TESOL Guide For Critical Praxis in Teaching, Inquiry, and Advocacy

TESOL Guide for Critical
Praxis in Teaching,
Inquiry, and Advocacy
Jenifer Crawford
University of Southern California, USA
Robert A. Filback
A volume in the Advances in Educational

Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID)
Book Series
Published in the United States of America by
IGI Global
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA, USA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright © 2022 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Crawford, Jenifer, 1982- editor. | Filback, Rob A., 1966- editor.
Title: TESOL guide for critical praxis in teaching, inquiry, and advocacy /
Jenifer Crawford, and Rob A. Filback, editor.
Description: Hershey PA : Information Science Reference, [2021] | Includes
bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “The objective of this
publication is to meet a need in the field of Teaching English as a
Second Language (TESOL) to bridge critical theories to equitable
practices of English language teaching”-- Provided by publisher.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021017698 (print) | LCCN 2021017699 (ebook) | ISBN
9781799880936 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781799880943 (paperback) | ISBN
9781799880950 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: English language--Study and teaching--Foreign speakers. |
Critical pedagogy. | Culturally relevant pedagogy.
Classification: LCC PE1128.A2 T4517 2021 (print) | LCC PE1128.A2 (ebook)
| DDC 428.0071--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021017698
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021017699
This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AE-
TID) (ISSN: 2326-8905; eISSN: 2326-8913)
British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

Advances in Educational
Technologies and Instructional
Design (AETID) Book Series
Lawrence A. Tomei
Robert Morris University, USA
ISSN:2326-8905
EISSN:2326-8913
Mission
Education has undergone, and continues to undergo, immense changes in the way it is enacted and distributed to
both child and adult learners. In modern education, the traditional classroom learning experience has evolved to
include technological resources and to provide online classroom opportunities to students of all ages regardless of
their geographical locations. From distance education, Massive-Open-Online-Courses (MOOCs), and electronic
tablets in the classroom, technology is now an integral part of learning and is also affecting the way educators
communicate information to students.
The Advances in Educational Technologies & Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series explores new
research and theories for facilitating learning and improving educational performance utilizing technological pro-
cesses and resources. The series examines technologies that can be integrated into K-12 classrooms to improve
skills and learning abilities in all subjects including STEM education and language learning. Additionally, it
studies the emergence of fully online classrooms for young and adult learners alike, and the communication and
accountability challenges that can arise. Trending topics that are covered include adaptive learning, game-based
learning, virtual school environments, and social media effects. School administrators, educators, academicians,
researchers, and students will find this series to be an excellent resource for the effective design and implementa-
tion of learning technologies in their classes.
Coverage
• Collaboration Tools
• Game-Based Learning
IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts
• Instructional Design for publication within this series. To submit a pro-
• Higher Education Technologies posal for a volume in this series, please contact our
• Curriculum Development Acquisition Editors at Acquisitions@igi-global.com
• Hybrid Learning or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.
• Virtual School Environments
• Instructional Design Models
• Online Media in Classrooms
• E-Learning
The Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (AETID) Book Series (ISSN 2326-8905) is published by IGI Global,
701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase indi-
vidually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please visit
http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-technologies-instructional-design/73678. Postmaster: Send all address changes
to above address. Copyright © 2022 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this
series may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping,
or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including
classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.
Titles in this Series
For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit: www.igi-global.com/book-series
Teaching Practices and Language Ideologies for Multilingual Classrooms

Ashok Bhusal (The University of Texas at El Paso, USA)
Information Science Reference • © 2021 • 210pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799833390) • US $195.00
Practical Perspectives on Educational Theory and Game Development

Fabio Perez Marzullo (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) and Felipe Antonio de Oliveira (Arco Labs,
Brazil)
Deep Fakes, Fake News, and Misinformation in Online Teaching and Learning Technologies
Rebecca J. Blankenship (Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, USA)
Handbook of Research on Developing a Post-Pandemic Paradigm for Virtual Technologies in Higher Education
Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro (Business Research Unit, ISCTE, Instituto Universitario de Lisboa, Portugal) and
João Guerreiro (Business Research Unit, ISCTE, Instituto Universitario de Lisboa, Portugal)
Handbook of Research on Barriers for Teaching 21st-Century Competencies and the Impact of Digitalization
Harpreet Kaur Dhir (Hacienda La Puente Unified School District, USA)
Strategies for Student Support During a Global Crisis

Jeffrey D. Herron (Campbellsville University, USA) and Taurean Douglas (Indiana University Bloomington, USA)
Handbook of Research on Supporting Social and Emotional Development Through Literacy Education
Jill Tussey (Buena Vista University, USA) and Leslie Haas (Buena Vista University, USA)
Handbook of Research on Future Opportunities for Technology Management Education

Basheer Ahmed Khan (Alpherg Global Business Management Consultants, UK) Matthew H. S. Kuofie (Saint Leo
University, USA) and Sonika Suman (Savitribai Phule Pune University (SPPU), India)
701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA

Tel: 717-533-8845 x100 • Fax: 717-533-8661
E-Mail: cust@igi-global.com • www.igi-global.com
Editorial Advisory Board
Ebony Cain, Pepperdine University, USA
Christian Chun, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA
Nevin Durmaz, University of Southern California, USA
Kim Ferrario, University of Southern California, USA
Esther Gross, The Center for Educational Technology, Israel
Matthew Jellick, Southern University of Science and Technology, China
Nancy Kwang Johnson, University of Southern California, USA
Qinghua Liu, Boston University, USA
Emmy Min, University of Southern California, USA
Ekaterina Moore, University of Southern California, USA
Jennifer Park, University of Southern California, USA
Camillia Trombino, Glendale Community College, USA
Claudia Wong, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Table of Contents
Foreword.............................................................................................................................................. xix
Preface.................................................................................................................................................. xxi
Acknowledgment............................................................................................................................... xxxi
Section 1
Equity-Minded Teaching
Chapter 1
Integrating Language Skills, Practices, and Content in Equitable TESOL Lesson Planning.................. 1
Esther S. Gross, The Center for Educational Technology, Israel
Jenifer A. Crawford, University of Southern California, USA
Chapter 2
Creating Brave Spaces: Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning in Language Learner
Classrooms............................................................................................................................................. 21
L. Erika Saito, National University, USA
Chapter 3
Creating an Inclusive Classroom Culture: A Language Socialization Approach.................................. 44
Kimberly Ferrario, University of Southern California, USA
Chapter 4
Equitable Assessment Practices............................................................................................................. 63
Emmy J. Min, University of Southern California, USA
Chapter 5
Teachers as Agents of Change: Unpacking EFL Lessons Through an Anti-Bias Lens......................... 85
Laura Loder Buechel, Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland

Chapter 6
Toward Racially-Just Multilingual Classroom Pedagogy: Transforming Learning Centers for the
K-5 Classroom..................................................................................................................................... 108
Alexa Yunes-Koch, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA
Kara Mitchell Viesca, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA
Claudia Yunes, YES Consulting, USA
Chapter 7
Multilingual Writing Support: Fostering Critical Consciousness Through One-to-One Writing
Conferencing........................................................................................................................................ 132
Dawn Janke, California Polytechnic State University, USA
Section 2
Critical Inquiry
Chapter 8
Critical Praxis and Teacher Language Awareness: What Should Teachers Know About Students’
L1?....................................................................................................................................................... 159
Arthur McNeill, Webster University, Thailand
Chapter 9
Flipping the Script on the Language Teacher/Researcher: Language Learning as a Vital Tool to
Decolonize Our Practice...................................................................................................................... 179
Analee Scott, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Chapter 10
The Critical Language Reflection Tool: Promoting Critical Reflection and Critical Consciousness
in TESOL Educators............................................................................................................................ 203
Jennifer Miyake-Trapp, Pepperdine University, USA
Kevin M. Wong, Pepperdine University, USA
Chapter 11
Critical Ethnography in a Language Classroom: Learning to Become an Equitable Practitioner...... 221
Camillia A. Trombino, Glendale Community College, USA
Chapter 12
Using Autoethnography to Engage in Critical Inquiry in TESOL: A Tool for Teacher Learning
and Reflection...................................................................................................................................... 245
Qinghua Liu, USC, USA
Chapter 13
Achieving Praxis for TESOL Educators: A Reflective Self-Checklist to Support Culturally
Sustaining Practices............................................................................................................................. 260
Samantha Jungheim, University of Southern California, USA
Jacqueline Vega López, University of Southern California, USA

Chapter 14
Critical Consciousness Checklist......................................................................................................... 287
Shane Donovan Liliedahl, International Education Center, USA
Chapter 15
Promoting Prospective TESOL Educators’ Critical Reflection Through the 4D Framework............. 305
Ni Yin, University of Southern California, China
Xiaodi Sun, University of Southern California, China
Chuqi Wang, University of Southern California, China
Section 3
Transformative Advocacy
Chapter 16
Designing Text Message Learning to More Equitably Reach Students Wherever They Go:
UNICEF SMS Lessons for Venezuelan Migrants/Refugees................................................................ 326
Katherine Guevara, University of Southern California, USA
Chapter 17
Critical Praxis Through a Social Media Ecosystem............................................................................ 344
Eric Chao Yang, University of British Columbia, Canada
Chapter 18
Fostering Active Learning via Critical Pedagogies: Applying Reflective Research........................... 373
Chapter 19
Incorporating Socially-Relevant Teaching Strategies in the Online TESOL Classroom.................... 394
Ziqi Li, University of Southern California, USA
Chapter 20
Teacher Research as a Form of Critical Praxis: A Path to Professional Development........................ 412
Pinar Sali, Bursa Uludag University, Turkey
Ebru A. Damar, Bursa Uludag University, Turkey
Chapter 21
Taking an (Inter)cultural View of Students with Disabilities to Promote Inclusive Practices Within
the TESOL Field.................................................................................................................................. 438
Davey Young, Sophia University, Japan
Chapter 22
Making Educator Professional Development More Accessible and Inclusive With Mobile
Teacher: A Global Community of Practice Founded in Appreciative Inquiry.................................... 453

Chapter 23
I Am Woke: Unmasking Race, Gender, and Power From Within a TESOL Affiliate......................... 468
Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 496
About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 538
Index.................................................................................................................................................... 543
Detailed Table of Contents
Foreword.............................................................................................................................................. xix
Preface.................................................................................................................................................. xxi
Acknowledgment............................................................................................................................... xxxi
Section 1
The first three chapters discuss English language teacher (ELT) planning for equity-minded lessons
and socially just language classrooms. The next four chapters provide ELTs with guides to equitable
assessment practices and critical approaches to instruction.
Chapter 1
Integrating Language Skills, Practices, and Content in Equitable TESOL Lesson Planning.................. 1
Esther S. Gross, The Center for Educational Technology, Israel
Jenifer A. Crawford, University of Southern California, USA
Teachers and students in TESOL confront persistent racial, linguistic, economic, and social inequities in
English language education. Many universities are striving to enact inclusive teaching that serves their
diverse student body. This chapter offers a balanced approach that synthesizes language teaching research,
theories, and practices to offer equitable strategies and tools for planning TESOL lessons and an exemplar
university English as a Foreign Language lesson. These strategies, tools, and examples provide support
for teachers to plan to explore inequities in the sociopolitical and raciolinguistic conditions of language
and language learning with their students through lessons that integrate language skills, practices, and
content. There is significant research on critical approaches to language education, but this chapter
contributes to critical praxis in TESOL by providing detailed guidance for teachers on integrated lesson
planning for adult EFL classes.
Chapter 2
Creating Brave Spaces: Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning in Language Learner
Classrooms............................................................................................................................................. 21
L. Erika Saito, National University, USA
This chapter provides an interdisciplinary, conceptual social justice and social emotional learning
framework and protocol to understand the varying competencies needed in critical learning paradigms

with regard to multilingual learners (MLs). Engaging in social justice and social emotional (SJSE) work
requires reflective practices to develop teacher identity. Therefore, reflection protocols before and after
instruction in this chapter serve as a lever for building culturally reflective teachers through prompts
that engage in self-awareness, student relations, and climate. Lesson plan delivery at different grade and
language levels along with background and rationale of each topic further demonstrate SJSE integration.
Discussion of challenges in SJSE are addressed that extend into three identified areas: professional,
personal, and institutional.
Chapter 3
Creating an Inclusive Classroom Culture: A Language Socialization Approach.................................. 44
Kimberly Ferrario, University of Southern California, USA
The chapter discusses creating an inclusive classroom through a language socialization perspective. The
authors suggest that to create an inclusive culture in a multicultural and multilingual classroom, language
educators should engage in explicit language socialization practices that promote development of critical
cultural consciousness and language awareness. They propose that in the process of creating an inclusive
classroom, educators need to attend to affective, individual, and interpersonal domains. Specific practices
for use in a language (including ESOL) classroom and a teacher preparation program are provided.
Chapter 4
Equitable Assessment Practices............................................................................................................. 63
Emmy J. Min, University of Southern California, USA
The traditional approach to assessment is being reevaluated as a valid and effective language learning
assessment tool because it often fails to account for the specific needs, contexts, and backgrounds of
language learners. To make assessment processes more equitable, just, and inclusive, this chapter extends
the traditional approach to assessment practice by introducing the equity-minded assessment model,
which includes six principles for teachers to use as a framework for creating and evaluating assessments:
validity, reliability, practicality, authenticity, washback and equity, and justice and inclusion. The author
suggests that the model be used to design, administer, and reflect on the effectiveness of the assessment
and as a critical reflective framework and not merely as a checklist of items. Thus, this model can serve
to make assessments for learning and not just of learning, thereby making the assessment process
equitable and inclusive.
Chapter 5
Teachers as Agents of Change: Unpacking EFL Lessons Through an Anti-Bias Lens......................... 85
Laura Loder Buechel, Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Public school teachers in Switzerland often feel bound by decisions made by ministries of education
as to materials used in the classroom. In teacher training, teachers are often taught superficially about
reflective practices, equity, and equality, but in their training to teach English as a Foreign Language
(EFL), the focus is too often on the mechanical aspects of foreign language teaching and the examples
provided are often not provocative enough to allow for an anti-bias stance to education. Yet this stance
is a tenet of most national curricula and is to precede subject-specific curricular aims. Therefore, neither
teachers nor materials should shy away from or banalize topics around civil rights and social change.
This chapter provides examples of how the dispositions for culturally responsive pedagogy scale and

teaching tolerance social justice scales can be used in teacher training for analyzing and planning out
lessons. Examples from lessons on the Black Lives Matter movement and general suggestions act as
springboards for rethinking and unpacking EFL teaching.
Chapter 6
Toward Racially-Just Multilingual Classroom Pedagogy: Transforming Learning Centers for the
K-5 Classroom..................................................................................................................................... 108
Alexa Yunes-Koch, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA
Kara Mitchell Viesca, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA
Claudia Yunes, YES Consulting, USA
Creating equitable multilingual classrooms grounded in explicitly anti-racist teaching practices requires
transformation of practice preceded by transformation of thinking. Classroom learning centers can
provide the context for truly transformational, anti-racist teaching, but equitable implementation requires
a deliberately humanizing approach toward teaching multilingual learners. The chapter outlines the
process of operationalizing learning centers in such a way, through pedagogy grounded in the enduring
principles of learning and critical sociocultural theory. Based on over 50 years of teaching across five
countries and conducting international research in the field of multilingual education, the authors provide
research-based, practical steps for learning center design and implementation. Educators will gain a
practical pathway for implementation, as well as a model for the self-reflective work that is essential for
any meaningful transformation toward racially just classrooms.
Chapter 7
Multilingual Writing Support: Fostering Critical Consciousness Through One-to-One Writing
Conferencing........................................................................................................................................ 132
Dawn Janke, California Polytechnic State University, USA
This chapter will provide a research-based protocol for one-to-one writing conferencing that helps tutors
and teachers to navigate the tension between standardizing multilingual students’ language practices and
honoring their rhetorically rich linguistic backgrounds through a series of activities in a ten-week writing
center pedagogy course. This series of activities was specifically developed in an effort to respond to
writing tutors who are always seeking strategies that effectively apply theoretical principles in practice.
While this work focuses specifically on one-to-one writing tutoring, the topic of multilingual writing
support is applicable to any English language learning context. By the end of this chapter, readers will
have gained a practical strategy centered on using declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge to
help preservice tutors and teachers develop metalinguistic awareness and foster critical consciousness
through one-to-one conferencing.
Section 2
Critical Inquiry
The first three chapters provide ELTS with approaches to get to know their learners’ languages and
their own languages. The next two chapters share approaches for ELTS to get to know the community
contexts of their students and themselves. The following three chapters offer tools for ELTS to critically
interrogate their teaching practice.

Chapter 8
Critical Praxis and Teacher Language Awareness: What Should Teachers Know About Students’
L1?....................................................................................................................................................... 159
Arthur McNeill, Webster University, Thailand
Within the field of TESOL, opinions often differ about the role of learners’ first language (L1) in second
language learning. When teachers are aware of their students’ L1, this awareness can increase their
understanding of second language acquisition processes and issues. It can also provide teachers with
insights into learners’ backgrounds and cultures that may influence their approach to studying English and
attitudes towards multilingualism. Specifically, the chapter proposes that the notion of teacher language
awareness (TLA) should be expanded to include awareness of students’ language backgrounds. TLA is
regarded as an important component of the knowledge base of a language teacher. Two questionnaires are
provided to assist teachers with the elicitation of information about students’ L1: (1) a language-focused
set of questions to allow comparison between a learner’s L1 and English and (2) a sociolinguistic-oriented
questionnaire that explores issues related to status and use.
Chapter 9
Flipping the Script on the Language Teacher/Researcher: Language Learning as a Vital Tool to
Decolonize Our Practice...................................................................................................................... 179
Analee Scott, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Standard language ideologies, hierarchical language structures and resulting ethnic and racial inequalities
have long been reinforced within and by means of the TESOL (teaching English to speakers of other
languages) field. These standards and structures echo the colonial history of forced language assimilation
and indigenous erasure, a history that in many ways continues today. This chapter proposes language
learning and ongoing reflection on the language learning process as a critical framework that English
language teachers and researchers should adopt and apply to their work. When teachers and researchers
take on the language learner identity inside and outside of classroom/research spaces, they equip
themselves to dismantle rigid power structures in TESOL, transforming the colonizer narrative into one
of decolonization, collaboration, and equity.
Chapter 10
The Critical Language Reflection Tool: Promoting Critical Reflection and Critical Consciousness
in TESOL Educators............................................................................................................................ 203
Jennifer Miyake-Trapp, Pepperdine University, USA
Kevin M. Wong, Pepperdine University, USA
Critical reflection is an integral part of the teaching and learning process that requires educators to reflect
on their assumptions and practices to promote equity in their classrooms. While critical reflection practices
and frameworks have been proposed in teacher education, a TESOL-specific tool that engages with the
unique complexities of world Englishes has not been developed. The current chapter, thus, engages
in critical praxis by providing an evidence-based, step-by-step reflection tool for TESOL educators to
enact inquiry. The reflection tool is called the critical language reflection tool, which offers open-ended
questions surrounding assumption analysis, contextual awareness, and reflection-based action. Moreover,
it applies a critical lens to the TESOL international teaching standards to help TESOL educators and
teacher educators foster critical consciousness in TESOL classroom contexts.

Chapter 11
Critical Ethnography in a Language Classroom: Learning to Become an Equitable Practitioner...... 221
Camillia A. Trombino, Glendale Community College, USA
The chapter discusses a critical mini classroom ethnography as a pedagogical tool for educators working
with multilingual learners in K-12 or adult settings. Critical classroom ethnography and culturally responsive
instruction in language teaching are discussed. For practicing language educators, a questionnaire, an
interview guide, and a reflection template are offered. For pre-service teachers, a structured observation
template is included. The suggested tools are discussed in relation to equitable and inclusive educational
practices to help develop critical ethnographic skills as they pertain to critically reflective observation
which can be utilized by all teachers. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how the mini classroom
ethnography’s use by a candidate in a language teacher preparation program in the US led to the process
of critical and linguistic self-reflection and transformation towards becoming a more culturally responsive
and inclusive practitioner.
Chapter 12
Using Autoethnography to Engage in Critical Inquiry in TESOL: A Tool for Teacher Learning
and Reflection...................................................................................................................................... 245
Qinghua Liu, USC, USA
In this chapter, the author proposes using the qualitative research method of autoethnography to improve
one’s practice in teaching English to students of other languages (TESOL). This chapter first includes an
overview of autoethnography followed by discussion of evidence-based practices and learning activities
that apply the methodology. The chapter then explores the method through a case study involving the author
and her son. Through this autoethnography account, the author demonstrates the process of collecting,
analyzing, and interpreting autobiographical data to gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and our
students. The case demonstrates how intersectionalities, including race and gender, have an impact on
the learning experiences. In this way, this protocol has methodological and pedagogical implications
for TESOL praxis. This chapter finally discusses the implications of this methodology in TESOL as a
viable qualitative research methodology to gain new insights and understandings for TESOL educators.
Chapter 13
Achieving Praxis for TESOL Educators: A Reflective Self-Checklist to Support Culturally
Sustaining Practices............................................................................................................................. 260
Samantha Jungheim, University of Southern California, USA
Jacqueline Vega López, University of Southern California, USA
Shifting educational landscapes have revealed a need for structured critical reflection. While research on
culturally responsive teaching practices and critical reflection prompts exist, there is little in the way of
short, synthesized resources for busy educators who desire to change systems of inequity. The authors
of this chapter have developed the TESOL educator reflective self-checklist (TERS) for on ground and
online educators that utilizes recent research on motivation to activate critical reflection and further
culturally sustaining classroom practices. This chapter expands on the evidence and development of
this reflective checklist, implementation of the checklist, and provides vignettes of the checklist in use.

Chapter 14
Critical Consciousness Checklist......................................................................................................... 287
Shane Donovan Liliedahl, International Education Center, USA
This chapter aims at providing pre-service and in-service teachers with a tool to analyze the criticality
of their lessons. Teacher training programs are focused heavily on reflection of the effectiveness of an
educator’s classroom. This reflection generally concerns itself with ensuring that students meet learning
targets and master the content. This chapter examines reflection through the lens of critical praxis, including
positions of power, funds of knowledge, and meaning making. It provides a recommended checklist of
questions aimed at facilitating an analysis of the extent to which lessons and activities successfully allow
students to inhabit positions of power, access their funds of knowledge, and make meaning. Implications
of critical reflective inquiry will enable teachers to more equitably guide students through their education.
Chapter 15
Promoting Prospective TESOL Educators’ Critical Reflection Through the 4D Framework............. 305
Ni Yin, University of Southern California, China
Xiaodi Sun, University of Southern California, China
Chuqi Wang, University of Southern California, China
Within the field of teacher education, the significance of promoting critical reflection is highlighted by
scholars because it is generally believed that teachers engaging in critical reflection are more able to
examine bias, challenge embedded assumptions, and take actions toward educational justice. In the field
of teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL), there is a growing interest in the cultivation
of educators with critical reflection ability. In this chapter, the authors introduce a set of effective tools
by which worldwide pre-service TESOL educators can practice critical reflection. The sets include a
4D framework and a worksheet. By incorporating this tool into learning and future English teaching
lives, pre-service TESOL educators can be involved in continuous cycles of high-level critical reflection.
Through learning on their own reflections, teachers can gain new insights, improve teaching skills, and
ultimately, create a more just society for students.
Section 3
The first four chapters provide ELTs with approaches to leveraging technology in critically minded ways
to advocate for all students. The next four chapters provide ELTs with approaches to advocacy through
professional collaboration to transform professional practices in TESOL.
Chapter 16
Designing Text Message Learning to More Equitably Reach Students Wherever They Go:
UNICEF SMS Lessons for Venezuelan Migrants/Refugees................................................................ 326
This chapter describes how TESOL educators can partner with global aid organizations, local communities,
and learners themselves to leverage low-tech yet innovative learning solutions like text-message lessons
with the goal of more equitably reaching learners, particularly those affected by disruption to their education
such as those who are migrants/refugees. Taking such action as advocates committed to closing opportunity
gaps arising from social issues affecting language learning not only involves the TESOL educator in
the six principles for exemplary teaching of English learners but also UN Sustainable Development

Goals as a framework, trauma-informed teaching and learning, and the concept of text messages used
as micro-learning. Through a UNICEF case study of practice in action, the author provides a stepwise
how-to for redesigning curriculum into micro-learning appropriate for text-message delivery and offers
considerations and recommendations for its dissemination, evaluation, and potential application to many
other contexts and learner populations at scale.
Chapter 17
Critical Praxis Through a Social Media Ecosystem............................................................................ 344
Eric Chao Yang, University of British Columbia, Canada
The use of social media in language education is evident in the plethora of online content generated by
education organizations. Teachers and learners alike have used platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and
Instagram to access and disseminate learning content in the forms of text, images, podcasts, and videos.
However, despite the prevalence of social media in the language-learning sector, its pedagogical use has
been limited to learning language features. This chapter analyzes the potential use of an ecosystem of
social media platforms to augment varied modes of TESOL instruction, namely live, online, and hybrid,
through a critical lens in higher and adult education. The integration of critical content and critical
thinking development in social media platforms, in which authentic content is directly consumed, co-
created, and disseminated, enables TESOL teachers to help learners become aware of how power shapes
information, how to resist coercion, and challenge the status quo.
Chapter 18
Fostering Active Learning via Critical Pedagogies: Applying Reflective Research........................... 373
This chapter aims to provide a guideline for pre-service and in-service teachers to apply reflective
research in language classrooms to gain a multidimensional overview of language teaching strategies
in increasing active learning via critical pedagogies. A previously conducted reflective research will
be used throughout the chapter to reach the stated aim. Analyzing language teaching techniques and
strategies in an English for Academic Purposes classroom where all the students are originally from
East Asia, the sample reflective research illustrates the needs and expectations of East Asian students in
language learning through the research students, and also it aims to provide clues for TESOL educators to
implement a similar study in classrooms employing critical pedagogies to develop language instruction.
Chapter 19
Incorporating Socially-Relevant Teaching Strategies in the Online TESOL Classroom.................... 394
Ziqi Li, University of Southern California, USA
Conducting online TESOL class is always both a challenge and opportunity for teachers to effectively
support English language learners. Specifically, this study explores socially relevant teaching strategies to
facilitate an engaging and equitable online classroom for educators with ELLs with diverse backgrounds.
This research contains online language teaching strategies in the context of multicultural environment.
Overall, three strategies are elaborated. One strategy is organizing whole-class discussion and various
activity based on learners’ cultural background. The second strategy is choosing and using socially
relevant teaching materials with online technology, including neutral and authentic materials and giving
learners timely prompts. The third strategy is counteracting inequitable relationships in society and in
class, managing student emotions to create supportive relationships among students and the teacher.

These strategies expand literature on how to conduct online program that are relevant and sustaining for
culturally and linguistically diverse adult language learners.
Chapter 20
Teacher Research as a Form of Critical Praxis: A Path to Professional Development........................ 412
Pinar Sali, Bursa Uludag University, Turkey
Ebru A. Damar, Bursa Uludag University, Turkey
The aim of this chapter is to provide TESOL practitioners, undergraduate, and graduate students in
language teacher training programs with both a conceptual framework of teacher research (TR) as a form
of critical praxis and a practical guide on how to implement it in language education settings. Subsequent
to the description of what TR consists of and how it relates—or it does not—to other forms of research
endeavors undertaken by TESOL teachers, the chapter continues with an outline of the procedures and
practices to be implemented in TR and concludes with some key recommendations as to the promotion
and dissemination of it for a full and effective exploitation of its transformative power.
Chapter 21
Taking an (Inter)cultural View of Students with Disabilities to Promote Inclusive Practices Within
the TESOL Field.................................................................................................................................. 438
Davey Young, Sophia University, Japan
Considering the TESOL field’s global presence, much more can be done to prepare TESOL practitioners
to teach inclusively, particularly with regard for students with disabilities, and in line with international
policy. This chapter begins by conceptualizing disability and inclusive education before providing an
overview of concerns related to TESOL teacher training for inclusive practices. Complicating cognitive
and affective factors commonly experienced by students with specific learning difficulties (SpLDs) are
briefly outlined. The author then advocates for adopting a social justice definition of culture to be adopted
within the field and provides three sets of discussion/reflection questions to help TESOL practitioners
connect their understanding of existing models of cultural competence and language acquisition with an
understanding of how students with disabilities may experience language learning. The chapter concludes
by contemplating some impending challenges and potential solutions for securing inclusive education
as a human right within and across the field.
Chapter 22
Making Educator Professional Development More Accessible and Inclusive With Mobile
Teacher: A Global Community of Practice Founded in Appreciative Inquiry.................................... 453
This chapter describes how curious and reflective TESOL educators can engage in ongoing appreciative
inquiry by participating in a unique global community of practice facilitated through an app called
Mobile Teacher that also works offline. With the aim of recognizing and sharing the expertise of non-
native English speaker TESOL educators who are primarily BIPOC and women working in the majority
world, teachers are encouraged to watch short videos of colleagues’ effective teaching practices, try out
the practices with their students, and in turn share videos describing or demonstrating their own proven
techniques. Through a case study of using Mobile Teacher with teachers in Ecuador, the author provides
a self and group reflection guide based on the 4D appreciative inquiry framework to establish a definition
and examples of effective teaching practice, and a video script template to complete in preparation for
recording and sharing an effective teaching practice.

Chapter 23
I Am Woke: Unmasking Race, Gender, and Power From Within a TESOL Affiliate......................... 468
This praxis-based chapter explores advocacy in the English language teaching (ELT) field. The chapter
introduces a new conceptualization of advocacy, the Critical Advocacy Framework, informed by
Freire’s critical consciousness (conscientização), Fanon’s race (Black) consciousness, and Crenshaw’s
intersectionality paradigms. For critical advocacy praxis, this chapter integrates the “iron triangle” model
from the American politics and public policy fields to highlight patron-client relationships between
multilingual learners (MLs) advocates and stakeholders. This chapter highlights how the racially mixed
author, a trained political scientist and newcomer to the ELT field, leveraged her Blackness, experiential
and organizational knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) in a Machiavellian sense, to promote diversity,
equity, and inclusion (DEI) throughout a TESOL state affiliate. The chapter provides evidence-based
practices and learning activities for MATESOL program administrators, pre-service, and in-service
English teachers.
Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 496
About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 538
Index.................................................................................................................................................... 543
xix
Foreword
I first started teaching in 1991 at a private ESL school in Los Angeles. Although at that time I had no
undergraduate or graduate degree in TESOL, the school hired me because I was a so-called ‘native English
speaker’. I was assigned to teach grammar at all levels. The majority of my students during my daytime
classes were from Korea and Japan and many had either completed their undergraduate degrees in their
countries or were taking a year off to study English in the US. In my advanced grammar class with these
students, there were a few notable times when they were the ones who corrected me when I chose the
wrong answer in the textbook’s multiple-choice questions. If you took a random survey of people who
self-identify as ‘native English speaker’, how many would be able to tell you what the past perfect tense
is? They use it all the time of course but would they all be meta-aware of this grammatical choice? Even
though I had lived in the US my whole life up to that point, grew up in an English-speaking home, and
had gone to college, this was my introduction to the fallacies of the ideological positionalities of the
‘native’ and ‘non-native’ English speaker literacies and the accompanying dynamics that are enacted in
the English language learning classroom between teachers and students.
There was another crucial component that emerged during the first 16 months of my teaching at that
school. I was also teaching evening classes in which those students were mainly adult Korean immigrants
who were working in the Los Angeles neighborhoods of South Central and Koreatown. In late April 1992,
what has been called the “1992 Los Angeles riots” took place after four police officers were acquitted in
the Rodney King case. These were not ‘riots’ but angry protests and uprisings against the decades and
centuries-long incidents of police brutalities and violence against the Black communities across the US.
The uprisings began in South Central and then spread northward into Koreatown. A student of mine had
his store looted and burned. When him and my other students came to class that evening, the last thing
they wanted to do was to learn English grammar. They demanded to know why this was happening to
them since they saw no culpability in the injustices against Black Americans highlighted by the Rodney
King beating. Many of these students who had emigrated from Korea had no idea about the history of
Black Americans other than they were enslaved for centuries. Not having gone to university, they had not
read about US history and had trouble understanding why some Black Americans were angry at them.
In my conversation with the students that evening and thereafter, especially the ones who were running
small businesses in the predominantly Black neighborhoods of South Central Los Angeles, these stu-
dents told me their engagements with the local Black communities were mainly limited to only in-store
interactions with the latter’s role solely as customers. None of the students lived in those neighborhoods
and when I had asked them if they knew their customers outside the context of their store interactions,
they replied they never engaged with the local residents in other communal or neighborhood spaces that
would have enabled other identities to emerge in these spatial encounters.

Foreword
This seminal event was literally my introduction to critical pedagogy because I had to directly ad-
dress the anger and anxieties voiced by students. These aforementioned interactions with my students
illustrate the intereffecting connections of language use, racialized identities, societal and historical
contexts, cultural ascriptions, assumptions and positionalities in the English language learning classroom
in which these emerge regardless of what some teachers and school curricula might wish otherwise.
The ideologically rooted fallacies and misconceptions of the ‘neutral’ teaching of the English language
- and which English are we talking about? - has had a long history in not only classroom practices but
also in the notions of what constitutes English language learner and teacher identities in not only the
classroom but also beyond.
TESOL Guide for Critical Praxis in Teaching, Inquiry, and Advocacy, edited by Jenifer Crawford and
Rob Filback, addresses these very issues and thus it is a vital contribution to our field which is needed
more than ever in these times of demagogue-enabled xenophobia and Othering that has continued the
devastating social injustices and violent acts of racism. For TESOL educators who want to make this a
better world starting with their students in not only helping with their language learning, but also with
building and supporting communities of understanding and solidarities but are sometimes unsure of how
to go about it in the classroom, this book drawing on the praxis of theory, research, and helpful teaching
approaches and practices will be an essential guide in doing so.
Christian W. Chun
University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA
xx
xxi
Preface
There is a clarion call for more equitable, critical, and just scholarship and practice in the field of
Teaching English as a Second Language (TESOL) (Anya, 2019; Chang & Salas, 2020; Kubota, 2016;
Pennycook, 2007). The range of learners and contexts within the TESOL field is broad and presents a
unique opportunity for educators to address varied and complex educational and societal needs. The
field of TESOL includes teachers of English as an additional language in English-dominant countries,
those who teach English as a foreign language in countries where a language other than English is the
official language, as well as educators facilitating learning in multiple languages in bi/multi/transling-
ual classrooms. Teachers across these categories may work with children, adolescents, or adults, and in
contexts ranging from K12 to post-secondary to popular education programs, language academies, and
tutoring centers. This opportunity calls for TESOL educators who can support the whole learner in a
range of contexts for greater social good. There is an urgent need for readily reproducible and step-by-
step research-based practices and strategies in TESOL that bridge the gap between critical scholarship
and equitable teaching practices (Pennycook, 1999). This book serves as a critical addition to current
literature in TESOL.
This edited book introduces and guides TESOL educators through an exemplary set of research-based
and theory-driven practices and methods for effective and equity-minded teaching, critical inquiry and
transformative advocacy. Each chapter offers protocols to various aspects of critical TESOL practice for
educators to effectively and equitably serve all of their students. Each chapter will introduce a concept,
a guide to implementation, an example from classroom practice, activities for engaging pre-service or
in-service English language teachers with the concept and protocol, challenges, and relevant tools and
resources.
A CRITICAL TURN IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS

A SECOND OR OTHER LANGUAGE
This book supports the critical turn in the field as Master’s in TESOL programs and TESOL certification
programs work to integrate a social justice focus across their curriculum (Chun & Morgan, 2019). Critical
issues in language education has gained momentum with work on critical approaches to education (Lynn
& Dixson, 2013; Paris & Alim, 2017) and specifically second language education (Anya, 2016; Kubota &
Lin, 2009; Kumaravadivelu, 2003), critical literacy (Janks, 2013, Luke, 2018), and instruction of English
as an international language (Pennycook, 2017). This work is further supported by research on critical
multilingual, plurilingual, and translingual practices (Avineri, Graham, Johnson, Riner, & Rosa, 2018:

Preface
Fairclough, 2014; Garcia & Kleifgen, 2018; Vallejo & Dooly, 2019). More specifically, critical praxis in
TESOL is grounded in broader critical theories (Freire, 2018; Giroux, 2020), culturally sustaining and
critical race pedagogies (Ladson-Billings, 2014; Liggett, 2014; Lynn & Dixson, 2013; Paris & Alim,
2017), and critical pedagogies and multilingual education (Norton & Toohey, 2004; Mohanty, Panda,
Phillipson, & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2009; Vinogradova & Shin, 2020).
The growing interest of TESOL educators is further underscored as global pandemic and racial justice
movements have shed light on the gross inequities in language education (Chan & Coney, 2020; Linville
& Whiting, 2020). The aim of this book is to add to the growing literature in TESOL to bridge critical
theories to equitable practices of English language teaching (Benesch, 2001; Farrell & Baecher, 2017;
Hastings & Jacob, 2016; Chang & Salas, 2020). Many critical publications in the field of TESOL are
long on theory and short on practice. Many practical publications in TESOL do not address racial or
social justice in English language teaching. The value of this book is to meet the need for critical praxis
in the field of TESOL that provides practical and equitable step-by-step guides for educators to enact
critical teaching, inquiry and advocacy.
TARGET AUDIENCE
The target audience for this book includes TESOL educators and TESOL teacher educators who have
a growing interest in racially and socially just teaching. This book will be of interest to in-service and
pre-service TESOL educators who are seeking to provide more equitable and effective English language
education for all learners in various linguistically and culturally diverse English education settings (e.g.,
ESL and EFL). This book could be marketed to the members of the organizations and networks that
we listed in our plan for reaching contributors (TESOL, ACTFL, NABE, AERA, etc.). This text could
serve as a principal or supplementary course text for method and social context courses in TESOL and
TEFL Master’s programs around the world.
OVERVIEW OF CHAPTERS
The chapters in this book are arranged into three sections: equity minded-teaching, critical inquiry, and
transformative advocacy.
Equity-minded teaching is the focus of the first section of this book. The seven chapters in this first
section are geared to help guide teachers in facilitating learning experiences that are engaging and ef-
fective for all students. The first three chapters focus on planning for equity-minded and socially just
language classrooms.
In “Integrating Language Skills, Practices, and Content in Equitable TESOL Lesson Planning,” Gross
and Crawford address the fact that so many adult students in TESOL deal with racial, linguistic, and
economic inequities. As a result, they offer teachers a framework to help teachers plan equity-minded
TESOL lessons and deepen their understanding of inequities in the sociopolitical and raciolinguistic
conditions of adult language learners. While there is significant research on critical approaches to lan-
xxii
Preface
guage education, this chapter contributes to critical praxis in TESOL by providing detailed guidance for
teachers on critical and integrated lesson planning for adult EFL classes.
In the next chapter, “Creating Brave Spaces: Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning in Lan-
guage Learner Classrooms,” Saito and Kwang Johnson offer a framework to help teachers conceptualize
the link between social justice and social emotional learning and better support multilingual learners.
Because this work requires a clear sense of teacher identity, the chapter features reflection protocols to
help raise teacher self-awareness. Examples of lesson plans for different grades and language levels help
illuminate social justice and social emotional learning integration. The chapter includes a discussion of
challenges that teachers will want to be aware of in the professional, personal, and institutional domains.
The next chapter, “Creating an Inclusive Classroom Culture: A Language Socialization approach,”
by Moore and Ferrario, discusses how to create an inclusive classroom through a language socializa-
tion perspective. The authors argue that to build an inclusive culture in a multicultural and multilingual
classroom language educators must engage in explicit language socialization practices that promote the
development of critical cultural consciousness and language awareness. In doing so, the authors argue,
teachers also need to attend to affective, individual, and interpersonal domains. This chapter includes
specific practices for use in language (including ESOL) classrooms and in teacher preparation programs.
The remaining four chapters in the first section of the book focus on bringing a critical orientation to
instruction and assessment practices. In “Equitable Assessment Practices,” Min expands on traditional
approaches to assessment to better account for the diverse needs and backgrounds of language learners.
To make assessment processes more equitable, just, and inclusive, the chapter introduces an equity-
minded assessment model, which includes six principles for teachers to use as a framework for creating
and evaluating assessments, including validity, reliability, practicality, authenticity, and washback, as
well as equity, justice, and inclusion. Min shows how the model can be used as a critical reflective tool
to help teachers create assessments that are more equitable and inclusive.
In “Teachers as Agents of Change: Unpacking ELF Lessons With an Anti-Biased Lens,” Loder Buechel
reveals how public-school teachers in Switzerland often feel bound by decisions made by ministries of
education concerning materials used in the classroom. She describes how teacher-training often addresses
equity in superficial ways and mainly focuses on the mechanical aspects of foreign language teaching.
To help teachers in centralized systems which may share these features, Loder Buechel introduces the
“Dispositions for Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Scale and Teaching Tolerance Social Justice Scale,”
which can be used in teacher training for analyzing and planning out lessons. The chapter includes ex-
ample lessons on the Black Lives Matter movement and offers suggestions for rethinking and unpacking
EFL teaching in formalized environments.
In “Toward Racially Just Multilingual Classroom Pedagogy: Transforming Learning Centers for
the K-5 Classroom,” Yunes-Koch, Mitchell Viesca, and Yunes offer an exploration of how classroom
learning centers can provide the context for transformational and anti-racist teaching. The authors argue
that equitable implementation, however, requires a deliberately humanizing approach toward teaching
multilingual learners. The chapter offers steps to operationalize learning centers using sound learning
and critical sociocultural theories. The authors draw on more than fifty combined years of teaching
across five countries to offer practical steps for learning center design and implementation for racially
just classrooms.
In the final chapter of Section 1, “Multilingual Writing Support: Fostering Critical Consciousness
Through One-to-One Writing Conferencing,” Janke provides a research-based protocol for one-on-one
writing conferencing that helps tutors and teachers navigate the tension between standardizing multilin-
xxiii
Preface
gual students’ language practices and honoring their rhetorically rich linguistic backgrounds. The chapter
describes a series of activities specifically developed in an effort to respond to writing tutors trying to
put theoretical principles into practice. While the chapter focuses on one-to-one writing tutoring, the
topic of multilingual writing support is applicable to other English language learning contexts.
Critical Inquiry
The second section of the book, “Critical Inquiry,” contains eight chapters which center around ways
that teachers can engage in ongoing inquiry to ensure their instruction is evidence based and culturally
sustaining. The first three chapters in this section focus on the importance of teachers’ getting to know
their own languages better as well as the languages of their learners.
In “Critical Praxis and Teacher Language Awareness: What Should Teachers Know About Students’
L1?” McNeill shows that when teachers are aware of their students’ L1, this awareness can increase their
insights into learners’ backgrounds and cultures that may influence their approach to studying English
and attitudes towards multilingualism. Specifically, the chapter proposes that our notion of teacher lan-
guage awareness (TLA) should be expanded to include awareness of students’ language backgrounds.
Questionnaires are provided to assist teachers with the elicitation of information about students’ L1.
In “Flipping the Script on the Language Teacher/Researcher: Language Learning as a Vital Tool to
Decolonize Our Practice,” Scott argues that destructive language ideologies and ethnic and racial inequalities
are too often reinforced within the TESOL field. Such standards and structures echo the colonial history
of language assimilation and indigenous erasure. Scott’s chapter proposes language learning and ongoing
critical reflection on the language learning process as critical means to help English language teachers
and researchers shift from a colonizer narrative into one of decolonization, collaboration, and equity.
Miyake-Trapp and Wong, in “The Critical Language Reflection Tool: Promoting Critical Reflec-
tion and Critical Consciousness in TESOL Educators,” also address critical reflection on language as
an integral part of the teaching and learning process, but do so by providing a TESOL-specific tool to
engage educators around the complexities of world Englishes. Their step-by-step reflection tool offers
open-ended questions to uncover assumptions, raise awareness, and promote action, all in an effort to
foster critical consciousness about language in TESOL classrooms.
The next two chapters in this section focus on helping us get to know our collective community
contexts better. In “Critical Ethnography in a Language Classroom: Learning to Become an Equitable
Practitioner,” Trombino and Moore share a mini-ethnography protocol as a tool to help teachers working
with multilingual learners in K-12 or adult settings. Rooted in critical ethnography and culturally respon-
sive instruction, the framework offers language educators practical guides, including a questionnaire, an
interview guide, and a reflection template. The chapter includes discussion of how this mini classroom
ethnography can be used by practicing teachers as well as teacher candidates to engage in critical and
linguistic self-reflection toward becoming more culturally responsive and inclusive as practitioners.
In “Using Autoethnography to Engage in Critical Inquiry in TESOL: A Tool for Teacher Learning
and Reflection,” Liu illustrates how the use of the qualitative research method of autoethnography can
improve one’s practice. Liu’s chapter offers a brief overview of autoethnography followed by discus-
sion of key concepts related to the methodology. The chapter then moves to a case study involving the
author and her son. Through this autoethnographic account, the author demonstrates how the process
of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting autobiographical data can lead to deeper understandings of
xxiv
Preface
ourselves and our students. The chapter includes implications of this methodology as a viable tool for
teachers to gain new insights and understandings into their own practice.
The final three chapters in the critical inquiry section focus on various tools to help teachers critically
interrogate their own practice. In “Achieving Praxis for TESOL Educators: A Reflective Self-Checklist
to Support Culturally Responsive/Sustaining Practices,” Jungheim and Vega Lopez address the need
for structured critical reflection tool by way of a brief, comprehensive tool for busy educators who want
to engage in equity work. Their TESOL Educator Reflective Self-Checklist (TERS) synthesizes recent
research on motivation and culturally sustaining classroom practices to help teachers comprehensively
reflect on their own practice.
In the subsequent chapter, “Critical Consciousness Checklist,” Donovan Liliedahl offers pre-service
and in-service teachers another tool to analyze the criticality of their lessons. Donovan Liliedahl’s tool
approaches reflection through the lenses of positions of power, funds of knowledge, and meaning mak-
ing. This tool aims to facilitate an analysis of the extent to which one’s lessons allow students to inhabit
positions of power, access their funds of knowledge, and make meaning.
The final chapter in the second section, “Promoting Prospective TESOL Educators’ Critical Re-
flection Through the 4D Framework,” by Yi, Wang, and Sun, introduces one more helpful framework
focusing on assisting pre-service TESOL educators practice critical reflection. These authors present a
4D framework, worksheet guide, and detailed instructions to help teachers new the profession begin to
establish skills and routines to support continuous cycles of critical reflection.
The third section of the book, “Transformative Advocacy,” supports TESOL educator efforts to bring
about positive social change and work with others to close opportunity gaps and solve injustices related
to languages and language learners around the world. The first four chapters in this section focus on
actions to leverage technology and other means to better support all students.
In “Designing Text Message Learning to More Equitably Reach Students Wherever They Go,” Gue-
vara describes how TESOL educators can partner with global aid organizations, local communities, and
learners themselves to leverage low-tech yet innovative learning solutions like text-message lessons with
the goal of more equitably reaching learners, particularly those affected by disruption to their education
such as those who are migrants/refugees. She shows how taking such action can involve TESOL educators
in multiple good practices, including exemplary teaching practices, pursuing UN Sustainable Develop-
ment Goals, and supporting trauma-informed teaching and learning. Through a UNICEF case study,
the author provides steps for redesigning curriculum into micro-learning appropriate for text-message
delivery and suggestions for application in other contexts and learner populations.
In “Critical Praxis Through a Social Media Ecosystem,” Yang helps teachers make sense of the
range of social media platforms that exist, including Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Yang reveals
the potential of this social media ecosystem to expand TESOL instruction to higher ed learners through
live, online and hybrid instruction, using a critical lens. The integration of critical content and critical
thinking development in social media platforms, in which authentic content is directly consumed, co-
created, and disseminated, enables TESOL teachers to help learners become aware of how power shapes
information, how to resist coercion, and challenge the status quo.
In the next chapter, “Fostering Active Learning via Critical Pedagogies Applying Reflective Re-
search,” Durmaz provides guidelines for pre-service and in-service teachers to apply reflective research
xxv
Preface
in their classrooms to gain a more multidimensional view of language teaching strategies, with a focus
on increasing active learning via critical pedagogies. A case involving the use of reflective research
to enhance instruction in an English for Academic Purposes classroom provides direction for TESOL
educators to implement a similar study in their own classrooms.
The next chapter, “Incorporating Socially Relevant Teaching Strategies in the Online TESOL Class-
room,” by Li explores the application of socially relevant teaching strategies to facilitate an engaging
and equitable language classroom in the online context. Three strategies are elaborated in this chapter,
including ways to enhance whole-class discussion, considerations for materials selection, and ways to
ensure equitable and supportive relationships within the classroom.
The final four chapters of the book center on the role of professional collaboration in advocacy ef-
forts. Sali and Damar, in “Teacher Research as a Form of Critical Praxis: A Path to Professional Devel-
opment,” offers to TESOL practitioners and students a critical approach to teacher research that can be
incorporated into one’s practice. This comprehensive and practical chapter offers an accessible guide
on how to implement teacher research in a range of language education settings. The authors provide
step by step instructions, along with recommendations on how to best implement the practice to take
advantage of its full transformative power.
In “Securing Inclusive Education as a Human Right Within the Field of TESOL,” Young argues for
greater collaboration in the field to help ensure that TESOL practitioners globally are teaching inclusively
with regard for students with disabilities and in line with international policies. This chapter begins by
conceptualizing disability and inclusive education before providing an overview of concerns related to
TESOL teacher training for inclusive practices. Young advocates for adopting a social justice definition
of culture to be adopted within the field and offers discussion questions to help leaders and practitioners
connect their understanding of existing models of cultural competence and language acquisition with an
understanding of how students with disabilities may experience language learning.
Guevara illustrates in her chapter, “Making Educator Professional Development More Accessible
and Inclusive With Mobile Teacher,” how TESOL educators can engage in ongoing appreciative inquiry
within the global TESOL community of practice. Guevara presents a case study involving an app called
Mobile Teacher designed to recognize and share the expertise of English language educators from the
majority world, who are primarily BIPOC. Through this case study based in Ecuador, the author provides
a self and group reflection guide based on the appreciative inquiry framework to establish a definition
and examples of effective teaching practice, as well as a video script template to complete in preparation
for recording and sharing an effective teaching practice.
Finally, in “I Am Woke: Unmasking Race, Gender, and Power From Within a TESOL Affiliate,”
Kwang-Johnson both expands and concretizes the concept of advocacy by integrating the work Freire,
postcolonial theory, and intersectionality, to highlight the patron-client relationship that often character-
izes between advocates of multilingual learners and the learners themselves. Using a personal reflection,
the author describes how she leveraged her Blackness (Fanon, 2008) and experiential and organizational
knowledge to promote social transformation within a TESOL state affiliate.
xxvi
Preface
CRITICAL PRAXIS IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS

