word document was created for each data set of repeating ideas. Next, a
master list of all repeating ideas from all data sets was developed. Repeating ideas that were
similar or the same were grouped together in separate files; each file contained similar re-
peating ideas. Each set of repeating ideas was then named to capture their essence and sub-
sequently expanded into themes. The next step involved grouping the themes into “theoretical
constructs” (2003, p. 67) or abstract concepts related to a theoretical framework. The last step
involved creating a theoretical narrative using participants' voices. Manual coding was chosen
because the researcher did not have access to computer‐assisted data analysis software pro-
grams due to a lack of funding. Although computer‐assisted qualitative data analysis has its
advantages, issues of validity and reliability still exist (Welsh, 2002). Further, manual coding is
considered more appropriate for small research studies (Basit, 2003).

5 | FINDINGS

5.1 | Participants' views on the skills, knowledge, and dispositions

needed for effective TWI teaching

Participants' comments regarding TWI teacher preparation highlighted a special role for study
abroad. Every participant asserted that study abroad is essential for growing a TWI teacher's
language proficiency and for increasing cultural competence. As for cultural competence, two
in‐service teachers (ISTs) pointed out that learning how to interact with local people while
abroad would transfer to working with families of TWI students. (It is important to note that in
this study the elementary school has a high level of parental involvement.) One elementary IST
commented that TWI teachers “need to have a comfort level with culturally different people.”
Study abroad is critical for all teachers of World Languages (WL), but participants in this study
indicated that it takes on a unique role for TWI teachers in that TWI teachers need more
contact with students' families, especially at the elementary level. The ISTs' stated that families
require on‐going reminders about the length of time it takes for their children to reach grade‐
level expectations in academic subjects, particularly in English. It is important to note here that
research shows students in TWI programs do not reach grade‐level norms until fifth grade
(Hamayan et al., 2013; K. Lindholm‐Leary & Howard, 2008) because they are learning academic
10 | HOOD

content in two languages. This characteristic of elementary TWI programs can be difficult for
families to accept, making TWI teachers' communication with families vital to help ensure that
TWI students continue to participate in the program.
Another way study abroad is unique for preparation of TWI teachers relates to where the
study abroad experience takes place. Four ISTs recommended that study abroad take place
where the families of the K‐12 students are from and where the dialects of these students are
spoken. They recommended Mexico rather than places such as Ecuador or Spain, because a
high number of the ISTs' (participants in this study) students are of Mexican background.
Participants' comments align with The National Dual Language Education Teacher Preparation
Standards (Guerrero & Lachance, 2018) which stress the importance of incorporating students'
funds of knowledge into the curriculum to increase relevancy for learners. This means TWI
teachers must have knowledge about their students' and their families' backgrounds, including
how to negotiate cultural differences in the classroom and during interactions with families at
and outside of school.
All participants commented on how study abroad helps with the high level of language
proficiency needed to teach academic content, one of the most critical aspects differentiating
TWI programs from traditional WL programs. All three PSTs and all ISTs asserted that the
longer the study abroad experience the better, and if possible, two study abroad experiences
would be best to advance academic language proficiency in the PL. The three PSTs and four
ISTs stated they would not have been able to manage TWI teaching or the TWI field experience
without having studied abroad. One secondary PST stated, “I highly encourage a study abroad
experience. I wouldn't be able to do this [field experience] without the Quito study abroad
experience.” Three ISTs commented that without a study abroad component, TWI teacher
candidates would most likely not be able to meet the Advanced‐Mid language proficiency
requirement. The secondary middle school principal expressed that there is a great need in
secondary TWI programs for content majors who have high levels of Spanish in order to be able
to teach the academic language inherent in content areas, such as science. Both the ISTs and
the PSTs recommended that university teacher education programs include courses taught in a
PL. One elementary PST exclaimed that “Spanish‐only classes should be required, such as
reading, word problems in math, terminology, and academic language. Experience what the
TWI students do [sic]. Experience it!” An elementary PST advised TWI teacher candidates to
persevere:

Advice I would give to a pre‐service teacher is don't give up because you don't know
academic language. You will learn it as you teach. It is not something that you
naturally learn when taking a second language class.