A SECOND OR OTHER LANGUAGE
Praxis originates from Greek and refers to any activity a free “man” performs, especially political and
business activity (Lobkowicz, 1970). Praxidikai were three female spirits (daimones) of exacting justice
(ibid.). The term passed into Latin and has its philosophical roots with Aristotle, who defines praxis as
one of the three basic activities of man along with theoretical and practical knowledge. Aristotle asserted
that praxis is practical knowledge, whose end is action itself (Bottomore, 1983).
According to Marx and Engels (1998), revolutionary practice (or praxis) is the changing of circum-
stance and human activity. This version of praxis is grounded in critical theory. A “critical” theory may
be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical
to the extent that it seeks human emancipation, “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that
enslave them” (Horkheimer, 1972, p. 244). Horkheimer argues that a critical theory (and a framework for
praxis) is adequate only if it meets three criteria: it must be explanatory, practical, and normative. The
authors of the chapters in this book engage critical praxis by agentively challenging assumptions about
good English Language Teaching through dialectical reasoning, critical-thinking and self-determination.
Each chapter in this volume aims to explain a key concept that addresses current inequities in ELT, pro-
vide a practical tool or protocol that teachers can use to make ELT practices more just, and describe a
portrait of practice that illustrates norms and goals for transformative ELT praxis. The teaching, inquiry
and advocacy of scholarly practitioners in this book aim to support radical action in TESOL “to create a
world which satisfies the needs and powers of” teachers, students, and community members (Horkheimer
1972, p. 246) in myriad contexts around the globe from Los Angeles to Taiwan to Geneva to Quito.
Given the legacy of colonialism and neoliberalism in TESOL, a commodification of learning and the
learner often occurs when educators function as dutiful workers carrying out mandates generated from the
dominant elite with little input from stakeholders in schools (Pennycook, 2017). These mandates include
implementing scripted-curricula in overcrowded classrooms and administering high-stakes assessments
and zero tolerance discipline policies that bolster opportunity gaps and cause students to be compliant
‘objects’ during the learning process (Apple, 2004; Flores, 2013). Not coincidentally, these educational
practices are widely supported by money interests and the state (Marx & Engels, 1970; Marx 2005).
McDermott and Lave (2002) illustrate further that, “Just as the result of alienated labor is embodied in
the things produced, so the object of alienated learning becomes material in the things learned…The
learner becomes all the poorer the more he becomes subject to the whim of the educational system”
(p.34). In this way the object of alienated teacher practice becomes material in the things taught, whereas
the teacher becomes poorer the more they are subject to scripted curricula and standardized assessments
and a host of other institutional factors that lead to the de-skilling of English Language Teachers.
However, there is a long history of activists and educators who have been able to negotiate structural
and institutional constraints in schools while bringing about radical changes in society (Woodson, 1933;
DuBois, 2015; Douglass, 2018). Critical pedagogues are one broad group of engaged educators that rec-
ognize how traditional schooling works against the interests of those students who are most vulnerable in
society by reproducing class differences and racialized inequality (McLaren, 2002; Shor, 2012; Darder,
Mayo & Paraskeva, 2017). Critical pedagogues in TESOL are fundamentally committed to creating an
emancipatory culture of schooling that counters alienation (Ramanathan, 2002). Through critical praxis,
critical English language teachers aim to resolve the tensions inherent in teaching against the status quo
amid educational institutions that support it (Giroux, 2020).
xxvii
Preface
In this book, there are multiple definitions and practical examples of critical praxis in TESOL starting
from teaching, inquiry, and advocacy. Throughout the book critical praxis is defined as the reassertion
of human action for a more human world at the individual and social levels, where the simultaneous
changing of circumstances and self-change occur through self-reflection, reflective action, and collec-
tive reflective action (Freire, 2018). Critical English language teachers enact critical praxis to support
students through the co-construction of educational practices that allow people to acquire, analyze, and
produce both linguistic, social and self-knowledge (Benesch, 2001; Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Ryoo et al.,
2009). This book grounds critical English language teaching in the possibilities and constraints of TESOL
scholarly practitioners critical praxis in their classrooms, schools and communities.
REFERENCES
Anya, U. (2016). Racialized identities in second language learning: Speaking blackness in Brazil. Taylor
& Francis. doi:10.4324/9781315682280
Apple, M. W. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of educa-
tional reform. Educational Policy, 18(1), 12–44. doi:10.1177/0895904803260022
Avineri, N., Graham, L. R., Johnson, E. J., Riner, R. C., & Rosa, J. (Eds.). (2018). Language and social
justice in practice. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315115702
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for Academic Purposes: Theory, Politics, and Practice. (n.p.).
Taylor & Francis. doi:10.4324/9781410601803
Bernstein, K. A., Katznelson, N., Amezcua, A., Mohamed, S., & Alvarado, S. L. (2020). Equity/social
justice, instrumentalism/neoliberalism: Dueling discourses of dual language in principals’ talk about
their programs. TESOL Quarterly, 54(3), 652–684. doi:10.1002/tesq.582
Bottomore, T. (1983). A dictionary of Marxist thought. Blackwell Reference.
Chan, E. L., & Coney, L. (2020). Moving TESOL forward: Increasing educators’ critical consciousness
through a racial lens. TESOL Journal, 11(4), e550. doi:10.1002/tesj.550
Chang, B., & Salas, S. (2020). Disrupting method: Critical pedagogies & TESOL. In J. K. Shin & P.
Vinogradova (Eds.), Contemporary foundations for teaching English as an additional Language: Peda-
gogical approaches & classroom applications (pp. 15–22). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429398612-4
Darder, A., Mayo, P., & Paraskeva, J. (Eds.). (2017). International critical pedagogy reader. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315092584
Douglass, F. (2018). Frederick Douglass Papers. Yale University Press.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (2015). The souls of black folk. Yale University Press.
Farrell, T. S., & Baecher, L. (2017). Reflecting on critical incidents in language education: 40 dilemmas
for novice TESOL professionals. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Flores, N. (2013). The unexamined relationship between neoliberalism and plurilingualism: A cautionary
tale. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 500–520. doi:10.1002/tesq.114
xxviii
Preface
Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing USA

García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices
for English learners. Teachers College Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2020). On critical pedagogy. Bloomsbury Publishing. doi:10.5040/9781350145016
Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical Theory: Selected Essays. New York: Seabury Press.
Horkheimer, M. (1993). Between Philosophy and Social Science. MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mit-
press/1565.001.0001
Janks, H., Newfield, D., Dixon, K., Ferreira, A., & Granville, S. (2013). Doing critical literacy: Texts
and activities for students and teachers. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203118627
Kubota, R. (2016). The multi/plural turn, postcolonial theory, and neoliberal multiculturalism: Complicities
and implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 474–494. doi:10.1093/applin/amu045
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (2009). Race, culture, and identities in second language education. Race, culture
and identities in second language education: Exploring critically engaged practice New York. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203876657
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Yale University
Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: Aka the remix. Harvard Educational
Review, 84(1), 74–84. doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
Lave, J., & McDermott, R. (2002). Estranged labor learning. Outlines. Critical Practice Studies, 4(1),
19–48.
Liggett, T. (2014). The mapping of a framework: Critical race theory and TESOL. The Urban Review,
46(1), 112–124. doi:10.100711256-013-0254-5
Linville, H., & Whiting, J. (2020). Social justice through TESOL advocacy. TESOL Journal, 11(4),
e553. doi:10.1002/tesj.553
Lobkowicz, N. (1970). Theory and practice: History of a concept from Aristotle to Marx. Philosophy
(London, England), 45(171).
Luke, A. (2018). Critical literacy, schooling, and social justice: The selected works of Allan Luke.
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315100951
Lynn, M., & Dixson, A. D. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of critical race theory in education. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203155721
Marx, K. (2005). Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy. Penguin UK.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The german ideology (Vol. 1). International Publishers Co.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1998). The communist manifesto: A modern edition. Verso.
McLaren, P. (2002). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. Routledge/Falmer Press.
xxix
Preface
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524834
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for
justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.
Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 329–348.
doi:10.2307/3587668
Pennycook, A. (2017). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Taylor & Francis.
doi:10.4324/9781315225593
Ramanathan, V. (2002). The politics of TESOL education: Writing, knowledge, critical pedagogy. Psy-
chology Press.
Ryoo, J. J., Crawford, J., Moreno, D., & Mclaren, P. (2009). Critical spiritual pedagogy: Reclaiming
humanity through a pedagogy of integrity, community, and love. Power and Education, 1(1), 132–146.
doi:10.2304/power.2009.1.1.132
Shor, I. (2012). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. University of Chicago Press.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Phillipson, R., Mohanty, A. K., & Panda, M. (Eds.). (2009). Social justice through
multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847691910
(2016). Social Justice. InHastings, C. J., & Jacob, L. (Eds.), English Language Teaching. Tesol Press.
Vallejo, C., & Dooly, M. (2019). Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Emergent approaches and shared
concerns. Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
Vinogradova, P., & Shin, J. K. (Eds.). (2020). Contemporary Foundations for Teaching English
as an Additional Language: Pedagogical Approaches and Classroom Applications. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780429398612
Woodson, C. G. (1933). The Mis-Education of the Negro. Academic Press.
xxx
xxxi
Acknowledgment
The editors would like to acknowledge the help of all the people involved in this project and, more spe-
cifically, to the authors and reviewers that took part in the review process. Without their support, this
book would not have become a reality.
First, the editors would like to thank each one of the authors for their contributions. Our sincere gratitude
goes to the chapters authors who contributed their time and expertise to this book.
Second, the editors wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the reviewers regarding the im-
provement of quality, coherence, and content presentation of chapters. Most of the authors also served
as referees; we highly appreciate their double task.
Finally, the editors thank their families for their patience and support throughout the process of editing
this book.
Jenifer Crawford
Robert A. Filback

Section 1
The first three chapters discuss English language teacher (ELT) planning for equity-minded lessons and
socially just language classrooms. The next four chapters provide ELTs with guides to equitable assess-
ment practices and critical approaches to instruction.
1
Chapter 1
Integrating Language
Skills, Practices, and
Content in Equitable
TESOL Lesson Planning
Esther S. Gross
The Center for Educational Technology, Israel
Jenifer A. Crawford
ABSTRACT
Teachers and students in TESOL confront persistent racial, linguistic, economic, and social inequities
in English language education. Many universities are striving to enact inclusive teaching that serves
their diverse student body. This chapter offers a balanced approach that synthesizes language teaching
research, theories, and practices to offer equitable strategies and tools for planning TESOL lessons and
an exemplar university English as a Foreign Language lesson. These strategies, tools, and examples
provide support for teachers to plan to explore inequities in the sociopolitical and raciolinguistic con-
ditions of language and language learning with their students through lessons that integrate language
skills, practices, and content. There is significant research on critical approaches to language education,
but this chapter contributes to critical praxis in TESOL by providing detailed guidance for teachers on
integrated lesson planning for adult EFL classes.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter will contribute to critical teaching practices by guiding TESOL educators to plan learn-
ing experiences that are inclusive, engaging, and effective for students through leveraging an equitable
approach to integration of language skills, practices, and content in an adult beginner-level English as
a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom. The first part of the chapter will offer a conceptual history of
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch001
Copyright © 2022, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Integrating Language Skills, Practices, and Content in Equitable TESOL Lesson Planning
language integration by presenting contested definitions and discussions of integration of language skills,
practices, and content within TESOL and conclude with a critical orientation towards integrating students’
language skills and practices in and outside the classroom to support multiple language proficiencies
and sociopolitical competencies and practices inclusive of minoritized learners1. The second section of
the chapter will introduce a theory-based lesson planning template that integrates strategies to support
teachers’ comprehensive and conscientious instructional planning that is inclusive, student- and society-
centered and leads to critical awareness and social action. We base our suggestions for awareness and
action on research that shows that language skills, languaging2, learning and teaching is always political
(Alim, 2016) and if teachers and learners do not question assumptions and beliefs through reflection and
act together on local problems in the TESOL classroom, then they will perpetuate the inequitable and
often oppressive status quo (Benesch, 2001; Chun, 2015). The third section includes a menu of ways to
engage the concepts associated with critical integration of language skills, practices, and content and the
lesson planning template with in-service and/or pre-service TESOL educators in a class or training set-
ting so they can further apply these concepts and strategies into their own teaching. The next part of the
chapter describes a specific EFL university beginner-level lesson in Brazil that uses the lesson template
and aims to offer learning experiences that center the critical integration of language skills, practices,
and content. The chapter will conclude with a discussion on the challenges and possibilities of critical
instructional praxis around critical integration of skills, practices and content and on the enactment of
the evidence-based practices for lesson planning that we describe in this chapter
INTEGRATION OF LANGUAGE SKILLS AND PRACTICES
Developing multiple language proficiencies and sociopolitical competencies and practices inclusive
of all learners, including minoritized learners, requires a comprehensive critical approach. To address
persistent inequities in adult language education, we have built on and synthesized current work in
social and critical theories and pedagogies in language education. Based on this work we name three
orientations, or philosophies of teaching and learning and language instruction in particular: traditional
(teacher-centered), progressive (student-centered), and critical (power and society-centered) (Au, 1998;
Peterson, 2003; Stillman, Anderson, Arellano, Wong, Berta-Avila, Alfaro, & Struthers, 2013). Regard-
less of one’s educational orientation, language educators agree on the centrality of the language skills of
listening, reading, speaking, and writing to language development. Based on one’s orientation researchers
and educators question which skills are more important to teach, whether to teach these skills together,
if teachers should develop only these skills or focus on authentic use of language practices. Next, we
discuss these questions from each of the three orientations: traditional, progressive, and critical.
Traditional Approaches to Language Integration
According to a traditional teacher-centered instructional model, the teacher’s task is to impart or send
knowledge or skills to students who do not yet have them (Kaufman, 2004). The traditional teacher
aims to prepare students to succeed in school and career by assimilating to linguistic and cultural ways
of learning, knowing, and living of the dominant group and through success on standard assessment
measures (e.g., high-stakes tests or job interviews). This was the primary approach for language teach-
ers in the 20th Century which advocates for teaching language skills separately (Rosa & Flores, 2017).
2

In the 1950s educators divided language into four isolated skills and argued that second language
learning followed the sequence of first language acquisition: listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
One example of this approach is the audio-lingual method, called the Army Method, which was developed
for soldiers to communicate with locals during World War II (Chastain, 1976). The audio-lingual method
advocates adherence to a strict sequencing of skills where language input is teacher-provided with limited
context and fixed content. Teachers using this model expect students to repeat verbatim what they have
heard with no opportunity to deviate or add their personal original input or output. Another example of
a more recent related approach is Asher’s (1960) Total Physical Response (TPR) method that is based
on the coordination of language and physical movement. This method focuses on developing listening
comprehension skills incorporating limited content or context as it focuses on single words or formulaic
commands such as “Please sit.” Traditional educators divided the four skills into passive (listening and
reading) and active (speaking and writing) or input and output.
Progressive Approaches to Language Integration
As part of a social turn in TESOL, teachers center language learning around the student (i.e., learner-
centered instruction), the neighborhood, and society (Kaufman, 2004). Progressive pedagogies support
this social turn towards multicultural and multilingual education (Smagorinsky, 2013), focusing on
students’ social, racial, cultural, linguistic, and ability differences which influence and are influenced
by the individual and by social processes and environments. Researchers and teachers expanded narrow
definitions of input and output to receptive and productive skills to acknowledge that active cognitive
processing occurs across the language skills. To further represent the integrated nature of language as
a holistic practice, The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL, 2012) uses
the term interpretation in lieu of input and expression and negotiation of meaning instead of output. In-
terpretive competencies refer to input, and interpersonal and presentational to refer to output (Savignon,
1990). Student’s linguistic, sociocultural, and socioemotional background knowledge and life experiences
should serve as resources for these integrated language practices (Eisner, 2004).
Krashen and Mason (2020) assert through Optimal Input Hypothesis that compelling language input
is adjusted to the comprehension level of the learner, relevant to students’ interests and talents, mean-
ingful, abundant, and challenging. They claim that in the early stages of second language acquisition,
teachers make input more comprehensible through slower, expanded, simplified (i.e., adapted texts
from authentic sources) and repetitive speech accompanied by visuals and gestures. In addition, teach-
ers may give and ask for real-life examples to make abstract concepts comprehensible through familiar
“multiethnic cultural frames of reference” (Gay, 2010, p. xxiii). Teachers may pre-teach key vocabulary
words before having students read or listen to a text or view a video clip to increase the likelihood that
the students will comprehend it.
Unlike Krashen, who advocates for input as the key to language acquisition, Swain (2005) who
developed the comprehensible output (CO) hypothesis underscored that input alone is insufficient for
language development. Students need multiple opportunities to produce language, not only consume it.
The interaction hypothesis, or the reciprocal interaction model, states that face-to-face interaction and
extensive oral communication between teacher and students and among students develops language skills
(Long, 1989). Producing language can take the form of facilitating rich conversations about texts while
using the sophisticated academic or professional vocabulary learned to convey students’ own message
(Au, 1998).
3

Taken together, teachers should plan for their lessons to include the creation and consumption of
compelling language input and output that is interesting, relevant, and meaningful to learners and
include authentic texts from primary and secondary sources including news reports, newspapers, and
other multimodal new media. Teachers should also center students’ contributions in a language lesson,
where, for example, students’ personal stories can form the basis of the written content or discussion
(Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004).
Critical Approaches to Language Integration
In contrast, political and social justice ideologies that seek to emancipate students from oppression
drive critical pedagogies (Freire, 1993). Critical instructional approaches support students as they make
sense of new knowledge through their own cultural frames (Ladson-Billings, 2006) and students’ salient
everyday experiences (Paris & Alim, 2017). Culturally and linguistically sustaining language teachers
attend to the social and cultural capital (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990) and discourses (Gee, 2017) of the
youths’ communities and cultures and popular, school, or discipline-specific content and cultures (Paris
& Alim, 2017).
As part of a critical turn in TESOL, teachers extend communicative practices to draw from and inter-
rogate the raciolinguistic and sociopolitical contexts of the learner and build towards collective social
action (Chun & Morgan, 2019). Viewing language from a raciolinguistics lens means looking at the
intersection of race and language. This means that scholars and educators analyze race and language
together by asking questions like how speakers do race, how race identity is created through language
use, and what are anti-racist strategies for public discourse on language, race, and education (Alim et
al., 2016). Viewing language in a sociopolitical context means analyzing the social conditions, includ-
ing social class and race, of language and language learning. Furthermore, when educators examine the
sociopolitical context of multilingual education, they learn more about their students whose families
belong to racially, linguistically, and economically non-dominant groups, while avoiding generalizations
and stereotypes that arise from the “unexamined ideologies and myths that shape commonly accepted
ideas and values in society” (Nieto, 2000, p. 7). Following this orientation, critical language teachers
look to the language-rich environment of the family, school, neighborhood, and broader society and
leverage the multilingual linguistic landscapes as robust and valuable language input (Shohamy, 2012).
One example of this approach draws from critical literacy, where teachers plan for students to answer
questions about multimodal texts and the world around them in the target language and other languages
(Choudhury & Share, 2014; Garcia & Kleifgen, 2018).
A Balanced Approach to Beginner-Level Foreign Language Instruction
Consistent with the post-methods era to language instruction (Kumaravadivelu, 2008), we argue that
equitable language instruction should synthesize instructional and curricular orientations and leverage
relevant aspects from each to best fit the learners: goals, needs, and local school, neighborhood, and
professional practices (Bloom & Keil, 2001; Parkay, Anctil, & Hass, 2014). Dewey suggested educa-
tors can, “see each position as complementary to one another, speaking at once to different needs in
any complex educational context” (Parkay et al., 2014, p.19). He compares this to the various parts of a
tree, leaves and branches that are unique and also part of a whole. Recent research on Second Language
Acquisition (SLA) calls for a more fluid hybrid approach that encompasses multiple ways of knowing
4

and teaching (Ortega, 2012). Bloom and Keil (2001) suggested that “each theory may be adequate, but
several, together, may be more adequate” (p. 4). Critical scholars drawing from Marx and Engels (2010)
interrogate the power dynamics within a given educational context through dialectics. Dialectical thinking
states not A or B, but A plus B plus a recognition of power by addressing how institutions and practices
determine who has access to material and social resources.
While each approach to language integration is dynamic and often overlapping, the most useful and
equitable form of language of planning for integrated language instruction synthesizes elements of tra-
ditional, progressive, and critical orientations while recognizing and addressing unjust conditions and
practices. Traditional pedagogies remain crucial preconditions for academic learning; but they alone will
not guarantee intended language learning unless coupled with a linguistically and culturally sustaining
pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Paris & Alim, 2017) that interrogates power structures and leads to
social action (Choudhury & Share, 2012). Thus, taken together, these orientations recast our planning
for equitable lesson planning in TESOL. Following this perspective, this chapter offers protocols and
strategies associated with critical language teaching and learning in the post method era which presup-
poses a systematic and intentional synthesis of orientations.
We define equitable language instruction as integrating skills, practices, and content. This integra-
tion includes the interplay between language features, content knowledge, higher-level thinking skills
and meaningful interactions. Language is embedded in real-world social, cultural, and political contexts
with goals that can range from individual growth to social change. We argue that teachers following
a balanced approach develop their students’ sociopolitical and raciolinguistic awareness in addition to
linguistic skills and sociocultural practices. Equitable language teachers integrate various practices in
their lessons, using interactive scenarios, information gap and problem-solving tasks (Centeno‐Cortés,
& Jiménez Jiménez, 2004), content-based activities (Schleppegrell, Achugar, & Oteíza, 2004), whole-
language activities (Schwarzer, 2001), and experiential activities (Celce-Murcia, 2014; Walker, et al.,
2018), social justice service-learning (Santiago- Ortiz, 2019), community project-based language learn-
ing experiences (Porto, 2019) and solidarity work (Martinez, 2017), and participatory action research
(Di Stefano & Camicia 2018)3.
Language teachers taking a balanced, integrated, and equitable approach help students co-construct
a critical response to a text using the content knowledge and rhetorical structure (e.g., argument para-
graph) and/or linguistic features (vocabulary or grammatical structures) modeled in the mentor text.
For example, teachers pre-teach key vocabulary words found in commercials on household chores from
different time periods and countries around the world. The students then view the commercials and
discuss the changes in women’s role in the home, family, and society using the key vocabulary. Lastly,
they co-produce an equity-oriented commercial on another essential household product in their own
community (Janks, 2019).
LANGUAGE INTEGRATION LESSON PLAN TEMPLATE
Now, to translate our argument for the equitable and practical integration of language skills, practices
and content in the adult beginner-level language classroom, the section to follow offers a lesson template
and a description of a lesson. Teachers can use the template for a wide range of beginner-level foreign
language instruction. The integrated language skills, practices, and content lesson plan template is shown
in Table 1.
5

Table 1. An integrated language skills, practices, and content lesson plan template
continued on following page
6

Table 1. Continued
On the first page of the lesson template, we encourage teachers to define the unit theme and topic,
enduring understandings (big ideas) essential questions (inquiry about personal and social issues). Next,
we ask teachers to show the standards that guide the lesson. We urge teachers to include content, academic,
or professional standards (e.g., Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System, Common Core State
Standards), language standards (e.g., ACTFL World Readiness Standards, California English Language
Development Standards), and social justice standards (Teaching Tolerance, 2017). Since we have not
found one universal set of standards that includes traditional, progressive, and critical orientations, we
suggest integrating various sets of standards to carry out a balanced approach within each language les-
son. Following the standards, we ask teachers to define and integrate various lesson objectives.
Objectives aligned with standards address linguistic knowledge (vocabulary and grammar) and com-
municative skills across three modes (interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational), raciolinguistic and
sociopolitical awareness and social processes or products. A lesson objective may follow this formula,
“Students will be able to + action verb + noun + content + product” (Chatterjee & Corral, 2017). For
example, “Students will write or record 3-5 unique facts about themselves and post on a shared Get-
to-Know You Padlet.” The action verbs are ‘write’ and ‘record’ and the noun is the 3-5 unique facts
in this example. The content is information about themselves and the product is the post on Padlet. To
complete this frame, teachers should try to answer what the students will be able to produce using the
target language (say and write) by the end of the lesson. How will the teacher plan to integrate the three
modes of communication (interpretive, interpersonal and/or presentation) in this lesson and how do
these modes include or lead up to a critical analysis or action.
Next, teachers give students the guidelines, rubric, template, and actual worked example to guide
students to achieve the expected outcome. Teachers can ask themselves how will students’ speaking
sound and/or how will their writing read; do the outcomes address sociopolitical and/or raciolinguistic
issues. The answer to these questions can serve as the informal, ongoing, and formative assessment in
the lesson that indicate what and how well students have learned specific language skills, practices, and
content. If the lesson is near the end of an instructional unit then teachers can also plan for a formal and
summative assessment to gauge if the students have met the learning objectives. Assessments should align
with the learning objectives and standards. The products of the assessment serve as evidence of learning.
In the next section of the template teachers list the activities or learning experiences that make up the
lesson sequence. We call each step in the lesson a learning experience to underscore that each activity
is an opportunity to create authentic experiences (Tyler, 2013). For each learning experience a teacher
considers student performance. The teacher reflects on whose knowledge, practices, and languages will
7

be included and valued in the learning experience to meet the needs of each learner. We accomplished
this through tailored instruction that involves techniques and resources that offer custom levels of sup-
port for different students based on the assets and gaps in their knowledge and skills.
Teachers consider three similar yet different ways to make sure that each learning experience is ac-
cessible to all learners: differentiation, grouping, and/or scaffolding (Howard, Lindholm-Leary, Rogers,
Olague, Medina, Kennedy, Sugarman, & Christian, 2018). While scaffolding and differentiation are
related, they involve distinct teacher instructional planning practices. Planning for scaffolding means
the teacher offers the same content or aims to develop the same skill but makes the content and skills
accessible to students in different ways. Teachers differentiate when they give students varied types of
input or provide assignment choices to create a unique product based on their ability, knowledge, inter-
est or socioeconomic or sociocultural contexts. Differentiation means that the teacher provides multiple
means of representation to make the content accessible and compelling through various strategies, such
as translanguaging that employs multiple languages in an integrated and coherent way to increase stu-
dents’ engagement and optimize their individual and collective learning (Makalela, 2015). Teachers can
further differentiate students’ output by allowing students to choose the language, modality (e.g., essay,
video, presentation) and audience of their product.
Scaffolding means breaking up a complex learning experience into constituent tasks with language
support. Examples of scaffolding include chunking a long text or providing the authentic version of a
text, pre-teaching key vocabulary, activating prior knowledge through a discussion before reading a text,
providing a rhetorical structure for writing an argumentative paragraph, and teacher and peer modeling
of ways to negotiate meaning of a word, a sentence, or a paragraph (Naraian, 2016).
While content, tasks and assessments should be inclusive and flexible and allow for scaffolding and
differentiation, teachers following an equitable approach must set high standards and encourage high
expectations for all learners (Parkay et al., 2014). Misguided assertions and stereotypes about learners’
abilities by lowering expectations and overly scaffolding input and output can result in seriously de-
structive consequences for minoritized students (Milner, 2010). Thus, teachers need to be sensitive and
flexible enough to balance between scaffolded and open-ended activities to ensure not only equitable
access but also equitable outcomes (ACTFL, 2012).
A third way to tailor instruction for diverse learners is through strategic and flexible grouping of
students. Equitable groups can be homogeneous or heterogeneous based on academic content knowledge,
sociocultural knowledge, language proficiencies, interests, and identities. Equitable grouping not only
requires students to work interdependently, with clearly conceived individual and group accountability
for all group members, but it needs to strive for socio-cultural equity. For example, a teacher can select
different knowledgeable peers in each learning experience and strategically plan how their knowledge
can be leveraged across experiences in the lesson. Equitable grouping also provides opportunities for
youth to practice navigating across the different cultural or linguistic communities within the classroom
(Moje, 2007) using translanguaging. For example, students can discuss a text in the target language in
homogeneous groups using a shared home language or in heterogeneous group using the target language
(Howard et al., 2018). For more in-depth treatment and examples of a critical approach to tailoring lan-
guage instruction, see Gross & Crawford, 2021.
Lastly, the teacher should plan how much time each segment may take, list materials and technologies
they plan to use, and consider how to get or create these resources. To explain and show the integrated
lesson sequence itself, the next section will review an exemplar lesson that draws from traditional,
8

progressive, and critical orientations to integration of language skills, practices, and content for each
learning experience.
LEARNING ACTIVITY
In-service and pre-service teachers can use the lesson template and the description of a specific EFL
lesson plan for their own professional growth. This section offers a range of activities to support this
professional growth, with the goal of working towards critical praxis in TESOL. Consider engaging criti-
cal integration of language skills, practices, and content with in-service programs in your own TESOL
context. Below are multiple ways to work towards critical praxis in your own classroom in a way that
bridges theory-based and research-based approaches to integration with your own instructional plan-
ning. You can select as many of the following questions and activities for reflective discussions that are
useful to support your ability as a critical TESOL educator in applying these concepts to your practice.
Discussion Questions
1. In what ways is planning for the integration of language skills, practices, and content relevant and
sustaining (or not) to your local TESOL context?
2. What are possible challenges to using the lesson plan template in your instructional planning for
lessons in your current or future teaching context?
3. Who could help you overcome those challenges you identified to using the lesson plan template?
4. What would be the political, social, or professional effect on your current or future teaching if you
change your instructional planning practices to include critical approaches to the integration of
language skills, practices, and content?
The two major challenges we have encountered as language teachers and teacher educators relate to
limited planning time, availability (or lack of) authentic critical resources that are comprehensible to and
appropriate for young and adult novice language learners, and institutional restrictions to implement-
ing critical integration of skills, practices, and content. While some of these challenges are simpler to
resolve, others are more challenging. To help teachers find appropriate materials and creative ideas for
lesson plans, teachers can join or form a local or global professional learning group that is working on
integrating language skills, practices, and content. Teachers can leverage emerging technologies in their
current or future teaching context to co-construct a critical inventory of authentic and adapted texts and
activities per grade-level in a systematic manner. We offer four possible solutions for educators working
in regimes where they cannot encourage students’ interrogation of the sociopolitical or raciolinguistic
context. The first solution is to analyze and critique a local contested issue from a perspective that is
approved by government or school officials. For example, in a Chinese EFL University classroom, the
teacher could engage in a critique of a New York Times article about the origin of the COVID-19 virus
but not engage in the same critique of that issue reported in the local newspaper and let students infer
the additional critique if they choose to do so on their own. A second approach is to critique an issue in
a different context than their own, but that is familiar to students. For example, in an Israeli EFL univer-
sity classroom, the teacher could incorporate an article and discussion about the merits of the critique
of the French ban on hijabs at the beach instead of interrogating the policy of suspending public bus
9

services on Saturdays for observing Shabbat or the ultraorthodox Jewish communities’ internal rule to
enforce sex-segregated busses. A third option is for teachers to engage in critical reflection about their
own practices. For example, teachers can reflect before, during or after their lessons on ways that they
can create a more equitable learning experience within the classroom. More specifically, teachers could
reflect on the racialized impact of using some of the strategies we mentioned in the lesson plan template
explanation such as tailoring instruction to meet the linguistic and cultural needs of their diverse learners.
That way, teachers ensure that the stated ideals of critical multicultural and multilingual education for a
democratic society are modeled within the classroom community which can be translated by students to
actions when they leave their school setting. Fourth, teachers can also engage in self-reflection through
journal writing and collaborative reflective conversations about their own intersecting identity positions
(e.g., race, gender, class, religion, etc.) and educational philosophy (i.e., goals, intentions, prior experi-
ence, beliefs about their students’ abilities and ways of learning, etc.). Next, you will find some suggested
activities to help you, or your pre- or in-service teachers engage in such critical reflection about teaching
and learning through integration of language skills, practices, and content.
Menu of Analysis and Application Activities
1. Spot and label learning experiences and instructional strategies on an existing lesson plan using
the lesson template categories.
2. Analyze a lesson observation using the template to identify types of learning experiences and
strategies.
3. Write your own lesson plan using the lesson template in this chapter. Then, check if there are op-
portunities for your students to interrogate power structures and/or participate in social action?
4. Drag and match learning experiences with lesson plan categories in the template.
5. Identify the focus of specific learning experiences as input (interpretive) or output (presentational
or interpersonal) or integrated.
6. Share an activity that provides input and discuss what possible authentic and critical output activities
could follow that experience. Consider the ways that language input supports language output. For
example, the mentor text (input) could offer the rhetorical structure, the vocabulary, or the content
for the student-created text (output).
In the next section, we will turn to a re-imagined example lesson that combines lessons and contexts
from the two authors’ past classroom experiences.
AN EXEMPLAR INTEGRATED LESSON
This section will describe a lesson where a university English as-a-foreign language instructor supported
their novice-high students’ development of multiple language proficiencies and sociopolitical competen-
cies through the integration of language skills and the integration of critical thinking practices and critical
compelling content. Before presenting the lesson, we will briefly describe the sociopolitical context of
English instruction for university-level students in Brazil. Next, we will provide some thematic context
and other pertinent details about the specific lesson.
10

The students’ purpose in learning English is to have greater access to academic and professional
opportunities after they complete their undergraduate degree. For example, many public and private
sector jobs in Brazil require a series of tests as part of the application process (the direct translation of
the word for this process, concurso, in Brazilian Portuguese means a contest). Many students who want
to pursue graduate studies hoped to apply to a federal scholarship program (Programa de Doutorado-
sanduíche no Exterior) where they could complete part of their studies abroad, with many hoping to
sandwich a year in the United States between their Brazilian doctoral studies. The students come from
social science and humanities disciplines and this course counts towards degree completion but was not
required. Students attending this prestigious public university are disproportionately from private high
schools, have access to additional English language learning opportunities like trips abroad or tutors,
and begin the university with an intermediate level of English. Since this course is a novice-level English
course, many of the students, while taking several years of English, did not enjoy this same access to
additional English language learning opportunities that their wealthier peers may have enjoyed. The city
where this university is located has the second largest number of Black people in any city in the world.
There are class and racial divisions with the neighborhoods in the center of the city having wealthier
and whiter residents and the neighborhoods further from the university on the periphery having more
Black and working-class residents. Discussions of racial justice thrive in this city, at the university, and
among the students in this class. Now, we share some pertinent details about the instructional unit and
course structure so readers have a holistic understanding of the individual lesson we are about to present.
It is the first lesson in a thematic unit about contemporary life and neighborhoods in California.
In accordance with university policies (similar to Carnegie unit and student hour norms in the United
States), students are expected to spend four hours of class time per week and eight hours of work outside
of class time. This class meets twice a week for two hours per meeting with four hours of outside work
associated with each meeting. This lesson follows a flipped classroom model which is part of a broader
blended approach (Christensen Institute, 2021). With the flipped model, a teacher can use technology to
front load the lower-level skills on Bloom’s taxonomy, such as knowledge of vocabulary and grammatical
rules or first exposure to content before class. Class time is then devoted to higher order thinking skills,
actual language use, negotiation of meaning, and co-construction of an oral or written product (Wang,
An, & Wright, 2018). In this model, students have opportunities to review input at their own pace and
as many times as they need, receive feedback from the teacher and peers, thus making learning more
accessible and equitable. In the lesson to follow, the initial input steps were completed at home and the
formal output was completed in class. However, the input steps can be taught in class, while the output
is completed at home. This lesson requires that all students have access to a personal or school device.
Throughout this section we will refer to components of the lesson plan in parentheses with the title
of the component capitalized and italicized to demonstrate how we enact theory or concepts in practice.
In the lesson, the students learned new vocabulary, grammatical rules, and content and developed their
sociocultural practices, and sociopolitical and raciolinguistic competencies. The lesson started with a
teacher-made video in which she shared the big ideas, goals of the unit and lesson objectives (Lesson
Focus & Context). The teacher then shared options for possible products that served as assessments of
the lesson: a Tweet or a Facebook post and a hypothetical email or audio recording about a study abroad
homestay placement (Assessment). After watching the video, as part of the homework, to activate their
prior knowledge, the teacher asked students to write what was most interesting for them to learn about
and note anything they knew that related to the unit in Portuguese (L1) and/or in English (L2) (i.e., rel-
evant vocabulary, facts, and experiences). Then, students were asked to generate at least two questions in
11

Table 2. An exemplar integrated language skills, practices, and content lesson plan
12

Table 2. Continued
13

Table 2. Continued
English and as many as they liked in their L1 about the unit topic and big ideas. The lesson then moved
through multiple cycles of comprehensible and compelling input and output where the teacher provided
new knowledge and elicited performance. The learning experiences included direct instruction as well as
inquiry through interpretative (listening, viewing, reading) and interpersonal and presentational (speak-
ing and writing) activities. Using the language integration template described in the previous section,
the complete exemplar integrated language skills, practices, and content lesson plan, which includes
detailed descriptions of each activity, is shown in Table 2.
DISCUSSION
In this chapter, we argued for the integration of skills, content, and practices across three orientations
in beginner-level English as a Foreign Language instruction. The lesson example illustrated a synthesis
of traditional, progressive, and critical approaches to language instruction. This balanced approach led
students to integrate new content and linguistic knowledge while developing their skills and practices.
They interrogate language: academic vocabulary, grammatical concepts, and canonical facts as well as
the inequitable distribution of social and material resources through various instructional models and
methods that culminated in new sociopolitical understandings and creative products for social action.
A second point to consider is the integration of different instructional models and methods: Direct
Instruction, Gradual Release of Responsibility, Inquiry, Critical Literacy, Communicative Language
Teaching, and Solidarity work. The sections written in blue, can be either completed in class following
a Gradual Release of Responsibility model or at home following the flipped instruction model. Critical
literacy was supported through activities where students collaborated in small groups to analyze authen-
tic texts and community practices about a chosen residential community. The teacher further supported
critical awareness through questions that asked students to consider the sociopolitical and raciolinguistic
14

contexts of language in videos, maps, and social media posts. Communicative language teaching was
evident in the activity where students wrote a hypothetical email or created an audio recording about
a study abroad homestay placement. Solidarity work informed the culminating activity where students
produced social media tweets or Facebook posts to question or support a specific residential community.
Another central point to consider is the gradual progression of complexity and length of language
skills, practices, and content that took place throughout the lesson. The lesson cycled from scaffolded
input and structured output to independent comprehension of authentic clips and texts and differenti-
ated open-ended output (Tweet or Facebook post and a hypothetical email or audio recording). To sup-
port students in achieving the final product, each skill was developed gradually, from simple to more
complex, from 2 to 3 short sentences and then expanding the input and the output by adding arguments
and examples. In terms of sociopolitical awareness and action, the lesson moved from raising students’
awareness to raciolinguistic issues to new sociopolitical understandings and culminated with taking
social action through producing a support or protest post or tweet.
In closing, we acknowledge the challenges of implementing an integrated and critical approach to
language skills, practices, and content in the foreign language classroom. These challenges may be
shaped by institutional constraints, such as policies and standards. Teachers may face limited planning
time and access to authentic, compelling, critical resources that are comprehensible to and appropriate
for adult novice language learners. We encourage beginner-level foreign language teachers to integrate
skills, content, and practices across three orientations while taking into consideration their local contexts.
Notwithstanding, we argue that the benefits of integrated and critical language instruction to students’
learning and their practice of language in society outweigh the challenges. We are reminded of Antonio
Machado’s (1927) poem, “Traveler, there is no road; you make your own path as you walk.” We hope that
as language teachers together we can forge a more equitable and inclusive path for all language learners.
REFERENCES
Alim, H. S. (2016). Who’s afraid of the transracial subject? In H. S. Alim, J. R. Rickford, & A. F. Ball
(Eds.), Raciolinguistics: How Language Shapes our Ideas about Race (pp. 33–50). Oxford University
Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190625696.003.0002
American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines
(3rd ed.). Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-
guidelines-2012
Asher, J. (1960). Total physical response. Total Physical Response.
Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students with diverse back-
grounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(30), 297–319. doi:10.1080/10862969809548000
Bensimon, E. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning
perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131(131), 99–111. doi:10.1002/he.190
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (Vol. 4). Sage.
Cadiero-Kaplan, K. (2004). The literacy curriculum & bilingual education. Peter Lang.
15

Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). (2014). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.). Heinle &
Heinle Publishers.
Centeno‐Cortés, B., & Jiménez Jiménez, A. F. (2004). Problem‐solving tasks in a foreign language: The
importance of the L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1),
7–35. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00052.x
Chastain, K. (1976). Developing second-language skills: Theory to practice (2nd ed.). Rand McNally.
Chatterjee, D., & Corral, J. (2017). How to write well-defined learning objectives. The Journal of Edu-
cation in Perioperative Medicine: JEPM, 19(4). PMID:29766034
Chun, C. W. (2015). Power and meaning making in an EAP classroom: Engaging with the everyday
(Vol. 19). Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783092956
Chun, C. W., & Morgan, B. (2019). Critical research in English language teaching. Second handbook
of English language teaching, 1091-1110.
Dewey, J. (1998). The essential Dewey: Pragmatism, education, democracy (Vol. 1). Indiana University
Press.
Di Stefano, M., & Camicia, S. P. (2018). Transnational civic education and emergent bilinguals in a dual
language setting. Education Sciences, 8(3), 128. doi:10.3390/educsci8030128
Eisner, E. W. (2004). What does it mean to say a school is doing well. The Curriculum Studies Reader,
2, 297–305.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.
Gee, J. P. (2017). Introducing discourse analysis: From grammar to society. Routledge.
Gross, E., & Crawford, J. (2021). Protocols and Tools for Equitable Dual Language Bilingual Teaching.
IGI Global.
Howard, E. R., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., Rogers, D., Olague, N., Medina, J., Kennedy, D., Sugarman, J.,
& Christian, D. (2018). Guiding principles for dual language education (3rd ed.). Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Janks, H. (2019). Critical Literacy and the Importance of Reading With and Against a Text. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(5), 561–564. doi:10.1002/jaal.941
Kaufman, D. (2004). Constructivist issues in language learning and teaching. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24, 303–319. doi:10.1017/S0267190504000121
Krashen, S., & Mason, B. (2020). The Optimal Input Hypothesis: Not All Comprehensible Input is of
Equal Value. CATESOL Newsletter, 1-2.
Press.
16

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement
in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X035007003
Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawaii Working Papers in
ESL, 8(2), 1-26.
Machado, A. (1927). Traveller, there is no path. Academic Press.
Martinez, D. C. (2017). Imagining a language of solidarity for Black and Latinx youth in English lan-
guage arts classrooms. English Education, 49(2), 179.
Marx, K. (2010). Karl Marx. Lawrence & Wishart Electric Book.
Naraian, S. (2016). Teaching for “real”: Reconciling explicit literacy instruction with inclusive
pedagogy in a fourth-grade urban classroom. Urban Education. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0042085916648742
Nieto, S. (2009). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203872284
Ortega, L. (2012). SLA after the social turn. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second
language acquisition (pp. 167–180). Routhledge.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for
justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.
Parkay, F. W., Anctil, E. J., & Hass, G. (2014). Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality
educational programs. Prentice Hall.
Peterson, E. (1990). Teaching How to Read the World and Change It. In The Critical Pedagogy Reader.
London: Routledge Falmer.
Porto, M. (2019). Affordances, complexities, and challenges of intercultural citizenship for foreign
language teachers. Foreign Language Annals, 52(1), 141–164. doi:10.1111/flan.12375
Santiago-Ortiz, A. (2019). From Critical to Decolonizing Service-Learning: Limits and Possibilities of
Social Justice-Based Approaches to Community Service-Learning. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 25(1), 43–54.
Savignon, S. (1990). Communicative language teaching: Definitions and directions. Georgetown Uni-
versity Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 1, 207-217.
Schleppegrell, M. J., Achugar, M., & Oteíza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content‐based
instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 67–93. doi:10.2307/3588259
Schwarzer, D. (2001). Whole language in a foreign language class: From theory to practice. Foreign
Language Annals, 34(1), 52–59. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02802.x
Shohamy, E. (2012). Linguistic landscapes and multilingualism. In The Routledge handbook of multi-
lingualism (pp. 550–563). Routledge.
17

Smagorinsky, P. (2013). What does Vygotsky provide for the 21st century language arts teacher? Lan-
guage Arts, 90(3), 192–204.
Stillman, J., Anderson, L., Arellano, A., Wong, P. L., Berta-Avila, M., Alfaro, C., & Struthers, K. (2013).
Putting PACT in context and context in PACT: Teacher educators collaborating around program-specific
and shared learning goals. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(4), 135–157.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. Handbook of research in second language
teaching and learning, 1, 471-483.
Teaching Tolerance. (2017). Social justice standards. Academic Press.
Tyler, R. W. (2013). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press.
doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226086644.001.0001
Walker, I., Chan, D. K. G., Nagami, M., & Bourguignon, C. (Eds.). (2018). New Perspectives on the De-
velopment of Communicative and Related Competence in Foreign Language Education. Academic Press.
Wang, J., An, N., & Wright, C. (2018). Enhancing beginner learners’ oral proficiency in a flipped Chi-
nese foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5-6), 490–521. doi:10.10
80/09588221.2017.1417872
ADDITIONAL READING
American Council for Teachers of World Languages. (2021, March). World-readiness Standards For
Learning Languages. ACTFL. https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/publications/standards/World-
ReadinessStandardsforLearningLanguages.pdf
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781410601803
Christensen Institute. (2021, March). Blended Learning Models. Blended Learning Universe. https://
www.blendedlearning.org/models/
Glynn, C., Wesely, P., & Wassell, B. (2014). Planning Daily Lessons. In Words and actions: Teaching
languages through the lens of social justice (pp. 37–58). ACTFL.
Author & Author. (2021). Protocols and Tools for Equitable Dual Language Bilingual Teaching. IGI
Global.
Magner, T., Saltrick, S., & Wesolowski, K. (2011, March) 21st Century Skills Map. Partnership of 21st
Century Learning. https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/curr-wl-actfl-21st-century-skills-map.pdf
Ohio State Department of Education. (2018, May). Content Elaborations: Themes, topics and essential
questions. Learning in Ohio. http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Foreign-Language/
World-Languages-Model-Curriculum/World-Languages-Model-Curriculum-Framework/Content-
Elaborations
18

Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Lan-
guage in Society, 46, 621-647.
Southern Poverty Law Center. (2021, March). Do Something: 34 Student Tasks. Learning for Justice.
https://www.learningforjustice.org/classroom-resources/student-tasks/do-something
Southern Poverty Law Center. (2021, March). Social Justice Standards. Learning for Justice. https://
www.tolerance.org/sites/default/files/2017-06/TT_Social_Justice_Standards_0.pdf
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Activate Prior Knowledge: Input such as a trigger (video clip, visual, text) connects to the lesson
objective to gain attention and support students to draw on their experiential knowledge, linguistic rep-
ertoires, sociopolitical as well as specific technical skills and target academic language. Solicit questions
from students about the new topic.
Critical Awareness: Critical thinking about power by connecting students and target-language com-
munities through oral and/or written negotiation of meaning through an analysis of oppression in the
broader community by identifying one’s identity and naming their role in oppression.
Elicit Performance: Teacher encourages students to practice new information and produce language
output. Ideally, this output will integrate language skills, practices, and content based on what students
recently learned.
Flipped Instruction: One of several models of online and in person blended instruction where the
teacher presents new target knowledge before class and then practices the related skills, practices, and
content during the synchronous online or in person class session.
Information Gap Activity: An information gap activity is an activity where students are required
to talk to each other to find out the missing information they need to complete a task.
Input: Language input is exposure to language skills and practices in use from myriad sources that
can include authentic original or adapted multimodal texts from academic sources, teachers, learners,
and society.
Integration: Combining language skills, practices, and content in language teaching that is often
done to support communication, critical analysis, and social action through language.
Interactive Scenarios: Interactive scenarios engage students in working together to solve a problem
or negotiate meaning.
Languaging: “Languaging” or “doing language” is a collaborative dialogic activity or a process of
making meaning and building knowledge through language to solve complex problems.
Minoritized Learners: Minoritized Learners are students whose families belong to racially, linguisti-
cally, and economically non-dominant groups.
Output: Language output is the language, content and social skills learners produce or perform in
myriad authentic contexts from the classroom, local community, to broader society.
Raciolinguistic Context: Raciolinguistic context presumes that race and language are inextricably
intersectional.
Social Action: Teachers and students engaging in individual and collective social action towards
more just practices and policies that result from language learning and critical analysis.
19

Sociopolitical Context: Sociopolitical context shapes and is shaped by the social conditions of
language and language learning.
Solidarity Work: Unlike service-learning work where the giver decides what marginalized people
need and how to provide it to them, solidarity work means that the economic and socially privileged
stand in solidarity with those who need access to the systems and benefits of the dominant culture.
Student Reflection: Students think about what they have learned and how they have learned it. In this
process students should identify gains and gaps in language knowledge, skills, and practices in relation
to lesson and unit outcomes as well as broader learning goals and practices outside of the classroom.
Teacher Reflection: Teachers think about student learning and their practices to support target objec-
tives and goals. This reflection can include a critical interrogation of who was and who was not served
by the learning experiences and strategies across student demographic subgroups and ways to further
adapt one’s lesson planning and instruction to address all students’ learning needs more equitably.
Translanaguging: Translanguaging is a pedagogical practice of using both languages in an integrated
and coherent way to mediate content learning, in contrast with unplanned and reactive code-switching,
which may leave learners with a partial or fragmented understanding of the content.
ENDNOTES
1
see Key Terms and Definitions for more information
2
see Key Terms and Definitions for more information
3
see Key Terms and Definitions for a short explanation of each practice and refer to the original
source for a more in-depth treatment of each of the various practices.
20
21
Chapter 2
Creating Brave Spaces:
Social Justice and Social Emotional
Learning in Language Learner Classrooms
Nancy Kwang Johnson

L. Erika Saito
National University, USA
ABSTRACT
This chapter provides an interdisciplinary, conceptual social justice and social emotional learning
framework and protocol to understand the varying competencies needed in critical learning paradigms
with regard to multilingual learners (MLs). Engaging in social justice and social emotional (SJSE) work
requires reflective practices to develop teacher identity. Therefore, reflection protocols before and after
instruction in this chapter serve as a lever for building culturally reflective teachers through prompts
that engage in self-awareness, student relations, and climate. Lesson plan delivery at different grade and
language levels along with background and rationale of each topic further demonstrate SJSE integration.
Discussion of challenges in SJSE are addressed that extend into three identified areas: professional,
personal, and institutional.
INTRODUCTION
The contemporary racial and sociocultural climate beckons language educators to critically reflect upon
their profession (Farrell, 2021; Farrell & Macapinlac, 2021), pedagogy and teacher identity. Educators
in the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) field are confronted with three
striking postcolonial realities. First, a significant portion of their students originate from former colo-
nies, namely Asian and African (that gained independence between 1945 and 1960), Latin American
(that became independent during the 1800s except for Belize, Cuba and Guyana), and Middle Eastern
(that underwent decolonizing between the 1920s and 1970s). Second, the majority of students speak
multiple languages and their families migrated (voluntarily or involuntarily) from their homeland to
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch002

Creating Brave Spaces
a host or asylum country. Third, students strive for native-like English proficiency because the global
marketplace commodifies English and its variants (Kachru, 1985) as socio-linguistic capital (Bourdieu
& Passeron, 2009).
Given the racial and sociocultural demographics of Multilingual Learners (MLs), educators are
charged with the Herculean task of creating brave spaces (Arao & Clemens, 2013), “environments that
invite interactions in which participants feel able to be honest, candid, self-disclosing, and generally
genuine with one another” within their classrooms (Stanlick, 2015, p.117). Like restorative justice prac-
titioners, language educators designate circles as brave spaces (Arao & Clemens, 2013) because they
foster inclusivity and respect (Pentón Herrera & McNair, 2021). As circle keepers, educators encourage
engagement, empathy and emotional release within the circles. Rather than controlling the circle, keep-
ers facilitate and empower circle participants (Pentón Herrera & McNair, 2021).
A literature review of restorative practices (Pentón Herrera & McNair, 2021) and social justice
(SJ) studies (Pantić & Florian, 2015; Glodjo, 2017; West, 2021; Young, 2011) highlights competing
SJ paradigms. West (2021) notes that SJ encompasses a vast array of issues ranging from antiracism,
peacebuilding, and human rights for linguistic minorities. While Fraser (1997) proposes a simplistic
material redistribution-social recognition dichotomy, Young (2011) argues for a more complex one in
which “exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism and violence” represent the
“five faces of injustice” (West, 2021, p. 5).
This chapter draws heavily upon Young’s (2011) SJ model because it foregrounds power and inter-
sectionality (Crenshaw, 1990). For Young (2011), “power needs to account for the complex ways that
intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1990) impacts the way individuals feel and are subject to injustice” (West,
2021, p. 5). Crenshaw’s (1990) framework not only underscores that “a person may experience one or
more of the injustices that Young (2011) lays out,” but also notes “that people experience them differ-
ently depending on who they are” (West, 2021, p. 5).
For SJ and critical language (CL) educators, the conceptualization of the language teacher identity
(LTI) is paramount. LTI has a direct impact on pedagogy, classroom practices and ultimately language
learning development. Before entering a brave space (Arao & Clemens, 2013), it is incumbent upon
CL educators to critically reflect upon their power (Young, 2011), intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1990),
positionality and privilege vis-à-vis the racial (Fanon, 2008), colonial (De Sousa Santos, 2015; Smith,
2021), linguistic (Motha, 2016) and social class identities (Glodjo, 2017) of language learners. Social
justice educators (SJEds), as defined by the authors, proactively advocate for classrooms that cultivate
a sense of belongingness.
LTI entails self-reflection (Larrivee, 2008; Farrell, 2015, 2018, 2021; Farrell & Macapinlac, 2021).
Educators need to discern “who they are: the professional, cultural, political, and individual identities
which they claim or which are assigned to them” (Varghese et al., 2005, p. 22). Morgan (2016) asserts
that “LTI is a key source of agency for social change” (p. 205). Educators who are self-aware of their
implicit bias and privilege (Glodjo, 2017) are more inclined to eradicate linguistic and cultural socializa-
tion processes that perpetuate oppression, cultural chauvinism, inequality and inequity.
The purpose of this chapter is two-fold. First and foremost, the chapter is a call to action. It sum-
mons language educators, as intellectual-activists (De Sousa Santos, 2015), to deploy SJ paradigms and
the varying social and emotional learning (SEL) competencies needed to create brave spaces (Arao &
Clemens, 2013) for language learners. This chapter offers SJ and SEL theoretical lenses, adapted from
the Learning for Justice’s Social Justice Standards (2018) and features adapted from Collaborative Aca-
demic Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) competencies (2021). Why? The authors believe that no
22

matter who you are or where you are, in the global village, “our geography,” as De Sousa Santos (2015)
adeptly asserts, “is the geography of injustice and oppression” (p. 4). Therein, lies the force motrice
(driving force) of this chapter.
Second, this chapter provides three frameworks representative of the authors’ training as political,
anthropological, and linguistic ethnographers in the social sciences and education fields. The frameworks,
namely the Ethnic Identity and Generational Status Framework (Saito, 2020), Language, Ethnicity, and
National Identity - The Colonial “Civilizing Mission” Framework (Johnson, 2005), and the Ethnicity
as a Marker - Self-Identification vs. State-Identification Framework (Johnson, 2012) address the socio-
historical, colonial, and political contexts that shape ethnic identity formation processes. These frameworks
highlight the intertwined dynamic between race, ethnicity, language, nation-state and homeland. Case
in point, both authors are members of multilingual households (in which Japanese, Korean and English
are mother tongues) and belong to multiple diasporas – one to the Japanese/Asian diaspora and the other
to the Korean/Asian, African and Native American diasporas. For example, the lesson plans featured in
the “Learning Activities” and “Portraits of Practice” sections are autobiographical and indicative of a
Korean-Black Cherokee Indian and a fourth generation Japanese American. This chapter, co-authored
by MLs, was written for pre-service and in-service teachers of MLs.
CONCEPT
TESOL and SEL fields have been criticized as being inherently racist, imposing a colonizer mentality
(Fanon, 2008; De Sousa Santos, 2015; Smith, 2021), and being dismissive of diverse student populations
(Leonardo, 2013; Caven, 2020; Ford, 2020; Kubota, 2002; Simmons, 2017, 2019; Torres & Stukan,
2019; Weaver, 2020). Despite the onslaught of condemnation, little has been done to address the cultur-
ally hegemonic curriculum in English language education programs. Previous transformational SEL
frameworks have introduced terms such as culture, equity, and antiracism to advance the foundational
social emotional definitions (Jagers et al., 2019; Markowitz & Bouffard, 2020). However, SEL through
these lenses has yet to be fully explored in praxis.
A clear framework for English language teachers (ELT) is needed to demonstrate how SJ and SEL may
be integrated into their standards-based instruction. To attain this goal, pre-service and veteran teachers
should begin with reflective self-assessments to understand their own biases, cultural competence, and
identify areas to develop (see Resources, “Self-Assessments”). Pre-service teachers should also gain a
clear understanding of their course learning intentions guided by the language standards being used at
their institution (see Resources, “Language Standards’’). Towards this end, the authors have designed
two reflection protocols (see “Learning Activities”).
Learning for Justice’s (Formerly Teaching Tolerance) Social Justice Standards
The Learning Justice Standards provide a framework for anti-bias education with four domains: (1)
Identity, (2) Diversity, (3) Justice, and (4) Action (Social Justice Standards, 2018). Identity Anchor
Standards focus on the fact that an individual may have multiple identities and belong to more than one
group. These standards exemplify an individual’s self- and social-awareness capabilities. Diversity An-
chor Standards address similarities and differences between groups. At the core of these standards is an
individual’s ability to have empathy towards individuals and groups (outside their own groups). Justice
23

Anchor Standards prompt educators and students to recognize injustice. These standards demarcate the
first stage of the problem-solving process to fight against injustice. The Action Anchor Standards mark
the second and final stage of the conflict-resolution process. These standards beg the following question.
How do SJEds, as intellectual-activists (De Sousa Santos, 2015), seek measures to counter oppression
and discrimination at the macro-(institutional) and micro-level (individual)?
Figure 1. Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Lenses
The newly defined key domains in Figure 1 include:
• Identity and Self-Awareness: Developing self-identity and engaging in self-awareness

• Diverse and Cultural Relations: Cultivating relations with diverse individuals
• Informed and Socially Just Decisions: Advocating for otherness
• Historically and Contextually Informed-Actions: Being aware of identities socially constructed
during colonial and historical periods
• Social and Cultural Awareness: Knowing social norms and cultural values
24

SEL is an integral aspect of emotional development that begins in infancy and continues through
adulthood. Those who develop skills in self- and social awareness are not only able to regulate their
own emotions, but also their interactions with others. CASEL, the leader in social emotional research
for K-12 levels, addresses SEL in three settings - classrooms, homes and communities. CASEL (2021)
competencies include: 1) self-awareness, 2) social awareness, 3) self-management, 4) responsible
decision-making, and 5) relationship skills. Table 1 compares SJ’s domains and CASEL competencies.
Table 1. Social Justice Domains and Social Emotional Learning Competencies
Social Justice Domains CASEL Competencies
Identity Self-Awareness
Action Self-Management
Diversity
Social-Awareness
Justice
Identity
Relationship Skills
Diversity
Justice
Responsible Decision-Making
Action
The classroom space is ideal for teaching SJ and SEL to MLs. Classrooms provide an intermediary
third space where English as a Foreign Language (EFL), English as a Second Language (ESL) or English
Language Development (ELD) students may take courses (that are not fully immersed) alongside their
native English-speaking peers. As a result, MLs are exposed to the dominant language and behaviors
that facilitate acculturation to their host societies (Linares, 2016; Witenstein & Saito, 2015). SEL for
MLs offers student support and emotional wellness that arguably should be integrated throughout their
curriculum, rather than taken as a separate course.
Despite superficial attempts to redefine how SEL can be more inclusive and supportive of commu-
nities of color, little research addresses this need. If SJEds are to have courageous conversations about
race and racism in brave spaces (Arao & Clemens, 2013), then a paradigm shift is in order. Ignoring
individual stories produces a culturally assaultive learning environment that is dangerously color blind
(Ford, 2020; Simmons, 2019). Rich and meaningful discussions of racial and social justice need to take
place in every classroom, particularly throughout the TESOL field, where students rely on English teacher
modeling to help navigate English-speaking societies plagued by cultural hegemony.
Ethnic Identity and Generational Status Framework
The Ethnic Identity and Generational Status Framework centers on ethnic identity development that is
shaped by contextual factors such as home, school, community, history, geographic location, generational
status, and societal reception (Saito, 2020). A robust ethnic identity is linked to a positive sense of self,
thus impacting motivation and academic achievement. Ethnic identity is particularly important and salient
for minority students. An interconnected piece of ethnic identity is its historical influence that is shaped
by policies and societal perception. The Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, for example, denied Chinese
immigrants from entering the U.S. due to the perceived rise in Chinese immigration and threat to the
25

U.S. economy (Paik et al., 2014). This policy resulted in increased acts of anti-Chinese violence and
led to massacres of Chinese people in Los Angeles, California and Rock Springs, Wyoming (Gardner,
2003). History and intergenerational colonial mentality provide context for current societal perception of
immigrant groups that lead to both xenophobia and linguicism. By addressing one’s history and allow-
ing newcomers to understand the context, they will be better prepared to understand their host society.
Language, Ethnicity and National Identity - The

Colonial “Civilizing Mission” Framework
The Language, Ethnicity and National Identity - The Colonial “Civilizing Mission” Framework (Johnson,
2005) focuses on the power differential that results from the colonizer-colonized dichotomy. In “The
French Technology of Nationalism,” Johnson (2005) highlights how the French deployed the colonial
mission civilisatrice (“civilizing mission”) - linguistic and cultural assimilation - in Senegal to create a
French-speaking citizenry in one of its oldest colonies. Case in point, Senegalese who lived in one of
the Four Communes (Saint Louis, Goree, Dakar, or Rufisque) during the French colonial period (1891-
1960) attended French schools run by the Catholic missionaries - Frères de Ploërmel. The three-pronged
proselytizing mission of the French colonizers entailed: (1) converting the predominantly Muslim
population to Christianity, (2) exposing the colonized, indigenous populations to Western civilization,
and (3) promoting the spread of the French language within the Four Communes and throughout the
French Empire. The case study, albeit a French one, demonstrates how language, ethnicity and national
identity are intertwined.
Colonial paradigms perpetuated cultural hegemony to the extent that speaking the colonizer’s lan-
guage entitled indigenous populations to white privilege and symbolic power (Bourdieu, 1991). While
the colonial language of the white European colonizers became the standard language, the language of
the (colonized) African population was demoted to the status of a dialect or sub-standard language. Such
was the case with the Korean language during the Japanese colonial administration (1910-1945). The
Korean language was designated as the language of the oppressed, and gradually diminished in value
exemplified by language planning efforts under Japanese imperial rule (Rhee, 1992). Koreans caught
speaking their mother tongue were fined or imprisoned. And, privileged Korean populations were sent
to Japanese schools where the Japanese (colonial) language was taught and spoken. In the context of
linguistic and cultural erasure under Japanese rule, it was commonplace for Koreans to masquerade and
“pass” as Japanese - hiding their Korean linguistic and cultural identity - on Korean soil. This framework
(Johnson, 2005) addresses the social construction of identity in the aftermath of colonial oppression.
Ethnicity as a Marker - Self-Identification vs. State-Identification Framework
The Ethnicity as a Marker - Self-Identification vs. State-Identification Framework highlights the fact
that ethnicity is an identity marker that has two facets - a self-prescribed and a socially constructed (or
state-defined) identity (Johnson, 2012). In the United States, multiculturalism engenders a dynamic
in which a dominant culture does not tolerate groups that choose to retain their linguistic and cultural
differences. In a pluralist dominant culture paradigm, however, heterogeneous groups celebrate their
differences and co-exist. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans were depicted as an out-group
(Johnson, 2012). The Executive Order 9066 categorically depicted Japanese Americans as threats to
national security. As a result, the War Department demonstratively ignored differences between Japa-
26

nese Americans and Japanese classified as non-U.S. citizens. From a macro-perspective, this framework
(Johnson, 2012) highlights how immigrants and members of a diaspora have two identities - the one the
host country conceptualizes for groups on its soil, and the one the Other (Morrison, 2017) self-assigns.
This framework (Johnson, 2012) enables pre-service teachers to conceptualize anti-bias activities
and lesson plans that acknowledge that their students may have multiple memberships to groups within
the host country and their respective homelands. This diaspora-informed framework focuses on the
theme of belongingness and underscores how one might negotiate multiple identities in an environment
in which there is a dominant culture that might not be tolerant of one’s linguistic and cultural heritage.
The framework begs the following questions. To which group(s) do I belong? To which countries or
nation-states do I belong? Where do I belong?
EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES
The Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Teaching Protocol for Language Learners was designed
by the authors to empower (pre-service and in-service) TESOL educators with transformative teaching
tools. The protocol in Table 2 allows teachers to consciously plan lessons that address and integrate
Social Justice Standards (2018), SEL competencies (CASEL, 2021) and language standards (TESOL,
2019). Being intentional about addressing both SJ and language standards within lessons is needed to
develop culturally competent students.
The authors have created a step-by-step guide to assist teachers with lesson plan development and
usage of the Social Justice Teaching and Social Emotional Learning Protocol for Language Learners
in Table 2. Teachers address each question as they complete the protocol.
1. Grade level/Language Level: What grade(s) is/are this lesson plan intended for? What are the
language levels of your students?
2. Time: How much time do you need to complete the lesson? You may have multiple lessons or one
lesson stretched out over a period of several days.
3. Materials Needed: What materials will you need?
4. Format: Will you be delivering a face-to-face, online, or hybrid lesson?
5. Social Justice Standards: Identify at least one SJ standard.
6. Social Emotional Learning Goals: What are your SEL goals?
7. Language Standards and Objectives: Which language standards will you use? Based on the stan-
dards selected, create objectives that are measurable.
8. Key Vocabulary: What key vocabulary is needed in order to make this lesson accessible?
9. Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Theme: What is the overarching theme that students
will be addressing throughout the activities? The theme should be based on language objectives,
SJ and SEL standards chosen.
10. Social Emotional Behavior Check-ins: A key piece in SJ and SEL that can be easily integrated is
a check-in. For example, a check-in can include a simple question such as, “how are you feeling
today?” Check-ins provide opportunities for students to respond to you privately (in an online forum,
journal, or other format that is only visible to you and the student). Strive to have three check-ins:
(1) before the lesson (2) in the midst of the lesson and (3) at the end of the lesson.
27

Table 2. Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Teaching Protocol for Language Learners
Teacher: Date:
Grade Level: Language Level(s): Period/Time:
Format:
❏ Face-to-Face Instruction
# of students: Materials Needed:
❏ Online Instruction
❏ Hybrid Instruction
Social Justice Standards:
Social Emotional Learning Goals:
❏ Being Mindful
❏ Engaging Communication
❏ Justifying Choices
❏ Embracing Social Consciousness
Language Standards and Objectives:
Key Vocabulary:
Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Theme:
Social Emotional Behavior Check-ins:
❏ Before Lesson Delivery
❏ During Lesson Delivery
❏ After Lesson Delivery
Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Domains Activities:
❏ Identity and Self-Awareness
❏ Diverse and Cultural Relations
❏ Informed and Socially Just Decisions
❏ Historically and Contextually-Informed Actions
❏ Social and Cultural Awareness
Lesson Plan Steps:
Learner Reflection:
11. Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Domain Activities: Remember to address the areas
of SJ and SEL. Which SJ domains and SEL competencies do you want to address in the lesson?
a. Identity and Self-Awareness
b. Diverse and Cultural Relations
c. Informed and Socially Just Decisions
d. Historically and Contextually-Informed Actions
e. Social and Cultural Awareness
12. Lesson Plan Steps: List the lesson steps and incorporate graphics, scaffolds, and technology.
13. Learner Reflection: Have the students reflect on the lesson.
Moreover, the authors have created two reflection protocols: (1) the Social Justice and Social Emo-
tional Learning Pre-Teaching Reflection Protocol and (2) the Social Justice and Social Emotional Learn-
ing Post-Teaching Reflection Protocol. These protocols enable educators to consider the strengths and
challenges within their lesson plans. They also serve as blueprints for an action plan for improvement.
These protocols can be used for K-20 teachers.
The Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Pre-Teaching Reflection Protocol in Table 3 was
designed to have teachers assess their strengths and challenges with respect to facilitating courageous
28

conversations before lesson plan delivery. Like a teaching journal, the Social Justice and Social Emotional
Learning Post-Teaching Reflection Protocol in Table 4 enables teachers to record their strengths and
challenges regarding their lesson delivery. Throughout the reflection process, educators will gain: (1)
knowledge of themselves, (2) knowledge of their students, and (3) knowledge of their classroom ecology.
Table 3. Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Pre-teaching Reflection Protocol
Social Justice Facilitation Implementation Strategy

Social Emotional Safety
Am I prepared to facilitate a brave How will I integrate social justice and
How can I ensure emotional safety?
conversation? language standards?
Strength #1: Strength #1:
Challenge #1: Challenge #1:
Table 4. Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Post-teaching Reflection Protocol
Social Emotional Environment

Integration of Social Justice and
Social Justice Content Delivery Describe the emotional climate in the
Language Objectives
Describe the delivery. classroom.
Describe the integration.
How did you manage the various emotions?
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
The following K-20 learning activities for pre-service candidates and in-service teachers were created
by the authors to provide a deeper understanding of the Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning
Lenses framework.
1. Examine the Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Lenses framework. In what ways does
your personal teaching statement integrate SJ domains and SEL competencies? Were they made
explicit? If not, how might you include them in your teaching statement?
2. Using the following domains, place a number next to each domain indicating your comfort level
in teaching these areas (1= not comfortable at all; 2= understand but not sure how to teach; 3=
understand and can teach; 4= fully comfortable and can teach others):
◦◦ Identity and Self-Awareness _____
◦◦ Diverse and Cultural Relations _____
◦◦ Informed and Socially Just Decisions _____
◦◦ Historically and Contextually Informed-Actions_____
◦◦ Social and Cultural Awareness _____
29

Which areas did you rate the highest? Which areas did you rate yourself the lowest? Create an action
plan to further your own understanding in these areas.
3. Create a needs assessment based on the domains. A needs assessment allows you to evaluate a
student’s current understanding and target areas of needed growth. This can be done by asking
students about their own understanding of each of the domains. Ask the students to demonstrate
their understanding by providing provide an example. Additionally, the authors have created two
tasks that will allow pre-service and in-service TESOL professionals to gain a better understanding
of how to engage with the SJ standards, SEL competencies and language standards.
Task 1: Work in groups to find the Social Justice Standard(s) that you would like your students to
learn based on the appropriate grade level. Table 5 presents a worksheet for you to brainstorm about
possible activities that will enable students to demonstrate their understanding.
• In what ways do the activities explicitly address identity, diversity, justice or action?
• How do these activities connect to the language standards and cultural competencies used by your
institution?
• How can the language standards work alongside Social Justice Standards?
Table 5. Brainstorming Worksheet
Social Justice Standard(s) Brainstorm Activities Language Standards
Task 2: Check-ins are a critical part of SJ and SEL. Morning meetings, identity circle time, entry/
exit tickets, temperature checks, check-in surveys, and journaling are some methods to monitor the SJ
and SEL well-being of your students. Brainstorm about ways that your students may effectively share
their emotional state with you as they enter and leave your classroom.
Middle School Lesson Plan – “Others Are Us” Poem (2021)
The pre-teaching reflection protocol in Table 6 presents the strengths and challenges of delivering a SJ
and SEL-informed lesson. The middle school lesson plan in Table 7 addresses the four domains within
the Social Justice Standards (2018) and may be adapted for face-to-face and online formats. This lesson
analyzes the following Othering poem entitled “Others Are Us” (Handal, 2021):
He said I was different because I was dark. She said I was different because I wore a scarf. He said I
was different because I had an accent. She said I was different because I couldn’t read. He said I was
different because I stuttered. She said I was different because I couldn’t hear or speak. He said I was
different because I should be a girl. She said I was different because I should be a boy. We are all dif-
30

ferent so doesn’t that mean we are the same? I mean it’s like heartbeats, we all share the same beats
per minute but not exactly.
Students are provided with guided repeated readings, a research-based strategy to promote reading
comprehension and fluency (Landa & Barbetta, 2017).
Repeated readings offer a specific focus with each read. For the first read, the teacher reads the poem
aloud while students follow along. Students reflect and share their reactions. For the second read, stu-
dents are paired (or in small groups) and provided with guided questions to analyze the structure of the
poem. For the third read, students work with a partner or in a small group to “chunk” the poem, identify
themes and make connections. For the fourth read, students use the poem as a mentor text to create their
own poem about the ways they have felt Othered. After creating the poem, the class will host a poetry
reading, and the teacher will provide positive feedback. For small class sizes, use reflective questions for
students to answer at the end of each shared poem. For large classes, ask students to submit reflections
on five poems of their choice.
The social emotional behavior check-ins are an integral part of the lesson. These check-ins are in-
tended to be brief. Check-ins, before the lesson delivery, inform the teacher of the students’ feelings upon
entering the classroom. In the midst of the lesson, check-ins provide teachers with a formative check on
the students’ understanding and grasp of concepts. After lesson delivery, check-ins allow students an
opportunity to release tension or stress about conversations that took place within the circle. The Post-
Teaching Reflection Protocol in Table 8 is a check-in for teachers.
Table 6. SJ and SEL Pre-teaching Reflection Protocol – Middle School

Strength #1: I am open and willing to be Strength #1: I am willing to stand
vulnerable with my students. for comments or statements that are
I think social justice serves as the lens of
Challenge #1: I do not know how my oppressive/racist.
instruction for teaching languages. This
students will perceive me. I need to reflect Challenge #1: How can my modeling
way, my lesson serves two purposes.
more on my own positionality before encourage other students to apply this in the
teaching. real world?
Strength #2: Our established norms
Strength #2: I am empowered to teach
were set on the first day of school, so our
my students how to have challenging
classroom community is respectful and The two standards are in sync with one
conversations.
honest. another. I would like to think of ways to
Challenge #2: How do these conversations
Challenge #2: With a large migrant approach my school to adopt the social
translate into the next level or a course
population, the challenge is ensuring justice standards in addition to our current
where teachers do not care? Can this
that all students have the same sense language standards.
work be powerful enough for students to
of belongingness and awareness of our
empower themselves?
classroom norms.
High School, Hagwon, College, University, Adult

Education Lesson Plan – Autobiography
The pre-teaching reflection protocol in Table 9 serves as a check-in for the racially mixed author. The les-
son plan in Table 10 may be used for high school, hagwon (a private Korean academy or “cram” school),
31

Table 7. SJ and SEL Teaching Protocol for Language Learners – Middle School
Teacher: Date: October 19, 2021
Grade Level: Middle School Language Level(s): Intermediate/Advanced Period/Time: Two 55-minute periods
Format:
Materials Needed: Copy of the poem “Others Are Us”, poetry template, copy
☑ Face-to-Face Instruction
# of students: of the poet bio for context: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/nathalie-
☑ Online Instruction
handal

Identity 3
● ID.6-8.3: I know that overlapping identities combine to make me who I am and that none of my group identities on their own fully defines me or any other person.
Diversity 7
● DI.6-8.7: I can accurately and respectfully describe ways that people (including myself) are similar to and different from each other and others in their identity groups.
Justice 11
● JU.6-8.11: I relate to people as individuals and not representatives of groups, and I can name some common stereotypes I observe people using.
Action 16
● AC.6-8.16: I am concerned about how people (including myself) are treated and feel for people when they are excluded or mistreated because of their identities.

☑ Being Mindful
☑ Engaging Communication
☑ Justifying Choices
☑ Embracing Social Consciousness

● CCS ELD.7.1.B.5 Listening actively
● CCS RSL G6.1 Cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
● CCS RSL G6.4 Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative and connotative meanings; analyze the impact of a specific word
choice on meaning and tone.
Multilingual learners will be able to:
● To evaluate the labels and identities placed upon others and ourselves
● Recognize biases and labels placed upon others.
● Read and discuss “Others Are US” by Nathalie Handal
● Create an identity poem modeled after “Others Are Us”
Key Vocabulary: identity, bias, perception, stereotype, others, othering

How do perceptions challenge our identities?

☑ Before Lesson Delivery
For each day, provide an “Enter Ticket”: Students use a quarter piece of paper to write down two things: 1) How are you feeling today? Why? 2) Are there challenges that you
are facing today? How can I help? Online: Using a Google Form, create the same questions for students to answer. If needed, follow up with students who need additional support.
☑ During Lesson Delivery
Mid-way through each period, do a “quick check.” If they are fine, thumbs up. If they need help, have them raise their hands.
☑ After Lesson Delivery
End with a mindfulness activity called “tapping” either using the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0NUNNhosPU by The Tapping Solution or Kids Relaxation for
charts: https://kidsrelaxation.com/all-relaxation-activities/eft-tapping-points-girlboy-posters/

☑ Identity and Self-Awareness
☑ Diverse and Cultural Relations
☑ Informed and Socially Just Decisions
☑ Historically and Contextually-Informed Actions
☑ Social and Cultural Awareness
Lesson Plan Steps:

Provide copies of the poem, “Others Are Us.” If the class is online, make a digital copy.
1) Before handing out the poem, write the opening question. In person: write the question and later write students’ responses on a whiteboard or chart paper.
Online: document with shared screen. Underline the words, perception, challenge, and identities. Discuss the meaning of these words with students.
2) Reading 1: Read the biography Nathalie Handal online. Read the poem aloud to the class. Ask for student reactions and perceptions that are given & chart them. Define “Others” as
a class.
3) Reading 2: Read the poem again with a partner or in small groups. Ask students to respond to the questions in Reading 2 to analyze structure, patterns, themes. Discuss as a class.
4) Reading 3: Read the poem again with a partner or small group, but this time, they are chunked into paired sentences. Find the connections between the two sentences. Discuss as a
class.
5) Reading 4 and Writing: Using the poem as a mentor text, to write your own “Others are Us” poem.
6) Poem structure: Discuss the meaning for each of the lines below. Ask students to brainstorm ideas that come to mind regarding perceived biases/stereotypes of their own identity.
Begin sentence frames with: He said_____. She said____. Repeat for Lines 1-4
• Line 1: Physical identity
• Line 2: Skill or ability identity
• Line 3: Gender identity
• Line 4: Questions specific to social justice issues related to your own culture, using the sentence frame: “We are” _______.
• Create a final sentence using a metaphor.
7) Have students create their own poem based on their own experiences and perceptions others have of them. Finally, ask students to read their poems to think of a title that
encapsulates the essence of the poem.
Learner Reflection:
Write a reflection of your poem. What parts were challenging to write? How does poetry empower you and others around your identity?
32

Table 8. SJ and SEL Post-teaching Reflection Protocol – Middle School

Language Objectives
Strength #1: My lesson seemed to keep Strength #1: The students I first thought
students engaged. They expressed that the were apathetic, shared strong emotions
other teachers never allowed them to think when reading their own poetry and in
The lesson allows for space to focus on
about how others might perceive them. reacting to others with positive feedback.
language and social justice.
Challenge #1: In what ways can I help Challenge #1: In what ways can I provide
other teachers teach beyond memorization writing as an outlet to express more of their
of grammar? emotions privately?
Strength #2: Students were able to develop
high level poetry that was powerful. Strength #2: There was a shared
Challenge #2: I want to think about how vulnerability in the poetry readings. Having awareness of ourselves is a marker
I can use social justice poetry as both a Challenge #2: Should I feel guilty for of the social justice standards.
mentor text and tool to advocate for our being vulnerable?
students and showcase their work.
college or university, and adult education students for a myriad of reasons. First, the content is theoreti-
cally dense. It is about identity-formation throughout a diaspora and explores the colonizer-colonized
dichotomy drawing upon the Japan-Korea case study. The subject matter is advanced and, therefore,
caters to a mature audience of MLs, namely seniors in high school, hagwon, university or Korea WEST
students participating in an English immersion program, and adults taking classes at community and
technical colleges. Second, educators will need to assemble a circle and have multiple rounds in accord
with restorative justice best practices. If one is averaging two to three rounds per class period, then one
might want to allot at least two to three days for this mini-unit module.
The Korean diaspora learning plan (2020) was initially designed as a final assignment for a University
of Southern California (USC) graduate education course entitled, “Special Topics – Language Teach-
ing: Planning & Instruction” under the direction of the author’s esteemed mentor, Dr. Jenifer Crawford,
in the USC Master of Arts in Teaching, TESOL program (see Chapter 1 by Gross and Crawford). The
lesson has three goals: (1) to inspire MLs to think critically about socially constructed identities and
diasporas (2) to encourage MLs to narrate and share their family histories with circle members and (3)
to create a brave space (Arao & Clemens, 2013) for thought-provoking conversations about race and
culturally hegemonic linguistic policies. The activity prioritizes having MLs generate oral production as
they proudly recount stories about their families using autobiographical films – created by themselves.
The author produced a short film (2020) about her family and modelled the film-making process for the
MLs. Table 11 presents the author’s recollection of the lesson plan delivery.
PORTRAITS OF PRACTICE
Middle School Lesson Plan – “Others Are Us” (2021)
The Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Teaching Protocol for Language Learner alongside
the Ethnic Identity and Generational Status Framework promotes student voice and identity through
33

Table 9. SJ and SEL Pre-teaching Reflection Protocol – High School/College/Adults

Strength #1: Being racially mixed, I feel
like I am prepared to facilitate a brave
Strength #1: I will strive to create a sense
conversation about racial identity and The lesson plan focuses on the Identity
of respect and inclusivity.
belongingness to three diasporas. Anchor Standard and integrates storytelling
Challenge #1: Some Ss (undocumented,
Challenge #1: Although Korean was one of (narration) and oral production about
for example) may not want to share their
my mother tongues and the only language family members.
family histories.
that I can speak without an accent, I was
not born on Korean soil.
Strength #2: Tracing my maternal
Strength #2: I am willing to create a
ancestors’ border crossing from North to
dialogue about belonging to multiple
South Korea will prove to be empowering.
diasporas. I will use realia, namely the short film that
Challenge #2: While the reflection process
Challenge #2: I created.
is an ongoing process that will make me a
Ss might not want to be emotionally
better SJEd, the act of being self-aware is
vulnerable.
simultaneously life-altering and daunting.
continuous reflective practices. Students consider societal climate, home and host country relations,
and historical factors that influence their perceptions of self. In the poetry lesson, students are provided
the opportunity to build critical awareness of how they are perceived and received in different settings.
While it is important to look inward and outward in understanding perceptions of self, the lesson
is not to condone Othering. Rather, the purpose of the lesson is to develop critical consciousness by
recognizing oppression and positionality in authentic realities (Freire, 1970). Othering is prevalent in
TESOL spaces where conceptualization of how teachers assess and understand students is depicted by
an Us-Them dichotomy at a micro-level (Palfreyman, 2005).
Sharing poetry commands a classroom climate that serves as a brave space—a space that is supportive
and inviting for a reading. Cultivating such a space begins by setting collective norms for listening and
responding (Arao & Clemens, 2013). A shared experience requires more than passive listening. Therefore,
it is recommended that language educators provide opportunities for interaction and active listening.
High School, College, University, Adult Education

Lesson Plan – Autobiographical Documentary
The multipurpose lesson plan about identity and diasporas was autobiographical and complemented the
Language, Ethnicity and National Identity - The Colonial “Civilizing Mission” Framework (Johnson,
2005). First, the racially mixed author’s Korean maternal grandmother always sung two lullabies to the
author’s younger sibling. One lullaby was Japanese, and the other was Korean. Throughout the Japanese
colonial period (1910-1945), Koreans attended Japanese schools where instruction was in Japanese. If
Koreans spoke the Korean language, then they were imprisoned or fined. To this day, half of the author’s
maternal relatives speak Japanese. Second, Fanon (2008) argues that speaking the colonizer’s language
facilitates cultural assimilation. During the lifetime of the author’s African American father, the author’s
father (fluent in Korean) traveled to Japan. On one occasion, he spoke Korean to an Asian male. To
the author’s father’s astonishment, the Asian male responded in emotionally. As a Korean “passing” as
Japanese on Japanese soil, he could not fathom a Black Other (Morrison, 2017) taking pride in speaking
34

Table 10. SJ and SEL Teaching Protocol for Language Learners – High School/College/Adults
Teacher: Date: February 15, 2022
Period/Time:
Grade Level: High School and hagwon – Three 55-minute class periods; College/
Language Level(s):
9-12 and/or College/University and/or Adult University – Three 2-hour seminars; Adult Education – Three 2-hour
Advanced
education classes
[NOTE: Class meetings are weekly.]
# of students:
Format:
High school – 17 Materials Needed:
☑ Face-to-Face Instruction
Hagwon – 8 Computer/laptop (for online class); LCD projector and
☑ Online Instruction
College/University – 17 laptop (for face-to-face class)
Adult Education – 15
Identity 2
● Students will develop language and historical and cultural knowledge that affirm and accurately describe their membership in multiple identity groups.
Identity 1
ID.9-12.1
● I have a positive view of myself, including an awareness of and comfort with my membership in multiple groups in society.
Identity 2
ID.9-12.2
● I know my family history and cultural background and can describe how my own identity is informed and shaped by my membership in multiple identity groups.
☑ Being Mindful
☑ Engaging Communication
☑ Justifying Choices
☑ Embracing Social Consciousness
WIDA ELD Standard 2 Language for Language Arts
ELD-LA.9-12. Narrate.
Construct language arts narratives that:
● Orient audience to connect and one or multiple point(s) of view
● Develop and describe characters and their relationships over a progression of experiences or events
● Develop story, advancing the plot and themes with complications and resolutions, time and event sequences
Multilingual learners will be able to:
● Narrate their family histories using statements to introduce complications (Where the border between North and South Korea ended and began, they did not know, but they were
determined to leave North Korea before sunrise.)
● Describe the personalities of family members
● Summarize and share family histories
Key Vocabulary: Identity, diaspora, chosen-seki, zainichi, kyopo and dongpo
The Korean Diaspora: Korean Communities Living in Japan
• What does it mean to be a member of the Korean diaspora and live in Japan?
● How does living beyond the Korean peninsula define who I am?
● How does being born on Korean soil define who I am?
● How does living in the former colonizer’s country inform my linguistic, ethnic, and cultural identity?
☑ Before Lesson Delivery
Teacher (T) checks in with Students (Ss). For face-to-face and/or online class, T gives the Ss an anonymous online “are you ready to have brave conversations today?” quiz.
☑ During Lesson Delivery
T checks in with Ss. For face-to-face and/or online class, T will have the Ss use hand gestures to communicate their social-emotional mindset. Ss will use the 👍 or 👎 or “so-so”
hand signals.
☑ After Lesson Delivery
T checks in with Ss. For face-to-face and/or online class, Ss will engage in an anonymous “free write” exercise - using the first person - and jot down their thoughts about identity
on a Jambord post-it.
☑ Identity and Self-Awareness
☑ Diverse and Cultural Relations
☑ Informed and Socially Just Decisions
☑ Historically and Contextually-Informed Actions
☑ Social and Cultural Awareness
Lesson Plan Steps:
Day One: (1) Ss create K-W-L charts to share what they know (K) about Korean identity in the diaspora. For the KNOW (K) segment, Ss will be asked: What do you know (K) about
Korean identity (in the diaspora)?
(2) Gallery Walk – Ss view photographs of their family members.
(3) Sharing Circle – First round: T asks circle members, “What did you see?” Second round: T asks Ss to share their family photo with the circle. T asks: What does this photo mean to
you? Third round: T has Ss in the circle respond to the following circle prompt: What do the terms, Chosen-seki, Kyopo, Dongo, and Zainichi mean?
(4) Group Work –T divides Ss into groups representing the Chosen-seki, Kyopo, Dongpo and Zainichi populations. T asks: What are the differences between the groups? If you were able
to select a group, which group would you select? Why? How does your selection affect the other groups?
Day Two: (1) Ss will create K-W-L charts to share what they want (W) to learn about Korean identity in Japan. For the WANT (W) segment, Ss will be asked: What do you want (W) to
know about Korean identity (in Japan)?
(2) Viewing of T’s film.
(3) Identity Circle – First round: T asks: What did you learn about my identity? What did you learn about your identity? Second round: T asks: How does living beyond the Korean
peninsula define who I am? How does being born on Korean soil define who I am? What does diaspora mean to the Chosen-seki, Kyopo, Dongpo and Zainichi? Third round: T
encourages Ss to talk about their upcoming family interviews. The T models the film-making process.
Day Three: (1) Viewing of Ss’ films.
(2) Celebration Circle – First round: T asks: What are your thoughts about your circle neighbors’ films? What did we learn about their identities? Second round: Ss present their family
oral histories (using a gist summary graphic organizer as a script). Third round: Ss will create K-W-L charts to share what they learned (L) about Korean identity in Japan. For the
LEARN (L) segment, Ss will be asked: What did you learn (L) about Korean identity (in Japan)?
35

Table 10. Continued
Learner Reflection:
First Day
What does identity mean to you? Ss will use the following sentence frame (scaffold):
To me, identity means ___________________.
Second Day
What does family mean to you? Ss will use the following scaffold:
To me, family means ____________________.
Third Day
What does diaspora mean to you? Ss will use using the following scaffold:
To me, diaspora means ___________________.
his Korean mother tongue. As suggested by these autobiographical anecdotes, this framework (Johnson,
2005) enables educators to facilitate emotionally-charged conversations about race, language, and cultural
assimilation as a result of colonialism.
This lesson plan leveraged the racially mixed author’s film as a means of reflection (Larrivee, 2008;
Farrell, 2018) on her membership to the Korean, African and Native American diasporas. Having screened
the film at TESOL state and local chapter conferences, two facts are noteworthy. First, autobiographical
resources enable language educators to build rapport with their students. Second, MLs generate more
oral production when they are: (a) interviewing family members, (b) conversing about their families in
a circle, and (c) retelling their family histories.
One of the critical moments of the film was when the author’s mother described the family’s border
crossing from North Korea to South Korea. The theme of North Korea emerged in the learning activ-
ity with the vocabulary word Chosen-seki, defined as ethnic Koreans living on Japanese soil who had
neither a (Japanese or South Korean) nationality, nor a state (as Japan does not recognize the North
Korean state). Having maternal ancestors from North Korea, would the author be more biased towards
the Chosen-seki compared to the other groups, South Koreans (Kyopo or Dongpo) and Korean Japanese
(Zainichi) living on Japanese soil?
This SJ and SEL lesson plan also complemented the Ethnicity as a Marker - Self-Identification vs.
State-Identification Framework (Johnson, 2012) because it illustrated the social construction of identity
throughout a diaspora. As suggested by the four groups living in Japan (Chosen-seki, Kyopo, Dongpo and
Zainichi), there are multiple ways to conceptualize membership to the Korean and Japanese diasporas.
These diasporic identities might self-identify as North Koreans, South Koreans, and Korean Japanese
populations – on Japanese soil. However, the Japanese government’s classifications of these populations
demonstrate that the Japanese state ultimately decides what it means to be Japanese. This framework
(Johnson, 2012) highlighted how one’s self-identity might be in direct conflict with their state-prescribed
identity. Conceptually speaking, this framework (Johnson, 2012) may be used to demonstrate how dia-
sporic identities retain their self-identities in their host countries. The overarching question, for a sequel
to this lesson plan, might be as follows. How do diasporic identities retain their linguistic and cultural
identities while living on the soil of their host countries?
With respect to creating brave spaces (Arao & Clemens, 2013), the creation of circles (Pentón Herrera
& McNair, 2021) – a Native American practice – cannot be overstated. Pentón Herrera and McNair (2021)
note that “every circle, regardless of type, has four essential elements: (1) opening and closing ceremony,
(2) values and guidelines, (3) check-in and check-out, and (4) circle rounds” (p. 7). As the circle keeper,
SJEds might use the following values and guidelines in their language classrooms: (a) having a talking
piece (whereby only the circle member holding the piece may speak), (b) sharing truthful dialogues (c)
listening attentively (Pentón Herrera & McNair, 2021). This learning activity, therefore, was embedded
with multiple circle rounds, check-ins and closing ceremonies, demarcated by MLs recounting family
36