Another theme that appeared in both the PSTs' and the ISTs' responses was the role of
dispositions for effective TWI teaching. Four ISTs and the elementary school principal em-
phasized the importance of passion. An elementary IST stated that “You must be passionate for
language learning, have passion for kids, and fuel the passion to the learners.” A secondary IST
exclaimed, “It's a lot of work, the passion will drive you.” The participants' emphasis on passion
is connected to the promotion of the goals of TWI programs which generally are to promote
bilingualism, biculturalism, and biliteracy, beginning at a young age. The elementary principal
underlined the importance of passion because in her school the TWI program is a strand within
the school that requires an ongoing effort to keep the status of the TWI program high. Both
principals stressed that TWI teachers need to know TWI research, such as benefits of the
HOOD | 11

program model and the time it takes for the benefits to appear, so TWI teachers can “teach the
parents the why.” One elementary IST teacher claimed that “TWI teachers need to have the
disposition to speak up and advocate for the TWI program, its benefits, and long‐term nature.”
Given the reluctance among U.S. citizens about the need to learn languages other than English,
(Commission on Language Learning, 2017) advocacy is vitally important for keeping TWI
programs intact and in fueling their growth.

5.2 | Participants' views on the challenges for preparing effective

TWI teachers

All participants discussed the difficulty of maintaining their own use of and students' use of
Spanish, particularly when it comes to classroom management. This relates to the importance
of fidelity to the DLE program model.

An important characteristic of effective TWI teachers is fidelity to the program, staying

in the language. There are days when it is so hard. When you teach kindergarten,
trying to explain the classroom routines and procedures; you just want to explain this
or that in English because it would be easier. You must believe in the program and
stick to it. The programs that break down are the programs that resort to English,
(Elementary IST; Focus Group Discussion).

Three ISTs and all three PSTs stressed the difficulty of “enforcing” the use of Spanish among
the students. “It takes regular reminders, encouragement, and policing,” (Elementary PST;
Focus Group Discussion). This study revealed that difficulties with classroom management
resulted in some teachers using English to control the classroom (according to the PSTs). The
three PSTs expressed frustration that they did not have the language in Spanish to discipline
students. One of the elementary PSTs felt the greatest challenge of her field experience was
discipline. “During the Spanish part of the day, the kids are rowdy and hard to calm down; the
teacher has to use English.” The PSTs claimed that making themselves understood in Spanish
was a constant test and that English dominated Spanish among students' language use.
Another theme that emerged among participants' responses in addressing the question
about the challenges of TWI teacher preparation was the multifaceted nature of TWI instruc-
tion. The three PSTs and five ISTs repeatedly expressed that TWI teachers take on “double
duty.” For example, three of the ISTs talked about using “all the standards in both languages”
for curriculum development. The elementary school principal stated that she requires her TWI
teachers to use English language proficiency standards for English language development, the
California Spanish Language Development Standards for grades K‐12, and state content stan-
dards (such as math, science, social studies). Although public school teachers are required to
address state content standards, adding in the language component for both the development of
English and the PL increases the complexity of the scope and sequence of curriculum devel-
opment. Articulation between grade levels becomes fundamentally important as students'
language skills are spiraled and advanced from one grade level to the next while they learn
academic content. Two ISTs commented on the daily responsibility of “assessing language skills
and content knowledge,” along with “assessing and interpreting results in both languages.” Six
ISTs claimed they have an added layer of work that takes a high level of brainpower: “It's
double everything. We do so much more.”
12 | HOOD

5.3 | Participants' views of a TWI field experience

All three preservice teachers viewed their field experiences in TWI classrooms as imperative for
becoming effective TWI teachers. The three PSTs emphasized the value of practicing planning and
implementing lessons during their TWI field experiences, whether it be one‐on‐one assisting
learners with reading in English or the PL, guiding a reading group, or teaching a short math lesson
in Spanish. The secondary PST wrote that “forcing myself to work in an environment realistic to
being a teacher in an actual TWI program is by far the best way to prepare yourself.” The PSTs
found it especially beneficial to co‐plan and co‐teach with their mentor teachers: “the most ben-
eficial aspect of my field experience was actually practicing planning lessons with the teacher and
implementing them myself” (Elementary PST; Post‐Survey). The three PSTs recounted that when
they had opportunities to teach, it gave them practice managing the classroom.