Table 11. SJ and SEL Post-teaching Reflection Protocol – Autobiographical Film

Language Objectives
Strength #1: There was a sense of empathy
Strength #1: It was personal. I felt like the
in the circle. Everyone in the circle could Ss were surprisingly amazed by their own
delivery was empowering for me and the
sense the raw emotions. ability to create a film. Ss shared that the
Ss. I built rapport with my Ss.
Challenge #1: Ensuring that everyone’s interview process made them closer to the
Challenge #1: The challenge was not really
personal experiences were foregrounded family member interviewee.
knowing what this exercise would elicit.
and included proved to be a challenge.
Strength #2: Ss emerged inspired and
Strength #2: It was a refreshing change
empowered. They felt more “comfortable
from the other non-social justice lessons Ss were keen on sharing their family
within their skin.”
and unit modules. histories with one another, and therefore,
Challenge #2: As a circle keeper, it is
Challenge #2: It was a challenge being generated more oral production.
important to respect the vulnerability of
vulnerable.
the Ss.
narratives, to provide TESOL language educators with a multitude of pedagogical options. Table 12
presents additional integrated practices for pre-K and K-20 levels (see Appendix A).
DISCUSSION
With respect to advancing SJ and SEL in the language learner classroom, the authors believe that there
are three main challenges - professional, institutional and personal. Within the English Language Teacher
(ELT) field, there is a dearth of training and professional development that pertain to applied praxis of
SJ and SEL. Moreover, the curricula of MATESOL programs tend to overemphasize theory over prac-
tice. A possibly greater challenge is shifting the mindset (of pre-service teachers and those in TESOL
programs) from teacher-centered to cooperative (Kagan & Kagan, 1998) and problem-based instruction.
For K-12 educators, the internal, institutional challenges are noteworthy. Within the US, the greatest
challenge would be the socio-political climate in which state legislatures and governors have made the
teaching of critical race theory (CRT) illegal (2021). Beyond the US, two former colonial powers – Eng-
land (2020) and France (2021) – have also had conservative surges banning CRT. From an SJ and SEL
perspective, it is imperative for SJEds to take a proactive approach against curriculum that perpetuates
racial and social injustice. For college, university and adult education, however, Freire’s (1998) plea for
civic courage – the courage to eradicate social movements that designate social justice as intellectual
terrorism – could not be timelier.
Creating brave spaces is a starting point to launch critical discussions that are authentic and coura-
geous (Arao & Clemens, 2013). While students come from diverse backgrounds (Leonardo, 2013) and
enter classrooms with a range of learning (Gardner, 1983; Kagan & Kagan, 1998) and participation
needs (Tomlinson, 2014; Kagan & Kagan, 1998), it is pertinent that educators are culturally responsive.
The SJ and SEL (SJSE) paradigm proposed by the authors entails including multiple intelligences and
student learning styles (Gardner, 1983), cultivating an empathetic classroom ecology, and supporting
cross-cultural communication (Gay, 2010; Krasnoff, 2016).
37

The authors contend that the biggest challenge, however, is personal. Designing and implementing
SJSE curriculum demands emotional capital. On one level, educators become increasingly aware of
their own biases, privilege and power. And on a deeper level, there lies vulnerability in the quest for
building rapport with students who are also impacted and challenged by the lack of SJSE curriculum.
The work commences when TESOL educators engage in critical reflection. And, the work continues as
language professionals build rapport with their students, and ultimately gain their trust as circle keepers.
Why should TESOL professionals advance SJSE curriculum and create brave spaces in their language
classrooms? As intellectual-activists and global citizens, the authors unanimously beg the following
question. Why would we not? Therein lies the question.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their deep gratitude to Elizabeth Burrill for creating the infographic
in this book chapter.
REFERENCES
Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces. The art of effective facilitation:
Reflections from social justice educators, 135-150.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (2009). Les héritiers - Les étudiants et la culture - Un renouveau de la
sociologie de l’éducation. Ellipses.
Speaking Content StandardsC. A. S. A. S. https://www.casas.org/docs/research/speaking-content-
standards.pdf?sfvrsn=
CASEL. (2021). SEL is…. https://casel.org/what-is-sel/
Caven, M. (2020). Why we need an anti-racist approach to social and emotional learning. Education
Development Center. https://www.edc.org/blog/why-we-need-anti-racist-approach-social-and-emotional-
learning
Crenshaw, K. (1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against
women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241. doi:10.2307/1229039
De Sousa Santos, B. (2015). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315634876
Fanon, F. (2008). Black skin, white masks. Grove Press.
Farrell, T. S. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for
TESOL Professionals. Routledge.
Farrell, T. S. (2018). Operationalizing reflective practice in second language teacher education. Journal
of Second Language Teacher Education, 1(1), 1–20.
38

Farrell, T. S. (2021). Promoting teacher reflection in schools: Becoming centers of inquiry. Research in
Language and Education, 1(1), 59–68.
Farrell, T. S., & Macapinlac, M. (2021). Professional development through reflective practice: A
framework for TESOL teachers. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–25. doi:10.37213/
cjal.2021.28999
Ford, D. (2020). Social emotional learning for Black students is ineffective when it is culture blind.
https://diverseeducation.com/article/166341/
Fraser, N. (1997). A rejoinder to Iris Young. New Left Review, 126–130.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics democracy and civic courage. Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers Inc.
Gardner, A. D. (2003). The Chinese in Wyoming: Life in the core and peripheral communities. South
Dakota History, 33(4), 380–390.
Gardner, H. (1983). The theory of multiple intelligences. Heinemann.
Glodjo, T. (2017). Deconstructing social class identity and teacher privilege in the second language
classroom. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 342–366. doi:10.1002/tesj.273
Griffin, I. H. (2018). Power and privilege in adult ESL classrooms. Second Language Teaching and
Learning: Diversity and Advocacy, 71.
Handal, N. (2021). Others are us. Poetry Magazine. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/
poems/155502/others-are-us
Hastings, C., Jacob, L., & Norton, B. (2016). Social justice in English language teaching. TESOL Press.
Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Williams, B. (2019). Transformative social and emotional learning
(SEL): Toward SEL in service of educational equity and excellence. Educational Psychologist, 54(3),
162–184. doi:10.1080/00461520.2019.1623032
Johnson, N. K. (2005). Senegalese ‘into Frenchmen’? The French technology of nationalism in Sénégal.
In, Language, ethnic identity, and the state. Routledge.
Johnson, N. K. (2012). Conceptualizing the nation: Myths, imagined communities, or multiethnic reali-
ties? The cases of Israel, France, and the United States. In The multicultural dilemma: Migration, ethnic
politics, and state intermediation. Routledge.
Kachru, Y. (1985). Discourse analysis, non‐native Englishes and second language acquisition research.
World Englishes, 4(2), 223–232. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.1985.tb00410.x
Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1998). Staff development and the structural approach to cooperative learning.
Professional development for cooperative learning: Issues and approaches, 103-121.
39

Krasnoff, B. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching: A guide to evidence-based practices for teaching
all students equitably. Region X Equity Assistance Center, Education Northwest.
Kubota, R. (2002). The author responds:(Un)raveling racism in a nice field like TESOL. TESOL Quar-
terly, 36(1), 84–92. doi:10.2307/3588363
Landa, K. G., & Barbetta, P. M. (2017). The effects of repeated readings on the reading performances of
Hispanic English language learners with specific learning disabilities. Journal of International Special
Needs Education, 20(1), 1–13. doi:10.9782/2159-4341-20.1.1
Larrivee, B. (2008). Meeting the challenge of preparing reflective practitioners. New Educator, 4(2),
87–106. doi:10.1080/15476880802014132
Leonardo, Z. (2013). Race frameworks: A multidimensional theory of racism and education. Teachers
College.
Linares, S. M. (2016). Othering: Towards a critical cultural awareness in the language classroom. How,
23(1), 129-146.
Markowitz, L. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2020). Teaching with a social, emotional, and cultural lens.
Harvard Education Press.
Morgan, B. (2016). Language teacher identity as critical social practice. Reflections on language teacher
identity research, 203-209.
Morrison, T. (2017). The origin of others. Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/9780674982628
Motha, S. (2016). Who we are: Teacher identity, race, empire, and nativeness. In Reflections on language
teacher identity research (pp. 223–229). Routledge.
Paik, S. J., Kula, S. M., Saito, L. E., Rahman, Z., & Witenstein, M. A. (2014). Historical perspectives
on diverse Asian American communities: Immigration, incorporation, and education. Teachers College
Record, 116(8), 1–45. PMID:26120219
Palfreyman, D. (2005). Othering in an English language program. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 211–233.
doi:10.2307/3588309
Pantić, N. (2015). A model for study of teacher agency for social justice. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6),
759–778. doi:10.1080/13540602.2015.1044332
Pantić, N., & Florian, L. (2015). Developing teachers as agents of inclusion and social justice. Education
Inquiry, 6(3), 27311. doi:10.3402/edui.v6.27311
Pentón Herrera, L. J., & McNair, R. L. (2021). Restorative and community‐building practices as social
justice for English learners. TESOL Journal, 12(1), e00523. doi:10.1002/tesj.523
Rhee, M. J. (1992). Language planning in Korea under the Japanese colonial administration, 1910–1945.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 5(2), 87–97. doi:10.1080/07908319209525118
Saito, L. E. (2020). The complexities of generational status in fourth and fifth generation Japanese Ameri-
cans. The Family Journal (Alexandria, Va.). Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1066480720977510
40

Simmons, D. (2017). Is Social-Emotional Learning Really Going to Work for Students of Color? Edu-
cation Week. https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-is-social-emotional-learning-really-going-to-
work-for-students-of-color/2017/06
Simmons, D. (2019). Why we can’t afford white-washed social emotional learning. ACSD. http://www.
ascd.org/publications/newsletters/education_update/apr19/vol61/num04/Why_We_Can’t_Afford_White-
washed_Social-Emotional_Learning.aspx
Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd.
doi:10.5040/9781350225282
Stanlick, S. (2015). Getting “real” about transformation: The role of brave spaces in creating disori-
entation and transformation. Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library.
Teaching Tolerance. (2018). Social Justice Standards: The teaching tolerance anti-bias framework. The
Southern Poverty Law Center.
TESOL International Association. (2019). Standards for initial TESOL Pre-K-12 teacher preparation
programs. TESOL.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. ASCD.
Torres, P. V., & Stukan, D. (2019). Racial bias within the TESOL profession and its implication in the
EFL context: Interview with Ryuko Kubota. MEXTESOL Journal, 43(1). http://mextesol.net/journal/
index.php?page=journal&id_article=5693
Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing language teacher
identity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4(1), 21–44.
doi:10.120715327701jlie0401_2
Weaver, T. (2020). Antiracism in social-emotional learning: Why it’s not enough to talk the talk. Ed-
Surge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-06-16-antiracism-in-social-emotional-learning-why-it-s-
not-enough-to-talk-the-talk
West, G. B. (2021). “Is this a safe space?”: Examining an emotionally charged eruption in critical lan-
guage pedagogy. Education Sciences, 11(4), 186. doi:10.3390/educsci11040186
Witenstein, M. A., & Saito, L. E. (2015). Exploring the educational implications of the third space
framework for transnational Asian adoptees. Berkeley Review of Education, 5(2), 117–136. doi:10.5070/
B85110051
Young, I. M. (2011). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.
Diversity: The practice of including people from a variety of backgrounds.

Inclusion: Ensuring that groups are not excluded.
Otherness: Belonging to a marginalized community.
41

Relationship Skills: Cultivating relations with others.

Responsible Decision-Making: Being aware of the consequence of a decision.
Self-Awareness: Being aware of oneself.
Self-Management: The capability to manage one’s emotions.
Social and Emotional Learning: Pedagogy that helps students understand their emotions and cul-
tivate empathy for others.
Social Justice: Justice regarding power and privilege within a society.
Social-Awareness: Respecting the cultures of others.
42
APPENDIX
Table 12. Integrated Practices
Grade Level Examples of Practices

Portraits
Pre-K-2
Family traditions
Poetry
Grades 3-5
Pen pals
Journals
Grades 6-8
Empathy interview
Self-reflections
Grades 9-12
Community-based projects
Community College Action research
and Adult Education Experiential portfolio
43
44
Chapter 3
Creating an Inclusive
Classroom Culture:
A Language Socialization Approach
Ekaterina Moore
Kimberly Ferrario
ABSTRACT
The chapter discusses creating an inclusive classroom through a language socialization perspective.
The authors suggest that to create an inclusive culture in a multicultural and multilingual classroom,
language educators should engage in explicit language socialization practices that promote development
of critical cultural consciousness and language awareness. They propose that in the process of creating
an inclusive classroom, educators need to attend to affective, individual, and interpersonal domains.
Specific practices for use in a language (including ESOL) classroom and a teacher preparation program
are provided.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter addresses an issue of establishing an inclusive culture in a multilingual and multicultural
language classroom. The inclusive classroom is grounded in the assumption that diversity, which in-
cludes racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, gender, and linguistic differences, is not problematic, rather these
differences are viewed as cultural resources in the classroom community (Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez,
Tejada, 1999). Aspects of diversity viewed as resources in the classroom counter oppressive dominant-
culture perspectives that view students as needing to assimilate to the dominant ways of being and doing
in the classroom. We propose that teachers can support an inclusive classroom culture through explicit
language socialization that allows teachers and students to become active participants in the safety zone
of the classroom when bringing their diverse experience, languages, and identities together. While teach-
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch003

Creating an Inclusive Classroom Culture
ers engage in implicit language socialization in classrooms across cultures on a daily basis (Burdelski
& Howard, 2020), establishing and addressing norms and expectations in an explicit manner, together
with students, contributes to a creation of a more equitable classroom as it ensures that voices and needs
of all students are heard. Rather than subtracting students’ cultural identities by ignoring their histories,
cultures and home languages, an explicit language socialization perspective to developing an inclusive
classroom culture has the potential to create meaningful learning communities resulting in higher levels
of success for minoritized and marginalized students (Powell & Rightmeyer, 2011).
Success in learning an additional language cannot be measured solely on a student’s ability to recognize
and manipulate discrete language features, such as grammar, vocabulary or pronunciation. Instead, it can be
seen through the students’ ability to use language in ways that are culturally and situationally-appropriate,
where through the use of language, learners demonstrate their understanding of the appropriateness of
these norms. Learners in our classrooms, therefore, engage in the process of language socialization,
i.e. learning how to use language in acceptable ways and through the use of language, learning how to
become competent members of the target language community (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011).
Language learning in a classroom takes place in a community of learners who come together with
a common goal of language acquisition. Viewed from the socio-cultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978),
language learning is fundamentally a social endeavor that is mediated by a teacher who supports and
guides the learners along their “Zone of Proximal Development.” The students and the teacher engage
in the process of meaning-making together as members of the classroom community, which has norms
of behavior and interaction. These norms are not independent of the individuals of whom the learning
community is composed; it is also not independent of the context in which the classroom is situated
and the larger socio-political forces that exist outside of the classroom walls. After all, classrooms and
schools are cultural institutions that serve to prepare the future citizens of countries and communities
where they are located, and “the nature of discourse in the classroom, despite its special characteristics,
reflects wider society norms, values and beliefs” (Leung, 2001, p. 7). To succeed in these communities,
students need to learn discourse that “can lead to success and effectiveness in their society, should stu-
dents wish to achieve such success” (Gee, 2015, p. 250). Such dominant discourse is intimately related
to the issues of power, and the “culture of power” (Delpit, 1988). In democratically-oriented education,
students need to learn to question the social norms of what it means to “succeed” and to interrogate
the issues of power connected to the dominant discourse or what Delpit (1988) has termed the “code
of power.” Power is enacted through dominant discourse in schools and classrooms and includes “the
power of the teacher over the students, the power of... developers of the curriculum to determine the
view of the world presented; the power of the state in enforcing compulsory schooling; and the power
of an individual or group to determine “normalcy.”” (Delpit, 1999, p. 283).
This chapter addresses an issue of establishing an inclusive culture in a multilingual and multicultural
language classroom that allows language learners to acquire the dominant discourse of success in the
target language and raise their critical cultural consciousness (Kumaravadivelu, 2003) and critical lan-
guage awareness (Faircough, 1992) about issues of power connected to this discourse. Critical cultural
consciousness and critical language awareness entail becoming aware or conscious about one’s own
and others’ cultures and linguistic and communicative codes and ways in which relations of power are
embedded within these cultural and linguistic norms and behaviors, and taking action to change the exist-
ing power dynamics. We propose that engaging in this process utilizing strategies of explicit language
socialization allows teachers and students to become active participants in and critical agents of their
45

own learning, contributing to a creation of a more equitable classroom as it allows for critical evaluation
of the norms and ensures that voices and needs of all students are heard and addressed.
CONCEPT: CLASSROOM LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION
Language socialization is a process “by which individuals acquire, reproduce, and transform the knowledge
and competence that enable them to participate appropriately within specific communities of language
users” (Lee & Bucholtz, 2015). Language socialization is inherent to human sociality and takes place
in communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). When a novice joins a community of practice, they
gradually internalize through interacting with other members of the community the “expected ways of
thinking, feeling, and acting” (Ochs, 1986, p. 2). The roles of a “novice” and an “expert” in this life-
long process where culture and language are intricately interconnected, however, are fluid and dynamic.
Language socialization views the roles of a novice and an expert as negotiable positions and a rela-
tional and gradient phenomenon. Participants may be experts or novices in various classroom situations
and scenarios. Moreover, expertise among those who are socially positioned as equals may vary based
on a situation. This can be best seen among peers in a classroom setting, where students, who occupy a
social position of a novice in relation to a teacher, for example, may present varied levels of expertise in
various topics, tasks, and activities. As participants work on negotiation of expert positions, they display
their identities associated with the expertise, such as that of a “knowledgeable speaker of a language.”
Friedman’s (2020) research on candidates in a MA TESOL program, for example, examined how “non-
native speakers” of English “negotiated [their] instructors’ positioning of them as “NNSs” with limited
knowledge of English in order to speak from the positions of epistemic authority” (p. 159). As students
interact with their teachers and peers, they may resist the different identities and positions ascribed to
them, “claim agency and stake out identities” (Lee and Bucholtz, 2015, p. 324). The claims of agency
and identity, however, need to be ratified by other participants, including teachers and peers.
As children grow and mature, they are engaged in both primary language socialization in the home
(this can include multiple languages) and secondary language socialization in communities outside
of the home (e.g., a school). The linguistic communicative norms of interaction and participation that
individuals learn in the process of socialization are culturally specific within these spaces. When the
school and the home cultures and communicative norms do not align, there is a danger for academic
underperformance (Heath, 1983). Because the school norms of participation are usually modeled after
the norms of the “culture of power,” if you are not “already a participant in the culture of power, being
told explicitly the roles of that culture makes acquiring power easier” (Delpit, 1988, p. 282). The issues
of power and inequity, therefore, are inherent in the process of socialization into cultural and linguistic
norms and expectations, and are especially relevant to second language learners.
When students learn an additional language, they engage in the process of second language socializa-
tion. In this chapter, we use second language socialization to refer to “socialization beyond one’s first,
or dominant, language [including] second, foreign and bilingual learning contexts” (Duff, 2010, p. 565).
Applied to language learners, the theory of second language socialization suggests that through mean-
ingful interactions with peers and teachers, second language learners learn how to use the new language
appropriately in various contexts and communities. In addition, through the use of the new language the
students also learn what is appropriate in a certain context or community. To make this learning possible,
46

educators together with students, need to create a positive and inclusive classroom environment while
simultaneously engaging the learners in critical language awareness and critical cultural consciousness.
As experts in the academic/dominant target language and as individuals working on development of
critical cultural consciousness and language awareness together with students, language teachers need
to help the learners to “consider the sociopolitical nature of language use [and interrogate] how power
is produced, maintained, and also resisted with the help of different language forms” (Kumaravadivelu,
2003, p. 164-165). It is crucial that in the process of establishing classroom norms and culture, teach-
ers do not privilege their own ways of viewing a classroom culture, but also consider their students as
cultural informants, bringing “the learner’s home community into the classroom experience” (Kuma-
ravadivelu, 2003, p. 273). Teachers can achieve this through explicitly addressing and interrogating the
cultural and communicative norms of the culture of power and comparing and contrasting these norms
to those of the students’ cultures.
In discussing the cultural and linguistic and communicative norms of the various communities stu-
dents may participate in, it is important to bring the learners’ awareness to two factors. The first is the
idea that there is no language or community that is better or worse than another (Gee, 2015; Kumara-
vadivelu, 2003). The second factor pertains to the notion that access to varied cultures and languages
allows varied access to resources and opportunities. The “code of power” allows access to the “culture
of power” (Delpit, 1988) and the institutions predicated upon this code (e.g., schools) and the associated
social mobility and economic advantages. In relation to English language learners in the United States,
we believe that these learners “must be taught the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream of
American life” explicitly (Deplit, 1988, p. 296). We suggest that engaging students in explicit language
socialization while simultaneously interrogating the forces of power of the linguistic and cultural codes
contributes to a more equitable educational outcome, especially for those students whose primary lan-
guage socialization practices do not align with those of the school.
Most language socialization, classroom and otherwise, is implicit (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2007). The
implicit socialization attempts are observed in both teaching of the classroom norms and content learn-
ing. In implicit language socialization, communicative and cultural norms are presented implicitly and
are internalized by the language learners, relying on novices’ “ability to infer meanings through routine
indexical associations between verbal forms and socio-cultural practices, relationships, institutions, emo-
tions, and thought-worlds” (Ochs and Schiefelin, 2007 p. 1). In contrast, explicit language socialization
makes these meanings and norms explicit to the learners.
Explicit language socialization involves “explicit or conscious instruction, coaching, or feedback…
with respect to target norms, conventions and practices” (Duff, 2010, p. 434). Explicit language so-
cialization “may be directed at both the acquisition of language and sociocultural knowledge” (Leung,
2001, p. 2). An example of explicit language socialization is a statement “Boys don’t cry” said to a
crying child. This utterance makes the sociocultural gender norms explicit to the novice through the
means of language in use. Another example of explicit language socialization is error correction, with
explicit feedback on language use. The absence of such feedback is especially problematic when there
is a limited time available for acquisition of linguistic and cultural norms, which is often the case in
classroom language learning.
Implicit language socialization devoid strategies that explicitly address the norms and expectations while
raising critical language awareness may be problematic. In the process of second language socialization,
multilingual students broaden their communicative repertoires allowing them to “function effectively
in the multiple communities in which they participate’’ (Rymes, 2010, p. 528). Implicit socialization
47

attempts, however, may not always lead to the successful learning of these new communicative norms
of a second language and communities. When the additional language the students are learning is part
of the “code of power,” failure of acquisition of this code may mean limiting the students’ access to the
institutions predicated upon this code (Delpit, 1988).
In her research on academic language, Duff (2009) provides an example of how implicit language
socialization into academic discourse of a presentation proved unsuccessful with a language learner.
Relying solely on implicit socialization may lead to negative outcomes for students and the classroom
culture. Due to language proficiency limitations, language learners may not notice important aspects
of the expected norms, which may lead to their stigmatization by other learners. They may be laughed
at or criticized because they do not follow the rules that may appear intuitive to other members of the
learning community, including the teacher and other students. In reaction to breaking these rules, they
may also be positioned as “transgressors” who may negatively affect the well-being of others (Moore,
2017). Additionally, language learners may internalize some, but not all of the norms and may not fully
understand the reasons underlying these expectations (Duff, 2010).
When socialization attempts are limited to implicit acts, there is a likelihood of a lack of understanding
of reasons behind specific norms and expectations, especially in classrooms with learners coming from
heterogeneous backgrounds. Additionally, there is a danger of enacting a “hidden curriculum” (Giroux
& Purpel,1983), where among the learned lessons there are those that are not openly intended and often
reinforce the existing inequities. Coming from diverse cultures, for example, may lead to varied under-
standings of morality and practices to perform moral behaviors. What constitutes “respectful behavior”
towards a teacher or a peer, for example, may be demonstrated in different ways in various “cultures of
learning” (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). The often-unspoken educational goal, however, is to socialize students
into a specific understanding of morality. Often this understanding is consistent with the white middle
class norms and/or those of the teacher. The heterogeneity of perspectives that many teachers experience
in multilingual and multicultural classrooms is better approached through explicit language socialization
that promotes critical language awareness and critical cultural consciousness.
Explicit language socialization can be done in a way that allows for student perspectives to be heard;
allows for explanation of practices, and includes honoring student experiences and voices. By utilizing
the practices we outline below, educators engage in critical praxis and equity.
Critical praxis is a “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (Freire, 1972, p.
52). Using these practices allows teachers to further their own critical consciousness and avoid a seem-
ingly neutral approach to advantage white middle class students or students who are most similar to
themselves. Critical consciousness entails a “praxis cycle in which we engage in dialogue, commit to
social justice through collective action against oppression, re-humanize our relationships, and repeat-
edly return to reflection and dialogue” (Palmer, 2019, p. 5). Teachers and school leaders must develop
a critical consciousness to gain ideological clarity about interrogating the status quo, disrupting deficit
thinking about minoritized groups, and therefore become “...better equipped to critically analyze cur-
riculum, instruction, policies, relationships, and school practices to foster social justice” (Palmer et
al, 2019. p. 6). By interrogating the issues of power and engaging in critical thought together with the
students, teachers become “transformative intellectuals” (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Such teachers commit
to transforming their own and students’ lives, beliefs, and attitudes, and taking social action to disrupt
existing inequities. Conversely, that means that teachers who do not engage in the strategies to develop
the classroom culture from an explicit language socialization perspective can disadvantage marginalized
students and further exacerbate racial and class injustice.
48

Establishing an inclusive classroom culture involves language socialization work on the three seemingly
discrete domains, affective, individual, and interpersonal. As teachers engage in establishing an equitable
classroom environment that is positive and welcoming for all, they should consider connecting to their
learners as individuals on an emotional level (affective domain), creating a way for personal accountability
(individual domain), and establishing norms for whole class, small group, and pair work (interpersonal
domain). The ways of expressing and interpreting the behaviors associated with the three domains are
culturally-specific and socialized through language. The strategies that help teachers to establish an
inclusive and collaborative classroom culture attending to the three domains are listed below (Figure 1)
as relating to each of these domains separately. However, it is important to note that these domains are
interconnected and the practices listed in the figure should be conceptualized holistically and as work-
ing simultaneously on all of the domains. For example, the strategy of community circles works on the
affective, individual, and interpersonal dimensions simultaneously.
Table 1. Practices for establishing a positive classroom culture
Domains To do Strategies to use

Humor/Laughter
“How do I feel” check-in poster &
Establish personal teacher-student and student-
Affective discussion
student connections
Morning routines
Community circle
Discussion
Individual Establish 3 personal accountability standards
Chart displaying standards
Discussion
Establish
-Use of Google Jamboard to include all
-Whole-group norms
Interpersonal student voices
-Small group norms
-Community circle
-Pair work norms
-T-charts displaying the norms
An Inclusive Classroom: Affective Domain
In establishing a classroom culture that is positive and flexible, teachers can use various aspects of the
affective domain. Affect, or “mood, attitude, feeling and disposition, as well as degrees of emotional
intensity vis-à-vis some focus of concern” (Ochs, 1996, p. 410), is an integral part of language social-
ization. Affect is learned “together with, or through language” (Duff, 2009, p. 432). At the same time,
experiences of affect influence the language learning trajectory and outcomes (Krashen, 1982).
Affect also plays an important role in establishing a classroom environment that is conducive to
the process of language acquisition. Use of positive affect helps create a classroom environment that is
welcoming. Senior (2006) has highlighted humor and engaging in laughter as a way for teachers to set
a light-hearted tone to the culture of the classroom. Allowing students to see the teacher as human and
vulnerable, has a way of developing a more trusting and safer environment for students to learn language.
Teachers are encouraged to share moments of joy with the students, take time to get to know each other,
and allow space to share challenges and difficulties. The affective domain of a classroom climate does
49

not only focus on empathy, respect, and kindness, it must also include a focus on “unsafe and exclusion-
ary behaviors; these issues need to be discussed explicitly. Appreciation for multicultural perspectives is
also critical when teaching about relationship building, conflict management and community. This helps
students learn to draw on many traditions and experiences and address social divisions in the classroom”
(Learning for Justice, 2018, p. 8).
To aid students in situated understandings of the meaning of affect and socialization to the appropriate
use of affective displays, teachers can engage in practices that focus on the affective domain explicitly.
Participation in morning welcoming routines, for example, may be done in a way that allows the students
to communicate to the teacher how they feel that day by pointing to the appropriate ‘face.’ The teacher
may display a “How do I feel” check-in poster (Figure 2) that each student can use to indicate their
emotional state. Prior to using this poster, the teacher and the students should collaboratively discuss
the meaning and the appropriate vocabulary items associated with each depicted emotion. They should
also engage in a discussion of the ways that feelings and emotions are expressed in their own cultures
and the appropriate ways of expressing emotions in the various contexts and communities of practice.
As “becoming a competent member of a community involves acquiring a set of affective demeanors”
(Moore, 2020, p. 71), language learners will benefit from explicit discussion of affect in ways that allows
to reflect on expression of affect in “their own culture and (re)view it in relation to others, thereby gain-
ing fresh perspectives about their culture and about themselves” and therefore engaging in developing
critical cultural consciousness (Kumaravadivelu, 2003 p. 273).
Figure 1. Check-in poster
Teachers can also set a certain affective tone when individuals or groups of students are experiencing
difficulty or crisis by providing comfort and compassion, classroom time to address the issues through
a community circle process, which is one example of a restorative justice practice in the classroom.
Restorative practices promote inclusion, collaboration, and community and validate the needs of mar-
ginalized students or students who have experienced harm (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005). In contrast to
traditional punitive discipline practices that are aimed at correcting unwanted negative behaviors and
can be damaging to the school culture (Castillo, 2014), restorative justice practices focus on building
relationships, opportunity for equitable dialogue and problem solving, address harms and needs, and
encourage ways to have healing and restored relationships. The use of restorative practices allows for a
50

shift away from traditional punitive disciplining of students who break the classroom norms, which is
known to disproportionately affect minoritized students (Castillo, 2014; Lustick, 2015; Noguera, 2008),
towards an approach that fosters problem-solving and restoration of trust.
The community circle process should be established in the beginning of the academic year and used
throughout the term. The following “Circle Toolkit” could be used to aid the teachers in establishing
positive interpersonal relationships through a community circle. Table 2 provides the teachers with the
specific and explicit prompts that they can use in the beginning of the year to get to know the students,
to check in with the learners on a regular basis, to help deal with situations of conflict and crisis, and
to analyze the broader contexts and communities that students participate in. As the students engage in
analysis of the broader social context, they interrogate their own positioning within their multiple com-
munities and the issues of power in these communities. If student responses to these prompts demon-
strate that the learners are troubled by the existing power structures, teachers should engage the students
in dialogue about the possibility of change within the community and help learners “recognize their
own responsibility to stand up to exclusion, prejudice and injustice” (Teaching Tolerance, 2016, p. 3).
By engaging in such reflection and analysis, students become active participants of their own growth
and transformation into critical thinkers. Additionally, allowing the students to consider ways to “plan
… action against bias and injustice” helps to work on the “Action” domain of social justice standards
(Learning for Justice, 2016 p. 3)
As with the discussion of affective displays, the understandings of and responses to the prompts in
figure 3 may vary across students based on their cultures and preferences. To promote cross-cultural un-
derstanding and socialization of the culturally-specific understandings, teachers should facilitate explicit
discussion of the varied perceptions that may exist among the students and the teacher. Development
of critical cultural consciousness “requires a recognition of a simple truth: there is no one culture that
embodies all and only best of human experience; and there is no one culture that embodies all and only
the worst of human experience” (Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p. 271). Allowing the students to analyze their
personal cultural understandings and compare them to those of the peers and the teacher, as well as those
found in communities outside of the classroom walls, will allow for better cross-cultural understand-
ing and raising of critical cultural consciousness. It will also allow to work on the “Action” domain of
the social justice standards in that the students will be socialized to “express empathy when people are
excluded or mistreated because of their identities and concern when they themselves experience bias”
(Learning for Justice, 2016, p. 3).
Overall, language learning is a situation that requires some willingness to be human and make mis-
takes, so when the teacher and students are “in it together,” the culture of the classroom becomes a safety
zone for learning. Students need to feel safe from physical and emotional harm, as well as safety from
stereotypes, bullying, harassment, and exclusion. Teachers can prioritize social and emotional safety
that “...supports a classroom community in which students feel secure enough to engage in respectful,
productive conversations about identity and diversity. This work also models actions necessary to nur-
ture inclusive, respectful connections across lines of difference” (LearningforJustice.org). In addition
to involving the affective domain to create a safe and comfortable learning space in explicit ways, it is
crucial to establish expectations for each individual student’s accountability towards themselves and the
group. To aid in explicit language socialization, these expectations should be made clear and visible to
all students, with examples of specific behaviors discussed.
51

Table 2. Circle toolkit
Meditation bell, rain stick- is used to indicate opening and closing of the circle time.
Talking Pieces- these are objects that can be used and easily passed from one student to another in order to indicate turn-taking for
talking.
Objects used as talking pieces can be smooth stones, textured fabrics, sea shells, feathers, ect...
Circle Prompt Examples
1. Getting to know you prompts:
Share a happy childhood memory.
How would your best friend describe you?
What would you NOT want to change about your life? Why?
2. Check-in prompts:
What is your best pandemic survival strategy you’ve discovered?
What are you doing for self-care?
How do you feel in response to_____? (the wildfires, the election, the earthquake, ect…)
3. Restorative prompts:
From your experience as a learner, what makes a safe and trusting learning community?
What happened and how were you feeling at the time of the incident? What about the incident has been hardest for you?
What do you think needs to be done to restore a friendship or working relationship?
4. Social context prompts:
What are the different communities that you participate in? (i.e. church, sports teams, school)
Describe the roles that you play in one of these communities.
Describe the norms for behavior in one of these communities.
How are decisions made and who makes the decisions in this community?
What are some possible ways to make community decision-making fairer (if you find that these practices are not fair)?
What could you do to make the decision-making fairer? (if you find that these practices are not fair)
From your experience as a member of various communities, how do norms of these communities compare and contrast?
An Inclusive Classroom: Individual Domain
As a classroom consists of individual members, each person’s contributions to the group are crucial.
Students need to be socialized into the understanding that their behaviors matter and learn a concept of
personal accountability. An excellent way to establish classroom expectations of personal accountability
comes from the Guided Language Acquisition and Design (https://ntcprojectglad.com/) model (GLAD
from now on). GLAD is a model of sheltered content instruction for English language learners that pro-
vides opportunities for teachers and students to co-construct positive classroom norms together while
allowing for explanation and negotiation of the practices. The foundation for constructing classroom
norms are what the program calls the 3 personal standards. All group norms and behaviors are based on
these 3 personal standards: 1) make good decisions, 2) solve problems, and 3) show respect. Each one
of these personal standards, in practice, involves teacher support and a level of maturity on the part of
the students to enact them in the classroom.
“Make good decisions” is a reminder that students’ choices have an impact on them and others in
the classroom, so pausing to think the choices over is an important skill that they can take into other
contexts outside of the classroom. “Solve problems” prompts students to try to negotiate and come to an
agreement with others if there is a difficulty or challenge, and “show respect” is a common classroom
norm that can apply to self-monitoring how you treat others and the environment. As the concepts in
the three personal standards could be interpreted differently by members of various cultures, it is crucial
that the teacher engages students in explicit discussions of each of these standards (similar to what we
discussed earlier in the section about affect) and the students and the teacher collectively come up with
specific examples of behavior connected to these standards. The students can create scenarios and skits
52

to show examples of real classroom interaction where students make good decisions, solve problems,
and show respect amongst each other in daily situations.
Discussion of the three personal standards is also a good opportunity to engage the learners in raising
critical language awareness. Kumaravadivlu (2003) proposes that engaging in critical language awareness
in a language classroom entails that teachers and students incorporate the following into their regular
reading practices:
open-ended questions, ..multiple interpretations, ... a variety of viewpoints; … discuss[ion of] how topics
could be dealt with differently from the point of their own linguistic and cultural perspective; critical
reflect[ion] on taken-for-granted views and aspects of language; [and] note[s] and comment[s] of social
practices and language use that particularly strike them (p. 166).
These same notions could be applied to establishing an inclusive classroom culture through inter-
rogation of the three personal standards.
Teacher and students could reflect on how enacting the three personal standards may look differ-
ently not only in the various cultures, but also based on the relative social positions that one occupies
in a given community or situation (e.g., a student showing respect in oral or written communication
with a peer vs. a teacher or a school principal) and the power relations associated with the enactment
of the personal standards. Such a discussion would allow not only socialization into culturally-specific
understandings of the target language communicative norms, but also a critical interrogation of the
norms. Discussing the three personal standards also helps development in the “Diversity domain” of the
social justice standards, especially to “express comfort with people who are both similar to and different
from them and engage respectfully with all people” (Learning for Justice, 2016, p. 3). Attention to the
culturally-specific understanding of communicative norms and interrogation of these norms should also
take place in the interpersonal domain.
An Inclusive Classroom: Interpersonal Domain
An inclusive classroom is a new discourse community that incorporates explicit classroom norms that
are created and shared by all community members. In establishing this safety zone for learning, teachers
should bring in the students’ cultures and backgrounds to co-construct the classroom culture and engage
in critical cultural consciousness together. Engaging in critical cultural consciousness not only allows
for socialization into the culturally-specific understandings embedded in and connected with the target
language and the “code of power” (Delpit, 1988), but also preparation for the emerging reality of eco-
nomic and cultural globalization. As second language learners expand their communicative repertoires
and cross-cultural understandings, they on the one hand increase their chances of success in the culture
of power, and on the other hand prepare to be
The ultimate sources of change… The non-mainstream… who manages to pull off recognizable and ac-
ceptable ... [mainstream] Discourse practices, but infuses them with aspects of her other Discourses is
a source of challenge and change, … those who have got themselves -by hook or crook - inside the door
[of cultures of power] (Gee, 2015, p. 185).
53

In preparing the students to be the agents of change, welcoming, and respecting, making visible their
experiences helps them to engage in conversations on topics of social justice and equity and they are
“more likely to engage with anti-bias curriculum and translate their learning into action” (Learning for
Change, 2018).
Interpersonal domain: Whole Class Norms
Multilingual and multicultural language classrooms should become “third spaces,” or spaces where
“alternative and competing discourses and positionings transform conflict and difference into rich zones
of collaboration and learning” (Gutierrez et. al., 1999, p. 286-287). The purposeful use of the diversity
that students bring to the classroom contributes to creation of such spaces, where student voices are
valued and their contributions are welcomed. This can take place by including students’ perspectives in
developing classroom rules and guidelines, developing procedures for managing tools and materials, and
co-constructing classroom routines that are agreed upon by all members of the classroom community.
From this point, participants in the classroom community must come together to agree upon what these
practices look like in specific detail in order for the norms to be clear and visible.
Establishing classroom norms that are clear and “visible” to students is a way of bringing classroom
participants from diverse cultures and languages together in a mutual understanding for how to fully
participate in the classroom culture. We use “visible” in both literal and figurative sense (see and hear)
that allow the students to ‘notice.’ In Figure 2 below, we can see an example of one aspect of whole class
norms pertaining to “Integrity” that was developed by a teacher who uses Project GLAD strategies (See
Gross & Crawford’s 2021 discussion of how GLAD and other strategies can be adapted in ways that
encompass critical orientation to language teaching). The poster is a finished product that was devel-
oped by elementary level students and a teacher together, which includes hearable and visible aspects
of classroom behavior based on the concept of integrity. Similar to our discussion of “respect” above,
integrity may look differently in various cultures and communities. Understanding of how integrity is
performed in the “culture of power” will allow access to the code of power and the institutions associ-
ated with this code.
In addition, there are power relations in how integrity could be enacted among social actors in varied
social positions (student vs. teacher or parent vs. child, for example). Using examples of student lived
experiences of demonstrating integrity in the various communities in which they participate, will allow
the students to compare and contrast how this concept is enacted in various contexts. This explicit so-
cialization practice contributes to equity by centering on all students and their contributions, including
those who are minoritized and dissimilar from the teacher, minimizing racial and class injustice. Such
practice also helps to work towards the “Identity” domain of the social justice standards in that it helps
students to “recognize traits of the dominant culture, their home culture and other cultures and understand
how they negotiate their own identity in multiple spaces” (Learning for Justice, 2016, p. 3).
Interpersonal Domain: Structuring Team Work
Another Project GLAD (process is the co-constructed norms for how students agree to interact in small
groups and pairs are also developed as a whole class process, with specific descriptions and examples
that allow for students’ understanding of the practices and reasons underlying these practices. The teacher
uses a T chart with labels at the top: “Looks Like” and “Sounds Like,” then through class brainstorming
54

Figure 2. Classroom norms
and discussion, they develop specific action-oriented descriptors for the target classroom activity, such
as Table 3. These group norms are referred to explicitly and reviewed before pair and group work; in
addition, they are expanded and revised over time.
Table 3. Team work
Looks like Sounds like

Bodies close together Using our home language and using English
Taking turns to talk Kind words like “please” and “thank-you”
Talking about our learning like “I agree,” “I respectfully disagree,” or
Heads together
“good idea”
Eye Contact Ask for contributions, such as “What do you think?”
Sitting criss-cross and knee-to-knee Validate your partner with comments such as “good idea.”
Similar to the GLAD model, Kinsella (2012) recommends clear and explicit guidelines for how
students should participate in partner work. She describes “productive partners” as those who engage
in 1) eye contact, 2) designating who will be partner #1 and #2 for turn-taking, and 3) observing the 4
L’s of productive partners. Kinsella’s (2012) 4 L’s, look at your partner, lean toward your partner, lower
your voice, and listen attentively, are based on culturally-specific understandings of appropriate behav-
iors in the Western culture of power. As we have discussed above, explicitly socializing the language
learners into these norms will add to the students existing communicative repertoire and set them up for
success in their academic language conversations in the classroom (Kinsella, 2012) and beyond. The
teachers should also explicitly discuss that the four proposed behaviors are part of the “code of power”
and invite students to consider examples of situations where these behaviors would be appropriate and
55

inappropriate, including in their own cultures and communities. Eye contact to demonstrate attentiveness,
for example, is specific to the Western culture and may be considered disrespectful in other cultures.
“Many Asians consider it disrespectful to look someone directly in the eye…. Direct eye contact is also
avoided in Nigeria to show respect” (Galanti, 2004, 34). Similarly, the concept of personal space can be
interpreted differently in various contexts. Additionally, discussing such behaviors, as lowering one’s
voice in relation to the social roles that an actor occupies in a community and a given situation will help
the learners interrogate the universality of this norm for group work. Such questions as “who is expected
to lower their voice and in what situation” will help develop not only general, but also critical language
awareness in the learners in that it will explicitly connect to the issue of who holds power in a given
context. Interrogating these norms critically and cross-culturally will allow to raise the learners’ critical
cultural consciousness and critical language awareness, preparing them for success in today’s world.
Additionally, it will help the students to “recognize that power and privilege influence relationships on
interpersonal, intergroup and institutional levels and consider how they have been affected by those dy-
namics,” working on the Justice domain of the social justice standards (Learning for Justice, 2016, p. 3).
TEACHER PREPARATION LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Modeling of Activities to Establish Classroom Norms
The protocols to establish classroom norms discussed in the previous section are also useful tools for a
TESOL classroom where candidates can experience these activities and learn from instructor modeling
and participation. The following norms are an example of what can be done in a TESOL classroom and
what has been used by the authors of the chapter in their own TESOL classrooms. It may be useful to
engage the candidates in a discussion of how these norms could be adjusted based on a teaching context,
including age group and language levels.
The use of technology can aid in establishing the whole group norms. Google Jamboard is one example
of this. Candidates can quickly, efficiently, and anonymously share their ideas for whole classroom norms
while making them visually available to all participants. Below is an example of the norms generated in
one TESOL classroom through the use of Jamboard and discussion. These norms are regularly reviewed
and could be adjusted throughout the semester.
Observation Template
Another way that preservice and in-service teachers can be trained in using the concept of explicit lan-
guage socialization in their classrooms is through the process of observation and reflection of classroom
teaching. To aid candidates in targeted observation, we have designed an Observation Template seen in
Table 4, a space where teachers can record both their general observations of a classroom and reflect
specifically on the topic of language socialization. TESOL educators may use the following template or
design one that better suits the context of their classrooms.
In this template, teacher candidates are asked to complete their general observations in the first part
of the template and connect the observed practices to language socialization. The second part allows the
candidates to reflect specifically on the topic of language socialization practices. This template allows
accommodations for both on-ground and video-based observations.
56

Figure 3. Class community agreements

(From the work by the Faculty Learning Communities Committee at USC Rossier School of Education)
Table 4. Observation template
Date: ___________________ Location:__________________

Class: ___________________ Teacher: _______________
Time: ___________________ # of Students: ______________
Table 5.
Questions/Notes about language

Time What is the TEACHER doing? What are the STUDENTS doing?
socialization taking place
Table 6.
Journal Prompt Observed Behaviors/Reflections

Think about and reflect on the language socialization that is taking place in the
observed classroom. Reflect on the questions listed below:
1. What norms and routines have you observed in the classroom? Do students
adhere to these norms and routines? Why do you think the students behave in
this way(s)?
2. Are the norms and expectations for behavior presented explicitly or
implicitly in your observed classroom? Explain
3. What classroom practices promoting social and emotional safety do you
observe?
57

DISCUSSION
In this chapter, we have proposed that through classroom practices of explicit language socialization
where students and teachers can engage in critical cultural consciousness and language awareness, two
goals can be achieved. Students get access to the discourse of success that is part of the “code of power”
(Delpit, 1988) in a way that allows for an easier learning of the communicative norms and expectations.
“Unless one has the leisure of a lifetime of “immersion” to learn [the rules of the culture of power], ex-
plicit presentation makes learning immeasurably easier” (Delpit, 1988, p. 283). Simultaneously, students
are learning to engage in development of critical thinking and “intellectual capabilities that are required
for long-term, multifaceted struggles in various socio-political arenas” (Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p. 165)
by critically approaching the taken for granted linguistic and cultural conventions. The two goals are
consistent with the need to unveil the “hidden curriculum” (Giroux & Purpel,1983) of today’s schooling.
If our goal is to prepare the students to be competent members of their communities, present and
future, we owe it to them to do so in ways that are transparent. If one aspires to succeed in the “culture
of power,” they need to learn how to function in this culture. At the same time, as the goal of a demo-
cratic education involves helping the students to become agents of change, interrogation of these norms
is needed. What is asked of today’s students, therefore, is to become justice- and equity-oriented critical
thinkers who are able to “make a particular experience into an object of our reflection (e.g., the object
of an evaluation)” (Duranti, 2009, p. 213). As teachers and students engage in creation of an inclusive
classroom culture in the ways proposed in this chapter, they engage in socialization into a specific
type of cognitive orientation to the world, or what Husserl (1989) has named the “theoretical attitude.”
Theoretical attitude is formed when a person engages in “intentional modifications of their ordinary
or previous ways” (Duranti, 2009, p. 210) of acting, being, and feeling, or of the naturalized cultural
attitudes in ways that evaluate the activity and its actors. Building a classroom community in a way
that draws newcomers “into the theoretical attitude lies at the heart of language socialization” (Ochs &
Kremer-Sadlik, 2015, p. 73).
We wrote this chapter from the perspective that assumes that teachers (both language teachers and
instructors in teacher preparation courses) have themselves been socialized into critical justice and
equity-oriented theoretical attitudes. We do recognize, however, that this process is on-going and teach-
ers should continuously strive to develop ideological clarity while working towards critical praxis in
TESOL. The proposed strategies will allow educators to continuously engage in developing their criti-
cal perspective. We also recognize that the strategies could potentially be used in a way that may harm
learners if teachers assume deficit ideologies of the learners. There are multiple resources and strategies
to help educators in the development of equity-oriented mindsets, including the chapters in the present
volume by Miyake-Trapp & Wong, Trombino and Moore, and others.
The authors’ experiences with the explicit socialization practices with both graduate level teacher
candidates and K-12 students, speak to the possibility of successful implementation of the practices. An
additional challenge is the amount of time that needs to be devoted to this process in both the beginning
of the year and throughout the academic year. To novice teachers, spending time on investing in these
practices may not appear to be worth the investment. It is our hope, though, that teachers reconsider these
initial fears regarding time investment and commit to continuously engage with the suggested tools with
students, as investing in these practices will pay off in the long run. The payoff includes increasing com-
munity development and inclusivity through building the norms together and participating in actively
sustaining the norms and the community. Additionally, critically-oriented explicit language socializa-
58

tion leads to the students’ growth and development of critical thinking, critical language awareness and
critical cultural consciousness, as well as cognitive skills necessary for success in today’s globalized
world. Lastly, critically-oriented explicit language socialization contributes to a creation of an equitable
classroom by replacing traditional punitive discipline known to disproportionately affect marginalized
groups with restorative practices. Using these practices affords the treatment of all students with respect,
and supports the process for restoration of trust when norms are broken.
REFERENCES
Amstutz, L. S., & Mullet, J. H. (2005). The little book of restorative discipline for schools: Teaching
responsibility, creating caring climates. Good Books.
Burdeliski, M., & Howard, K. (2020). Language Socialization in Classrooms: Culture, Interaction, and
Language Development. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316946237
Castillo, J. (2014). Tolerance in schools for Latino students: Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline.
Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 26, 43–58.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.),
Society and the language classroom (pp. 169–206). Cambridge University Press.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children.
Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 280–298. doi:10.17763/haer.58.3.c43481778r528qw4
Duff, P. A. (2009). Language socialization in a Candadian secondary school: Talking about current events
(Take 1). In R. Barnard & M. Torres-Guzman (Eds.), Creating Classroom Communities of Learning.
Briston: Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language Socialization. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics
and language education. Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847692849-018
Duranti, A. (2009). The Relevance of Husserl’s Theory to Language Socialization. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology, 19(2), 205–226. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1395.2009.01031.x
Fairclough, N. (1992). Critical language awareness. Longman.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin.
Friedman, D. A. (2020). Negotiating epistemic authority and co-constructing difference: Socializing
“Nonnative speaker” Teachers in a US graduate program in TESOL. In M. J. Burdelski & K. M. Howard
(Eds.), Language Socialization in Classrooms (pp. 158–178). doi:10.1017/9781316946237.010
Galanti, G.-A. (2004). Caring for patients from different cultures. University of Pennsylvania.
Gee, J. P. (2015). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315722511
Giroux, H., & Purpel, D. (1983). The Hidden Curriculum and Moral Education. McCutchan Publishing
Corporation.
59

GLAD Project. (n.d.). https://ntcprojectglad.com/

Gross, E., & Crawford, J. (2021). Instructional Models for Equitable and Effective Multilingual Instruc-
tion in California. The CATESOL Journal.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano‐López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybrid-
ity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286–303.
doi:10.1080/10749039909524733
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms.
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511841057
Husserl, E. (1989). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy.
In Studies in the Phenomenology of Constitution. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2233-4
Kinsella, K. (2012). Evidence Based Principles to Guide English Language Development in the Common
Core Standards Era. Center for Teacher Efficacy. California State University San Francisco.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Prentice-Hall International.
Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lee, J. S., & Bucholtz, M. (2015). Language socialization across learning spaces. The handbook of
classroom discourse and interaction, 319 - 336. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4h89b3z0
Leung, S. (2001). Language socialization: Themes and advances in research. Working papers in TESOL
& Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–18.
Lustick, H. (2015). Administering discipline differently: A Foucauldian lens on restorative school discipline.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(3), 1–15. doi:10.1080/13603124.2015.1100755
Moore, E. (2017). Managing classroom transgressions: Use of directives in a reading practice. Linguistics
and Education, 41, 35–46. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.006
Moore, E. (2020). Affective stance and socialization to Orthodox Christian Values in a Russian heritage
language classroom. In M. J. In Burdelski & K. M. Howard (Eds.), Language Socialization in Classrooms
(pp. 71–90). doi:10.1017/9781316946237.005
Noguera, P. (2008). The Trouble with Black Boys...and other reflections on race, equity, and the future
of public education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ochs, E. (1986). Introduction. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language Socialization Across
Cultures (pp. 1–13). Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.),
Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407–437). Cambridge University Press.
60

Ochs, E., & Kremer-Sadlik, T. (2015). How language became knowledge. Journal of Linguistic Anthro-
pology, 25(1), 66–86.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2011). The theory of language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, &
B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 1–21). Wiley Blackwell.
Palmer, D. K., Cervantes-Soon, C., Dorner, L., & Heiman, D. (2019). Bilingualism, biliteracy, bicultural-
ism, and critical consciousness for all: Proposing a fourth fundamental goal for two-way dual language
education. Theory into Practice, 58(2), 121–133.
Powell, R., & Rightmyer, E. C. (Eds.). (2011). Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for
closing the gap. Routledge.
Rymes, B. (2010). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Focus on Communicative Repertoires. In N. H.
Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 528–546). Multilingual
Matters.
Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (2007). Language socialization: An historical overview. In P. A. Duff & S.
May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 1–13). Springer.
Senior, R. (2006). Maintaining the classroom community. In The experience of language teaching (pp.
199–227). Cambridge University Press.
Learning for Justice. (2018). Critical Practices for Anti-Bias Education: Instruction.
Learning for Justice. (2016). Social justice standards: The teaching tolerance anti-bias framework.
https://www.learningforjustice.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/TT-Social-Justice-Standards-Anti-bias-
framework-2020.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press.
ADDITIONAL READING
Burdelski, M. J., & Howard, K. M. (2020). Language socialization in classroom. Academic Press.
Powell, R., & Rightmyer, E. C. (2011). Literacy for all students. An instructional framework for closing
the gap. Routledge.
Learning for Justice. (2016). Social justice standards: The teaching tolerance anti-bias framework.
https://www.learningforjustice.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/TT-Social-Justice-Standards-Anti-bias-
framework-2020.pdf
Classroom Norms: Group constructed guidelines for how to interact with each other and participate
in the classroom community
61

Community Circle: A circle is a restorative practice that is used to build relationships and com-
munity, in addition, circles can support the process of resolving conflicts.
Explicit Language Socialization: A process of socializing of and into the situated linguistic and cultural
norms of a community through making these norms explicit to the novice members of the community.
GLAD: Guided Language Acquisition and Design: Project GLAD® training for teachers, a non-profit
organization providing an integrated, balanced literacy approach to language acquisition.
Language Socialization: A process of acquisition of the situated linguistic and cultural knowledge
of a community through the social experience of the associated linguistic and cultural norms of the
community.
Restorative Justice: Refers to a way of responding to harm, conflict or crisis, that focuses on repair-
ing the damage caused by that harm.
Second Language Socialization: A process of language socialization beyond one’s primary language(s).
62
63
Chapter 4
Equitable Assessment Practices
Emmy J. Min
ABSTRACT
The traditional approach to assessment is being reevaluated as a valid and effective language learn-
ing assessment tool because it often fails to account for the specific needs, contexts, and backgrounds
of language learners. To make assessment processes more equitable, just, and inclusive, this chapter
extends the traditional approach to assessment practice by introducing the equity-minded assessment
model, which includes six principles for teachers to use as a framework for creating and evaluating
assessments: validity, reliability, practicality, authenticity, washback and equity, and justice and inclu-
sion. The author suggests that the model be used to design, administer, and reflect on the effectiveness
of the assessment and as a critical reflective framework and not merely as a checklist of items. Thus, this
model can serve to make assessments for learning and not just of learning, thereby making the assess-
ment process equitable and inclusive.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is designed to engage teacher candidates in exploring different theories, issues, and procedures
related to assessments for language learners. By introducing relevant theories and current practices in
the area of assessment, this chapter is designed to integrate theory and practice to provide readers with
both conceptual understanding and practical experience in language assessment.
Through the lens of equity-minded assessment, this chapter will also provide an opportunity for read-
ers to critically reflect on and self-assess themselves and their learners, as well as the context, which
will affect how they view and assess others (Keesing-Styles, 2003; Shohamy, 2017.) Thus, the purpose
of this chapter is to help readers emerge asking more informed, critical, and incisive questions about
the role of assessment in teaching, about how teaching and learning inform assessment (Alderson, et.
al., 2017), and about the potential consequences of their choices (McNamara, 2006; Messick, 1989;
Shohamy, 2001a,b). In doing so, readers will become more reflective about what assessment strategies
they choose, justifying the choices based on their informed knowledge of themselves, of students, and
other related factors.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch004

This chapter first discusses the key concepts that support the suggested assessment practice. Follow-
ing the discussion, the author will introduce the Equity-minded Assessment Model, (EMAM) which
includes the six principles of effective assessment. To deepen the understanding of the model, the author
will suggest a set of learning activities that can be used to explore the model. The Portrait of Practice
section of the chapter will provide a practical example of how the EMAM can be adapted and used at
the classroom level. Finally, the discussion section will explore further considerations when enacting
the Equity-minded Assessment Model in practice.
CONCEPT
Educators have different opinions on the type, timing, content, language, and authorship of assessment
and feedback (Spolsky, 2017). A critical orientation to assessment incorporates several elements that
focus on theory in action, or what Freire (1984) would call praxis. Praxis is defined as a “reflection
and action upon the world in order to transform it” (Freire, 1972, p. 52). According to Freire (1972),
oppressed people can use praxis to critically reflect on their status, condition, and position, and to take
actions to interrogate a system of power. Therefore, using practices such as praxis would be crucial to
taking transformative actions. However, according to Barros (2011), traditional assessments have not
been successful in “breaking down restrictions in the ways knowledge is constructed precisely because
their applications are counterintuitive to the process of education as a continuum” (p. 83). Traditionally,
assessments, especially large-scale assessments, have been used to maintain the status quo and serve
the interests of the privileged by maintaining the uniformity of their content, procedures, and analysis.
Similarly, Shohamy (2017) contended that a social perspective of language assessments views them as a
“means for maintaining hierarchies and normalizing judgement” (p. 444). Moreover, traditional English
language assessments have imposed a hegemonic version of English by privileging students who use
the preferred version and thereby disadvantage those who do not come from the dominant linguistic
background or are not multilingual (Gross & Crawford, 2021; May, 2017).
By criticizing the traditional form of assessment, proponents of critical orientation to assessments
problematize the notion of “assum[ing] that students can be tested fairly in uniform ways, thus disregarding
issues of socioeconomic dominance and cultural subordination that are intrinsically tied to any process
of learning” (Barros, 2011, p. 79). Traditional assessment seeks to maintain “uniformity” as it is believed
to have been associated with equality, objectivity, and fairness by those who use it. However, having a
uniform way to assess and grade students’ learning involves assessing language form and factual content,
which usually puts emphasis on accuracy and single right answers. A critical orientation to assessment,
in contrast, puts emphasis on inviting diverse perspectives, language varieties, and diverse contents and
modes of delivery. In addition to the issues of socioeconomic dominance and cultural subordination
tied to the process of assessment, a critical orientation problematizes linguistic hierarchies favoring a
language variety familiar to native speakers. For example, in both traditional standardized assessments
and in-class error correction, the standard hegemonic language is perceived to be exclusively accurate
and accepted regardless of the objective and content of the assessment (Brooks, 2017).
Traditional assessment, while making a significant impact on students’ likelihood of success and
thereby contributing to overall (in)justice in society, often serves to marginalize certain groups of stu-
dents to perpetuate the status quo. By not fully tailoring itself to students’ specific needs, backgrounds,
and interests, a standardized assessment or any traditional in-class assessment may “only contradict the
64

emergence of students as subjects” (Shor, 1980, p. 112). Because students do not appear to have power
in the process of traditional assessment, proponents of a critical approach to assessment reject assess-
ment as a tool that promotes teaching and learning and regard assessment as a pathway toward control
by the mainstream with the agenda that learning should occur in an objective, prescriptive manner
(Kahl, 2013) that limits language varieties, diverse sociocultural content, and context appropriate for
the specific demographics of students.
Therefore, a critical approach to assessment in language learning focuses on empowering students
by viewing assessment as an instrument “for learning” and “leading to action” and not merely “of learn-
ing.” By involving authentic issues that are pertinent to students, community and contexts surrounding
the assessment, local communities, and families as well as professional and subject matter experts, and
carefully selecting approaches and materials, language assessment practices can not only be appropriate
and meaningful but also equitable. Identifying and challenging oppressive power relations help students
reassess the complex relationships of the stakeholders involved in the assessment process and create
equity-minded assessments that both teachers and students own (Kessing-Styles, 2003). These new
practices could lead to transformative social action.
Although proponents of critical orientation often reject traditional assessment partly because of its
uniform instrument (which is rarely inclusive of and equitable to all students involved in the assessment
process), this chapter will provide a model that extends the assessment practices grounded in traditional
assessment. By building on traditional approaches and extending them further, language educators can
still embrace assessment and use assessment as a praxis to empower language learning students and
challenge the perpetuation of the status quo (Kahl, 2013).
As Gross & Crawford (2021) defined it, critical multilingual pedagogy synthesizes traditional, pro-
gressive, and critical approaches to propose a set of pedagogical guidelines that teachers can adapt in
various language learning contexts. Building on this approach, the Equity-minded Assessment Model
introduced in this chapter will synthesize all three approaches to suggest a more comprehensive guideline
to evaluate and design assessments. According to Gross & Crawford, traditional approaches maintain
that the focus should be on form and accuracy when assessing students’ language performance. Teach-
ers should be correcting students’ language use according to the rules of grammar and pronunciation
because the focus of the assessment is on accuracy. In contrast, progressive approaches maintain that
assessment should focus on meaning and fluency and teachers should not interrupt language learners
while they are trying to communicate unless accuracy is the focus. Language teachers using progressive
approaches should utilize both summative and formative performance-based assessments that include
authentic content incorporating diverse cultural perspectives. Additionally, language teachers using
progressive approaches should take into account the needs of diverse students and provide meaningful
and timely feedback, and give opportunities for peer and self-assessment and reflection (Shohamy &
Hornberger, 2017). At the same time, critical approaches maintain that assessment should incorporate
the analysis of achievement disparities between subgroups of language learners and include both quan-
titative and qualitative measures of linguistic and cultural differences when designing, administering,
and evaluating the assessment process and product. Furthermore, language teachers using critical ap-
proaches should provide opportunities for language learners to use their knowledge of equity to plan
and implement action pertaining to social, political, and economic issues (Crawford & Gross, 2020;
Shohamy & Hornberger, 2017).
65

This chapter will introduce EMAM that embodies six principles for measuring the effectiveness of
assessments to ensure equitable assessment practices. The first five principles extend the traditional
and progressive approaches of effective assessments: validity, reliability, authenticity, practicality, and
washback (Alderson, et. al., 2017; Brown & Abeywickrama, 2018; Hughes, 2002) by adding the critical
and equity-based perspective(s). Further, this chapter will append a sixth principle, equity, to make the
language assessment practices that focus on equity more salient, meaningful, and practical.
While it may be challenging for any assessment to satisfy all six principles, EMAM serves as an
invaluable tool to gauge the language assessment’s overall efficacy.
Validity
According to Messick (1989), validity of assessment is defined as “the degree to which empirical evi-
dence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and actions
based on test scores or other modes of assessment” (p. 11). In the field of language assessment, valid-
ity refers to the test’s centrality of an assessment’s purpose (Alderson et al., 2017). These definitions
of validity reinforce the extent to which an assessment should align with its intended objective(s). In
this chapter, these definitions will be expanded to include a more critical perspective to make different
student groups more visible in and important to language assessment practices. For example, Kunnan
(2002) discussed the importance of investigating the test performance of different test-taker groups based
on their gender, race/ethnicity, field of specialization, and native language and culture. Kunnan further
argued that content and format biases, such as including specific cultural content and dialect variations,
and its testing methodology could make the test unfair for specific groups. Thus, in this chapter, validity
will be defined as the extent to which an assessment aligns with its intended assessment objective(s)
(e.g., specific language domain) and the degree to which results are interpreted to be fair for the differ-
ent groups who are assessed. In this chapter, validity is further classified into five subcategories: face,
content, criterion, construct, and consequential validity.
Face Validity
Face validity measures how an assessment “appears” to those taking or administering the assessment.
Although assessment developers may believe the assessment is valid, if the students taking the assess-
ment do not believe it is valid, then it could have a negative impact on the assessment’s overall validity.
Students may choose not to participate actively or may not be motivated to do well; thus, the assessment’s
appearance may negatively affect their performance. Some regard the concept of face validity as highly
subjective and intuitive (Bachman, 1990). Without solid evidence supporting why the assessment is
invalid, the invalidity claim could rely solely on the subjective feelings and/or experience of those who
question the validity. However, for teachers to implement an equitable assessment practice, they must
validate and acknowledge different groups of students’ perspectives and feelings about an assessment.
This validation and acknowledgment would improve the assessment’s face validity and, most impor-
tant, encourage all students to perform their best. Table 1 in Appendix A shows some practical ways to
improve a language assessment’s face validity.
66

Content Validity
Content validity measures the extent to which the assessment has content-related evidence (Mousavi,
2009). The language assessment should align closely with its content objective. For example, if the as-
sessment’s objective is to assess students’ ability to use correct tenses, the assessment should contain
tenses as the key element of the assessment. Content validity is tied to the assessment’s format as well.
For example, if the assessment’s objective is to measure students’ oral presentation skills, but the assess-
ment’s format is a written multiple-choice assessment, it may not be the most valid way to assess students’
performance concerning the content objective. To make an assessment process equitable, teachers must
ensure the assessment does not misrepresent or omit facts, contain offensive language, and/or contain
misleading information, and does include information that was taught and aligns with the assessment’s
goal. Table 2 in Appendix A shows some practical ways to improve an assessment’s content validity.
Criterion Validity
Criterion validity measures the extent to which the assessment aligns with the intended criterion of
the assessment. There are two types of criterion validity: concurrent and predictive validity. Concur-
rent validity measures the extent to which the assessment results are validated through another form
of concurrent performance (Hughes, 2003). For example, if students received a perfect score on an
oral interview assessment, then they generally are expected to do well on another oral interview form.
However, if they fail to perform well on the concurrent oral interview (and there may be many reasons
that happened), then the first factor the teachers must question is the concurrent validity of their oral
interview assessment. Similar to concurrent validity, predictive validity measures whether the assess-
ment criteria are reached by examining the assessment’s predictive value. For example, for a placement
assessment to have predictive value, students placed at a certain proficiency level must perform accord-
ing to their expected level. If students are not placed at their respective levels for some reason, then
teachers must question the placement assessment’s predictive validity. If the criterion validity is low for
language assessments, it could affect the students’ likelihood of mastering the content or succeeding in
field for which they were assessed. Therefore, improving the criterion validity of language assessments
could make learning more equitable. Table 3 in Appendix A shows some practical ways to improve an
assessment’s criterion validity.
Construct Validity
Construct validity measures the extent to which an assessment aligns with the assessment’s intended
construct. An example of a language assessment with higher construct validity is one that fulfills the
assessment’s specific objective using a sound construct widely accepted in the field. Low construct
validity occurs when assessment and/or grading criteria do not satisfy or only partially satisfy the con-
struct. For example, criteria for good argumentative essay writing typically include both the quality of
argument and writing mechanics; if a rubric being developed to assess an argumentative essay does not
include the quality of argument element and includes only the mechanics of writing for example, then it
could lower the assessment’s construct validity. Thus, construct validity is related closely to assessment
quality (Messick, 1981, 1989).
67

Moreover, assessment constructs that are focused on content, such as the one in the above example
(e.g., what makes an effective argumentative essay?) as well as other language constructs (e.g., overall
language proficiency, grammar, and pronunciation) embody values (Kunnan, 2000; McNamara, 2006),
which are “relative, socially constructed, and need to be made explicit and defended or critiqued” (McNa-
mara, 2006, p. 40). Thus, for language educators to develop and administer an equity-driven assessment,
they must ask questions such as “whose value does this construct serve?” They should then adjust the
construct accordingly to provide all students an equitable chance to succeed.
Consequential Validity
Consequential validity is the extent to which an assessment encompasses all intended and unintended
consequences. Also called “impact,” consequential validity is concerned with both micro- and macro-
level consequences and the effects an assessment could have on individual students, assessment pro-
cesses, and society (McNamara, 2006; Messick, 1989; Shohamy, 2001a,b). Tests and assessments can
be powerful tools that have both micro-level and macro-level consequences (Shohamy, 2017). Micro-
level consequences such as individual language learning, self-confidence with language use, and course
grades can have a lasting impact on individuals or a group of students. Macro-level consequences such as
inequity in society and the gatekeeping role that the assessment plays (such as the use of TOEFL test for
college entrance and TOEIC test for job promotion) may have a lasting and profound impact on society
and systems of power. Often, assessments motivates individual students, institutions, and educational
systems to change their strategies and practices as they strive to succeed despite their detrimental effects
(Shohamy, 2017). Although predicting what impact an assessment could have on all stakeholders may
be impossible, preparing for possible consequences and minimizing unintended adverse consequences
could improve the equity-minded assessment practice. Refer to Table 4 in Appendix A for ideas to im-
prove both the construct and consequential validity.
Reliability
Reliability of assessment is extent to which an assessment is consistent and reliable. The construct of
reliability can be discussed in light of the following subcategories:
Scorer or Rater Reliability
Scorer or rater reliability focuses on the effect of raters in measuring reliability. Inter-scorer or Inter-rater
reliability measures the degree to which two or more scorer yield consistent scores on an assessment
(Hughes, 2003; Livingstone, 2018). Having robust grading criteria, rubrics, and norming training ses-
sions could improve the inter-reliability of an assessment. To maintain equity in the grading and rating
process, raters need to critically reflect on their preconceived notions, potential biases, and expectations;
understand the possible differences in the values they bring in when grading, and determine to what
extent their grading practice aligns with the shared objectives and expected outcomes of the assessment.
Intra-scorer reliability is achieved when a single scorer scores or gives feedback in a way that is
consistent and reliable. Bias, carelessness, fatigue, and favoritism can lower the intra-scorer reliability
of an assessment, making equitable assessment practice a challenging task. Maintaining both inter and
68

intra-scorer reliability and being transparent and clear about the grading and rating process are crucial
in making the assessment equitable for diverse language learners.
Student-Related Reliability
Student-related reliability occurs when students’ emotional, psychological, and physical factors do not
interfere with the consistent and reliable outcome of the assessment (Brown & Abeywickarama, 2018;
Hughes, 2003). Although it may seem like factors related to students are not something that teachers
have control over, as discussed in the face validity section of this chapter, ensuring that all students feel
ready for the assessment is crucial in an equitable assessment practice.
Administration and Test Reliability
Reliability is also improved when assessment and assessment administration process do not interfere
with the consistent and reliable outcome of the assessment (Hughes, 2003; Livingstone, 2018). Certain
characteristics of assessment such as design, instrument, or format, or the way it is administered can
disadvantage certain groups of students. Even for the same students, having inconsistent test designs,
instruments, formats, or administration could potentially yield inconsistent outcomes. Additionally, test
administration unreliability can occur when the test center is too cold, hot, or noisy. Materials such as
chairs, desks, and technology need to be well managed so that assessment outcomes are consistent, maxi-
mizing the performance of all students fairly and equitably. To improve the overall administration and
test reliability of an assessment, teachers should consider the factors located in Table 5 in Appendix A.
Authenticity
Authenticity of assessment measures the extent to which an assessment contains content and tasks that
can be implemented or conducted in the real world (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2018). The concept of
authenticity can be tricky, but it is important when making the assessment process equitable and mean-
ingful to all stakeholders. For an equity-driven assessment practice, teachers would need to ask, “Whose
authenticity is the assessment representing?” The assessment’s structure, content, format, and results
might be authentic and replicable in the real life of teachers, but it may not be an authentic assessment for
students. Therefore, to improve the authenticity of an assessment, teachers should evaluate authenticity
of their assessments before, during and after they are given. Refer to the reflective questions located in
Table 6 in Appendix A to improve authenticity.
Practicality
Practicality of assessment refers to measuring the extent to which an assessment can be administered
given the budgetary, physical, and time constraints (Mousavi, 2009). Budget and time constraints are
real issues that teachers need to consider when designing and administering assessments. Designing
and administering one-on-one assessments in a classroom with a hundred students, for example, may
not be as practical as multiple-choice paper and pencil assessments given in the same classroom. To
make language assessments more equitable, language teachers need to examine practicality with dif-
ferent groups of students in mind. Some language learners may need more time to prepare or complete
69

the assessments or differentiated resources or materials based on their language proficiency levels and
backgrounds. To improve practicality using the EMAM, teachers need to consider the factors listed in
Table 7 in Appendix A.
Washback
Washback or backwash is defined as any positive or negative influence that an assessment has on
teaching and learning (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2001; Hugues, 2003; Luxia, 2005; Shawcross, 2019). By
providing meaningful and helpful feedback to students, for example, assessments can play a beneficial
washback role by helping students gain the knowledge and skills needed to improve their language
learning experience. In a learner-centered classroom where teaching and learning are believed to occur
through social interactions among participants (Celce-Murcia et al., 2014), feedback is often seen as
an important form of instructors’ scaffolding technique to encourage learning. As Hyland and Hyland
(2006) claimed, “Feedback is widely seen as crucial for encouraging and consolidating learning, and this
significance has also been recognized by those working in the field of second language (L2) writing”
(p. 83). Feedback, therefore, can be a powerful way to exert a positive washback on language learning.
Including feedback in different modes (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, audio/video feedback), having a
built-in feedback section in a rubric, hosting a one-on-one or a whole group review session, for example,
can improve the positive washback function of the assessment.
An example of negative washback function is when teachers are using a teach-to-the-test approach
when teaching language learners. If used appropriately as a guiding resource, assessments and tests can
serve as an important resource for setting benchmarks for students’ learning. However, if used excessively
and exclusively to the point where the sole objective of the lesson is to do well on tests and assessments,
the assessment may not be bringing positive washback to the teaching and learning context. Another
language assessment example of a negative washback function is when teachers primarily assess students’
knowledge of and skills using specific elements of grammar but choose not to assess their skills related
to speech or writing. When assessed this way, students prepare by studying grammatical elements (wash-
back effect) and improve these skills but ignore other elements that are important for language learning.
To maintain equity-minded assessment practice through positive washback, teachers need to carefully
design, administer, and evaluate their assessments with an intended washback function(s) in mind. For
example, teachers can list the intended consequences or washback that they would like to carry out as
a result of administering the assessment and use the assessment to implement the consequences. One
thing to note, however, is that the process of achieving intended washback functions is complex, and
there could be goals that are in conflict with each other (Luxia, 2005). For example, Luxia explored the
intended washback function of an English standardized test in China, finding that the intended wash-
back function of promoting English communicative ability was not achieved. This was because of the
conflicting aims – there was a mismatch between the selection and gatekeeping function of the assess-
ment and the function of promoting English communicative ability. The selection function motivated
stakeholders to teach to the test, in stark contrast to the goal of promoting communicative competence.
Thus, when trying to achieve intended positive washback, teachers need to carefully evaluate the as-
sessment process and product to identify any obstacles and competing ideas and avoid any unintended
outcome that could hinder equitable assessment practice. To improve the positive washback function,
teachers should consider the factors located in Table 8 in Appendix A.
70

Equity
Equity in language assessment is defined in this chapter as maintaining fairness through assessment
by referencing factors such as political and economic agendas, ideologies, societal elements, issues of
power, hierarchical structures, sociocultural and sociolinguistic elements, and data of various subgroups
of language learners’ achievements (Bensimon et al., 2016; Troudi, 2018). In the subsequent sections,
this principle of equity is discussed in detail with an emphasis on content and delivery and the need to
use the right amount and types of assessment data, correct language use, and critical reflection as well
as an iterative assessment cycle.
Equity Using Assessment Content and Delivery
To achieve equity through the content and context of a language assessment, teachers or assessment
designers need to incorporate diverse perspectives of the issue being presented; use relevant, familiar,
and culturally responsive examples; and avoid language and ideas that contain bias. Therefore, teach-
ers need to conduct research and collect sufficient data from assessments about possible achievement
disparities among different subgroups of language learners and use this data to design, administer, and
reflect on their assessments and learning outcomes. For example, a culturally-responsive assessment is
defined by Montenegro and Jankowski (2017) as
[The practice] assuring that the assessment process—beginning with student learning outcome state-
ments and ending with improvements in student learning—is mindful of student differences and employs
assessment methods appropriate for different student groups (p.9).
With students as the focus, measures for making language assessment more equitable can be improved
by making better connections to students’ homes, the culture of their communities, and the resources
available to them. Language teachers can ask their students to bring in materials, identify topics they are
interested in, present research findings related to their interests, develop close relationships with students’
home culture, and activate their background knowledge and experiences so they can be incorporated
into language assessments. To improve equity using assessment content and delivery, teachers should
consider the factors located in Table 9 in Appendix A.
Equity using Sufficient Amount of Assessment Data
In the literature, the question of reliability has motivated assessment researchers to suggest the needs for
sufficient sampling of assessment data (Hughes, 2003; Livingstone, 2018). Livingstone argued that by
adding more assessment data and increasing the number of questions on the assessment, teachers can
glean more reliable findings about students’ performances. Livingstone further explained that—rather
than just using samples of students’ work—an increase in the number of assessment raters increases the
assessment’s reliability. Measuring the level of equity with respect to the amount of assessment data
may be more important than reliability. The collection and interpretation of sufficient amounts of data
before, during, and after the assessment will significantly improve their equity measure. Additionally, it
will help teachers and assessment designers evaluate potential differences in academic content, linguistic
and sociocultural knowledge and skills when designing, administering, and evaluating the assessment.
71

In addition to the amount of assessment data, when possible, assessments should use multiple types
of assessment questions, communicative modes, and instruments so that language learners are given op-
portunities to demonstrate their learning in different ways. Assessments reveal what skills or knowledge
students possess, but Poehner and Lantolf (2005) reconceptualized them by suggesting the use of dynamic
assessments to gauge what students can do with the necessary support. Influenced by Vygotsky’s Zone of
Proximal Development, (Celce-Murcia et. al., 2014), dynamic assessment emphasizes the importance of
bringing forth students’ potential that synthesizes teaching and assessment. For example, one example of
dynamic assessment – the test-teach-re-test - assesses how much students improved as a result of teaching.
Equity on Language Use
In addition to the content and delivery of assessments, teachers or assessment designers need to carefully
examine whether the assessment needs to incorporate multiple languages, registers, and language variet-
ies (Gross & Crawford, 2021; May 2017; Shohamy, 2017). In many cases, having multiple languages,
registers, and language varieties can strengthen the equity principle of the assessment, which will most
likely improve language learners’ ability to access the content and spot the nuances of the assessment
languages. Moreover, having multiple languages, registers, and language varieties represented in assess-
ments would provide multiple ways for language learners to convey their responses and ideas, which would
make the assessment more inclusive of the language learners’ voices. If possible, multiple languages,
registers, and language varieties can also be added to the grading criteria (e.g., rubrics). By doing so,
language learners can provide their responses through the language, language variety, or register of their
choosing, knowing this will not lower their chance of performing well on the assessment. To improve
equity using sufficient amount of assessment data and language use, teachers should consider the factors
located in Table 10 in Appendix A.
Equity using Critical Reflection
A critical reflection component should be embedded in the language assessment process. Critical reflec-
tion when reviewing and revising assessment is useful for identifying potential insensitive language,
controversial topics, unfair advantages and disadvantages related to power and sociopolitical awareness,
and possible micro and macro consequences of the assessment. Language learners should be given an
opportunity to critically reflect on the micro and macro impact of the assessment before, during, and
after it is administered. They can participate in the process of designing assessments and evaluating
and analyzing the assessment results. Bensimon, et. al., (2016) contends that “enacting equity requires
a continual process of learning, disaggregating data, and questioning assumptions about relevance and
effectiveness.” (para 24) Thus, language practitioners can also conduct more research on the macro
consequences of the assessment and engage in discussion about ways to successfully attain their goals
using assessment and evaluation structures.
Language teachers’ interpretation of the data may be more important than how they collect it and
conduct research. For example, when different student data are disaggregated, do teachers see discrep-
ancies in language learning outcomes as an indication of the students’ lack of effort? Or do they view
these outcomes as an indication the assessment was not as equitable as it could be? Bensimon et. al
(2016) argued that the “interpretive lenses through which practitioners make sense of data are far more
consequential than the collection of data itself” (para 25). To further improve equity in language assess-
72

ments, therefore, language learners need to be encouraged and guided to use the equity-driven lenses
and be change agents that help make a difference or solve local or global problems using the outcomes
of the assessment.
Equity using Iterative Assessment Process
Finally, the process of assessment should be monitored and evaluated constantly, and appropriate ac-
commodations and differentiation should be afforded. Kunnan (2010) urged teachers to adopt a cyclical
process to develop, test with a small sample, administer, and revise the assessment. This process will
ensure that the assessment process is monitored by all stakeholders, informed by diverse perspectives,
and validated with evidence and outcomes that are critically analyzed. Moreover, Kunnan addressed the
importance of aligning the objective of the assessment with its result. Using appropriate and effective
accommodation, scaffolding, and differentiated ways to measure the language learners’ achievements
would contribute to making the assessment fair and equitable, thereby allowing it to target the objective
and not assess erroneous measures. To improve equity using critical reflection and iterative assessment
process, teachers should consider the factors located in Table 11 in Appendix A.
Connections of Equity Principle to Other Five Principles
Just like the other principles discussed in this chapter, the equity principle is greatly intertwined with the
other five principles in the Equity-minded Assessment Model. For example, assessments would need to
be valid and reliable to be equitable. If an assessment does not assess what it intends to assess, and is
not consistent and dependable, this will negatively affect its equity measure because the outcome of the
assessment will not be equitable for all those taking the assessment. If an assessment does not represent
language learners’ authenticity and is not relevant, meaningful, and interesting, it will hurt the assess-
ments’ equity measure and disadvantage those whose authenticity is not represented. Finally, having an
excessive negative washback means the influence of assessments on teaching and learning is negative.
The negative influence on teaching and learning would then contribute to lowering the equity measure
of the assessment. Table 9 in Appendix A lists some practical ways to improve the equity measure in
assessment practice.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
1. Do a quick search on the web or in a textbook for an assessment example you can use for your
language learning student. When you have identified an assessment, try to measure its effectiveness
by responding to the following prompts:
a. Discuss specific student needs, micro and macro language learning contexts, and potential
learning discrepancies among student groups.
b. Go through each of the six principles of the Equity-minded Assessment Model to measure
how well it satisfies the principles.
c. Discuss ways to improve the assessment and revise it accordingly.
2. Develop a summative assessment of your own using the following criteria.
a. If available, collect data on students’ previous assessments, assignments, and observations.
73

b. Identify the summative assessment’s objective. Design a summative assessment by fulfilling

the assessment objective and purpose (i.e., What skill and/or knowledge are you trying to
assess? Do they align with the assessment instruments?)
c. Carefully review the assessment design to determine whether it meets the goals of the six
principles of the Equity-Minded Assessment Model.
d. Find a way to differentiate the assessment to meet the diverse needs of the students.
3. Include a rubric for rater(s). Make the languages of the rubric measurable and clear. Use the six
principles in the Equity-Minded Assessment Model to assess the effectiveness of the rubric.
4. When assessing student learning, it is important to use a variety of different assessments to vali-
date the results and make the assessment process and product more equitable and inclusive. Thus,
when choosing which assessments to use and review, one needs to consider their strengths and
weaknesses. In a group or as a whole class, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the following
types of assessments:
a. Portfolio assessments
b. Standardized assessments
c. Multiple choice, cloze, and matching
d. Presentations
e. Essay assessment
f. Interview and role-play
5. Describe the profile, needs, characteristics and contexts of the language learners you plan to teach
(or hope to teach). What might be the learning discrepancies between the students and other stu-
dents who might have different needs, characteristic, and contexts? In responding to this question,
use relevant evidence such as peer-reviewed journals, statistics, and publicly available sources.
PORTRAIT OF PRACTICE
Collecting Assessment Data
Ms. Kim is an English language teacher for a group of adult learners at a local, community-based lan-
guage school in a U.S. city. Before she designed the assessment for her class, she wanted to ensure she
had collected and analyzed a sufficient amount of assessment data. She examined the students’ previ-
ous assessments, collected questionnaires about their learning goals and interests, and reviewed their
peer- and self-assessment data. She also took detailed field notes to document any student needs that
she observed during class and outside of class (e.g., during breaks and lunch times). She then disaggre-
gated her assessment data to see if certain individual(s) or groups of students needed more (or different
types of) support. Upon further investigation, Ms. Kim found that some of her students had completed
bachelor’s degrees and graduate degrees, but other students had completed only primary or secondary
schooling in their home countries. The students with advanced degrees from their home countries had
better assessment results for academic English vocabulary than the other students.
In addition to the data and information she collected, she also conducted scholarly research on the
needs of these students. Because most of her students were from mainland China and Korea, her research
indicated their use of language with authorities might be different than what is expected in the U.S.
74

workforce. Through her research, she also found that both student groups were struggling to pronounce
consonant clusters such as those that place “r” and “l” together.
Design of Assessment and Materials
By analyzing pre-assessment data and discussing with students, Ms. Kim decided that a job interview
is needed to assess students’ performance. Being assessed on their job interview performance would
empower students because they would be more prepared for their future jobs and eventually elevate
their social and economic status. Based on the specific language proficiency and needs identified, Ms.
Kim provided students who needed more support with academic reading in English versions on her
instructional and assessment materials that were translated into Mandarin and Korean. This does not
mean having less rigor or lowering expectations, but ensuring that the process is more equitable by dif-
ferentiating assessment practices to meet the diverse needs of students. Ms. Kim then used EMAM to
co-design this alternative assessment.
A job interview format was adopted as a form of assessment for adult students getting ready to ap-
ply for a job in the United States for the first time. After engaging in conversation, showing example
interviews, the content and format of the assessment were authentic in the eyes of not only teachers but
also students. The teacher also facilitated discussion on how power dynamics are embedded in job in-
terviews. The power of the interviewer and the subordinate role of the interviewee were examined, and
the class discussed ways to accommodate themselves to the social and cultural “norms” expected in a
job interview setting. Students discussed how power is manifested in the interviewer’s and interviewee’s
language exchanges in the United States, even though their relationship with authority appeared to be
less rigid than in their home countries.
To make this assessment equitable and conducive to positive washback, this assessment was co-
developed with students, taking into account the students’ perspectives on what makes an effective
assessment. As a result of the discussion about power dynamics, one student suggested using different
interview questions for students with different career goals, which was received positively by most of the
class. Another student raised concern about anti-Asian sentiment occurring in the city and the country,
which facilitated discussion about how this could affect the overall job search process.
Ms. Kim also conducted a mini trial assessment to maintain validity and intended washback of the
assessment. After conducting this preassessment, she additionally found that students need to be as-
sessed on formal language and gesture that is pertinent in the interview context. She gave examples and
modeled the interview to make sure the assessment was not isolated but was dynamically integrated
with the teaching.
Ms. Kim then asked students to practice and administer self-assessment by providing the guidelines,
protocols, and rubric. She asked students to critically reflect on their choice of language and language
registers during the job interview. Students discussed how the formal language and register were the
expected English variety in this context and revised their interview responses accordingly. To maintain
equity and positive washback, the teacher provided formative feedback, resources, tools, examples, and
references to empower students to be successful candidates for their future jobs.
The teacher made sure the assessment process was valid by ensuring the languages, content, and
formats of the materials she sent were clear, with appropriate first language support that did not include
bias to her knowledge. To confirm this, she asked other teachers to review the assessment. Ms. Kim’s
students were also asked to critique the rubrics based on their knowledge of what makes a successful
75

interview and their specific needs that could be assessed. Upon careful examination and consultation with
her students, language in the rubric that stated “Candidates show interest in the position” was revised to
read “Candidates should refer to the information they collected about the employer and position when
responding or asking questions.” This change made the rubric clearer and the interpretation of it more
consistent among students and teacher from a variety of backgrounds. Also, by ensuring there were
no missing parts or erroneous and ambiguous factors being assessed, the construct, face, and criterion
validity were improved. The students also suggested they should be assessed on the consonant clusters
that some of them struggled with. This was also added to the rubrics.
The reliability of the assessment was enhanced when the teacher made sure she had a robust rubric
with concrete and measurable criteria that led to the objective of the assessment. The rubric also included
data she collected during her initial assessment. This would enhance the positive washback function of
the assessment because the needs of the students were directly addressed in the assessment and teach-
ing. The reliability of the assessment was enhanced by making sure the context of the assessment was
consistent and familiar to students. The teacher also attempted to make the assessment reliable by re-
cording student performances and reviewing them later when she had more time, thereby improving the
rater reliability of the assessment. The recording was also shared with the students for self-assessment
purposes. When the teacher spends more time than usual to create, administer, and grade an assessment,
the practicality of the assessment is compromised somewhat. In this case, the teacher used the budgets
and resources available to her to design, implement, and grade this assessment to maintain practicality.
Interpretation and Evaluation of Results
After students’ performance results were collected, the teacher gave students the opportunity to conduct
self- and peer assessment. A review and reflection session followed, discussing what the students felt
they needed to do to improve further. The teacher went through the results with individual students to
give oral qualitative feedback in addition to written feedback with the rubric. For example, during the
assessment, when asked why he was a good fit for a position, a Korean male student, who was formerly
an engineer in Korea, answered, “Well, I think I’m a good fit because I was in the same field for the
past nine years.” Ms. Kim and his classmates gave feedback about using more specific examples of his
achievements and experiences. Ms. Kim and his classmates also asked him to use more direct eye contact
and gestures—something that he was unaccustomed to doing in his culture when using his first language.
During the post reflection session, the students compared and contrasted job interview sessions in
the United States with those in their own country and searched for helpful resources to assist their job
search. After more practice, Ms. Kim gave another job interview assessment to students using a modified
rubric that was changed based on the first assessment. This time, other students asked student interview-
ees questions, providing more than one sample of assessment for equity and reliability and making the
assessment more dynamic.
DISCUSSION
Using the six principles of EMAM gives language teachers and educators a set of specific guidelines to
critically reflect on and review their assessment practices as well as others’. By going through each prin-
ciple, language teachers’ review of assessment practices can be more evidence based and comprehensive.
76

Although using the model offers a clear advantage because it serves as a resource and reference material
for critical reflection and implementation, challenges still remain. One of the main challenges is that with
this approach, assessment practice could be perceived as a straightforward, unilateral, and simplified
practice that just requires one to check off the items in the model. However, EMAM introduced in this
chapter should not be seen as a quick, easy-to-administer assessment tool that could easily undermine
the complexities and multifaceted nature of the assessment development and evaluation process. Rather,
EMAM should be used as a conceptual and practical framework for critical reflection for teachers to
justify and support the instructional choices they make. This means language teachers will conduct
deeper analysis of the effectiveness, possible consequences, and limitations of their assessment choices.
To use EMAM as a conceptual and practical framework for critical reflection, language teachers need
to understand that an assessment practice is a cyclical process that requires teachers to go back to any
stage of the assessment process should their evidence indicate that they need to modify or recreate the
assessment (Kunnan, 2000). If language teachers engaged in deeper analysis and reflection of their own
assessment practice, it would be almost impossible for them to use the same assessments they had cre-
ated for another population of students. Language teachers would need to revisit the wordings, examples,
and images in the assessment to determine whether they are appropriate, equitable, and inclusive for the
chosen language learner population.
Moreover, language teachers need to carefully and closely review the assessment based on the preas-
sessment data they have collected of their students and the surrounding contexts and determine whether
their assessment meets the specified objectives and accommodates students’ needs. This process requires
language teachers to look for both overt and subtle elements that would lead to potential negative washback
and learning discrepancies, such as unequitable access to resources and content, misrepresentation, and
omission and failure to include language leaners’ perspectives. Therefore, the process of reflecting on and
evaluating the outcome of the assessment before and after it is administered (Celce-Murcia & Brinton
& Snow, 2014; Henning, & Stone & Kelly, 2008)is crucial when utilizing EMAM as a conceptual and
practical framework for critical reflection.
Inviting others to review the assessment is another example of using the model as a conceptual and
practical framework for critical reflection. Inviting another teacher who shares a similar linguistic and
cultural background as the students to review the assessment, for example, is an example of using the
model as a conceptual and practical framework of evaluation. Co-developing the assessment with students
and incorporating their experiences would not only improve the overall effectiveness of the assessment
but also empower students by sharing power with them in the assessment practice. As Chen (2006) ar-
gued, language learners need to “learn how power, identity, and culture-specific ideology are constantly
intertwined with communication practice” (p. 51). Being transparent about the way power is distributed
and how the status quo is perpetuated is an important first step in empowering students. As Min (2020)
suggested, language teachers should make explicit the authority and power relations manifested in the
target language to language learners so that they are informed of the available strategies when using the
target language. By making power dynamics embedded in the assessment process explicit and empow-
ering language learners to be the change agents in the assessment process, the assessment becomes a
framework that promotes equity.
77

REFERENCES
Alderson, C., Brunfaut, T., & Harding, L. (2017). Bridging assessment and learning: A view from sec-
ond and foreign language assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3),
379–387. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2017.1331201
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
Barros, S. R. (2011). Terms of engagement: Reframing Freirean-based assessment in institutional educa-
tion. Rangsit Journal of Arts and Sciences, 1, 79–87.
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., & Witham, K. (2016). Five principles for enacting equity by design.
Association of American Colleges & Universities. https://www.aacu.org/diversitydemocracy/2016/
winter/bensimon
Brooks, M. D. (2017). “She doesn’t have the basic understanding of a language”: Using spelling research
to challenge deficit conceptualizations of adolescent bilinguals. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(3),
342–370. doi:10.1177/1086296X17714016
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2018). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices
(3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Snow, M. A. (2014). Teaching English as a second or foreign language.
National Geographic Learning.
Chen, C. E. (2006). The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority
figures. Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 35–55.
Gross, E., & Crawford, J. (2021). Protocols for Equitable Dual Language Bilingual Teaching. IGI Global.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Education.
Freire, P. (1984). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum Publishing Corporation.
Freire, P. (1989). The Politics of Education. In P. Murphy & B. Moon (Eds.), Developments in learning
and assessment (pp. 48–54). Hodder & Stoughton.
Henning, J., Stone, J., & Kelly, J. (2008). Eight pre and post tests. In Using Action Research to Improve
Instruction: An Interactive Guide for Teachers (pp. 128-135). doi:10.4324/9780203887295
Hughes, A. (2002). Validity. In Testing for Language Teachers (pp. 26–35). Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511732980.005
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for Language Teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. http//www.
statisticshowto.com/kuder-richardson/
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching,
39(2), 83–101. doi:10.1017/S0261444806003399
Kahl, D. (2013). Critical communication pedagogy and assessment: Reconciling two seemingly incon-
gruous ideas. International Journal of Communication, 7, 2610–2630. 1932–8036/20130005
78

Keesing-Styles, L. (2003). The relationship between critical pedagogy and assessment in teacher edu-
cation. Radical Pedagogy. https://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_1/03_keesing-styles.html
Kunnan, A. J. (2000a). Fairness and justice for all. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in
language assessment (pp. 1–13). CUP. Retrieved from http://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/58744/
excerpt/9780521658744_excerpt.pdf
Livingston, S. A. (2018). Test reliability—Basic concepts (Research Memorandum No. RM-18-01).
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Luxia, Q. (2005). Stakeholders’ conflicting aims undermine the washback function of a high-stakes test.
Language Testing, 22(2), 142–173. doi:10.1191/0265532205lt300oa
Lynch, B. K. (2001). Rethinking assessment from a critical perspective. Language Testing, 18(4),
351–372. doi:10.1177/026553220101800403
McNamara, T. (2006). Validity in Language testing: The challenge of Sam Messick’s legacy. Language
Assessment Quarterly, 3(1), 31–51. doi:10.120715434311laq0301_3
Messick, S. (1981). Evidence and ethics in the evaluation of tests. Educational Researcher, 10(9), 9–20.
doi:10.3102/0013189X010009009
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 447–474). ACE/Macmillan.
Min, E. (2020). Writing to authority figures: Korean students’ communication in English. KOTESOL
Journal, 16(1), 211–220.
Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017, January). Equity and assessment: Moving towards cultur-
ally responsive assessment (Occasional Paper No. 29). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana
University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).
Mousavi, S. A. (2009). An encyclopedic dictionary of language testing (4th ed.). Rahnama Publications.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language
Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265. doi:10.1191/1362168805lr166oa
Shawcross, P. (2019). What do we mean by the ‘washback effect’ of testing? ResearchGate. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/242129949_What_do_we_mean_by_the_’washback_effect’_of_testing
Shohamy, E. (2001a). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Pearson
Education.
Shohamy, E. (2001b). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18(4), 373–391.
doi:10.1177/026553220101800404
Shohamy, E. (2017). Critical Language Testing. In E. Shohamy, I. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language test-
ing and assessment (pp. 441–454). Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_26
Shor, I. (1980). Critical teaching and everyday life. South End Press.
79