It has been very valuable having to teach a lesson in Spanish by myself, because it has
forced me to think on my feet and be prepared to deal with student questions and
misbehaviors on my own. Though it was difficult to do, it helped me to realize all that
goes into classroom management and student behavioral expectations” (Elementary
PST; Focus Group Discussion).

The PSTs mentioned during three different focus group discussions how they enjoyed their
field experiences when there was a substitute for the mentor teacher because they had the
opportunity to “take over the class.” Although the substitutes were the official teachers of the
classroom, the PSTs mentioned that when there was a substitute they had “more opportunities
to teach in Spanish” because the substitutes often did not speak Spanish.
The PSTs indicated that the role of a mentor teacher during a TWI field experience is
multidimensional. All three mentioned that it would be helpful for mentor teachers to provide
feedback on “how they deal with the additional stress that comes with teaching in two different
languages.” One elementary PST stated that it is important for the mentor teacher to “allow
them to teach and work with students, along with giving feedback on their instruction.” All
three underscored the importance of good modeling and coaching, such as mentor teachers
showing them the best ways for students to gain understanding, demonstrating different ways
of teaching so all students understand the content, and teaching them the best ways to com-
municate via a new language. Learning and practicing how to implement (not just learn about
them in a course) these pedagogies requires practice under the guidance of an experienced TWI
teacher in an actual TWI classroom.

6 | D I S C U S S I ON

6.1 | Long‐term study abroad experiences in regions that correspond

to TWI K‐12 students' backgrounds and dialects

Adding to the findings from previous research on TWI teacher preparation, participants in this
study specifically recommended that TWI teacher candidates need to study abroad for a long
period of time in regions where K‐12 TWI students and their families are from and where
dialects of the PL are spoken. This type of study abroad experience would familiarize TWI
teacher candidates with another variety of the PL and increase their cultural knowledge, which
HOOD | 13

is likely to increase their sensitivity toward and rapport with K‐12 TWI students and their
families. This type of study abroad would differ from that recommended for WL teacher can-
didates because TWI teachers must communicate with students' families who are from different
cultural backgrounds and who likely speak a variety of the mother tongue. In addition,
although WL teachers need a high level of target language proficiency, they do not necessarily
need the added component of academic vocabulary required to teach content topics, such as
photosynthesis, statistics, or constitutional amendments. As reported in the literature review,
Lachance (2017a) documented that TWI teachers expressed a need for academic language
development. In conclusion, Lachance recommended, “study‐abroad experiences with elements
of pedagogical and academic language development as well as sociocultural communications
development” (2017a, p. 60). The findings from the present study build on Lachances' work
by indicating a tailored study abroad experience for TWI teacher candidates. This tailored
experience would require them to live in a geographic area that corresponds to TWI students'
family backgrounds and where a dialect of the standard language is spoken. This experience
would familiarize TWI teacher candidates with specific cultural practices and language use
relevant to the students and families with whom they work, boosting communication and
relationship building.

6.2 | Courses taught in a TWI PL

Similar to the Briceño et al. (2018) and Varghese and Snyders' (2018) studies, the PSTs in this
study found their academic Spanish was lacking. However, unlike the latter studies, the PSTs in
this study stated they did not plan to become TWI teachers. All three PSTs wrote on the
postsurvey they were unlikely to pursue teaching in a TWI classroom, due to the level and type
of academic language they felt was needed. This lack of confidence in their language abilities
emerged as they were immersed in the TWI classrooms; they felt they did not have the aca-
demic language, nor the “classroom” language to function as a TWI teacher. Building on
findings from previous studies, the three PSTs in this study were dissuaded from further
pursuing TWI teaching because of their feelings of inadequacy with Spanish. All three were
encouraged to complete their year‐long student teaching, slated for the following year, in TWI
classrooms; all three declined. Given the increase in TWI programs across the United States, it
seems imperative that TWI teacher preparation programs include coursework that is taught in a
PL in order to develop academic and classroom vocabulary and discourse to give TWI teacher
candidates the experience of being taught in a non‐native language. Courses such as these are a
rarity in university education departments, according to Guerrero and Lachance (2018). Ideally,
courses would focus on academic language development (Alfaro, 2018) and be geared toward
future TWI teachers' classroom language needs, such as the academic vocabulary necessary to
teach math, science, and social sciences. One way to make this feasible could involve a colla-
boration between education faculty and WL faculty at higher education institutions using a co‐
teaching model. Through a sharing of expertise, the education faculty member demonstrates
pedagogical methods for teaching a specific content area, such as math, while the language
faculty member provides the academic language needed to communicate concepts, procedures,
and information specific to the content area. In addition, discussions during university cour-
sework regarding what constitutes academic language, analysis of varieties of the PL (language
diversity), and examination of language ideologies would help promote development of TWI
teacher candidates' critical consciousness (Alfaro, 2019; Faltis and Valdés, 2016).
14 | HOOD