Spolsky, B. (2017). History of Language Testing. In E. Shohamy, I. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language
Testing and Assessment. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd ed.). Springer., doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-02261-1_32
Troudi, S. (2018). Politics of testing and assessment. In The TESOL encyclopedia of English language
teaching (pp. 1–8). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0356
Assessment: An ongoing process, protocol, and measurement that has the goal of gathering evidence
on students’ learning, achievement, and performance.
Authenticity: The extent to which an assessment’s content and format are relevant to all stakehold-
ers’ real-world practice.
Critical Reflection: The process of evaluating, reviewing, and analyzing one’s practice and ideas
that often challenges the current practice by asking probing questions.
Equity in Assessment: A process of assessment that is inclusive of diverse perspectives, linguistic
varieties, and appropriate accommodations that lead to fairness and positive washback.
Evaluation: The process of reflecting on the results of assessment to make important decisions us-
ing the results.
Practicality: The extent to which an assessment is within budgetary and resource limits.
Reliability: The extent to which an assessment is dependable and consistent.
Validity: The extent to which an assessment measures what it intends to measure and assess.
Washback: The extent to which an assessment influences teaching and learning and determines
whether the impact is positive or negative.
80
APPENDIX
Assessment Practices for Equity-Driven Language Assessment
Table 1. Assessment practices to improve face validity
□ Check to see whether the assessment and grading criteria (e.g., rubric) align with the lesson or assessment objectives.
□ Check to see whether the assessment uses tasks and formats familiar to students.
□ Ensure the assessment’s instructions are clear and appropriate (if needed, instructions may be given in the students’ first language).
□ Provide support throughout the assessment process in case students need further clarification.
□ Offer practice or review sessions before administering the assessment.
□ Use clear phrasing and familiar, authentic examples.
□ Use a variety of assessment items and questions.
□ Provide ways to support students who may be disadvantaged (e.g., those new to the assessment practice, those with test anxiety, those
less motivated).
□ Ask students how they felt about the assessment and what their perspectives are on ways to improve the assessment.
Table 2. Assessment practices to improve content validity
□ Check to see whether the content of the assessment aligns with the objective of the lesson or assessment.
□ Carefully review the assessment for any omissions, offensive language, and misrepresented or misleading information.
□ Check to see whether the assessment contains equitable and culturally responsive content in clear language.
Table 3. Assessment practices to improve criterion validity
□ Offer various assessments measuring the same goal to validate results and give students opportunities to improve their performance.
□ Use a variety of different question types or items in an assessment.
□ Set an attainable goal when evaluating or designing an assessment. For example, if a classroom-level assessment attempts to measure
students’ general speaking skill, then this may be too large of a scope. Instead, a classroom-level assessment could focus on a smaller-
scale task, such as “conversation at a restaurant,” “comparing and contrasting different historical events using superlatives,” or “research
presentation.”
81
Table 4. Assessment practices to improve construct and consequential validity
□ Review the assessment carefully to identify the possible unintended consequences of the assessment. Change the assessment to
mitigate the detrimental impact that the assessment can have on students and society.
□ Research the context and students’ needs. Outline what intended consequence is desired from the assessment.
□ Ask another teacher (possibly from a different (or sharing the background of students’) ethnic group, language, gender, or
socioeconomic background) to review the assessment and identify any unintended consequences from the assessment.
□ Review key constructs related to the assessment’s objective and align the assessment and grading criteria closely with the construct.
□ Reflect to see if the construct being used for the language assessment is evidence-based.
□ Reflect to determine if the construct used is based on the values the students hold. If not, discuss the value(s) embedded in the
construct with students.
Table 5. Assessment practices to improve reliability
□ Hold regular and thorough norming sessions to make sure all raters are using consistent standards for grading the same assessment.
□ Focus on the criteria related to the objective of the assessment when grading an assessment; do not rely on subjective criteria.
□ Try to avoid fatigue when grading criteria, take frequent breaks and rereview as needed.
□ Develop a rubric with measurable and consistent criteria.
□ Make sure the conditions of the test centers are optimal and consistent for all students
□ Review the test carefully so that the assessment is free of errors or typos.
□ Check to see whether the assessment’s design, format, and instrument, and the way it is administered, are optimal and consistent for all
students.
Table 6. Assessment practices to improve authenticity
□ Is the content of the assessment authentic to students? Is it something that they will be likely to encounter in their everyday lives?
□ If the content is not directly related to their everyday lives, has the teacher built background knowledge for the students?
□ Are the questions and items on the assessment contextualized? A contextualized assessment tends to be more authentic than an
assessment with isolated items and/or questions.
□ Is the required task authentic for students? In other words, is it something that they are likely enact in contexts where they will use the
target language?
□ Have you invited students’ input and perspectives in evaluating and designing the authenticity of the assessment?
Table 7. Assessment practices to improve practicality
□ Conduct research on the available resources, physical space, and allotted time.
□ Make sure all students can complete the assessment in the time allotted. If some students need more time, do give more time to those
students as language learners typically need more time.
□ Based on the availability of resources, do use different resources to accommodate their needs. For example, for students who are
unable to read yet, provide auditory support if it is available.
□ The directions for administering assessment should be clear and manageable.
□ Coordinate time and resources so that they can be managed appropriately, efficiently, and effectively.
82
Table 8. Assessment practices to improve positive washback
□ Conduct a review session before the assessment to prepare students for the assessment.
□ Provide a variety of feedback, such as written qualitative, and quantitative feedback in addition to verbal one-on-one, informal
feedback during and after lessons.
□ Use rubric or grading criteria that have a built-in feedback section.
□ Provide an opportunity to discuss the assessment with students after it is administered.
□ Consider possible consequences of the assessment and try to avoid negative consequences as a result of the assessment.
□ Assess students’ socio-cultural, content, linguistic and academic knowledge and skills prior to designing and administering a language
assessment.
Table 9. Assessment practices to improve equity using assessment content and delivery
□ Review and revise assessment to avoid potential misrepresentations, omissions, insensitive content, or language. Give opportunities for
students to evaluate the assessment (Kunnan, 2000).
□ Conduct research and investigate the performance of students of different ethnicities and races, genders, religions, and socioeconomic
backgrounds and determine whether there is discrepancy in the learner outcomes. When interpreting the results of the performances,
ensure that the difference is due to the skill, knowledge, and/or ability that the assessment is targeting specifically, not due to any
potential learning discrepancies that exist. If the difference in the performance is due to preexisting learning discrepancies, then
implement ways to close the gap.
□ Ask students to bring content materials, topic and research findings of their interests as instructional and assessment resources.
Develop close relationships with students’ home culture and activate their background knowledge to be incorporated into instruction and
assessment
□ Provide accommodations to students who need extra help before, during, and after the assessment. Provide differentiated assessment
as needed.
□ Teaching and assessment practices should be integrated using formative and dynamic assessment.
□ Reporting of assessment results should usually be in the form of a qualitative profile rather than a single score or other quantification
(Lynch, 2001, p. 360).
Table 10. Assessment practices to improve equity using sufficient amount of assessment data and lan-
guage use
□ Sufficient assessment samples should be used before, during and after the assessment. The types of assessment questions and
instruments should be diversified to make the assessment more equitable.
□ Multiple languages, language varieties, and registers should be used on the assessments.
□ Students should be given the opportunity to provide their responses using the language, language variety and/or register of their
choosing, and still be expected to perform well on the assessment.
83
Table 11. Assessment practices to improve equity using critical reflection and iterative assessment cycle
□ Students should be encouraged to think about the macro impacts of assessments and to take appropriate social actions to promote
justice.
□ Students should be active participants in the process of developing assessment procedures, including the criteria and standards by
which performances are judged.
□ Both the process and product of the assessment tasks should be evaluated.
□ Use iterative process to revise assessment design, procedure and context as needed. Involve students, other teachers and community
partners to evaluate the assessment’s efficacy and consequences.
84
85
Chapter 5
Teachers as Agents of Change:
Unpacking EFL Lessons Through
an Anti-Bias Lens
Laura Loder Buechel

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2356-4194
Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
ABSTRACT
Public school teachers in Switzerland often feel bound by decisions made by ministries of education
as to materials used in the classroom. In teacher training, teachers are often taught superficially about
reflective practices, equity, and equality, but in their training to teach English as a Foreign Language
(EFL), the focus is too often on the mechanical aspects of foreign language teaching and the examples
provided are often not provocative enough to allow for an anti-bias stance to education. Yet this stance
is a tenet of most national curricula and is to precede subject-specific curricular aims. Therefore, neither
teachers nor materials should shy away from or banalize topics around civil rights and social change.
This chapter provides examples of how the dispositions for culturally responsive pedagogy scale and
teaching tolerance social justice scales can be used in teacher training for analyzing and planning out
lessons. Examples from lessons on the Black Lives Matter movement and general suggestions act as
springboards for rethinking and unpacking EFL teaching.
INTRODUCTION
The year was 2020 and children were learning about relative clauses in French-as-a-foreign language
(FLE) lessons in the German part of Switzerland by filling in “who”, “which”, or “that” in jokes (Figure
1). A learner in the class found the jokes to be offensive and confronted the teacher, only to be told that
this worksheet was from the official coursebooks which had been approved by the ministry of educa-
tion, thus acceptable to use.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch005

Teachers as Agents of Change
Figure 1. Homework brought home on December 7, 2020 - source unknown (author’s translation)
The little boy

A little boy _____ was having fun in a park saw a Black woman _____ was holding a baby in her arms.
“Oh, mommy”, said the little boy to his mother, “that little boy is so lucky!”
“Why do you say that, sweetie?” the mother, _____ didn’t understand, asked her son.
“Well”, said the boy, “when the baby is thirsty, he can drink chocolate milk.”
Two friends
Two friends _____ hadn’t seen one another in a long time were catching up.
“So, what have you been up to? Did you marry little Nicole, _____ you always found so beautiful, or
are you still cooking for yourself?”
“Both!” answered the friend _____ didn’t appear too happy.
This example can be viewed under many lenses. First of all, from a Freudian perspective, one could
analyze the language of the joke, its intention, its author, its ability in this case - had the teacher taken
the bait - to discuss social conventions and whether “provoking” through potentially racist and clearly
misogynic language is actually a way of addressing social issues. Secondly, from a sociological perspec-
tive, even though such jokes are perhaps no longer deemed appropriate, they are still present, and the
teacher demonstrates a certain blindness to the issue at hand or does not even recognize the offensive-
ness of such examples (see Nash 1999 or Bourdieu and Passeron (1965) for discussions on the collec-
tive habitus). In a similar manner, if the collective habitus is changing - as demonstrated by the learner
questioning the use of this extract, - then disregarding the learner’s question shows the teacher’s lack of
moral agency (Molla and Nolan, 2020) whereby agency might be a desirable quality in this circumstance
(Priestley, Biesta & Robinson, 2015). Thirdly, this extract can be viewed under the lens of anti-bias or
social justice education due to the offensive nature of such jokes when not discussed with the learners
and their inappropriacy in coursebook materials should schools want to break cycles of oppression.
The child was clearly able to unpack the joke by recognizing the offenses and questioning the intention
though the teacher was unaware or decided to remain silent (see Sapon-Shevin, 2017).
The first pages of the curriculum used in much of Switzerland (D-EDK, 2015) call for values,
contexts, and content on all school levels and in every school subject (which includes FLE as well as
English as a Foreign Language (EFL)) that are “humanitarian and democratic.” These tenets have their
86

roots in philosophies of education and though there may be slight differences in local curricula, most
teachers in much of the world accept promoting tolerance and humanistic values as core underpinnings
of their profession. In teacher-training, pre-service teachers are often taught superficially about reflective
practices, about equity, about equality in their foundations of education courses, but unfortunately, in
their training to teach EFL, the focus is too often on the mechanical aspects of foreign language teach-
ing and learning (e.g. how to break “teaching listening skills” down into the subskills of listening). The
examples provided in coursebooks are attempts at compromises that tend towards rather traditional (if
that can even be defined) world views and include jokes as we saw in Figure 1 and merit more scrutiny.
These points lead to the conclusion that in order for teachers to fully embrace their roles as social
justice educators teaching learners to recognize and combat bias, there is a need for them to have tools
for critical analysis, social change, and personal reflection (Hackman, 2005) at their disposal. This is
the main aim of this chapter: if we want teachers to encourage children to see the issues at hand, to talk
about them, to ask critical questions, to not be afraid of discussing them, then teacher trainers should
teach their pre-service teachers to do the same thing. In order to do so, using general pedagogical tools
such as the Dispositions for Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Scale (DCRPS) and the Learning for
Justice’s Social Justice (SJS) Standards and analyzing lessons on topics such as Black Lives Matter in
teacher training become valuable learning moments for pre-service teachers to learn to see their lessons
through different lenses, to enable them to analyze materials more in a more differentiated manner, to
not turn a blind eye to injustices, and to actively promote the basic curricular tenets and apply them to
the beginning to intermediate level English language classroom.
ANTI-BIAS EDUCATION THROUGH THE DCRPS

AND SOCIAL JUSTICE STANDARDS
Anti-Bias Education
Promoting these core humanitarian and democratic tenets are the larger, ideological aims of education
whose research fields can come under myriad names: critical pedagogy, multicultural, plurilingual or
intercultural education, non-color-blind curricula, culturally-responsive teaching, and here, anti-bias and
social-justice education. The Derman-Sparks (1989) definition of an anti-bias curriculum is defined as:
“…an active/activist approach to challenging prejudice, stereotyping, bias, and the ‘isms.’ … it is not
sufficient to be non-biased (and also highly unlikely), nor is it sufficient to be an observer. It is necessary
for each individual to actively intervene, to challenge and counter the personal and institutional behaviors
that perpetuate oppression” (p. 3). The foundations of anti-bias education stem from Derman-Sparks’
legacy of research that reflect at its base the research on child identity and cognitive and emotional de-
velopment and UNICEF’s Rights of the Child. Though there have been numerous other definitions (e.g.
Hackman, 2005), they do not stray content-wise from this original definition and all mention the role
of being active challengers of injustice, critical and analytical thinkers about and proponents of social
change, or at least civility and encourage the use of tools and methods that promote such core values
mentioned in most public school curricula in order to “interrupt and change oppressive patterns and be-
haviors in themselves and in the institutions and communities in which they are a part” (Bell, 2016, p. 4).
The difficulty in anti-bias education is to show how to measure its effectiveness at the classroom level.
Larger interventions, such as whole-school policies, have shown to be sustainable in changing attitudes
87

and age is clearly an important factor with it being easier to address bias in early childhood than in later
teenage years (see Brown, 2011). In Switzerland, as EFL instruction begins when learners are nine years
old, thus there is no reason for English teachers to avoid discussions of gender, rights, and any ‘isms’.
As Ray (2015) states “By the age of nine, children are aware of the ethnic, racial, and cultural to which
they belong” (p. 127); we should lasso this into EFL lessons even with beginners. Furthermore, the at-
titudes one is surrounded by are contagious – if teachers avoid issues, then learners will avoid them, too.
But encouraging learners to see themselves as knowledgeable may encourage them “to consider other
people in their life who encourage them to identify as a global citizen” (Reysen et al, 2013, p. 62) and
this can spread an anti-bias perspective. Interventions add nuances that contribute to critical thinking
skills or at least better attention to desired behaviors. Learners mostly want to please their teachers, so
if their teachers are open and tolerant and good models for anti-biased behaviors, then the chances are,
at least in that small classroom world, that learners will model that behavior and hopefully this will
transfer outside of the classroom.
Since primary school learners are cognitively able to understand real-world, complex situations, then
they should not be kept in a bubble that acts as a compromise to the real world. For a tolerant society,
examples in the provided textbooks should not over-simplify contexts and should provoke discussions
and thought. Anti-bias education explicitly belongs in the EFL curriculum and it needs to be initiated
by both the teachers and materials used. As Sapon-Shevin (2018) encourages: “Social justice can only
be realized when we dive into, rather than run away from, discussions of inequality and oppression, and
we have a moral obligation as early childhood educators to work towards that possibility” (p. 49). Fur-
thermore, Sapon-Shevin’s (2017) use of the term ‘unpack’ is essential for provoking thought related to
justice and the example provided (p. 47) asks learners to analyze a scenario in which an African American
girl in a wheelchair is told that she cannot be a doctor – is it because she’s a girl? Uses a wheelchair? Is
African-American? Unpacking goes beyond simple empowering – instead of blowing over topics and
saying “you can be anything you want to be”, it asks us to ask the questions that a seemingly simple
statement or image can provoke. Or as Sapon-Shevin (2017) states “Regimes of colorblindness and
silencing make conversations about race fraught with discomfort and social “disease,” thereby decreas-
ing the possibilities for honest, essential conversations about race and racism.” (p. 39). Should we want
to have these conversations with our learners and encourage deeper thought in our classrooms, and we
recognize that younger primary school children are able to handle many topics, then pre-service teachers
can use some support in learning to teach EFL with an anti-bias approach.
Dispositions for Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Scale
Whilst Harvard’s Implicit Bias or self-efficacy tests might also be of use in education and for teacher
awareness, they can be problematic as they do not necessarily show thinking that will lead to a certain
behavior or willingness to act or change, they indicate a “state”. Teacher dispositions, however, provide
an indication of who is willing to change or is striving towards a certain behavior. Though dispositions,
as described in Saltis et al (2020), can be difficult to define and what is valued in a teacher’s disposi-
tion may change from school to school or region to region, dispositions do show a willingness towards
a certain attribute and not a static state of being. Looking at dispositions such as empathy, meekness,
social awareness, inclusion and advocacy (Jensen, Whiting, and Chapman, 2018) are more telling in
anti-bias education and can be used for discussion, for problem-solving and for analysis of the need for
specific future training on a subject-specific and general level.
88

Zygmunt, Cipollone, and Tancock (2020) look at dispositions for social justice through mentoring,
reflective pedagogy, and dialogue journals which are useful at the level of teacher training as a whole but
less so if the question relates to how teachers implement prescribed curricular materials in the classroom
as a reflection of their own dispositions as we see in the discussion of Figure 1. For this, the Disposi-
tions for Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Scale is useful. Developed by Whitaker & Valtierra (2018),
the DCRPS indicates teacher dispositions towards praxis, community, and social justice. The DCRPS is
based on theoretical frameworks in the fields of racial identity development and critical whiteness which
are grounded in principles from a critical responsive pedagogy and multicultural education. “Such an
instrument is necessary to ensure preservice teachers possess the emotional and cognitive dispositions to
effectively educate diverse students” (p. 20) regardless of the teacher’s own affiliations or backgrounds
or “cultural habitus”. The Whitaker and Valtierra research shows how using this scale can be a catalyst
for change and how scoring highly on parts of the instrument can indicate teaching practices that are
more sustainable on many levels, but including sensitivity towards bias and willingness to address it.
Learning for Justice Social Justice Standards
One core document provided by the The Southern Poverty Law Center is Social Justice Standards (SJS)
(Chiariello, et al., 2016) which are based on the Derman-Sparks’ goals for anti-bias education and are
broken into the same four domains - Identity, Diversity, Justice, and Action. They provide learning out-
comes and possible scenarios for kindergarten through twelfth-grade students for these four categories.
Though these standards were developed for an audience in the US, they are applicable to most of the
world that shares similar curricular tenets.
These standards can be used by teachers as prompts for analyzing and creating instructional materials
and the scenarios can be used for both analysis of existing content, suggestions for improvement, and
directly with the learners themselves as discussion prompts. These standards represent an ideal - the
larger aims of education - and some standards, such as “I will speak up or do something when I see
unfairness, and I will not let others convince me to go along with injustice” are general behaviors in
which EFL students in Swiss primary schools might not have the linguistic resource to be able to express
themselves in through English, but definitely in the local language. There are other standards where it
would be possible to teach directly through English and in any case, the standards are helpful for choos-
ing content or choosing to exclude content (such as jokes) based on these standards.
The DCRPS and the Social Justice Standards, though general tools used mostly in general education,
are extremely useful in pre-service teacher training with non-native speakers of English preparing to
teach EFL in their school systems. Both tools provide means of analyzing coursebook activities, help
pre-service teachers to reflect upon their own values and the messages they want to share with their future
learners. Both tools have their value in combination with teacher reflection on the appropriateness of
materials and possible adaptions and can trigger new teaching materials that go beyond the coursebooks.
THE DCRPS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE STANDARDS IN PRACTICE
For a BA in primary school education, pre-service primary school teachers in the German-speaking part
of Switzerland study education for three years and are semi-specialist teachers – they receive certification
to teach most core school subjects (German language arts, Math and Science and Social Studies) and
89

then can select a handful of other qualifications, among them EFL. To be fully certified teachers, they
must demonstrate proof of having a C1 level of English and will then teach learners who are 9-12 years
old and should have an A2 level of English after four years of classroom instruction. In the examples
below, the activities described have been used in various ways in basic pre-service teacher education
courses such as “Foundations of Teaching EFL”.
Using the DCRPS with Pre-Service Teachers
Procedure
Pre-service teachers, in their courses on how to teach EFL, do not expect to be confronted with general
models. Thus, it is best to surprise them by not letting them know the topic of the lesson – anti-bias
education in EFL. For this activity, though the DCRPS has three scales, only items related to praxis and
social justice (see Table 4 in the Appendix) are used and not items related to community (which can be
found in the Whitaker and Valtierra, 2018) as these are not directly relevant to working with coursebook
materials. Two further items not included in the normed scales were, however included: I believe that
class content should be viewed critically; and I believe that diverse perspectives can enhance students’
understanding of content. These two additional items were suggested by the authors, not included in the
original scales, but appropriate here.
The following is a suggested procedure for working with the DCRPS in class, though of course,
changes can be made for various reasons, especially if one is not quite comfortable prompting the stu-
dents in the way described below.
1. Find images or text from your coursebooks that can be “unpacked”, where there might be some
critical issue that could possibly be addressed. In books found in Switzerland, one can find:
a. A picture of a woman serving her husband as an example of a traditional English Christmas
dinner (Arnet-Clark, I., Bell, N. and Ritter, G. (2019), pp. 42-43);
b. The cover of vocabulary book with a non-descript Indian American hanging a banner full of
English flags between two saguaro cacti (Donth-Schäffer et al, 2016, cover);
c. Two boys describing an airplane: “Look at the pink decorations! I told you it was built by
girls” (Williams and Kocher-Klicker, 2011, p. 32).
2. Alternatively, throw in an image or two of what you think might be good to see in a coursebook
(for instance Gravel’s “All Kinds of Families” poster shows simple illustrations of any family
combination imaginable).
3. Ask the participants to “Think-Pair-Share” or brainstorm ideas for how they would use the given
examples with their learners. If the topic the week before was on teaching listening skills or on how
to teach vocabulary, the students can be prompted to incorporate concepts from that topic, but asked
to expand and share any ideas that come to mind. Participants list their ideas, and a collaborative
list can be kept in a shared document or via a brainstorming tool such as a Miro Board.
4. Set the DCRPS up as a handout or on google forms with a 6-point Likert Scale (see Table 4 in the
Appendix). Ask the students to take it.
5. After they have rated themselves on the statements, ask the participants to connect the pictures
to the statements. Use prompts such as “Would you dare be vulnerable and ask your learners if
gay fathers eating a Christmas dinner together could still be considered “traditional”? or “Would
90

it be okay to address a “hot topic” of women serving men being considered traditional with your
learners?”.
6. At this point, letting the participants share their thoughts in small groups can be worth the time,
especially if they have “safe groups” or classmates with whom they feel comfortable discussing
rather provocative issues.
7. Come to a conclusion about how these images could be used in class now that they’ve taken the
DCRPS. It might be helpful to have a worksheet with some columns or list categories on the board
such as:
a. Language to be taught from the prompt that is more nuanced than the coursebook suggestions:
in the Christmas dinner example, it might be better to teach “Some English families” instead
of the suggested, “In England, people eat….”.
b. Which extracts are simply not worth using and should be skipped – and if a parent saw that
it was in the book and questioned why you did not use it, how would you address that?
c. Which extracts merit a deeper discussion in the local language and if so, what could be dis-
cussed (e.g. What is a boy? What is a girl? How did society come to the point where pink is
for girls and blue is for boys?)
8. As a follow-up, have the participants flip through compulsory course books and find further ex-
amples. Also, have participants share their own stories – perhaps the extracts trigger something from
their own lives and these anecdotes would be important to share not only in pre-service training
but later, as teachers, when using the materials.
9. As a round-up, go back to the original DCRPS items and take a look – ask the participants if they
will now rate themselves differently on any of the items or if they should have rated themselves
differently to start.
Portrait of Practice
The above procedure was used in 2020 with forty pre-service teachers in different years, though all had
a C1 level of English or better. In the initial phase, when provided extracts from the coursebooks, it was
expected that the pre-service teachers would be more critical – that they would question generalizing
what a “typical” English Christmas is and who serves whom in families, or that families come in many
different shapes and size, yet when they were shown such images, no one mentioned anything to that
fact. Some did comment on the more provocative texts, for instance, that one should not “belittle” people
or make fun of boys or girls, but they all came up with ideas for working with the materials in class
in relatively traditional ways (underline the keywords, listen twice, write “I see” on the board). This is
also what is seen in schools, often English lessons are “open the book to page 5 and do the exercise” or
“Describe the picture. What do you see?”
In the second phase, when the participants took the DCRPS, most rated themselves fairly high on
most scales. Yet when provoked about why they did not more critically view the provided materials (“I
believe that class content should be viewed critically” or that “hot topics should be discussed”), some
said that the ministry of education should make decisions, not them, and that the role of a school is not to
provoke; that some things, such as describing families, are “too private” (yet in every coursebook there
is a unit about “My Family” with examples of a mother, father and two children which to many families
is not the norm). On the other hand, when they were prompted to again look at the materials, there were
quite a few “Ahas” and from there on, for most participants, the conversation rolled.
91

When asked …
• ….about a picture of an Indian American girl and boy describing their totem animals, a bee and
a bear respectively:
• “I think that this worksheet takes positions of the role of the man with a stronger type of animal
than the woman.”
• “I also love their culture and I love their traditions, their knowledge, their music, their language,
and the stories they can tell. Unfortunately, many of them died in a dire way during the war over
their land and the rest got forgotten after they were locked in the reserves from the government. So
I think it is important to also tell kids about those kinds of minorities even though they originally
were once the majorities.”
• “Bear for men and bee for women is too sexist in my eyes.”
…about Elise Gravel’s “All Kinds of Families” poster
• “If you use this, you have to discuss good in the class what it means to life in different family
constellations. And you have to deal with, that students might not agree, that all these kinds of
families are ok or normal.”
• “It makes being different a normal thing” (with another student making the counter-argument that
being different IS normal).
• “Too many children books are still filled with stereotypes about what a family has to be. It is im-
portant to show children that there is no right way or only way to be a family. However, there is
also nothing wrong with a traditional family.”
…about the picture of a “traditional” Christmas
• “Talking about traditions, but also about roles in the family and society, what does this picture
say about the roles of women and men?! Against: what about all the children that don’t celebrate
Christmas? Then you have to use also material about traditions in other parts of the world”
• “Maybe I would use it to explain different roles inside a family.”
• “It is a very British setting, I am not sure if my class in Switzerland would understand the different
traditions shown.”
• “Too traditional, too old fashioned, sexist, the families are not like this anymore, what about a
lesbian couple having kids?, not all families are Christians, not everyone is living in such a house
with fire place, etc.”
• “The picture shows stereotypes like the woman serving the men. However, if there is enough ma-
terial in the classroom against those stereotypes and if the teacher opens a conversation about the
problem of this picture it can still have a positive effect.”
Using the DCRPS with students and applying their principles to specific coursebook material selec-
tion led to one student saying that if they had not done this, they may have never seen the pictures in the
compulsory books in this light - that even though they might have scored relatively high on the scales,
that they do not always view the content of what they are teaching under the lens of their own “supposed”
values. These many examples show pre-service teachers’ “aha” moments about their own understand-
92

ings of what societal norms are, about the messages they want to send, and got them thinking about
alternatives or more contextualization of images into a setting that promotes thinking and discussion.
The Social Justice Standards in Practice
Each of these specific ideas might be preceded by a short introduction to the Social Justice Standards
and participants can peruse the website in advance, so they attend the session with some background
knowledge. The examples below have also been used in the same setting as the DCRPS activities above,
though with different groups of pre-service teachers and in different years.
Using the SJS Scenarios as Ideas for Working with Authentic Text or Adapting Text
In undergraduate TESOL courses, one topic that is frequently injected is that of using authentic or graded
texts and adapting authentic materials. Often this is done through typical classroom topics, but with this
suggestion, meaningful scenarios can be provided to teachers in training that will hopefully then be used
in the practice, and if not, of which the content is relevant to promoting thinking about anti-bias education.
The first step is to provide a scenario to the pre-service teachers that could be used with the target
age group. The example in Box 1 has been selected with a Swiss fifth grade class in mind (12-year-old
children having had 3 years of English (2-3 lessons a week)). In schools in Zurich, over 30% of the
population does not speak German (the local language) at home, and there are children in each class who
wear hijabs or whose mothers wear one. Thus, this is a familiar situation for the learners.
Box 1. Grades 3-5 anti-bias scenario (identity) original text
Omar’s mother is serving as a chaperone on her son’s field trip. On the bus ride, the teacher, Ms. Robin, overhears a conversation between
Omar and Peter. “What is your mother wearing on her head?” Peter asks. “It’s called a hijab,” Omar replies. “Many Muslim women wear
them.” “Why does she wear it?” “Our religion teaches us that the hijab is a way of being humble and modest. Muslim women wear it to
show they love God.”
Share the scenario with the pre-service teachers and ask:
• Which words and expressions would be appropriate for providing CEFR level A2 or B1 input to
learners?
• Which words or expressions in here are the same in German or the local language of instruction?
• Which words and expressions would you have to change to make the input more comprehensible?
• Is there anywhere you might replace a word with an image or a translation?
Give the participants a few minutes to think quietly and underline or highlight language. As Swiss
teachers are also English language learners, they often have to look words up themselves.
Have a short round of sharing ideas with the entire class. Then, have students either:
• Rewrite the same text and then share what they rewrote with one another.
93

• Rewrite the text as a whole group (example in Box 2) and then assign each group another scenario
to re-write.
Box 2. Grades 3-5 anti-bias scenario (identity) reworked text for German speakers
Omar’s mother goes with the class on a trip. Peter asks Omar a question on the bus.
Peter: What is your mother wearing on her head?”

Omar: “It’s a hijab. Many Muslim women wear hijabs.”
Peter: “Why does she wear it?”
Omar: “Our religion teaches us to be humble (bescheiden) and modest. Muslim women wear hijabs to show they love God.”
The second part of working with these scenarios in teacher training is then to decide how to teach
them to the target group – here fifth graders. Elicit ideas for working with any text that would work as
well for this adapted scenario: language activities such as gap fills, underlining or color-coding specific
parts of speech, or having learners write quiz questions are always possible. This particular example (as
do many of the scenarios) lends itself to a role play, and one could:
• Have learners memorize the role play with a neighbor and perform it for language feedback on
fluency or accuracy;
• Do a role-play mingle whereby the role play is written on the board and for each partner change,
text is erased until everyone has mastered it;
• Have learners replace the role play with other situations, such as “Why does your mother have a
tattoo of an angel” or “why does your father wear a kippa”. These situations could be provided
(see Box 3) or perhaps brainstormed together with the class. With this more open activity, the
language aims are more holistic to the CEFR can-do descriptors (I can have a short conversation
about someone’s attire) and less about the specific grammar structures (e.g. “Why does…”).
Box 3. Prompts for an open role play
Why does your (mother/father/sister/parent/…)….

…wear a cross?
…wear a kippa?
…wear an earring in their left ear?
…wear a cream ladle earring (this is an interesting Swiss tradition!)?
…
Using the SJS to Brainstorm Exponents Appropriate to the Target Age Group
In teaching EFL, there is a large focus on teaching functional language, language that transfers outside
of the classroom situation to the real world. For young learners, this is not easy as the language they
need in English is limited at this age. With pre-service teachers, who know the contexts of the learners,
it can be useful to have them take the SJS standards and articulate these into language aims that can be
94

applied to particular materials or where better activities might be found. This is best done in the form
of a book analysis workshop.
In preparation: Prepare a table as shown in Table 1 with the categories:
• Grade level outcome (lifted from the SJS): Fill in the standards that are relevant to the target
group. In Table 1, again the 3rd – 5th grade level outcomes have been used. This can be done in
advance for the participants, however the participants can individually select which standards they
want to explore, or some form of group puzzle could be organized in which different groups get
different standards (e.g. some get the identity standards, other the justice standards) and then the
participants cross-share.
• Activity found in the textbook: have a selection of coursebooks available. Though some teachers
may not have any say in which books they use, it is still useful to provide coursebook for the target
group from different publishers and parts of the world, for instance Macmillan’s “Global Stage”,
Pearson’s “Now I Know”, National Geographic Cengage “World Wonder” series’ or from OER
Commons.
• Existing language aim as described in the textbook: Once the participants have decided on an
activity to analyze, they can note down the suggested target language as stated in the materials.
• Suggested adaptation to the activity and/or the language aim: Here participants can think about
how they would adapt the activity so it better matches the grade level outcome in the first column.
Sometimes this might simply be making the language more open (instead of “The English eat…”
change it to “Some people in England eat…”).
• Alternatives to this activity that might be more interesting/useful to meeting the grade-level out-
come – participants can note down their ideas.
During the activity: It is useful to set a time limit (about half an hour) - it is not so important to
complete this activity perfectly as there is so much subjectivity involved, but there is value in the discus-
sion that takes place and really thinking about the messages teachers want learners to receive. Having
participants work in pairs, each with different books and instructed to talk out loud to their partner, has
the aims that the pre-service teachers not only become familiar with different materials from different
angles but that they also think about language aims that reflect a more nuanced way of thinking. When
working with non-native-speaking participants, it is also useful to have them take notes and for the in-
structor to walk around and make language corrections but also provide prompts. For example, it could
be that some participants find that describing one’s family tree is a valuable exercise, then the prompt
“Does everyone want to share their family tree?”
Post-activity: Generally, this activity lends itself to a basic jigsaw - different people come together
from different groups. Concretely if there was a group of 20 participants working in 10 pairs, now groups
of 4 or 5 individuals can be made, each having looked at different materials or aims. Ideally, there should
be a while-listening task which could be one or some of the following:
• After a round of sharing in groups, choose one idea that inspired you and go further – write up a
lesson plan sketch that you could imagine using in class;
• For each person sharing, add concrete language aims that could be the outcome of the adaptation
so there is a focus on language development and on pure language teaching;
• On the board have:
95

Table 1. Coursebook analysis worksheet
Grade Level Outcome Existing language Adaptation and

Activity found Alternative activities
(from the SJS) aim language aim
Instead of individually knowing
Do this as a class: family members, have a focus on the
Identity 2 Laura’s grandmother whole class for a classroom wall-
My mother / father is
I know about my family is from (Pennsylvania). decoration of where families are from
Learners fill from…
history and culture and She was Amish. The and contributions from people from
in their family I was born in….
about current and past Amish are from….. these places.
trees My aunt’s name is….
contributions of people in Sam’s uncle lives in
I have XXX aunts…
my main identity groups Geneva. The Red Cross Profile one person in your life who
is in Geneva! has made a difference to you or who
has an interesting life.
Diversity 8
I want to know more
about other people’s
lives and experiences,
and I know how to ask
questions respectfully
and listen carefully and
non-judgmentally.
Justice 15
I know about the actions
of people and groups who
have worked throughout
history to bring more
justice and fairness to the
world.
Action 20
I will work with my
friends and family to
make our school and
community fair for
everyone, and we will
work hard and cooperate
in order to achieve our
goals
…
◦◦ Language (accuracy and reflection of thinking);

◦◦ Content (meaningful? Age-appropriate?);
◦◦ Creativity;
◦◦ Cross-Curricular links (in local language).
Discuss each person’s contribution with these categories in mind.

With the whole class, have a round-up session. Generally, the following points come up which might
take time to discuss:
• Would the language aims of these adapted activities meet the language aims set by the curricu-
lum? How can you use the adapted activity in a slightly more linguistically simple way without
losing the thinking that is to be encouraged?
96

• How can the “basic” language aims be ensured? If there is a class “our families mashup” board,
then what performance assessment might stem from it?
• What topics might really best be treated in the local language? How would you concretely bring
this point up again so it does not get lost?
The aim of this is the thinking involved and essentially, it is a lesson in always critically viewing
what one is providing learners.
Using the SJS to Analyze a Given Extract
It can also be useful to look at any one given activity or picture in a textbook from the perspective of
the framework. For example, when shown a picture of a Halloween party at a private home, participants
can be prompted to think about the four domains from the perspective of the teacher’s thought and the
questions that might be posed to learners. In this example, the coursebook provides a picture of a Hal-
loween party with the intention of learners naming what they see (a pirate, a witch, etc…) but the picture
could be used for much more.
Table 2.
Domain Teacher’s thoughts Questions / tasks to learners

Who is wearing the costume? Why did they choose it?
Who are you at this party? Why? Who are you NOT at this
Does Halloween belong to the Swiss culture/
party? Why?
Swiss identity? If not, how can we introduce
Identity angle Who influenced your choice of costume? Why?
it without just naming consumes? What is the
Is it okay to have Halloween in Switzerland? Why or why
history of Halloween?
not? Make a list of reasons.
Who influences my own costume choice?
Who do we see in this party? Who do we not see in this
party?
If this party were in Switzerland, would it look like our
class?
Are the people representative of a diverse
Diversity angle What is the background to the different costumes? Who are
population?
/ were pirates? Jesters?
Are the people rich? Why?
What religion are they? What lets you know that?
Who does what in the house? How do you know?
Make a list of costumes that are okay to wear.
Oh, no, that is not correct – should children be
Justice angle Make a list of costumes that are NOT okay to wear. State
allowed to dress up as an “Indian American”?
why.
Have learners make a list of ideas for having a school party
Let’s prepare a “politically-correct” Halloween
for a social justice cause. Should everyone dress up as an
Action angle party!” – how can we host an educated party for
animal that is going extinct? Should money be raised for a
a good cause?
cause?
97

Portraits of Practice
Working with the Social Justice Standards in pre-service training has no limits – the language of sce-
narios can be used directly with the learners for discussion prompts and role-plays. The standards can
be used to analyze extracts for content and suggest new content and language structures. In the practice,
linguistically, some scenarios offer impulses on language - for instance, there is one example where a
child goes to the zoo with her mothers and pre-service teachers were fascinated to think that they can
also teach the plurals here, and in several classes, the conversation also turned to the use of the pronoun
‘they’ in the singular.
In this author’s experiences whilst using the SJS to analyze current coursebooks, the following com-
ments have been made:
• “Why are all the women wearing skirts in this picture?”

• “Why are there so many women in the picture and they are mostly shopping with children while
the men are all in business suits and grabbing something from the refrigerated section?” (picture
inside a grocery store).
• “Why is the boy asking the girl “Do you want to dance”?”
• “Why in the example of household chores does the girl say “I help my mother cook dinner” and
the boy says “I help my father repair the car?””.
• “Do all Americans eat hamburgers?” in a picture from “What the world eats”.
Using this took encourages more meaningful discussions and content and more precise, anti-biased
language. Using the Social Justice Standards in workshops with teachers is a solid way of getting them
to think about their role in the classroom as not just models for the English language and managers of
language exercises, but as empowerers of youth and as agents of change because it may not take a lot
of adaptations to existing materials to use them in a more powerful way. Both the SJS and the DCRPS
provide structure and meaning to everyday activities.
PORTRAIT OF PRACTICE: BLACK LIVES MATTER
Knowledge of the DCRPS and the Social Justice Standards can lead teachers to taking more timely
content into their lessons and addressing what is going on in the world and to not be afraid of doing so,
even with learners with an A2 level of English. The example in the following lessons on Black Lives
Matter consolidates many of the essential points from the SJS and the DCRPS and had the author never
read about these tools, then perhaps the following activities would have remained at simple, language-
learning exercises instead of going deeper, as they did.
Overview of the Lessons with the Learners
The world - and this includes a class of fifth-graders in downtown Zurich - was aware of George Floyd’s
death in May of 2020. The children were touched, it came into the school in the local language, in the
English lessons, and children covered their pencil cases and added signs to their desks (see Figure 2). It
would have been irresponsible to not address the issue and the English lessons were perfect for this. In
98

this project, there were 20 children in this class of 12-year-olds in their third year of learning English.
An estimate would be that the majority have a solid A2 grasp of English with several in the CEFR B
range. All the materials described here, links, and more, are freely available on one of the author’s blogs
here: https://kidblog.org/class/sjinelt/posts.
Figure 2. Signs on children’s desks
This project took place in June and July of 2020. During April and May, schools were closed due to
the Covid pandemic, and the Swiss school year ends mid-July. Thus whilst of course the larger aims were
to learn about the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and the history of racial injustice, it was also
a time of celebrating that the learners could be together again and a time when it was important to get
them off their computers and create and do things school could offer that homes could not. Therefore,
the larger outcome was for each child to have tie-died a T-shirt with a meaningful logo for it through
learning about civil rights activists and BLM.
As the T-shirts were also hanging in the classroom for a while in various stages of creation, it also
became a place for other classes to visit and admire the progress and ask questions on the projects. Fig-
ure 3 shows some of the final products. Children were not required to write anything about Black Lives
Matter, but they had to make a statement that was powerful, and many did write “Silence is Violence”
as a more general statement about the importance of speaking up in general.
Four hour and a half lessons were dedicated to this project in the following way:
The designing and the creation of the T-shirt were embedded bit by bit throughout the weeks – from
sketching out the message, to drawing it on iron-on logo sheets and dying the shirts. Each week started
with a bell ringer and included some controlled language work through information gaps or small quizzes,
and some open work such as preparing and recording the role-play interview and designing the T-shirt.
Throughout the project, there were so many valuable discussions with the learners. They were par-
ticularly interested in the police in the US as compared to the police in Switzerland. One child from
India talked about how his mother will never go back to India because of the issues with violence there.
One child talked about the police in the Dominican Republic and asked how to make police better. Es-
sentially, their questions went so deep that in retrospect, this should have been a research project with
notes systematically taken or the discussions recorded. The learners were also extremely interested in
slavery and were appalled to learn that there are still slaves in Switzerland and that there have to be jobs
in federal organizations to fight against the trafficking of women and minors.
99

Figure 3. T-shirts - final products
Table 3.
Main questions addressed Content

Week 1
What is justice? Keedron Bryant’s song “I’m a Young Black Man”
Why “Black Lives Matter” and who founded it? Information gap: Kids News article about the shooting of George Floyd
Why was the shooting of George Floyd so traumatic for the The definition of justice and an example of “unjust”.
world?
Week 2 Sesame Street’s “Color of Me” song
What is Juneteenth? Human skin tone palette printed out
Are there slaves in Switzerland? Example role play (Table 5 in the Appendix)
What color is our skin? Brainstorming logos
Texts on Civil Rights leaders
Week 3 Roleplay scaffold (Table 6 in the Appendix)
Who are some important people throughout the history of Civil Shouting dictation information gap: kids’ poems on racism
Rights? Tie-Dying the T-shirts
Working on the logo
Week 4 Kahoot leaders review game
Is everyone in the class aware of the different Civil Rights Finishing logo and ironing it on T-Shirts
leaders? Celebrating work by wearing the shirts on the last day of school
100

Using These Lessons with Pre-Service Teachers
To link this work to the Social Justice Standards is simple – everything is covered from identity and
knowing that skin color is not “black and white” to action – taking a stance and wearing a message
proudly. With pre-service teachers, after they have some understanding of the social justice standards,
they can discuss how they apply to this set of lessons. When I have shared this with students at the
Zurich University of Teacher Education, I have some who download the materials, adapt them, and use
them right away, and others who still say that they have to stick to the coursebooks, otherwise they are
no longer in control of what the learners are learning. However, most students generally take something
from this, even just the knowledge that it will be okay to discuss the topic in the local language, if not
for EFL lessons. For future studies, I can imagine first asking participants to take the DCRPS and then
introducing them to this series of lessons. And if we think about the learners: the lessons were held
entirely in English and the children asked questions in English or mixed German and English, they all
did all the activities and with fervor, thus although there is no guarantee that after these lessons they
mastered any particular aspect of English grammar, more importantly, they had rich input, participated,
and one can assume that both learnings of language and thinking about these issues took place. Not
everything in life is measurable.
DISCUSSION
Teaching with a social-justice, anti-bias stance is not something that happens passively, it takes provoca-
tion on the side of the teacher to initiate meaningful projects and activities and an ability to see issues
and not be afraid to confront them. Teacher agency can lead to curriculum change (Priestley, Biesta, &
Robinson, 2015) and more meaningful teaching. Both the DCRPS and the SJS have their value in pre-
service training but can be used for different purposes. The DCRPS is more of a tool to keep a check
one’s own values in light of curricular decisions and materials and the SJS is better geared towards
coursebook analysis and lesson planning.
Each of these activities in this chapter has led to discussions on many levels. From a language per-
spective, pre-service teachers are interested in gender inclusive language and the model sentences they
provide their learners. From a content-perspective, selecting authentic, timely materials from the news-
papers and the world around enrichens not only the pre-service teachers’ worlds but teaches them how
to make these materials accessible to their future learners. From a curricular perspective, realizing that
coursebooks provide suggestions but can easily be adapted is rewarding to all those who are not quite
ready to create their own materials.
The implications of using both the DCRPS and the SJS in teaching training go beyond thinking
about language teaching in particular to thinking about the hidden curriculum (Hercula, 2021) and what
legacy teachers want to leave learners. Personally, having used these tools in teacher training has had a
direct impact on my teaching of younger learners – I am no longer willing to blindly accept what is in
a textbook in the name of “getting through the program” because it is my responsibility as a primary
school teacher, as a teacher trainer, and as a mother to be an active shaper of the world. A picture from
the newspaper of people marching and having learners describe the picture (“I see…”, “The people
are…:”) but also list reasons why (in the local or target language) is just as valuable for language teach-
101

ing and much more valuable for teaching critical thinking than a picture of a Halloween party that was
constructed to name costumes.
Coursebooks that are to be used for many years can never cover the current events and issues that are
at the forefront of people’s lives. Some day our learners will be reading about Covid 19, the Black Lives
Matter Movement, the Women’s Marches, and we need to ask ourselves now how we would want our
future learners to know about them. How would we unpack them? Do we want to read about Covid19 in
the same way the learners read about the bubonic plague with how many people died and the cause? Or
do we want a more nuanced stance on the repercussions, how people felt during that time, who suffered
as a consequence and what the longer-term consequences were and are? If we encourage pre-service
teachers to be agents of change, then perhaps the joke in Figure 1 will be used for discussion or not be
included at all.
Both tools can be applied to existing materials for relatively simple linguistic goals that at the same
time promote deeper thought to encourage open, tolerant, educated youth that is not bound by the images
projected in coursebooks that were written sometimes twenty or thirty years ago. Public school teachers
have the huge responsibility of upholding these basic educational tenets of tolerance and acceptance
and critical thinking and must always consider the legacy they are leaving their learners in every single
subject they teach. Neither teachers nor materials provided to learners should shy away from or banalize
topics stemming from civil rights and social change.
REFERENCES
Arnet-Clark, I., Schmid, S. F., & Ritter, G. (2019). Young World 2 Pupil’s Book. Klett.
Baïdak, N., Balcon, M.-P., & Motiejunaite, A. (2017). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in
Europe. Eurydice Report. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission.
Bell, L. A. (2016). Theoretical Foundations for Social Justice Education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, D. J.
Goodman, & K. Y. Joshi (Eds.), Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice (pp. 3–26). Routledge.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1965). Les Héritiers: Les Étudient et la Culture. Les Éditions des Minuit.
Brown, C. S. (2011). Anti‐Bias Education. Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell.
Chiariello, E. (2016). Social justice standards: The teaching tolerance anti-bias framework. Southern
Poverty Law Center.
D-EDK/Deutschschweizer Erziehungsdirektoren-Konferenz. (2015). Lehrplan 21. D-EDK.
Derman-Sparks, L. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for empowering young children. National As-
sociation for the Education of Young Children.
Donth-Schäffer, C., Erdmann, S., Hundertmark, G., Körnich, A., Landwehr, A., & Röhlin, K. (2016).
Word Trainer 3: Mein Anoki-Übungsheft. Klett.
Freud, S. (1905). Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewußten. Retrieved June 6, 2021 from https://
www.projekt-gutenberg.org/freud/witz/witz.html
102

Gravel, E. (n.d.). All Kinds of Families. Retrieved June 6, 2021 from http://elisegravel.com/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Families.jpg
Hackman, H. W. (2005). Five essential components for social justice education. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 38(2), 103–109. doi:10.1080/10665680590935034
Hercula, S. (2021). Social Justice as the Hidden Curriculum: Making “Small” Pedagogical Changes to
Promote Equity. Babylonia Journal of Language Education, 1, 18–23.
Jensen, B., Whiting, E. F., & Chapman, S. (2018). Measuring the multicultural dispositions of preservice
teachers. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(2), 120–135. doi:10.1177/0734282916662426
Molla, T., & Nolan, A. (2020). Teacher agency and professional practice. Teachers and Teaching, 26(1),
67–87. doi:10.1080/13540602.2020.1740196
Nash, R. (1999). Bourdieu,‘habitus’, and educational research: Is it all worth the candle? British Journal
of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 175–187. doi:10.1080/01425699995399
Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. J., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: what is it and why does it matter?
In R. Kneyber & J. Evers (Eds.), Flip the System: Changing Education from the Bottom Up. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315678573-15
Ray, D. C. (Ed.). (2015). A therapist’s guide to child development: The extraordinarily normal years.
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315737959
Reysen, S., Katzarska-Miller, I., Gibson, S. A., & Hobson, B. (2013). World Knowledge and Global
Citizenship: Factual and Perceived World Knowledge as Predictors of Global Citizenship Identifica-
tion. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 5(1), 49–68. doi:10.18546/
IJDEGL.05.1.04
Salomon, G. (1992). The changing role of the teacher: From information transmitter to orchestrator of
teaching. In F. K. Oser, A. Dick, & J. L. Patry (Eds.), Effective and Responsible Teaching: The New
Synthesis (pp. 35–49). Jossey-Bass.
Saltis, M. N., Giancaterino, B., & Piece, C. (2020). Professional dispositions of teacher candidates:
Measuring dispositions at a large teacher preparation university to meet national standards. Teacher
Educator, 1–15.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (2017). On the impossibility of learning “not to see”: Colorblindness, invisibility, and
anti-bias education. International Critical Childhood Policy Studies Journal, 6(1), 38–51.
Whitaker, M., & Valtierra, K. (2018). The dispositions for culturally responsive pedagogy scale. Journal
for Multicultural Education., 12(1), 10–24. doi:10.1108/JME-11-2016-0060
Whitaker, M., & Valtierra, K. (2019). Schooling Multicultural Teachers. Emerald Publishing.
doi:10.1108/9781787697171
Widodo, H. P., Perfecto, M. R., Van Canh, L., & Buripakdi, A. (2018). Situating Moral and Cultural
Values in ELT Materials. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63677-1
Williams, L., & Kocher-Klicker, J. (2011). Evaluations: Open World Units 1-8. Klett Verlag.
103

Zygmunt, E. M., Cipollone, K., & Tancock, S. (2020). Community-Engaged Teacher Preparation and
the Development of Dispositions for Equity and Social Justice. Handbook on Promoting Social Justice
in Education, 1299-1319.
Dispositions: The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education defines teacher dispo-
sitions as professional attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and non-verbal
behaviors as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and communities.
Unpacking: Analyzing something into its components. Tools such as Socratic questioning or even
Bloom’s taxonomy can help us to ask questions about any given topic or word with the aim of getting
deeper into the semiotics of language or the hidden messages underlying statements.
104
APPENDIX
Table 4. DCRPS items (Whitaker and Valtierra, 2018)
Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly

Disagree Agree
disagree disagree agree agree
Disposition for Praxis
I value assessing my own teaching practices.
I am aware of my cultural background.
I am willing to take advantage of professional development
opportunities focused on issues of diversity.
I am open to feedback about my teaching practices.
I am willing to examine my own identities.
I am willing to be vulnerable.
Disposition for Social Justice
I believe it is important to acknowledge how issues of power
are enacted through schools.
I believe that schools can reproduce social inequities.
I believe that hot topic conversations (e.g., race, gender,
sexuality, religion, etc.) should be had in class when
necessary and/or relevant.
I value equity (giving each student what they individually
need) over equality (giving each student the same thing).
Items not used in the official scale, but suggested for use
I believe that class content should be viewed critically
I believe that diverse perspectives can enhance students’
understanding of content
105
Table 5. Model Role Play Interview with Swiss learners
Good afternoon Professor Humbleboat, I’m ________________ from KidsNews Auhof. We are learning about famous
Reporter
people who helped the world fight racism. Can I ask you some questions?
Yes, I’d be very happy to answer your questions!! I am the SUPER EXPERT!! I know everything!! Who would you like
Professor
to know about?
Reporter Well, I am interested in Patrisse Cullors. When did she live?
Professor She was born in 1983. She is only 36 years old and still alive and fighting!!
Reporter Tell me, why is she so famous?
Professor Well, she started Black Lives Matter with two friends, Opal Tometi and Alicia Garza.
Reporter Why is she important for justice? What did she do for the world? Did she help make the world a better place?
Professor She is amazing! She lives in San Francisco and writes in newspapers and also teaches at the university.
Reporter Did she say anything that we can now learn from?
Professor Well, yes!! She said “Could it be that we matter?”
Reporter Oh, I want ALL my listeners to understand! How do you say that in German?
Professor It means “Kann es sein, dass wir ALLE wichtig sind»?
Reporter Thank you SO VERY MUCH for your time, Professor Humbleboat!
Professor You are very welcome.
Table 6. Role Play Interview Scaffold for learners to fill in using information about their assigned Civil
Rights leader
Good afternoon Professor ______________. I’m ________________ from ___________. We are learning about
Reporter
famous people who helped the world fight racism. Can I ask you some questions?
Yes, I’d be very happy to answer your questions!! I am the SUPER EXPERT!! I know everything!! Who would you
Professor
like to know about?
Reporter Well, I am interested in ___________________. When did she (he/they) live?
Professor ________ was born in ________. _________ died in ________. ______ was ______ years old when ____ died.
Reporter Tell me, why is __________ so famous?
Professor
Why is _______ important for justice? What did ______ do for the world? Did _________ help make the world a
Reporter
better place?
Professor
Reporter Did _______ say anything that we can now learn from?
Professor Well, yes!! ________ said
Reporter Oh, I want ALL my listeners to understand! How do you say that in German [INSERT LOCAL LANGUAGE]?
Professor It means
Reporter Thank you SO VERY MUCH for your time, Professor ______________!
Professor You are very welcome.
106
Figure 4. Additional picture from my classroom
107
108
Chapter 6
Toward Racially-Just
Multilingual Classroom
Pedagogy:
Transforming Learning Centers
for the K-5 Classroom
Alexa Yunes-Koch
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA
Kara Mitchell Viesca

University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA
Claudia Yunes
YES Consulting, USA
ABSTRACT
Creating equitable multilingual classrooms grounded in explicitly anti-racist teaching practices requires
transformation of practice preceded by transformation of thinking. Classroom learning centers can pro-
vide the context for truly transformational, anti-racist teaching, but equitable implementation requires
a deliberately humanizing approach toward teaching multilingual learners. The chapter outlines the
process of operationalizing learning centers in such a way, through pedagogy grounded in the endur-
ing principles of learning and critical sociocultural theory. Based on over 50 years of teaching across
five countries and conducting international research in the field of multilingual education, the authors
provide research-based, practical steps for learning center design and implementation. Educators will
gain a practical pathway for implementation, as well as a model for the self-reflective work that is es-
sential for any meaningful transformation toward racially just classrooms.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch006

Toward Racially-Just Multilingual Classroom Pedagogy
INTRODUCTION
Learning centers are one of the most common and valuable teaching practices in K-5 classrooms but
transforming learning centers to be anti-racist and equitable for all learners, regardless of background,
requires intentional design and meticulous implementation. Throughout this chapter, we will illustrate
how grounding our thinking around critical perspectives can elevate the efficacy of learning centers
for all students. This chapter will recommend practical implementation strategies for K-5 educators,
including general classroom teachers as well as language specialists (both kinds of teachers that can be
considered TESOL educators as they work with and support the language and content development of
many multilingual learners) around the use of learning centers to support strong, racially-just learning
for students in multilingual classrooms. With attention to multilingual, culturally sustaining, inequity
disrupting practices, the use of learning centers grounded in the Enduring Principles of Learning (Sher-
man & Teemant, 2021) are a great way for TESOL educators to move towards racially just multilingual
classroom pedagogies. Our hope is that this chapter serves not only as a practical guide for the effective
implementation of learning centers, but also as a model for what it can look like to reevaluate a common
teaching practice through a critical perspective.
While all students benefit from the collaborative, hands-on, inquiry oriented, dialogic teaching that
the Enduring Principles promote, for multilingual students they are particularly beneficial as they create
the context for ongoing active engagement with language and ideas. Too often multilingual students are
sitting quietly in spaces of whole class instruction with little differentiation or meaningful scaffolds for
their higher-level thinking or engagement to be possible. The rest of this chapter will illustrate how the
Enduring Principles can be operationalized in order to create meaningful, equitable learning experiences
in learning centers for students in multilingual classrooms.
CONCEPT
The approach for transforming learning centers illustrated in this chapter with the aim of creating the
classroom context for truly anti-racist teaching is grounded in the empirical and theoretical work of
critical sociocultural pedagogical practices. The strategies presented are practical and derived from real
classrooms, while the supporting rationale is driven by extensive research and theory in order to bridge
the divide between theory and practice. By meaningfully merging researcher and practitioner perspectives,
we aim to provide strategies to advance racially just classroom pedagogies through the transformative
design and implementation of classroom learning centers.
Critical Sociocultural Pedagogy
Building off of extensive research in diverse classroom with particular attention to multilingual students
learning English, researchers at the Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence (CREDE)
Center at UC Berkeley in the 1990s developed the Standards for Effective Pedagogy (Tharpe et al.,
2000). These standards operationalize a Vygotskian, sociocultural pedagogy (Vygotsky, 1978) and have
been examined across various empirical studies (e.g., Doherty & Hilberg, 2007; Doherty et al., 2002;
Estrada, 2005; Estrada & Imhoff, 1999; Saunders & Goldenberg, 1999; Saunders, 1999). These studies
109

consistently show the positive impact that putting a sociocultural pedagogy into place has on language
and content development for multilingual students.
Teemant and Hausman (2013) added an additional standard in order to grow from a sociocultural
pedagogy to a critical sociocultural pedagogy. Drawing from critical theories and pedagogues (e.g.,
Freire, 1994; Wink, 2010), Teemant and Hausman established the additional standard and have also
studied it. In fact, their work has documented that their additional standard, Critical Stance, was a stron-
ger predictor of achievement for multilingual students than the level of higher order thinking put into
place through the pedagogical practices of teachers (Teemant & Hausman, 2013; Teemant, Hausman,
& Tyra, 2017; Teemant et al., 2014).
Due to the shifting nature of our contexts, the use of the word “standards” in operationalizing a criti-
cal sociocultural pedagogy has become problematic. The Standards for Effective Pedagogy are unlike
the Common Core Standards or the standards for English language development (e.g., from TESOL)
that teachers often work with. Therefore, we are shifting from calling them the Standards for Effective
Pedagogy and focusing on what they are: Enduring Principles of Learning. Using the validated and reli-
able observation tool for the Enduring Principles (Doherty, Hilberg, Epaloose, & Tharp, 2002; Tharp,
2006; Teemant, et al., 2014), we examined pedagogical practices in England, Germany, Finland and the
US (Viesca et al., Under Review). While each classroom we observed had a unique context and features,
the Enduring Principles emerged as strong pedagogical principles to support language development for
multilingual students in content classrooms across the varying contexts we investigated (Viesca et al,
Under Review). However, what also emerged is a lack of attention to “Critical Stance,” the important
work to teach to disrupt inequity. Below we describe the Enduring Principles individually and what they
do in combination. Then we will discuss how they are foundational to the work of this chapter—providing
a practical guide to creating the classroom context where an anti-racist practice. (critical sociocultural
pedagogy) can thrive.
The Enduring Principles of Learning
Each principle provides important opportunities for meaningful learning, engagement and differentiation.
However, the principles described below are more powerful in combination. Research suggests that the
strongest learning outcomes around both language and content development come from classrooms where
three or more of these principles are put into practice at the highest level consistently overtime (Doherty
& Hilberg, 2007). This chapter introduces TESOL educators to these principles and provides tangible
guidance on how to put these standards into practice and thus move towards a racially just multilingual
classroom. We focus on implementing the principles at the highest level as they have been operational-
ized in a rubric for both teaching reflection and research observations (e.g., Doherty & Hilberg, 2007;
Teemant & Hausman, 2013).
The first principle is Joint Productive Activity (JPA), which is about collaborative learning and specifi-
cally about the teacher working as a collaborative partner in learning with a small group of students. By
engaging in JPA, teachers create a context to provide meaningful assistance for students to successfully
engage in tasks they would not be able to complete independently. Through this work in small groups,
the teacher can provide thoughtful differentiation and supports while also learning a great deal about
students’ thinking and language.
The second principle is Language and Literacy Development (LLD), which is focused on rich language
use. At the highest level, teachers create the context for expansive language use along with meaningful
110

feedback through questioning, rephrasing, etc. to support students in growing their linguistic repertoires.
In multilingual, anti-racist classrooms, this should also include opportunities for students’ full multilin-
gual repertoires to be utilized and expanded (García et al., 2017).
The third principle, Contextualization (CTX), is an important aspect of culturally sustaining pedago-
gies (Alim et al., 2020). Through Contextualization teachers help students find and make meaningful
connections between what they are learning in their class and their lives outside of school. We argue for
this to be done through the work of culturally sustaining pedagogies (Alim et al., 2020).
The fourth principle is Challenging Activities (CA), is about providing students with the opportunities
to do work that requires higher order critical thinking. However, it is also about making sure that students
have a clear sense of the standard they are working towards and get ongoing feedback and assistance to
reach that standard. For us, this is particularly important in anti-racist multilingual classrooms as too
many multilingual students are denied cognitively challenging learning opportunities while their language
proficiency in English is deemed a barrier. We assert that anti-racist teaching for multilingual students
must include high level, challenging work that advances student thinking, analysis and synthesis abilities.
The fifth principle, Instructional Conversation (IC), is about teaching through dialogue. In the way
it is operationalized as an Enduring Principle, all Instructional Conversations must take place between
a teacher and a small group of students. These conversations should have a clear academic goal and
students should do most of the talking. The teacher mostly poses questions and students engage with one
another to grow their academic understandings. IC’s create the context for dialogic teaching and learning.
The sixth principle is Critical Stance (CS), which is about teaching to transform inequities. Students
must learn to examine the world and various problems from a variety of perspectives and learn to rec-
ognize issues of inequity as well as how to act to change them. At the highest level, students have identi-
fied a problem and a way to address it and are thoughtfully doing the work to disrupt the inequity they
identified. This must be a core part of an anti-racist multilingual classroom and can often be missing in
classrooms where the other five principles are in practice.
In his work in Indigenous classrooms, Tharpe (2006) identified two additional principles, “modeling”
and “self-directed activity,” which are also important principles to consider and have been included by
other scholars such as Sherman and Teemant (2021). We find those principles important and relevant
but have chosen to focus on the six principles for which the most research exists and which we have
the most experience with. Therefore, while this chapter’s strategies for creating transformative learning
centers are largely grounded in the first six Enduring Principles, there are numerous opportunities for
Modeling and Student Directed Activity to enhance learning. In total, the Enduring Principles offer
tools and resources for anti-racist teaching that meaningfully attends to language, culture and power.
Anti-Racist Teacher Orientation
In anti-racist teaching practices, all teachers should engage in ongoing, self-reflective work to grow their
ideological clarity (Bartolomé, 2000), which is the ability to recognize the ideologies at work in our
practices and to disrupt those that are promoting inequity. This is important work for anti-racist TESOL
educators and is work that can never be completed. Such work is also not the focus of our chapter, but it
should be understood that strong practices, including those shared in this chapter, can be implemented in
ways that perhaps unintentionally sustain and even promote racist inequities. We, therefore, recommend
that deeply reflective work be foundational for the approaches we describe. Being nice to People of Color
or wanting all students to learn at high levels is insufficient intentionality for anti-racist teaching. There
111

are many resources to support TESOL educators in growing anti-racist, self-reflective capabilities, and
we suggest a list of these resources at the end of the chapter.
Racial injustice is most obvious in classrooms where certain voices are valued more than others,
where multilingual students are viewed through a deficit lens, where students are not challenged, and
where reductive labels and categorizations function to dehumanize learners. While readers of this book
likely concur with the idea that racially just pedagogy is of utmost importance, it is imperative to out-
line practical strategies to strive toward these anti-racist teacher orientations before proceeding with the
learning center recommendations. The anti-racist teacher orientations grounding the practices in this
chapter include expansive, humanizing, strengths-based, co-constructive, inclusive, community-centered
and patient, but this list is only a starting point. We encourage each teacher to create their own anti-racist
orientations list and refer to it on a daily basis.
Teachers with an expansive orientation believe that students are each unique, regardless of their back-
ground or culture. Students tell teachers who they are and teachers listen and sustain students in their
self-actualization. In having a humanizing orientation, teachers are driven by individualized, personalized
aims centering students as human beings before positioning them as learners. A humanizing teacher builds
on what makes students feel joyful and alive in order to provide the best learning experience. In doing
so, the teacher prioritizes students over policy and process. The strengths-based orientation points to
teachers focusing on students’ interests and strengths, using those as foundational elements in the class-
room. Teachers co-construct to disrupt oppressive power hierarchies, ensuring that every voice is given
the space to be powerful. Inclusive teachers seek to value all skills, knowledge, and language varieties,
so that every member of the learning community is learning from each other. The community-centered
orientation calls on teachers to ensure that everyone is invested in each other’s journey, encouraging
students to look out for each other and help each other succeed. Finally, a patient orientation calls on
teachers to prioritize humanizing over efficiency. Having anti-racist teacher orientations is crucial but
insufficient without practical strategies to enact these ideals. The table below outlines common teacher
orientations versus anti-racist teacher orientations and provides an example of enacting each one.
EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE
Learning centers, particularly for multilingual students, can be a great tool to put the above orientations
into practice as they are all about co-constructing the classroom community in a way that values and
amplifies every voice and differentiating instruction through a variety of activities to ensure that students
are being seen, valued, challenged, and supported in their learning, regardless of their level of English
proficiency or their academic level. Students from every cultural and linguistic background deserve to
take part in learning activities that sustain their culture, draw on their full linguistic repertoires, and
amplify their voice within the classroom.
This section will include concrete strategies to help teachers implement learning centers as a vehicle
toward creating anti-racist classrooms. We fully anticipate that educators will personalize, modify, and
choose from these strategies to best fit their own landscapes and circumstances, but we encourage educa-
tors to focus on the framing and conceptualization driving each of these practical recommendations, as it
is this intentional teacher orientation that determines the effectiveness of learning centers for all students.
112

Table 1. Common orientations vs. anti-racist teacher orientations
Common Orientation Anti-Racist Teacher Orientation

Expansive
Ex. Instead of making assumptions about students based on their background, the teacher regularly
Reductive
asks students to complete assignments encouraging self-expression and individualization to interrupt
reductive categorizations and assumptions.
Humanizing
Standards-driven Ex. While standards are embedded into much of the educational landscape, the teacher constantly
asks for student input and perspective sharing to connect with students on a human level.
Strengths-based
Ex. Instead of focusing exclusively on student needs, the teacher gives students choices in
Deficit-oriented assignment options, giving students a chance to demonstrate their own skills and interests, and building
on those interests and skills to then meet student needs. Crucially, the teacher believes that every student
is capable of success.
Co-Constructive
Ex. Rather than posting the classroom rules without student input, teacher and students co-
Top-down
construct expectations and constantly revisit them to have class discussions about how best to modify
them.
Inclusive
Ex. Rather than asking students to write about what they did for summer holiday the teacher asks
Exclusive
students to write and draw about what makes them happy, intentionally decentering monetary or material
advantages.
Community-centered
Ex. Each student in a group writes or draws in their journal for every learning center. The teacher
Self-centered then grades only one journal from each group and gives every member of the group that same grade,
ensuring that all members of the group are looking out for each other’s success during the learning
centers.
Patient
Ex. The teacher prioritizes student voices being heard in the process of co-constructing a storyline,
Rushed
valuing humanizing over expediency. While it might not be the most time efficient option, the teacher
knows that this time investment is an investment in the students’ humanity and individual contributions.
Defining Learning Centers
While learning centers are unique from classroom to classroom, there are a few defining qualities that
usually hold true across contexts. For our purposes, learning centers are defined as classroom worksta-
tions usually sharing the following qualities:
• Each learning center consists of a unique activity

• Each activity is designed for small groups of 3-4 students
• Each activity is content-based and aligned with the curriculum
• Each activity can be completed within one rotation, lasting about 20-30 minutes
• Students rotate through these activities as they rotate through each center
• Teachers are positioned as collaborators within learning centers by being part of the learning
center rotations with the students.
A distinction worth making before continuing is that between fixed centers and dynamic centers.
Fixed learning centers are those that do not change throughout the school year, functioning independent
of current classroom content or goals. One common example of a fixed center is the computer center,
113

where students complete one of a few activities that are always available at the computer, such as playing
an educational game. This chapter will focus on dynamic centers, which change frequently to support
the current topic of study in the classroom.
As with all teaching strategies, the possibilities for differentiation and personalization within learn-
ing centers are endless. There is no limit to what can be done when teachers and students co-create a
learning environment that makes space for creativity, differentiation, and innovation. For instance, one
7th grade classroom we observed showcased students simultaneously engaged in eleven different learn-
ing centers, with seamless transitions and co-creation of knowledge happening at each center. We’ve
taught in PreK-5th grade classrooms, all highlighting the daily use of 6-8 learning centers. These ideals
are possible for any classroom in any context, but they do require a level of preparation that we hope to
contribute to through our recommendations. Teachers should be intentionally guided by and grounded
in the anti-racist teacher orientations and the Enduring Principles at every step of the planning process,
and the following are a few key recommendations to keep in mind throughout the planning process.
Community before Content: Learning to Multitask in the Classroom
Before being able to engage with the content in learning centers equitably, students will first need to learn
how to work in multitasking classrooms. The first part of successfully introducing multitasking is to co-
construct the expectations and agreements for how teachers and students will interact with one another
in cohesive, productive, respectful ways. Without a classroom environment conducive to collaboration,
learning centers can easily become chaotic and unorganized or create the context for simply replicating
common social dynamics between students. It is a practical reality that getting young learners to work
in harmony requires building a learning community that is based on agreements for what is acceptable
and how to treat each other. Through deliberate, ongoing and meaningful co-constructing of classroom
community norms and expectations, democratic pluralism becomes possible as differences are positively
productive because they are embraced, sustained, and expected.
Recommendations for Community Building
Co-Construct Community Agreements: We recommend that teachers and students co-construct all
classroom guidelines, including for learning centers through a whole-group discussion that can be further
strengthened with small-group discussions. The topics discussed should include expectations for individual
behavior in the classroom, interactions between peers, student-teacher interactions, managing resources
and materials, transitioning between stations, etc. Discussions should also include how problems will be
handled. Students should be given the chance to think about how they want those things to look, have a
conversation about it, and create a set of expectations and norms as a foundation for working together.
These norms should evolve over time, changing as needed, but they should be grounded in the ideas
and contributions of every member of the learning community, the teacher included. The following are
a few examples of questions that could be asked for these co-constructing discussions:
• Why do we need community agreements?

• What should happen if we don’t follow our agreements?
• What should happen if we do follow our agreements?
• When should we talk freely, and when should we raise our hands to avoid chaos?
114

• When can we get out of our chairs without asking, and when should we ask for permission?
• How should we walk around the classroom to transition between learning centers?
• What should we do if someone is being mean to another student?
• How can we disagree with our teacher or with a friend without being disrespectful?
• When is it okay to interrupt our teacher during learning centers?
• How do we keep our classroom clean?
Student Leadership and Roles at Learning Centers: We encourage teachers to have various student
roles during learning centers so that all voices are highlighted in different ways. Teachers should be
intentional about the roles they create as well as when they assign the roles and when they give students
choice. Teachers should create opportunities according to students’ strengths and weaknesses. For in-
stance, if a student is much more advanced in writing than in speaking, it might be a great idea to have
that student in a position where she can be the scribe for one rotation to highlight her strengths, and she
could be the group speaker in another rotation to work on strengthening that weaker skill. The following
is a list of possible student roles teachers might choose from for learning centers:
• Scribe: writes for the team

• Question Fielder: goes to the teacher with any group questions
• Materials Manager: gathers all the materials for each learning center
• Speaker: shares with other groups
• Leader: leads group work and discussion
• Time Keeper: gives time warnings to the group
Review Community Agreements Daily: Teachers should review what each of the expectations do
and don’t look like on a daily basis. Teachers can take 5-10 minutes every day to either discuss or act out
what to do and what not to do. Teachers can make this review fun by exaggerating the examples of what
not to do or inviting students to act out good and bad examples of each agreement. We suggest choosing
one or two students each day to lead the review once students are familiar enough with the agreements.
This student-led acting out of the expectations is effective for all grade levels from PreK and beyond.
These reviews should be consistent throughout the school year and should include ongoing discussions
about why community agreements are necessary.
Once teachers lay an intentionally equitable foundation for multitasking in learning centers by co-
constructing community agreements, they can practice these agreements in learning centers, revisit the
agreements on a regular basis to encourage critical thinking about how to improve them, and continue
the ongoing cycle over months. These steps are illustrated in Figure 1.
Learning Center Logistics
With the ongoing work of building an equitable learning community underway, we recommend a few
approaches for setting up learning centers. Every logistical decision has implications for equity, so it is
important that teachers consistently recenter their decision-making around the Enduring Principles and
their own anti-racist orientations. From grouping students for their learning centers, to choosing texts
and providing school supplies at each center, every logistical decision should be made intentionally.
115

Figure 1. Building Community
For classroom learning centers, teams will usually take turns rotating to each center until every
team has completed each activity, which might take a few days or weeks, depending on each teacher’s
design. One of the teams will be the teacher-led “Instructional Conversation” center, which is explained
in detail later in the chapter and functions as a key element for equitable instruction. Teachers should
post a rotation schedule to tell teams which center they should rotate to next. While rotation schedules
vary greatly from teacher to teacher, a good starting point for teachers new to centers is 50 minutes for
centers in the morning and 50 minutes for centers in the afternoon, with each 50-minute block consisting
of 2 full rotations. Each rotation in this set-up would be made up of 20 minutes of work and 5 minutes
of wrap-up and transition.
Figures 2 and 3 show sample rotation schedules that could be posted for students in the classroom.
These schedules would be color-coded to match the colors of each learning center so that multilingual
students could successfully follow the schedule and might include pictures. The schedules below show
an arrow pointing to the phase of the rotation students should currently be working on. Teachers often
use a clothespin or virtual display, and they move the pointer down as each rotation ends to show students
which phase to move to next.
Figure 2. Example of a learning center rotation schedule posted for PreK-1st
Other Recommendations for Learning Center Logistics
Equitable Groupings: We recommend dividing students into groups of 3-4, typically resulting in about
six teams per classroom. Teams should be heterogenous in language and academic level when possible
and appropriate according to the learning goals. (This does not apply for the teacher-led “Instructional
Conversations” center, which will be discussed later in the chapter and should be homogenous). In
some instances, linguistically homogenous groupings can be beneficial for creating opportunities for
116

Figure 3. Example of a learning center rotation schedule posted for 2nd – 5th
translanguaging in the classroom. In any case, learning goals should guide decision making regarding
groupings, not practicality or convenience.
Color Coding Materials: The materials and instructions for each center can be put into a color-
coded box or bag so that colors match the center rotation schedule posted for students to see. Keep colors
consistent from week to week to reduce confusion for students.
Diversity and Representation in Materials and Texts: Ensure that the materials and resources
are diverse, even if the group of students in the classroom is largely homogenous in nature. Constantly
exposing students to cultural and linguistic diversity creates invaluable opportunities for critical think-
ing and discussions. Representing students’ individual cultures and languages is important but having a
culture of celebrating diversity and engaging with difference is crucial for creating anti-racist contexts.
Practicing Transitions: The processes of transitioning to and from learning centers can be confusing
and overwhelming for students, especially when language is a built-in challenge, so it is important to
practice these transitions with students, before introducing content at the centers. We encourage teach-
ers to be extremely consistent with the routine of initiating centers, transitioning between centers, and
concluding the center time each day. Routines and consistency create a sense of security for all students,
especially multilingual learners working to reduce their anxiety around language acquisition, or what
Krashen refers to as the affective filter.
Once all students feel comfortable moving from center to center, it is important that they understand
how to read their rotation schedules. Practice reading the rotation chart, have students identify their group
and the location of the different centers, and make sure that every student feels confident in reading the
rotation schedule for their team. When students know how to navigate centers and find their assigned
center for each rotation, they can practice working independently at centers, without direct teacher
monitoring or supervision. We recommend starting off with all students working on the same activity
in order to scaffold the process. Once students are successfully working on center activities individually,
the various activities can be introduced to each center.
Suggested sequence for introducing a new activity to learning centers:
1. Design the activity

2. Demonstrate the activity as a whole group first. It is especially important to explain the learning
expectations and the product that students might create in the activity. Students should know that
their work will be reviewed and will receive feedback to improve their performance. Repeat this
demonstration/practice as many times as necessary.
117

3. Give the activity a name so that students can distinguish it and identify it on their learning center
rotation chart.
4. Place the necessary materials for the activity and the instructions in a box or bag for that center.
5. Introduce this activity to the weekly rotation.
The Enduring Principles Enacted in Learning Centers
The Enduring Principles are excellent pedagogical guideposts in general, but they function as particularly
significant guiding values for anti-racist teaching with multilingual students, highlighting the key practices
that lead to a humanizing and equitable praxis. It is important to take inventory of the Enduring Principles
that are or are not being enacted during center activities. While it is not necessary or practical to aim for
enacting every principle at every activity, research has shown that it is important that at least three of
the principles are being enacted in the classroom at any given time. Learning centers create the context
for three or more of the principles to be put into practice at high levels consistently as they facilitate
a multitasking classroom, enabling teachers to move away from monitoring and toward collaborating.
Most importantly, learning centers invite a learning community that is in constant co-construction, al-
lowing students to take agency and leadership over their learning while developing a critical stance in
the classroom. The following section outlines ways in which learning centers facilitate the enactment
of each of the Enduring Principles.
Principle 1: Joint Productive Activity
Learning center activities are social by design, requiring students to work collaboratively at each center
in order to complete an activity, enacting the principle of Joint Productive Activity on a regular basis.
This social, interpersonal component made possible most effectively through learning centers, also grows
students’ linguistic repertoires and can foster and support multilingualism on a deeper level.
Building accountability into learning centers is a cornerstone of equitable teaching. Too often, students
who are already advantaged in various ways continue to benefit from certain activities, while students at
a linguistic, economic, or cognitive disadvantage often go unnoticed for long periods of time. Holding
students accountable for work done during learning centers is important to ensure that teaching practices
are indeed equitable. From a critical sociocultural perspective, it is much too easy for the status quo of
systemic inequities to remain undisturbed without accountability. These tangible products from each
learning center are excellent sources of formative assessment that allow teachers to check in with each
learner, noting impressive strengths as well as opportunities for growth.
Required Student Participation: To ensure joint productive activity, design activities where student
participation is not just encouraged but required. For instance, students might be working on a worksheet
together, and one student might easily sit quietly without participating for the entire rotation. Therefore,
it is necessary to build participation requirements into the activity design. Here are a few examples of
activities that require participation:
• Pretend phone conversations

• Role playing between actors that must speak to each other, such as waiter/customer, doctor/pa-
tient, teacher/student, etc.
118

• Ask for individualized participation from each student in an activity, where no other student could
provide the answer. Ex. Ask each student to share part of their own culture, hobbies, likes or dis-
likes within an activity
• Make students part of the product. Ex. Instead of having 3 students working on designing a robot,
have 2 students be “engineers” and 1 student be the “robot”
• Debates, dialogues
Color Coding Writing: Having each student in a team write with a different color marker or crayon
when working together on an assignment allows teachers to see the distribution of work. If students are
each assigned a different color, and the teacher sees that one color is largely absent from the group’s
joint product, the teacher can engage with curiosity to figure out why this is the case.
Accountability Journals: Our recommendation for proof of productivity is to use student journals,
where each student produces something in their journal at each center. The product might be as simple
as writing a sentence or drawing a picture about what they learned at that center, or the journal might
actually be used during the activity. Additionally, having students engage in reflective journaling can help
teachers identify and disrupt misunderstandings. The data generated from this approach are invaluable
for continued responsive instructional decision making.
Lottery Grading: To ensure that all students are producing during their centers without overburden-
ing the teacher, we recommend a lottery grading approach, where teachers randomly choose one member
from each group to be graded as a representative for the whole team. At the end of each learning center
block, students should return their journals to the designated spot in the classroom, such as a shelf or
bin. Once the journals have been put in their place, the teacher can choose one journal from each team,
at random, to check their work. If any of the randomly selected journals don’t have the work they should
have completed during that day’s centers, the whole team misses out on something fun so that the team
can redo the work. Teachers can also create friendly competitions between teams, selecting random
journals as the representatives for the competitions. This practice encourages each student to do high
quality work because their journal might be the chosen one for their team, and it encourages students to
be invested in each other’s learning and help each other succeed.
Principle 2: Language and Literacy Development
Anti-racist teaching for multilingual students should proactively support the development of students’
multilingual capabilities through a variety of approaches, particularly those that position languages other
than English as valuable for learning. This requires extra time and preparation from teachers, but it is
one of the most constructive things we can do to ensure that multilingual learners are able to engage in
learning experiences that build off of and sustain the cultural and linguistic strengths they bring to learn-
ing. Further, learning stations provide the opportunity for students to engage in language and literacy
development with longer periods of time where they can read, write and/or speak—important sustained
opportunities to use language. Here are five ways to support multilingual language development in any
learning center:
• Proactively and consistently provide the space for students to engage in sustained and productive
language activities like reading, writing and speaking. Support students in being creative in their
language uses.
119

• Encourage students to complete work in the language, or combination of languages, of their choice
and provide the necessary tools and resources for them to do this.
• Provide differentiated resources. Depending on your intended learning outcomes, this could in-
clude reading passages in languages other than English or those in English that have been modi-
fied to ensure students at early stages of English development can successfully read them. Text
modification can include rewriting the text to simplify grammatical structures and vocabulary
used, highlighting or translating key words, or providing visual supports for comprehension.
Oversimplifying the content is just as detrimental as not making the content accessible, so finding
that ideal level of challenge with meaningful supports for each student is extremely important.
Further, additional resources can be quite useful to ensure students know about and have access to
like bilingual dictionaries, translation apps and other technological tools.
• Turn your classroom into a multilingual supportive reference space. The topics and ideas you
are studying as a class, should have visual and multilingual supports around the classroom. In
that way, the posted resources around the room became guides or references when students are
working at stations. For example, if you have taught figurative language, and you are including
figurative language in your centers, you can post the names and examples of figurative language
(along with images and multilingual supports) in your classroom so students can reference those
examples during their independent work at centers.
• Explicitly embrace and explore different languages. Create moments of wonder around diversity,
highlighting different languages and celebrating the ability to speak more than one language as
a superpower. Create situations where students can learn new words in a variety of languages so
that no one student is seen as solely different, yet difference in general is collectively meaningful
in the classroom.
Principle 3: Contextualizing
Each activity for each learning center should be based on the content and highly contextualized for
students. Aligning centers with the curriculum gives students extended opportunities to engage with
learning through a variety of experiences, which maximizes learning. Changing the learning activities
for each center as content changes from week to week is essential for maintaining student engagement
and cognitive stimulation. When targeting learning centers for multilingual students, this differentiation
of activity types increases the level of engagement with all learning modalities, providing access points
for all different kinds of learners.
When teachers contextualize activities, they also create more access points for multilingual learners.
For instance, if students are learning the names of first-aid medical supplies, it would be much more
beneficial to complete a doctor-patient activity than it would be to simply list the vocabulary in a work-
sheet. These real-life connections create meaningful contexts and serve to bridge linguistic and cultural
differences. The principle of Contextualizing is also crucial as it allows teachers to decenter normative
experiences, replacing those with a rich variety of cultural contexts. For instance, while a common
context might be having students role play at a grocery store, it would be greatly beneficial to include
other cultural practices. Remember to co-construct these contexts with students whenever possible. An
Italian student might contribute that they usually wear gloves inside a grocery store in his hometown, a
Mexican student might contribute that going to an outdoor market is a fun family event on the weekends,
or a Chinese student might share that their family usually orders groceries directly to their front door.
120

Regardless of the context or the activity, remind students that there are many ways of being and doing,
and reinforce the notion that there is plenty of diversity within cultures and countries as well.
Principle 4: Challenging Activities
One of the most common mistakes teachers make with classroom learning centers is that they oversimplify
the activities because they think students cannot handle complex activities during student-led centers.
The Enduring Principle of Challenging Activities calls on teachers to provide appropriate scaffolding,
creating a high-challenge, high-support environment, rather than oversimplifying. In order to avoid
student confusion or frustration, we might instinctively default to having multilingual students working
only on basic, low-order thinking skills. This oversimplification is inherently problematic and will most
certainly result in future problems with comprehension as well as creative thinking. The four zones of
teaching and learning (Gibbons, 2002) further illustrate that students learn best in high-challenge, high-
support settings, also known as Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD). Before making any
modifications to an activity or a resource, it is useful to ask ourselves whether we are simplifying to lower
expectations, or scaffolding learning to maintain the highest expectations for all of our students. The
following are recommendations to promote the principle of Challenging Activities in learning centers.
Whole Group First: While learning centers can be a great vehicle for exploring new content for the
first time in small groups of peers, we highly recommend teaching the mechanics of each activity as
a group first. For example, you might have a “Reporter Activity” where students interview each other
about a story they have read. While you might use this activity in learning centers for various types of
stories, it is best to introduce this Reporter activity type as a whole group with teacher guidance, setting
a standard for quality work that students clearly understand and know to strive for. Once the students
learn how to complete an activity and meet that high standard in whole group, they can then take apply
their understanding to various types of content in their learning centers. Learning centers are designed
to be a time when teachers do not need to be monitoring or guiding students, but rather use that time to
collaborate with small groups of students at one of the learning centers in the rotation. Therefore, ensur-
ing that students know what is expected of them without needing guidance from the teacher is essential.
However, to meet high standards in challenging activities, students also need feedback and assistance.
The teacher does not always have to be present to provide quality feedback or assistance. Perhaps stu-
dents get feedback from one another. Perhaps they get feedback overtime from something they submit
to the teacher. Perhaps assistance is offered through high quality materials or again from their peers.
The point is to ensure that students have a strong understanding of the high standard they are expected
to meet while they also have meaningful feedback and assistance to reach that standard.
Translanguaging: Encouraging students to draw on the entirety of their linguistic repertoires dur-
ing activities means creating space for different words, phrases, and ideas to be heard. Teachers should
encourage students to write in any language they prefer, mixing and shifting between languages often
and organically. This practice serves all of the Enduring Principles, but it is particularly powerful for
increasing the degree of cognitive demand for activities. While a student might not be able to express
something in English, they might have many great ideas for that same concept in their home language.
Giving them space to draw on that multilingual knowledge is an excellent way of ensuring challenging
activities.
Rhythm and Song: Songs and chants are a great way to practice language and content. You might
consider having students create songs or chants during a learning center activity. We also encourage
121

teachers to use the songs and chants that students hear in the classroom as part of the learning center
activities. For instance, students might find the rhyming words in a chant, might look for certain gram-
matical elements in a song, etc. Using songs and chants in learning centers allows for unique linguistic
connections and increased comprehension.
Visual Aids: are one of the most helpful tools we can use for multilingual learners. Figure 4 shows
visual instructions designed to help multilingual learners make sense of activity expectations. Teachers
can create this sort of visual on any computer, using clipart or other free online graphics.
Graphic Organizers: For multilingual learners in particular, it is most beneficial to employ graphic
organizers that visually represent the content. Some graphic organizers appear helpful but really provide
no visual cues for the organization of information or concepts. Figures 5 and 6 show examples of graphic
organizers that help multilingual learners make sense of the activity through their visual representation.
The main idea and the sequence in are illustrated by these graphic organizers.
Figures 7 and 8, on the other hand, shows graphic organizers that are not conducive to increased
comprehension because the shapes in the graphic organizer do not help the students understand what is
being asked of them. The shapes in Figure 7 give students no conceptual context, and the Spring flowers
in Figure 8 are nice, but the student is given no help in knowing what they are expected to be writing.
Avoid Automatization: While repetition is necessary for learning, learning quality decreases once
students become overly familiar with an activity. For learning centers to remain cognitively stimulating
and academically challenging, activities must be continuously adapted to not only match the content but
also to be engaging and fun. Automatization – when cognitive processes move from conscious to sub-
conscious activation – should be avoided in learning center activities to maximize cognitive engagement.
Changing learning centers constantly and reusing activities with modifications and added challenges
ensures that all students are receiving the cognitive stimulation they need and deserve.
For example, if students have gone to the “Sand Center” and drawn letters in the sand week after
week, without further challenges or purpose added to the activity, this process is likely to become sub-
conscious, and unlikely to result in any meaningful learning. The teacher could increase the challenge
of this activity by asking young students to draw a letter in the sand and then find items around the
classroom that begin with that letter, or students might pull a mystery item from a paper bag and have
to draw that starting sound in the sand. There are endless ways to increase the challenge for any given
activity, but it is vital that teachers continuously seek to challenge students past what is easy and au-
tomatized. These constantly changing activities also provide endless opportunities for the development
of linguistic repertoires. With the content at learning centers changing frequently, students are exposed
to the highest amount of comprehensible, meaningful input.
Principle 5: Instructional Conversations
Instructional Conversations are one of the Enduring Principles that simply cannot occur equitably without
the use of learning centers in the classroom. Learning centers create the context where every student is
engaged in meaningful small-group learning, while the teacher engages with one small group of students
at a separate center, which we call the Instructional Conversation center. It is important that every student
gets a chance to regularly join the Instructional Conversation center. Regardless of academic level, all
students benefit greatly from that small-group connection with the teacher and all students should be
continuously challenged to keep growing in various areas.
122

Figure 4. Visual instructions
123

Figure 5. Sequence graphic organizer
Figure 6. Main idea graphic organizer
124

Figure 7. Shapes graphic organizer
The purpose of the Instructional Conversation center is for the teacher to be able to provide targeted,
individualized help for students based on their specific needs and skill levels. Therefore, this is the only
center where we encourage grouping students by homogenous abilities. Because students are grouped
heterogeneously for the rest of their learning centers, teachers should pull students from other centers for
each Instructional Conversation. If an entire heterogenous group rotates to the Instructional Conversa-
tion center, the teacher will not be able to equitably target their instruction, so it is important to select
students from different groups, for homogenous needs for this center.
The student groupings for these teacher pull-outs should always be skill specific and data based, instead
of the more common practice of name-based grouping, where students are assumed to have certain needs
based only on their academic reputation. Being aware of this tendency and consciously interrupting it
is an anti-racist practice. Teachers can remember that having a reputation for struggling academically
does not mean a student is struggling with every concept, all the time. A generally struggling student
might be doing very well with one particular concept, so their name alone should not determine their
placement in the level of instruction for their teacher pull-outs. Instead, teachers should rely on their
own data from formative assessments and daily observations to determine who needs what and when.
Another thing to keep in mind during Instructional Conversations is that while they are teacher-led,
research shows that they are most effective when teachers are co-constructing the knowledge with students,
positioning themselves as learners with the students, and avoiding exclusively top-down instruction. In
Instructional Conversations, student talk should occur at higher rates than teacher talk. For example, if
an Instructional Conversation is centered around subtraction, the teacher can pose a problem or a ques-
tion and then encourage students to help each other to find the solution and describe their thinking and
processes. We realize that efficiency is often a priority in the classroom, but by regrounding ourselves
in our anti-racist orientations, we can remember that rushing through material is rarely as equitable as
investing the time to create meaningful learning experiences where all student voices are heard and valued.
125

Figure 8. Spring graphic organizer
126

Principle 6: Critical Stance
The sixth principle, Critical Stance, is about teaching to intentionally transform inequities. While there
are ways to enact this principle in every type of learning activity, we would like to focus on the power of
interrogating our assumptions, both for teachers and for students. When we question what we assume to
be “normal,” we begin to develop a critical consciousness that allows us to know that all ways of being
and languages and cultures are valuable and worthy of being centered in the classroom.
The following is a list of questions students should be encouraged to ask of any activity, storyline,
or even any social interaction. While not every learning center will require students to ask and answer
these questions, teachers should incorporate this sort of questioning into activities frequently. Teachers
are encouraged to have whole-group discussions at the end of each learning center rotation, which is a
perfect time for critical reflection using questions such as the ones listed here:
• Who was at the center of this story?