6.3 | The critical role of advocacy

Advocacy was a prominent theme among the participants in this study regarding TWI teacher
preparation. According to Dubetz and de Jong (2011), “definitions of advocacy emphasize
acting on behalf of others and encompass individual and collective efforts to shape public policy
in ways that ensure that individuals are treated equitably and have access to needed resources
(2011, p. 251). Findings from the Varghese and Snyder study led these researchers to conclude
that “the simple act of utilizing Spanish becomes an act of agency, resistance, and self‐
determination” (2018, p. 156). Findings from the study presented here extend beyond use of the
PL. Participants emphasized that TWI teachers must have passion. This passion can inspire
TWI teachers to become advocates of TWI programs, especially with stakeholders, such as
families, administrators, and non‐TWI teachers. In DLE, teachers advocate for their students
and their families through their pedagogy, communication, and collaboration. Through peda-
gogy, TWI teachers are knowledgeable about their students' and their families' backgrounds and
integrate this knowledge into the curriculum, capitalizing on funds of knowledge. In addition,
they recognize and value the PL dialects and use those dialects to teach the standard dialect.
Through pedagogy, TWI teachers know the importance of maintaining the status of the PL and
do so in part by adhering to the program model. Advocacy is also portrayed through com-
munication with students, families, and other stakeholders about the benefits of multi-
lingualism, about the amount of time it takes to learn another language, and about the features
of various DLE models. Collaboration is also a part of advocacy when it is time to work with
others to save a program, grow a program, or begin a new program. This may entail con-
versations with or formal presentations for policymakers or administrators. According to the
participants in this study, all this supplementary work necessitated by effective TWI programs
seems to be accomplished to some degree through a TWI teacher's passion for the TWI students
and their families, the PL, and the goals of the program model.

6.4 | TWI field experiences

Participants in this study highlighted the essential role of a field experience in a TWI classroom.
This finding corresponds to the research reported by Lachance in two different studies (2017a,
2017b) in which both principals and teachers emphasized the critical role of practice in TWI
classrooms with effective TWI teachers. As noted in the literature review, Varghese and Snyder
(2018) found that even though candidates were required to participate in a TWI field experi-
ence, they were not given much feedback related to TWI pedagogy. This study revealed that
dialogue in the form of guiding feedback from mentor teachers should be specific to TWI
pedagogy. The present study also builds upon findings from previous research through the
views of the preservice teachers who felt that the most valuable aspect of their field experiences
was collaborating with the mentor teachers in the planning of lessons and then implementing
them. Co‐planning and co‐teaching with mentor teachers assist novice TWI teachers with
the development of the complex pedagogical skills necessary for effective TWI instruction
(Fortune, 2012; Guerrero & Lachance, 2018), such as knowing the differences about how to
teach reading in English and the PL. Further adding to the literature, the present study found
that participants believed long‐term field experiences in TWI classrooms with passionate and
talented TWI teachers are vital to learning the complex pedagogy necessary for successful TWI
programs as described by Guerrero and Lachance (2018). Passionate TWI mentor teachers
HOOD | 15

could cultivate novice TWI teachers' passion for language teaching and language learners.
Developing this passion, novice teachers would more likely advocate for their language lear-
ners, including raising learners' awareness of the importance of multilingualism, language
diversity, and the important role of classroom oral language practice. This could help mitigate
the persistent use of English in language immersion classrooms (Ballinger, 2017), as noted in
the literature review. As mentioned in the introduction, the author of this study researched ten
higher education institutions in the United States that offer dual language teacher preparation
programs and found that only half of them require field experiences in TWI classrooms.
Findings from this study signal that this is a shortcoming that needs to be addressed to ensure
that TWI teacher preparation programs are of the highest quality.
Findings from this study connect well to Faltis and Valdés' (2016) framework for developing
pedagogical language knowledge (Galguera, 2011), as defined and discussed in the literature
review. In addition to studying language learning theories, research, and history during uni-
versity coursework, the authors recommended that novice language teachers learn how to
thoroughly and intentionally scaffold to facilitate language learning among their students.
According to participants' recommendations in this study, developing novice TWI teachers'
scaffolding skills would best be accomplished through a long‐term TWI field experience. Faltis
and Valdés suggested inquiry research for developing pedagogical language knowledge.
Through an inquiry, PSTs create questions about an aspect of pedagogy, experiment in the
classroom, and make adjustments based on data they collect. Using Faltis' and Valdés' inquiry
research framework as part of a TWI field experience could foster the critical consciousness
called for by current scholars (Alfaro, 2018, 2019; Briceño et al., 2018; Cervantes‐Soon
et al., 2017; Faltis & Valdés; 2016; Hernández, 2017; Palmer, 2018; Varghese & Snyder, 2018).
Through inquiry and reflection, novice TWI teachers may adjust their language ideologies,
become advocates for language learners and their families, and respect and elevate their
students' language and cultural assets (Alfaro, 2019). This “ideological clarity” (Alfaro, 2019,
p. 195) could serve as one way to ensuring the maintenance of TWI students' use of the PL and
promoting the “passion” that the participants spoke strongly about in this study.

7 | LI MIT ATIONS

The aim of this qualitative research was to describe and generate hypotheses about a particular
phenomenon (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003), in this case, TWI teacher preparation. The study
results are specific to this context and are not generalizable to other contexts, although they may be
transferable (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). The small number of participants limited the notions
about effective TWI teacher development, that in turn limited the development of theoretical
constructs. Also, although focus group discussions are effective because they explore the “collective”
(2003, p. 17) experience, one‐on‐one interviews with each TWI teacher might have led to additional
themes. Future studies might explore how novice TWI teachers learn to enact scaffolding strategies,
as outlined by Faltis and Valdés (2016), as they participate in field experiences with the guidance of
a mentor teacher. A study investigating the power of TWI teachers' “passion” on emerging multi-
linguals' oral use of the PL in a TWI classroom would be fascinating. Research examining how
novice TWI teachers infuse the curriculum with EMs funds of knowledge would further inform
TWI teacher preparation programs. In this study, participants linked the disposition of passion with
advocacy, meaning that TWI teachers need a passion for language learning and their emerging
multilinguals' academic achievement, which in turn stimulates advocacy for the TWI program.
16 | HOOD

8 | C ON C LU S I O N

This study contributes to the field of DLE because it underscores the unique role that fieldwork
in a TWI classroom and long‐term study abroad in places other than the mother country play in
the development of TWI teachers. As TWI programs continue to flourish, institutes of higher
education will be pressed to prepare effective TWI teachers who strive to meet the high ex-
pectations specified in the draft of the National Dual Language Teacher Education Standards
(Guerrero & Lachance, 2018). Topics, such as second language acquisition, the history of
bilingual education, and the role culture plays in learning overlap between the fields of ESL,
WL, and DLE. However, because DLE requires “double” the knowledge and skills, such as
teaching academic content and literacy in two languages, the author recommends at least two
specialized courses for dual language teacher candidates, in addition to long‐term study abroad
and at least a year‐long field experience in a TWI classroom. Specialized courses would ideally
be taught in a PL and focus on curriculum development, instruction, and assessment, specific to
DLE, as outlined in the draft of the National Dual Language Teacher Education Standards
(Guerrero & Lachance, 2018). Development of school‐university partnerships could promote
collaboration between TWI teacher candidates, local TWI teachers, and language teacher
educators. For example, passionate and competent TWI teachers and teacher educators could
co‐teach dual language‐specific courses in a hybrid manner with TWI teacher candidates
studying “theory” in an on‐line course and learn the “practice” in a TWI classroom. Given the
teacher shortage, along with the increase in TWI programs, teacher preparation programs need
to design creative ways to prepare TWI teachers. Through DLE, the United States has an
opportunity to take advantage of its vast linguistic diversity and become a multilingual society.

ACKNOWLEDGMEN TS
I thank the school district and school administrators for their support in giving me access to
their schools. I thank the teachers and preservice teachers for their passion and contributions. I
also thank the four anonymous reviewers for their feedback. The research for this article was
financially supported in part by the Research Priorities Project Grant offered by ACTFL. All
opinions expressed in this article are the view of the author and not necessarily of the funder.

E N DN O T E S
1
The author chose to use the term TWI because it specifies the integration of two languages and students from
two different language backgrounds.
2
PL refers to the language other than English used in TWI programs.
3
EMs refers to students who are learning additional languages beyond their first language.
4
Latinx is the current gender‐neutral term used instead of Latino or Latina.

ORCID
Sally J. Hood http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9431-3045

REFERENCES
ACTFL. (2010). Position statement on use of the target language in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Alfaro, C. (2018). The sociopolitical struggle and promise of bilingual teacher education: Past, present, and
future. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(4), 413–427.
HOOD | 17

Alfaro, C. (2019). Preparing critically conscious dual‐language teachers: Recognizing and interrupting dominant
ideologies. Theory into Practice, 58(2), 194–203.
Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and Analysis. NY:
New York University Press.
Ballinger, S. (2017). Examining peer language use and investment in a distinct North American immersion
context. International Multilingual Research Journal, 11(3), 184–198.
Ballinger, S., & Lyster, R. (2011). Student and teacher oral language use in a two‐way Spanish/English
immersion school. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 289–306.
Basit, T. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational Research, 45,
143–154.
Bialystok, E. (2016). Bilingual education for young children: Review of the effects and consequences.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(6), 666–679.
Briceño, A., Rodriguez‐Mojica, C., & Muñoz‐Muñoz, E. (2018). From English learner to Spanish learner:
Raciolinguistic beliefs that influence heritage Spanish speaking teacher candidates. Language and
Education, 32(3), 212–226.
Burkhauser, S., Steele, J. L., Li, J., Slater, R. O., Bacon, M., & Miller, T. (2016). Partner‐language learning trajectories
in dual‐language immersion: Evidence from an urban district. Foreign Language Annals, 49(3), 415–433.
Cervantes‐Soon, C. G., Dorner, L., Palmer, D., Heiman, D., Schwerdtfeger, R., & Choi, J. (2017). Combating
inequalities in two‐way language immersion programs: Toward critical consciousness in bilingual education
spaces. Review of Research in Education, 41, 403–427.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2017). Validating the power of bilingual schooling: Thirty‐two years of
large‐scale, longitudinal research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 1–15.
Commission on Language Learning, American Academy of the Arts & Sciences (2017). America's languages:
Investing in language education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Author.
de Jong, E. J., & Bearse, C. I. (2011). The same outcomes for all? High school students reflect on their two‐way
immersion program experiences. In D. Tedick, D. Christian & T. W. Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education:
Practices, policies, possibilities (pp. 104–122). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dubetz, N. E., & de Jong, E. J. (2011). Teacher advocacy in bilingual programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3),
248–262.
Faltis, C. J., & Valdés, G. (2016). Preparing teachers for teaching in and advocating for linguistically diverse
classrooms: A vade mecum for teacher educators. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research
on teaching (pp. 549–592). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Fortune, T. W. (2012). What the research says about immersion. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research
on Language Acquisition (CARLA), University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://carla.umn.edu/
immersion/documents/ImmersionResearch_TaraFortune.html
Fortune, T. W., & Tedick, D. J. (2008). Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Galguera, T. (2011). Participant structures as professional learning tasks and the development of pedagogical
language knowledge among preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(1), 85–106.
Guerrero, M. D., & Lachance, J. R. (2018). The National Dual Language Education Teacher Preparation
Standards. Albuquerque: Dual Language Education of New Mexico.
Hamayan, E., Genesee, F., & Cloud, N. (2013). Dual language instruction from A to Z. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Hernández, A. M. (2017). Reflective and transformative practice in bilingual teacher preparation: Examining
cross‐cultural and linguistic equity. Issues in Teacher Education, 26(2), 67–86.
Howard, E. R., Lindholm‐Leary, K. J., Rogers, D., Olague, N., Medina, J., Kennedy, B., Sugarman, J., …
Christian, D. (2018). Guiding principles for dual language education. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Ingram, A., & Finnegan, P. (2019). Washington state is on the move with dual language education. Soleado,
11(4), 1, 12, 13.
Kharkhurin, A. (2015). Bilingualism and creativity. An educational perspective. In W. Wright, S. Boun & O.
García (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 109–126). Malden, MA:
Wiley‐Blackwell.
18 | HOOD

Lachance, J. R. (2017a). A case study of dual language program administrators: The teachers we need.
International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 12(1), 48–65.
Lachance, J. R. (2017b). Case studies of dual language teachers: Conceptualizations on the complexities of
biliteracy for teacher preparation. NYS TESOL Journal, 4(2), 48–65.
LeLoup, J. W., Ponterio, R., & Warford, M. K. (2013). Overcoming resistance to 90% target language use:
Rationale, challenges, and suggestions. The NECTFL Review, 72(9), 45–60.
Lindholm‐Leary, K. (2012). Success and challenges in dual language education. Theory into Practice, 51, 256–262.
Lindholm‐Leary, K. (2016). Bilingualism and academic achievement in children in dual language programs.
In E. Nicoladis & S. Montanari (Eds.), Language and the humanlifespan series. Bilingualism across the lifespan:
Factors moderating language proficiency (pp. 203–223). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lindholm‐Leary, K., & Genesee, F. (2010). Alternative educational programs for english language learners. In
California Department of Education (Ed.), Improving Education for English Learners: Research‐Based
Approaches (pp. 323–382). Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.
Lindholm‐Leary, K., & Howard, E. (2008). Language development and academic achievement in two‐way
immersion programs. In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving
perspectives on immersion education (pp. 177–200). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm‐Leary, K. J., & Borsato, G. (2006). Academic achievement. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm‐Leary, W.
Saunders & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners (pp. 176–222). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Lopez, F., & Santibanez, L. (2018). Teacher preparation for emergent bilingual students: Implications of evidence
for policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(36), 1–39.
Lyons, J. L. (2018). Teacher preparation—Re‐engineering the pipeline, part III. Soleado, 10(4), 4–5.
Palmer, D. K. (2018). Supporting bilingual teachers to be leaders for social change: “I must create advocates for
biliteracy”. International Multilingual Research Journal, 12(3), 203–216.
Palmer, D. K., Cervantes‐Soon, C., Dorner, L., & Heiman, D. (2019). Bilingualism, biliteracy, biculturalism, and
critical consciousness for all: Proposing a fourth fundamental goal for two‐way dual language education.
Theory into Practice, 58(2), 121–133.
Pearson, D., & Vossler, A. (2016). Methodological issues in focus group research: The example of investigating
counsellors' experiences of working with same‐sex couples. Counselling Psychology Review, 31(1), 8–16.
Potowski, K. (2004). Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion classroom: Implications for
second language acquisition and heritage language maintenance. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1),
75–101.
Tedick, D. J., & Wesely, P. M. (2015). A review of research on content‐based foreign/second language education
in US K‐12 contexts. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 25–40.
Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students' long‐term
academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
Varghese, M. M., & Snyder, R. (2018). Critically examining the agency and professional identity development of
novice dual language teachers through figured worlds. International Multilingual Research Journal, 12(3),
145–159.
Welsh, E. (2002). Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis process. Forum: Qualitative
Social Research, 3(2), 20–26.

How to cite this article: Hood SJ. Two‐way immersion teacher preparation. Foreign
Language Annals. 2020;1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12441

AP PENDIX A: PRINCIPAL I NT ERVIEW P ROT OCOL

1. Tell me about your background and experience with TWI education.

2. What is the most challenging aspect of teaching in a TWI program?
HOOD | 19

3. What characteristics do effective TWI teachers possess?

4. What experiences do you think help the most in terms of preparing TWI teachers?
5. How important is it for teachers to teach 100% in the target language?
6. How important is it for students to speak 100% in the target language?
7. What is the role of a mentor teacher for supporting novice TWI teachers?

A P P E N D I X B : F O C U S G R O U P I N T E R V I E W P ROT O C O L

1. What characteristics do effective TWI teachers possess? Please consider skills, knowledge,
and dispositions.
2. What are some best practices in TWI teaching?
3. What is the most challenging aspect of teaching in a TWI program?
4. What experiences do you think help the most in terms of preparing TWI teachers?
5. What experiences do you think help the most in terms of preparing TWI teachers to learn
how to develop a unit of instruction?
6. What is the role of a mentor teacher for supporting novice TWI teachers as they prepare to
teach in a TWI program?

AP PENDIX C: PREF IELD EXPERIENCE S U RV EY

1. What is the primary purpose of a TWI education program?

2. What is the primary benefit for a K‐12 student who participates in a TWI program?
3. How is a TWI program different from a general education program?
4. What characteristics do you think effective TWI teachers possess?
5. What do you think is the most challenging aspect of teaching in a TWI program?
6. How important is it for teachers to teach 100% in the target language?
7. How important is it for students to speak 100% in the target language?
8. In what ways would a mentor teacher help/support you for future teaching in a TWI
program?
9. In what ways would a university supervisor help/support you for future teaching in a TWI
program?

AP PENDIX D: POS TFIELD EXPERIENCE SURVEY

1. What parts of your field experience did you find most beneficial in regard to learning how to
teach effectively in a TWI program? Please consider skills, knowledge, and dispositions.
2. What are some specific tasks that you think novice TWI teachers should do during field
experience that would help them learn about teaching in a TWI program?
3. What did you enjoy the most about your field experience this year?
4. What advice would you have for a novice TWI teacher who wants to become a TWI teacher?
5. How likely are you to pursue a job as a teacher in a TWI program? Please give a rational for
your response.
20 | HOOD

A P P E N D I X E : F O CU S G R O U P D I S C U S S I O N P R O T O CO LS WI T H
UNIVE R SITY ST UDE NTS

First focus group discussion

1. Please clarify placements your field experience placements: teacher, grade, days of week,
hours.
2. How is it going in general with your placements?
3. What have you learned about TWI?
4. Tell me what you've been doing.
5. What would you like to be doing?
6. What differences are you seeing between a general education classroom and a TWI
classroom?
7. Is there anything else you would like to discuss or mention regarding your placements?

Second focus group discussion

1. How are your placements going?
2. At this point in your field experience, what are your impressions about the effectiveness of
this type of program (in comparison to general education) for EMs?
3. What do you think are the challenges involved in being a TWI teacher?
4. Thinking about those challenges, what knowledge and skills do you think would be
important in preparing novice TWI teachers?

Third focus group discussion

1. What is your biggest takeaway so far?
2. What is something you would like to learn next semester?

Fourth focus group discussion

1. How are things going in your field experience? Any new developments?
2. How has your mentor teacher supported your growth in your knowledge, skills, and dis-
positions for teaching effectively in a TWI program?
3. What are some of the challenges you've encountered during your field experience?
4. What kinds of progress have you seen among the students since you started in September?

Fifth focus group discussion

1. Any new events or happenings?
2. Are Spanish and English on equal footing? Which is more powerful or apparent? Is more
time allocated to one language?
3. Do you think it is better to have simultaneous literacy (in both languages) or develop Spanish
first (sequential) or develop the native‐language first (sequential)?
4. What do you think the language policy should be in the classroom?
5. Do you think you have the language abilities to teach in a TWI classroom?
HOOD | 21

A P P E N D I X F : J O U R N A L PR O M P T S F O R TH E U N I V E R S I T Y S T U D E N T S

Prompt 1
1. How many of the students are native English speakers? Native Spanish‐speakers?
2. Which language do the native English speakers primarily use during class time? The native
Spanish‐speakers? In terms of which language they use, does it make a difference if they are
talking with the teacher or with each other? During whole class instruction and small
group work?
3. How does the teacher respond to students who speak in English during Spanish instructional
time? How does s/he encourage them to speak in Spanish?
4. In general, which group of students speak more often during class time, the native English
speakers or the native Spanish‐speakers?
5. In general, what do you observe about the native English speakers use of Spanish in regard to
fluency, grammar, pronunciation, etc.?
6. Please note anything else you observe about the students' use of Spanish and/or English.

Prompt 2
Please list what you have been doing during your field placement. This should include all tasks
(clerical, such as making copies, observations, one‐on‐one instruction with a student, small
group instruction, whole group instruction, participation in any after school events, assistance
at recess, etc.). Please be as detailed as possible about what exactly you did for each task and
how often you have done it.
Please also indicate which tasks have been most valuable to you and why, i.e., what you
have learned from experiencing them.