• Did we see diversity in this story?
• If we didn’t, why not?
• If we did, how were different characters represented? Are these storylines we have seen repeatedly?
• Who is missing from the story?
• Who had power in this story? Who did not?
• What could have been done differently to make it possible for power to be shared?
As we have seen throughout the chapter, almost any teaching strategy or practice can be operationalized
in deeply problematic ways or truly transformative ways, depending on the teacher’s orientation toward
students and their learning. The following checklist is a practical way for teachers to engage in meaning-
ful self-reflection to ensure that commitment to anti-racist, humanizing values are consistently centered.
• Whose voices are being heard most frequently in my classroom and learning centers?
• Whose ideas are consistently upheld and valued in the classroom?
• Who is being challenged by the learning activities I am designing?
• Is white normativity being decentered by embracing and encouraging diverse ways of being?
• Am I putting structures in place to interrupt imbalanced distribution of power?
• Am I connecting with my students on a personal level?
• Am I centering students’ strengths and interests?
• Are the contexts created in our centers authentic and relatable for all students?
• Are all students actively invested in each other’s learning and success?
• Are genuine efforts being made to value all languages and language varieties through various
activities?
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Consider the following prompts and discussion questions to continue your learning:
1. Which of the 6 Enduring Principles are being enacted during my learning centers?
127

2. List 10 different reading activities you can think of. Which of the Enduring Principles are enacted
in these activities?
3. How can we create access to content for multilingual learners in learning centers?
4. How can we ensure that every student’s voice is heard in learning centers?
5. How can we ensure that everyone’s talents and interests are part of learning centers?
In this section we would like to provide a sample unit outline with five different activity ideas to illustrate
a cohesive unit designed with the Enduring Principles in mind.
Sample Unit Outline: Growing Food
One 5th grade teacher designs a Growing Food Unit centered around a classroom community garden.
The school does not have the resources to have a real community garden, so the teacher employs a vir-
tual garden for her students to engage in this meaningful unit of learning. Students can visit the virtual
garden on tablets and computers. With the Enduring Principles of Learning in mind, the teacher designs
the following learning center activities.
DISCUSSION
Accepting the call to ensure that our classrooms are spaces of racial justice, where normativity and inequity
are actively interrupted, requires a firm commitment to reevaluating every decision around classroom
design. Embracing critical thinking around even the most seemingly instinctive teaching practices is
the first step toward becoming truly anti-racist teachers with racially just, multilingual classrooms. For
the practice of using learning centers effectively with multilingual learners, we must always focus on
creating high-challenge, high-support environments that create meaningful learning opportunities for all
students. Differentiating instruction through learning centers, creating space for students to engage with
each other and co-construct knowledge as they work in joint productive activity, and positioning teachers
as collaborators in instructional conversations within learning centers as opposed to being positioned
as monitors, are all ways in which learning centers can be one of the most effective vehicles for racially
just teaching and learning in multilingual classrooms.
128

Table 2. Growing food sample unit
Activity Enduring Principle

Title:
Growing Food Around the World
Guiding Question:
How is food grown around the world?
Description:
The students will (TSW) read and brainstorm (in various languages) about the ways in which food is grown LLD, CTX
across various local or global contexts. They will answer questions about the benefits and drawbacks for
different models, comparing and contrasting various contexts. They will use target vocabulary words to express
new thoughts and ideas, and TSW connect the learning to home cultures and contexts by answering specific
questions provided by the teacher. TSW will each write with their own unique color marker and will work
together to draw what they learned about.
Title:
Math Garden
Guiding Question:
Should we have a school garden?
Description:
TSW complete a series of geometry problems and budget calculations to think about adding gardens to their
school/community. TSW then use those measurements and calculations to think about opportunities for gardens
JPA, CA
in their school/community.
TSW will create a joint poster presentation in which they will generate well-grounded opinions about whether
or not a new garden initiative would be beneficial for the community, including information about food that
could be grown in the gardens. TSW have assigned roles within the group including scribe, speaker, and leader.
The teacher will (TTW) provide written feedback and additional questions on each group’s poster on a daily
basis to prompt additional critical thinking, and students will continue to refine and craft their arguments for the
duration of the unit. The activity will culminate in final group presentations for the whole class.
Title:
Garden Reflections
Guiding Questions:
How do I get food? How do I wish I could access food?
Description:
TSW reflect on their own experiences with food and gardens, thinking about the ways in which they have
CTX, JPA
accessed food and ways in which they would like to access food. TSW be encouraged to think about various
contexts and situations for this discussion and will be encouraged to use the language(s) of their choice in their
writing and reading.
TSW write in a graphic organizer provided by the teacher to help organize their ideas and scaffold their
collaboration around the topic. TSW again use their own color marker to ensure equal participation on the
graphic organizer.
Title:
Our Argument
Guiding Question:
Should we all grow our own food?
Description:
IC, CTX, JPA
TSW engage in group discussion about the pros and cons of growing their own food and will have to come to
an agreement as a team to present their shared opinion to the class. TTW engage students through dialogue but
will mostly work to pose questions and counterarguments to guide students in exploring various perspectives
and strengthening their own understandings.
TSW work together, with their teacher, to write a persuasive argument for their opinion.
Title:
Hidden Agenda
Guiding Question:
Why?
Description: CS, CA
TSW answer the questions “Why might big companies not want us to easily grow our own food? Who benefits
from us buying food at big supermarkets? What are the benefits of having quick access to food in stores? Are
there other alternatives to shopping at big stores?” TSW research the topic using online resources and will
create a visual representation for their ideas and findings.
129

REFERENCES
Alim, H., Paris, D., & Wong, S. (2020). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A critical framework for cen-
tering communities. In N. Nasir, C. Lee, R. Pea, & M. de Royston (Eds.), Handbook of the Cultural
Foundations of Learning (pp. 261–276). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203774977-18
Doherty, R., & Hilberg, R. (2007). Standards for effective pedagogy, classroom organization, English
proficiency, and student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 24–35. doi:10.3200/
JOER.101.1.24-35
Doherty, R., Hilberg, R., Epaloose, G., & Tharp, R. (2002). Standards Performance Continuum: Devel-
opment and validation of a measure of effective pedagogy. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(2),
78–89. doi:10.1080/00220670209598795
Estrada, P. (2005). The courage to grow: A researcher and teacher linking professional development
with small-group reading instructional and reading achievement. Research in the Teaching of English,
39(1), 320–364.
Estrada, P., & Imhoff, B. (1999). Patterns of instructional activity: Excellence, inclusion, fairness, and
harmony in six first grade classrooms (Technical Report No. 3). Santa Cruz, CA: University of California,
Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
García, O., Johnson, S., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student
bilingualism for learning. Caslon.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Heinemann.
Saunders, W. (1999). Improving literacy achievement for English learners in transitional bilingual pro-
grams. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5(4), 345–381. doi:10.1076/edre.5.4.345.6936
Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (1999). The effects of instructional conversations and literature logs
on the story comprehension and thematic understanding of English proficiency and limited English
proficient students. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Sherman, B., & Teemant, A. (2021). Enduring principles of learning: Pathways to vital learning in
vibrant classrooms. Academic Press.
Teemant, A., & Hausman, C. (2013, April 15). The relationship of teacher use of critical sociocultural
practices with student achievement. Critical Education, 4(4). Retrieved from https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/
index.php/criticaled/article/view/182434
Teemant, A., Leland, C., & Berghoff, B. (2014, April). Development and validation of a measure of
Critical Stance for instructional coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 136–147. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2013.11.008
Tharp, R. (2006). Four hundred years of evidence: Culture, pedagogy, and Native America. Journal of
American Indian Education, 45(2), 6–25.
Tharp, R., Estrada, P., Dalton, S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence,
fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Westview Press.
130

Viesca, K. M., Teemant, A., Hammer, S., Alisaari, J., Perumal, R., Flynn, N., Routarinne, S., Ennser-
Kananen, J. (Under Review). Quality content teaching for multilingual students: An international ex-
amination of excellence in instructional practices in four nations.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V.
John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.
Differentiation: Creating a wide variety of learning experiences and opportunities, acknowledging

the inherent diversity of students’ learning styles, interests, and backgrounds.
Dynamic Learning Centers: Learning centers that change frequently to support the content.
Fixed Learning Centers: Learning centers that do not change throughout the school year.
Instructional Conversations: Teaching through dialogue.
Translanguaging: Drawing on the entirety of one’s linguistic skills in the process of learning.
131
132
Chapter 7
Multilingual Writing Support:
Fostering Critical Consciousness Through
One-to-One Writing Conferencing
Dawn Janke
California Polytechnic State University, USA
ABSTRACT
This chapter will provide a research-based protocol for one-to-one writing conferencing that helps tutors
and teachers to navigate the tension between standardizing multilingual students’ language practices and
honoring their rhetorically rich linguistic backgrounds through a series of activities in a ten-week writing
center pedagogy course. This series of activities was specifically developed in an effort to respond to
writing tutors who are always seeking strategies that effectively apply theoretical principles in practice.
While this work focuses specifically on one-to-one writing tutoring, the topic of multilingual writing
support is applicable to any English language learning context. By the end of this chapter, readers will
have gained a practical strategy centered on using declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge
to help preservice tutors and teachers develop metalinguistic awareness and foster critical conscious-
ness through one-to-one conferencing.
INTRODUCTION
There exists a critical tension for writing teachers and tutors committed to social justice—empowering
multilingual writers to recognize and apply their unique rhetorical fluencies while being mindful of
institutional expectations for conformity to standard language practices. A cursory review of TESOL
and writing center journal publications over the past decade points to the commitment and challenges
within the two fields to deliver equitable and inclusive teaching and tutoring pedagogies that resist the
myth that academic literacy is the only foundation for success (Graff, 1991, 2017; Grimm, 1996, 1999)
and embrace the ways in which language variety is a personal and professional resource. Indeed, writing
centers (and the tutors who work within them) play a particularly important role in helping writers both
to reproduce and resist English language norms. This chapter thus considers writing centers as a rich site
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch007

Multilingual Writing Support
for examining the theory and practice of multilingual writing support, specifically for those who teach or
tutor English as an additional language. Focusing on the non-traditional TESOL context of the writing
center provides a distinct analysis of critical praxis in the teaching and advocacy of multilingual students.
Language and literacy have long been means by which dominant groups categorize and classify the
Other. In the educational context, multilingual students are othered because they differ in their use of the
English language and are thereby impacted by policies and practices designed to remediate a perceived
inability to meet a singular English language standard (Byrd & MacDonald, 2005; Colyar & Stich, 2011;
Flores & Drake, 2014; Makoni & Pennycook, 2006; Matsuda, 2006). This singular standard is estab-
lished by White supremacist, heteronormative, ableist, middle class masculine systems (Inoue, 2016),
and since standardized language is fixed, there is no room for difference. According to Milroy and Mil-
roy (2012), English language standardization is an ongoing process driven “by various social, political
and commercial needs” that intends to “ensure fixed values for the counters in a system” (p. 19). This
codification of standardized English is a social construct established through correctness (Lippi-Green,
1994; Milroy & Milroy, 2012). Correct usage of language is an in-group marker, according to Labov
(1966), and the in-group in the case of standardized English is the White, educated middle class (Baker-
Bell, 2019; Lippi-Green, 2012; Smitherman, 2000). Within the ideology of standardized English, certain
linguistic features assume greater value than others, and non-standard practices are “considered careless
and ignorant deviations” (Milroy & Milroy, p. 21). As Milroy and Milroy explain, “Language guardians
always consider non-standard usage (and sometimes standard colloquialisms) to arise from the perversity
of speakers or from cognitive deficiency (an inability to learn what is ‘correct’)” (p. 21). Hegemony is
maintained by these language guardians, who infiltrate lived environments. Lippi-Green (1994) suggests
that, primarily, the educational system promotes and protects standard language ideologies, with media,
the entertainment industry, and corporate America equally complicit in the indoctrination process. The
recent film Sorry to Bother You (2018) illustrates the saturation of standardization among these settings
in which an African American telemarketer is instructed to use his White voice and stick to the script if
he wants to be successful. This narrative of the minoritized Other who is expected to betray his identity
in the service of capital elides the strength of linguistic diversity in U.S. classrooms and boardrooms.
It also exemplifies the critical tension for writing teachers and tutors who are committed to justice in
serving multilingual students while working within a system that positions them as language guardians
in the interest of power and privilege.
Among multilingual students, there are 5 million English learners (EL) enrolled in the U.S. K-12
public school system (Irwin et al., 2021), and according to the U.S. Department of Education (n.d.),
only 67% of ELs graduate from high school compared to the 85% of native English-speaking peers who
do so. While ELs comprise one subgroup of multilingual students, a variety of factors contribute to the
opportunity gaps and linguistic prejudices that all multilingual students face on their academic journeys.
Because of the stringent norms and conventions of standardized English, effective communication
remains a barrier for college, professional, and civic success, specifically for those from minoritized
populations (Byrd & MacDonald, 2005; Colyar & Stich, 2011; Flores & Drake, 2014). Studies reveal
that U.S. institutions deem students who come from minoritized domestic (primarily Black and Latinx)
and international backgrounds not academically prepared to succeed in written communication (How-
ell, 2011; Smith Jaggars & West Stacey, 2014; Tierney & Duncheon, 2016; Tierney & Sablan, 2014).
While one cannot assume that the language proficiency of all minoritized domestic and international
multilingual students is below that of native English-speaking students, within the writing classroom
context linguistic biases have resulted in relegating domestic and international multilingual students
133

to basic skills courses and/or requiring them to engage in one-to-one writing tutoring to address their
language “deficiencies” (Boquet, 1999; Flores & Drake, 2014; Gutierrez, Morales, & Martinez, 2009;
Hall, 2014; Kanno & Varghese, 2010). Once students are labeled and placed in courses according to
their English language skills, they often are unable to exit out of specific learning tracks and/or lose
access to more complex learning opportunities (Callahan, Wilkinson, & Mueller, 2010; Shin, 2018).
Further, Fox (1994) points to the racism and xenophobia students from diverse language backgrounds
experience when she explains that some students resist academic writing, wary about “a new way of
expressing themselves that privileges certain thoughts and disregards others” (p. 77). Rather than change
the language practices of minoritized domestic and international multilingual students, institutions must
be willing to be changed by them (Fox, 1994; Grimm, 1996).
Tracing the history of writing education is necessary to contextualize teaching and tutoring practices
related to addressing language difference and to highlight the need to reformulate writing tutor training
towards critical consciousness. Four key turns in writing education—the traditional, the cognitivist, the
expressivist, and the social constructivist—frame the ways in which teachers and tutors have served as
the gatekeepers of academic literacy, both guiding and derailing the writing development of students
with diverse language backgrounds. The traditional method of writing pedagogy in the United States,
developed in the late 19th century, focused largely on a prescriptive approach to teaching standard English
that aimed to produce error-free prose with extra coursework and one-to-one tutoring for those students
categorized as having writing deficiencies. Like a storehouse of knowledge, teachers and tutors offering
writing support often employed the banking model of education to provide strategies for writers at the
individual level, mostly through skills and drills (Freire, 2000; Lunsford, 1991). By the 1950s, writing
education turned towards psychology to understand students’ writing behaviors, embracing a cognitivist
approach to knowledge and skills development where responsibility to eliminate error continued to rest on
the individual student (Boquet, 1999). During this time, as writing center scholar Boquet (1999) explains,
teachers and tutors adopted a “Rogerian non-directive” (p. 473) approach to writing support in which
question-asking could lead students to knowledge about English language standards they “presumably
already possess” (p. 470). The cognitivist approach to writing education centered around the mind, and
what writers were thinking when they made decisions during the writing process.
The shift in focus from product to process in writing education extended into the 1970s during what
is known as the expressivist era, when writing pedagogy prioritized a coming to voice over the repro-
duction of grammatical standards, much to the dismay of colleagues within the field and beyond who
lamented students’ inabilities to produce error-free prose (see Newsweek’s December 8, 1975, cover story
“Why Johnny Can’t Write” for a summary of the national writing crisis as depicted in the popular press).
With open admissions practices in place and an increase in students from underrepresented, minori-
tized backgrounds enrolled in college classes, post-secondary writing centers emerged to help remedy
linguistic diversity. Those working within the writing center context extolled the value of peer learning
and the ways in which a writing center session privileged process over product, while others viewed the
center as a fix-it shop to which they would refer students in need of correcting their language problems
(North, 1984). The center’s spaces were filled with well-intentioned peer tutors who could “influence
the means, power, and criteria by which” writers employed grammatical and rhetorical choices (Bruffee,
1978, p. 453). However, writing center administrators and tutors struggled to balance the material needs
of historically marginalized student populations with the counter-hegemonic ideals under which centers
more broadly attempted to operate (Bouquet, 1999; North, 1984).
134

By the mid-1980s, writing pedagogy fully embraced writing as a situational and social act. Teach-
ers and tutors thus encouraged students to examine the ways in which different discourse communities
abide by different communicative rules and conventions, recognizing that one’s language use amidst
those different communities could impact one’s cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1991; Gee, 2004). The re-
mediation of students’ basic (read: non-standard) writing skills pivoted towards the recognition that in
academic settings students are expected “to appropriate (or be appropriated by) a specialized discourse”
(Bartholomae, 1986, p. 4). Writing support thus focused on how tutors could help writers to analyze
rhetorical situations and effectively meet the expectations of different audiences, such as academic au-
diences. The collaborative learning enacted during writing support sessions was celebrated as a social
activity, and the writing center was touted as a student-centered space in which tutors and writers should
navigate academic discourse by engaging in dialogue about the writer’s languaging. Tutoring sessions
typically followed the same script: establish a welcoming environment, diagnose the writer’s issues, and
prioritize higher-order concerns (such as purpose, development, and organization) over sentence-level
concerns through non-directive tutoring strategies such as question-asking and dialogue. In short, as
Stephen North (1984) advocated in his foundational text, “The Idea of a Writing Center,” writing center
practitioners embraced the mission to “produce better writers, not better writing” (p. 438). Despite these
strides forward, the question remained: what does it mean to become a better writer, and at what cost
does one do so? While this approach to writing support was readily adopted, writing center scholars
began to question whether the center masqueraded as a safe space for balancing language, identity, and
power while indoctrinating students to grammatical and rhetorical norms (Bawarshi & Pelkowski, 1999;
Grimm, 1996; Lunsford, 1991).
Twenty-first century writing center practitioners continue to take issue with this dogmatic approach
to peer tutoring, recognizing that an aversion to one-to-one writing conferencing aligned with standard
English language norms denies students access to power (Condon & Olson, 2016; Greenfield, 2011;
Olson, 2013). Scholars also grapple with the fact that prescribing and regulating writers’ approaches to
language has a limiting effect on multilingual students, whose rich rhetorical resources are overlooked
or abandoned in favor of standard, academic English practices (Canagarajah, 2006a, 2017; Fox, 1994;
Greenfield, 2011; Grimm, 1996; Horner et al., 2011; Olson, 2013; Young, 2010). In all, the need to
redesign the ways in which preservice writing tutors are trained to support multilingual writers places
them in a double bind. The crux of the polemic for preservice writing tutors is how best to support
multilingual writers in adopting the dominant discourse of White standardized language norms while
also empowering these same writers to language critically (Gilyard, 2000). This chapter explores one
approach to making this double bind—and the ways in which language and literacy are deployed to sort
students—visible to preservice tutors so that they may critically reflect and respond to this tension. By
engaging with theoretical texts and completing a tutoring practicum in the university’s writing center,
preservice tutors grapple with questions of social justice for multilingual writers under the pressure of
reproducing the standardized language norms institutions value.
MULTILINGUAL WRITING SUPPORT
Today, writing tutors are well informed about the rhetorical knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for
effective written communication and are flexible when employing tutoring strategies to help writers—
including multilingual writers—meet writing goals relative to distinct rhetorical situations. They are
135

encouraged to ask questions and help writers come to voice while considering how that voice is helped
and hindered by standard, academic English. They also are expected to embrace cooperative disposi-
tions when working with writers, negotiating difference “with critical reflexivity on one’s own biases
and ethical sensitivity not to appropriate the other’s words and actions according to one’s own frames of
reference” (Canagarajah, 2017, p. 46). In other words, they are encouraged to unsettle themselves around
the construct and consequences of standardized English language norms by examining their responses
to language difference and the suggestions they make for remedying that difference.
From a top-down, institutional level, writing tutors are expected to serve in a regulatory role by
helping students transform their languaging into the more widely accepted practice of using English
for academic purposes to demonstrate knowledge and meaning-making (Grimm, 1996). At the same
time, within the context of writing tutor training, tutors are encouraged to develop a critical conscious-
ness towards writing and writing education, recognizing the human consequence of standard language
ideologies on historically marginalized student populations (Bawarshi & Pelkowski, 1999; Fox, 1994;
Villanueva, 2006; Young, 2010). As Gilyard (2000) argues, students must gain an “understanding how
the dominant or most powerful discourse serves to regulate and reproduce patterns of privilege” (p. 266).
Tension arises, then, when a tutor is tasked with balancing institutional expectations to help students
conform to standard language practices with meeting the goals of a student writer who may want to
erase any remnants of language difference, while also promoting and celebrating the writer’s nuanced
rhetorical knowledge and skills and improving conditions for linguistically diverse students. Simply put,
there is a demand for writing tutors to both embrace the system and empower the student, yet in material
ways those demands are mutually exclusive.
Scholars from a variety of fields have explored this tension within the teaching and tutoring context,
with writing centers positioned as a contact zone “where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each
other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power” (Pratt, 1991, p. 34). As rhetoric and
composition scholar Asao Inoue (2016) describes it:
Writing centers are often places where students and tutors create success in both quietly, cooperative
ways and contentious, tense ways, despite the institutional structures around them that determine stu-
dents’ learning and languaging and tutors reading and judging practices, all of which set limits on their
languaging and pressure people to succeed in particular ways. (p. 95)
Indeed, in any given writing support session, together tutors and students navigate demands for
correctness and examine how editing one’s language results in editing one’s self. Canagarajah (2006a)
advocates for a move away from correctness, noting that educators must train students to negotiate dif-
ference and develop a metalinguistic awareness. Applied to the writing center context, both students and
tutors must develop that awareness, employing it when considering ways to improve writing processes
and products. In response to this challenge, second language writing experts Matsuda and Cox (2009)
encourage writing tutors to “read beyond the differences” in a multilingual writer’s text and to “prioritize
their responses by paying attention to their own initial reactions to particular errors that seem to interfere
with their understanding of the meaning of the text” (p. 40, 44). The authors go on to suggest that “the
collaborative pedagogy of the writing center can turn differences into opportunities for growth both for
the reader and the writer” (p. 46). In theory, tutors would readily adopt the ideals posited by Matsuda
and Cox and enact them within the day-to-day realities of the writing center. In practice, however, both
136

tutors and students continue to contend with the singular linguistic standard necessitated by educational
institutions while aiming to reposition themselves within the systems and norms that foster that standard.
CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH ONE-TO-ONE CONFERENCING
Over the past decade, the author has wrestled with how best to provide practical approaches to the very
real tension preservice and in-service tutors face daily during one-to-one conferencing. The result of
this work is a ten-week writing center pedagogy course at a post-secondary four-year public institution
on the west coast of the United States, which emphasizes readings and activities intended to encourage
preservice tutors to analyze their beliefs and assumptions about good writing and to develop a critical
consciousness for inclusive and effective writing support. During the course, preservice tutors gain an
understanding of how language and literacy have historically been used to categorize and classify individu-
als and how linguistic prejudice continues to impact educational and professional settings by engaging
with a series of theoretical texts and completing a tutoring practicum in the university’s writing center.
The course begins with an activity intended to prompt individual reflection on how we define good
writing, and the origins of our assumptions about good writing. In a freewriting activity, preservice tu-
tors are invited to reflect on their own writing processes and to consider how they’ve come to determine
what good writing looks like. The freewrite produces a variety of responses, with some preservice tu-
tors naming the one high school teacher who stretched their writing skills development more than any
other and other students citing how much they enjoy editing their friends’ texts, trusting their ability to
do so because they’ve always done well on writing assignments. When pushed harder to articulate how
they know what choices to make to produce good writing, students inevitably reference the clarity and
coherence of words but are unable to express how or why writing is effective beyond sentence-level
correctness. This theme of what good writing is, and how to produce it, continues as an ongoing thread
as preservice tutors engage in assigned readings. At the outset of discussions, for example, preservice
tutors are asked the following questions: how would these authors define good writing, and how have
their texts influenced your own understanding of good writing?
The first group of readings with which preservice tutors are invited to engage is Bruffee’s (1984)
“Peer Tutoring and the ‘Conversation of Mankind,’” North’s (1984) “The Idea of a Writing Center,” and
Boquet’s (1999) “‘Our Little Secret’: A History of Writing Centers, Pre- to Post-Open Admissions.” From
these three readings, preservice tutors develop a foundation of the principles of writing center pedagogy,
characterizing writing support sessions as peer-led, non-hierarchical, collaborative, student-centered,
dialogic, and process oriented. Preservice tutors also gain from these readings an understanding of the
historical turns writing center work has taken since the late 19th century and come to know writing sup-
port both as a method outside of the curriculum and as a site “where students should feel secure in their
expression of thoughts and ideas” (Boquet, 1999, p. 470). Alongside a presentation on the abridged
history of writing education, preservice tutors situate themselves within the skills versus process debate
of writing education, particularly as it relates both to underserved minoritized writers and to domestic
and international multilingual writers. They also begin to critically reflect on the writing standards and
expectations they have inherited based on their own positionalities.
The next reading in the series, Delpit’s (1988) “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in
Educating Other People’s Children,” offers an important perspective on the skills versus process debate
and helps to develop preservice tutors’ critical consciousness. While the article itself is dated, Delpit’s
137

work is foundational. Her stance is one that resonates with preservice tutors and helps them begin to
articulate their commitments and priorities for writing support. Though Delpit’s article places the debate
over product and process in the context of the classroom, writing tutors in a one-to-one setting can eas-
ily adapt her argument that all writing educators should value students’ home languages and individual
writing processes while recognizing “students will be judged on their product regardless of the process
they utilized to achieve it” (p. 287). By and large, preservice tutors agree with Delpit’s conclusion that
they should “help students to establish their own voices, but to coach those voices to produce notes that
will be heard clearly in the larger society” (p. 296). While Delpit helps to convince preservice tutors
that English language standards are arbitrary and politically charged, they also are convinced that larger
society values on those texts produced in standard edited academic English. In other words, for preser-
vice tutors, good writers produce prose that aligns with standard language ideologies, and their job as
tutors is to help produce good writers (North, 1984). They therefore conclude that they must abandon
the notion of helping writers to improve their writing processes and instead must focus on correcting
lexicogrammatical errors during tutoring sessions. At the end week two of the course, preservice tutors
view good writing as contextually appropriate writing, recognizing that within the academic context there
is little room for writing outside of standardized English language norms and conventions. Preservice
tutors also begin to value the role they may play in empowering peers to cultivate their cultural capital
through using language appropriate to the academic context.
During week three of the course, preservice tutors engage in a set of readings that help to complicate
the notion of good writing and the role of a tutor in helping a writer to produce it. They read and pre-
pare to discuss Lunsford’s (1991) “Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center,” Grimm’s
(1996) “The Regulatory Role of the Writing Center: Coming to Terms with a Loss of Innocence,” and
Bawarshi and Pelkowski (1999) “Postcolonialism and the Idea of a Writing Center.” Collectively, these
articles work well together in that they question whether writing center work is truly counterhegemonic.
Lunsford examines the interplay of control and collaboration within writing center work, claiming that a
“successful collaboration […], collaboration that is attuned to diversity, goes deeply against the grain of
education in America” (p. 112). Whereas according to Lunsford, power should always rest in the negoti-
ating group – or the tutor and the writer within the context of a one-to-one conference – because writing
center work is situated within “institutions that insist on rigidly controlled individual performance” (p.
114), the imperative to strive towards true collaboration goes well beyond the prescriptive sharing of
writing skills and strategies and the misappropriated control within a writing support session. Grimm
further complicates the romantic notion of student-centered, collaborative writing center sessions by
recognizing that basically writing centers help “students conform to the regulatory power that resides in
assignments, testing, and grading practices” (p. 8), and tutors forfeit critical reflection when they ignore
the ways in which the status quo is reinforced in the process. At this point in the course, preservice tutors
begin to caution against changing a student’s language practices during a one-to-one conference in an
effort to resist an authoritarian approach to writing support, but still wrestle with how to avoid doing so
when the academy expects writers to demonstrate standard academic English.
Bawarshi and Pelkowski (1999) further complicate preservice tutors’ understanding of the purpose
of one-to-one conferencing by acknowledging that helping to produce better writers that meet institu-
tionalized standards reproduces a colonialist paradigm because those standards devalue and attempt to
eradicate language difference. “Is the change the writing center produces in writers and their ‘rituals,’
especially basic and other marginalized writers, a positive change? The answer cannot be an innocent
‘yes.’ And it should certainly not be treated as a ‘most natural’ enterprise” (Bawarshi & Pelkowski, 1999,
138

p. 46). During discussion of this article, preservice tutors often observe that they had not considered how
language can influence (anti)racist practices. They also recognize that the authors’ charge that writing
centers should “equip [marginalized] students with the skills necessary for analyzing conventions so
that they can translate their knowledge into successful writing practices” (p.55) aligns well with Delpit
(1988) but falls short in providing specific strategies for doing so. In all, by engaging in these three
texts, preservice tutors begin to develop a critical consciousness towards literacy and languaging. They
understand that “good” writing is a construct in place to protect White supremacist, heteronormative,
ableist, middle class masculine systems of power, and they covet concrete practices to help writers de-
velop effective strategies for languaging for their own purposes.
In terms of using language for one’s own purposes, Young’s (2010) “Should Writers Use They Own
English?” and Greenfield’s (2011) “The ‘Standard English’ Fairy Tale: A Rhetorical Analysis of Racist
Pedagogies and Commonplace Assumptions about Language Diversity” provide preservice tutors more
to consider. Young’s text is a prime example of how to do so, as he weaves together language varieties to
exemplify the ways in which code meshing can be deployed to impactful ends. Code meshing, according
to Young, “blend[s] dialects, international languages, local idioms, chat-room lingo, and the rhetorical
styles of various ethnic and cultural groups in both formal and informal speech acts” (p. 114). Overall,
preservice tutors understand and embrace the concept, but they are unsettled by Young’s text, especially
for the ways in which it complicates their definition of good writing because, as they claim, writing
like that would not earn an “A” grade in a class. Preservice tutors want to align with Young’s rhetorical
choice to code mesh among language varieties as he argues for an expanded notion of good writing and
an acceptance of language diversity, but a level of discomfort arises when they consider the outcomes
for student writers who make similar choices with their own language codes. Preservice tutors wonder:
should writing support err on the side of pragmatism, helping writers improve texts based on standard
language ideologies, or should tutors strive for social justice, encouraging student writers to embrace
their linguistic diversity and resist being silenced by conformity? Most lean towards the pragmatic
side, claiming that helping writers adopt and perform standard edited American English affords writers
the cultural capital they need to meet educational and personal goals. Preservice tutors ultimately are
concerned that code meshing will be too consequential in academic and professional contexts. Green-
field advocates for “giving all students as many language tools as possible” while also “helping them
develop a critical consciousness of the effects of their choices at an individual and institutional level”
and “cultivating in them a sense of agency in combating, linguistically and otherwise, the injustices they
encounter along the way” (p. 58). With this reading, preservice tutors begin to cite writers’ agency as
they reason through the question of whether to prioritize language homogeneity during writing support
sessions. Yet even after reading Young and Greenfield, preservice tutors seem hesitant to unlearn stan-
dard English expectations and are fearful of encouraging others to shuffle them off as well. It is not that
preservice tutors disagree that “humans actively select which Englishes will be privileged” (Greenfield,
2011, p. 43), but that they feel helpless in this quandary, as if they have no power to resist adhering to
the dominant discourse. They feel it is their duty to help writers succeed within it rather than arming
them with tools to work against it.
While there is no definitive solution to the tension within which writing tutors operate, some strate-
gies for addressing it are provided in the final set of course readings: “Opinion: Language Difference
in Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach” (Horner et al., 2011); “Rethinking Our Work with Mul-
tilingual Writers: The Ethics and Responsibility of Language Teaching in The Writing Center” (Olson,
2013); and “Tutoring Translingual Writers: The Logistics of Error and Ingenuity” (Mendez Newman,
139

2017). Together, these three texts bring the concept of translanguaging into the conversation and further
preservice tutors’ critical consciousness. Translanguaging is the process by which multilingual writers
access and employ features and strategies from their full linguistic repertoire for knowledge and mean-
ing making in communicative contexts. For example, when multilingual writers apply the practice of
translanguaging in their written texts, they draw from their complete set of linguistic resources, using
rhetorical agency to transfer language practices into different environments. While sometimes considered
to be synonymous with the practice of code meshing (Young, 2010), translanguaging extends beyond the
combining of different linguistic registers by also opening a space in which students can examine how/
when standardized English norms and conventions are not always the most rhetorically effective. “This
sense of fluidity, negotiating, using what’s needed when needed to make meaning, suggests competence
isn’t about ‘mastery’ (or at least isn’t only about mastery) but about strategy and rhetorical-linguistic
flexibility in composing a given text” (Donahue, 2018, p. 211). Not only is it important to encourage
writers to apply and applaud their translanguaging practices in a variety of rhetorical contexts but also
to help tutors gain fluency as readers of translingual texts situated within an institutional context. They
can do so with “an openness to linguistic differences and the ability to construct useful meanings from
perceptions of them” (Horner et al., 2011, p. 308). In other words, preservice tutors must shift from
concluding that an error results from lack of knowledge or effort to considering what kinds of knowledge
the writer applied to the linguistic choice and why. To do this, Olson (2013) suggests that “discussing
with writers the various reasons behind a question or suggestion about language use – whether it be a
grammatical rule or a discussion of the reasons informing the typical American academic essay styles
and forms – allows for multilingual writers to make connections between the use of American academic
Englishes and the other discourse communities of which they are a part” (p. 4). Similarly, Mendez New-
man (2017) implores tutors to avoid reading for error and, instead, consider “what the writer might be
trying to express through translingual innovation” (p. 6). Olson recognizes the ways in which institutional
expectations are conflated with the linguistic goals and practices of multilingual writers—the dilemma
presents itself daily in one-to-one conferencing, but she insists that tutors are accountable neither to
systems nor to standards.
Tutors are accountable to writers and must center each interaction on the individual, not the institution.
One practical approach to doing so is to view language difference as a resource and not as a restriction
(Horner et al., 2011). Such a shift in perspective helps preservice tutors to reorient themselves towards
the writer rather than the limiting systems within which the writer must operate. Olson (2013) refers to
this as a multilingual orientation to one-to-one conferencing, borrowing from Canagarajah’s (2006b)
description of a multilingual orientation as one in which multilingual writers shuttle between language
communities. Olson (2013) argues that like universal design, a multilingual orientation should be the
norm for every writing support session. The aim of universal design is to compose environments so
they can be “accessed, understood, and used to the greatest extent possible by all people regardless
of their age, size, ability, or disability (National Disability Authority, 2020). Similarly, a multilingual
orientation fosters an equitable and inclusive mindset when interacting with others regardless of their
language background. This inclusive approach to writing support is not one in which tutors withhold
knowledge about academic English standards and expectations but one in which the tutor sees the writer
as agentive and understands the text as fluid. A multilingual orientation broadens the conversation to
include not only the conventions of standard, edited American English but also the conventions of other
discourses with which it intersects. In one-to-one conferencing, tutors must engage consciously with
those intersections, applying a metalinguistic awareness to do so. In sum, these readings help preservice
140

tutors adjust/transform how they define and produce good writing. They come to know it as negotiable,
seeing linguistic diversity as meaningful and knowing better how to attend to that meaning.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
To help reinforce the theoretical concepts explored in the readings discussed above, preservice tutors in
the ten-week course are assigned the following activities: a language attitude survey; a reading response;
a practice response to a sample student essay; and a tutoring practicum that includes an observation
report, tutoring reflection, and a tutoring philosophy. These activities are designed to help preservice
tutors develop and exercise metalinguistic awareness and critical consciousness.
Language Attitude Survey
At the start of week two, preservice tutors are asked to complete a language attitude survey in response
to a variety of statements designed to help them identify potential biases. Drawing from Metz (2019)
and Smitherman and Villanueva (2000) survey statements include the following: standard English is the
correct form of English, standard English is necessary for academic and professional settings, people
who speak standard English are treated better in U.S. society, multiple dialects should be valued, and
students should be taught to employ multiple dialects for a range of rhetorical purposes. (See Appendix
1 for the full survey.) Survey responses are anonymized and shared with the preservice tutors. Results
on the whole reveal that while preservice tutors accept counter-hegemonic views by supporting the use
of multiple dialects for different rhetorical purposes, they also see the need for writers to adopt standard
English for academic and professional settings. The results are in line with a recent survey of Missouri
school teachers analyzed by Metz (2019), where respondents expressed counter-hegemonic views of
the English teacher’s role: they granted that English teachers should teach students the value of multiple
dialects of English and to use multiple dialects for a range of purposes. At the same time, teachers agreed
with the hegemonic aspects of the dominant school language narrative: they tended to support the idea
that standardized English is correct, and that students should use standardized English rather than other
dialects of English, particularly in academic settings (Metz, 2019). Preservice tutors’ responses to the
Language Attitude Survey similarly highlight the connection between linguistic and social biases and
emphasize the tension within which one-to-one writing support rests. Negative language attitudes pose
a barrier to inclusive writing support; thus, preservice tutors must become distinctly conscious of their
covert attitudes toward language difference and the impact of those attitudes upon a students’ personal,
social, and academic wellbeing.
Reading Response
In the reading response assignment, preservice tutors are asked to select from course readings, putting
writing center scholars’ viewpoints about a certain topic into conversation and then claiming and sup-
porting their own stance on the topic. For example, they may pair Lunsford (1991) with Bawarski and
Pelkowski (1999) to consider the ways in which the two articles parse out the idea of a writing center and
the role writing tutors play in supporting and suppressing student writers. In this assignment, preservice
tutors are expected to analyze and synthesize an argument by selecting a single topic from the readings
141

(e.g., peer tutoring masquerades as democracy) and tracing it through two texts. In the introduction to
the essay, preservice tutors present the writing center-related issue so readers become interested in it, see
its problematic nature, and/or appreciate its significance. Then, they present their own working stance
on the issue, which has grown out of the analysis and synthesis of their chosen readings. Early in the
essay, they summarize the readings, assuming their audience has little knowledge of them. The body
of the paper then accomplishes two main goals: 1) Through analysis, the preservice tutor demonstrates
how the two texts provide similar and different perspectives on the issue; and 2) Through synthesis, the
preservice tutor offers their own perspective by making connections among the ideas presented in the
readings and then establishing their own, new view on the topic as informed by the readings. As part
of the reflecting/drafting process for this activity, preservice tutors engage in a writing consultation at
the university’s writing center. For many preservice tutors, this is their first time being tutored, and the
experience has proven invaluable, particularly for helping the preservice tutors view and understand
tutoring from the perspective of a writer.
Practice Responding to Sample Student Essay
Weekly course meetings are organized with 45 minutes dedicated to a discussion of assigned readings
and 45 minutes dedicated to sample essays for which preservice tutors practice preparing responses. The
aim here is to give tutors time to apply the theory presented in the readings to written texts. In advance
of weekly course meetings, preservice tutors are provided with anonymized student essays sampled from
first-year composition courses collected and used with permission along with a copy of the writing as-
signment to which the student responded. These essays represent minoritized domestic and international
multilingual students and offer preservice tutors authentic contexts in which to develop critical reflexivity
and metalinguistic awareness. Through weekly practice analyzing student writing, tutors learn to identify
and assess textual issues and errors to help writers develop their knowledge and skills in a culturally
responsive manner, using types of knowledge as a framework for improving their own and the writers’
abilities to engage in translanguaging practices. (See Appendix 2 for a Sample Student Essay Analysis
Worksheet.) Identifying patterns of error in multilingual writing is a common practice encouraged by
writing center practitioners, yet as Nakamaru (2010) notes, “a focus on finding and correcting errors
can potentially limit the discussion on how to ‘clean up’ what is already there” (p. 16) as if non-standard
language varieties are dis-ordered or dirty. Preservice tutors are encouraged not to search for and count
frequent errors, but to notice those that get in the way of meaning.
By applying a types-of-knowledge approach to examining what presents as error according to academic
English standards and expectations, preservice tutors locate where declarative, procedural, and condi-
tional knowledge needs can be addressed not to erase language difference but instead to foster language
empowerment. Bawarshi and Pelkowski (1999) state, “Knowing not only what writing does, but also why
and where it does it, allows [marginalized] student writers to make more informed choices” (p. 55). By
identifying the declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge needs, tutors and writers can develop
metalinguistic awareness and stretch their ability to talk about writing beyond what is correct or what
sounds right. Based on the author’s experience with preservice tutors, they are already adept at identify-
ing patterns of error at the declarative level; that is, they have the knowledge and skills to pinpoint where
errors exist in a text. Their immediate response, then, when reviewing sample students’ texts is to fix the
errors, but the course discourages that practice. Instead, when preservice tutors encounter languaging
outside the standard ideology, they are encouraged to study the texts at the procedural and conditional
142

levels. As Horner, Lu, Jones Royster, and Trimbur (2011) encourage, preservice tutors will benefit from
more “conscious and critical attention to how writers deploy” linguistic choices by considering “what
the writers are doing with language and why” (pp. 304-305, emphasis added). That is, preservice tu-
tors should examine how the procedural and conditional knowledge interacts to demonstrate language
competencies and in what ways those competencies work with or against the discourse conventions in
which the text is situated.
During the practice responses to sample student essays, preservice tutors learn to ask why writers
make the choices they make and whose interests those choices ultimately serve. Understanding the how
and why “is vital to fostering self-reliance” in both writers and tutors (Mendez Newman, 2017). Corco-
ran (2017) argues, “the ability to theorize and contextualize the ever-shifting contours of language and
literacy is the critical skill that will serve students the most throughout their academic careers and their
political lives” (p. 55). When preservice tutors develop this critical skill, they gain reflective strategies
for helping the writers with whom they work to develop it as well. The author concludes that practicing
with sample texts using a types-of-knowledge framework coupled with a multilingual orientation (Ol-
son, 2013) helps preservice tutors to learn how to transfer their metalinguistic awareness into everyday
practice when supporting writers. This practice prompts preservice tutors to “develop sophisticated and
analytical vocabularies to describe [language and literacy] practices” (Corcoran, 2017, p. 75) and, in turn,
apply those vocabularies when engaging in dialogue during one-to-one conferencing. While this activity
does not resolve the tension tutors face when they encounter language varieties in a text, it affords them
an assets-based approach to talking about what, how, and why writers language in the ways they do.
Tutoring Practicum
In addition to weekly group meetings, preservice tutors are expected to visit the university’s writing
center at any time during its hours of operation, spending an hour each week participating in a variety
of one-to-one writing consultations. Preservice tutors set up their hourlong writing center visit with
the writing center’s front-desk staff, who helps to pair them with a tutor in advance of an appointment.
While some preservice tutors are inclined to select the same tutor as a mentor for each of the practicum’s
ten weeks, they instead are encouraged to shift from tutor to tutor so they get exposed to an array of
strategies and sessions. Coupled with the theoretical texts in which they engage, the different sessions
they observe provide them a glimpse into the ways in which tutors apply an ethic of informed flexibility
when working with minoritized domestic and international multilingual writers. Before joining a ses-
sion, a tutor always asks the writer if they are comfortable allowing the preservice tutor to sit in. During
weeks one through five, preservice tutors spend the hour observing tutors in practice, taking notes and
reflecting how the sessions align or contradict the theoretical frames presented in the readings. (See
Appendix 3 for the Observation Guide.) Often during these first five weeks, preservice tutors dialogue
with inservice tutors to learn first-hand why they made the choices they did during a session, which
provides an opportunity for preservice tutors to parse out what makes for a successful writing center
session (e.g., is it successful if/when a tutor helps a writer reproduce standardized language norms?).
This dialogue spurs further reflection and analysis for the preservice tutors, which helps to prepare them
to tutor independently. Beginning week six, preservice tutors co-tutor and build up to working one-to-
one with students on their own for weeks nine and ten. During week ten, preservice tutors are asked to
record their tutoring session, with the writer’s permission, and then critically reflect on the strategies
143

they enacted, considering how course themes and writing center pedagogy theories played out during
the one-to-one conference they observed and offered.
Observation Report: During week three, preservice tutors are asked to complete a report based
on a tutoring session they observe during their tutoring practicum. This activity supports preservice
tutors in developing a tutoring philosophy by observing others’ sessions and analyzing how a tutor’s
practices align with values communicated through the theoretical texts with which they have engaged.
Valued practices are difficult to sustain because they are steeped in the ideal, so while writing tutors may
demonstrate strategies towards those valued practices, they may not embed those values consistently in
every session. Instead, upon observation, the practices may be evident both as goals as goals for which
the tutor strives and aspirations towards which the writer works. Additionally, experienced consultants
may, at times, rely on ineffective tutoring routines, so observation must always be conducted with a
critical eye: What do consultants do that helps or hinders the learning of a writer? What alternative
strategies could have been employed? Preservice tutors are expected to identify the following valued
writing center practices: understanding the expectations of an assignment and analyzing the rhetorical
situation, prioritizing whole-essay and sentence-level concerns, and negotiating among non-directive
and directive tutoring approaches that vary in response to the writer’s changing needs or behaviors and
ensure collaborative learning is taking place.
Tutoring Reflection: After viewing their recorded tutoring session, preservice tutors are asked to write
a reflection in which they evaluate the choices they made as a tutor (.g., were they overly directive at some
point, and if so, why; what factors contributed to their decision to apply certain tutoring strategies, and
in hindsight were their choices effective); consider moments, if any, when they talked more and listened
less; analyze what questions they asked and how those questions advanced the writer’s understanding of
rhetorical effectiveness; think about the role they played in perpetuating or challenging standard English
language norms and/or whether they helped the writer to develop a critical consciousness around their
own languaging; and analyze how well they managed their time when shifting from the opening to the
concluding moments, establishing a welcoming space, conversing about the expectations of the writing
task, negotiating the agenda based on the writer’s goals and their own, and employing student-centered
strategies for meetings those goals.
Tutoring Philosophy: At the end of the ten-week term, preservice tutors create a statement on tutor-
ing – a philosophy that will guide their work in the university’s writing center and beyond. A tutoring
philosophy is part personal discovery and part manifesto/a/x. It is an articulation of an individual’s
evolving beliefs around the purpose of peer-to-peer tutoring and its role in combatting linguistic bias.
As time goes by, preservice tutors will inevitably revise and refine their philosophy, but the initial act
of defining their commitments and values helps them to cultivate a tutor identity. Tutoring philosophies
typically include one or more of the following: (a) the tutor’s central goals and primary objectives, from
where those goals and objectives come, and why they are vital to writing support success; (b) the specific
tutoring strategies/practices that will help them to achieve or work towards the goals and objectives; (c)
an explanation of how employing such strategies/practices confirms that goals and objectives are met;
and (d) personal or professional aspirations that are, in part, met through the role of tutor. In all, through
this activity, preservice tutors distinguish the key characteristics that describe who they are as tutors and
choose a guiding arc or theme that best underscores their practice.
Combined with the readings, these learning activities are a facilitative tool. The reflective opportuni-
ties are intentionally scaffolded to allow preservice tutors time to process new ideas independently and
144

collectively, build on their knowledge and experience, and progress towards a tutor identity steeped in
critical consciousness.
Excerpts from reading responses, tutor reflections, and tutoring philosophies trace preservice tutor
development over the course of the ten-week experience. While the demographic of the institution at
which this course is offered is predominately white, the portraits of practice presented in this section
represent undergraduate and graduate students from a variety of academic and linguistic backgrounds,
albeit this group of preservice tutors have been academically successful in the traditional sense, includ-
ing their ability to perform standard languaging. Regardless of background, preservice tutors’ comments
and reflections demonstrate a commitment to service and an understanding of writing tutoring as service
in action. As these students navigate the tension between standardizing multilingual students’ language
practices and honoring their rhetorically rich linguistic backgrounds, the question remains in whose
interests they serve.
Early in the course, one preservice tutor writes,
“When I first visited the Writing Center, I thought that the tutor’s job was simply to fix my grammar and
ensure that my writing was clear while I sat there quietly employing a writer-oriented approach that
will help students become stronger writers.”
This preservice tutor has begun to recognize the ways in which writing support extends well beyond
sentence-level edits. Another preservice tutor wrestling with the debate between a product or process
approach to writing support states,
“‘Standard’ English is simply a regurgitated practice that can prohibit those from diverse backgrounds
from effectively communicating their ideas. Yet, I believe it is a disservice to not give students the tools
they need to successfully communicate within the current confines of the academic and professional
discourse communities.”
Another preservice tutor states,
“I hope to guide my consultants through the standardized world of academia AND draw their attention to
its fundamentally hierarchical structure; I hope to explain how the system expects them to use language
(that is, ‘correct’ language) AND celebrate their own, personal languages. One dilemma with this split
mentality is putting it into action. In short, how do I do both in a half-hour session?”
As evident in the quote above, early in the course, preservice tutors grapple with this tension. And
while they recognize the inherent tension in their role as writing tutor, they also gain a sense of pride
for the critical role they play in inclusive writing pedagogies. One preservice tutor writes,
145

“whether it is because of their administrative placement outside the curriculum or their literal geographic
location away from the classroom, writing centers have the capacity to subversively draw students’ at-
tention beyond their language use and towards the very power structures that confine it.”
As preservice tutors continue through the ten-week learning experience, they begin to identify gaps
in their own knowledge. For example, one preservice tutor writes,
“Many tutors are sent into the field without the proper linguistic or inter-cultural understanding to assist
ESL students in their continued learning of English, and thus struggle to prioritize the acute and specific
needs of ESL students. By assisting tutors in their acquisition of these skills, the writing center can take
concrete steps towards the all-inclusive, student centered space that many wish it to be.”
That same preservice tutor goes on to describe how they realizes the goal of one-to-one conferencing
is to ask “facilitative questions” that help a writer draw from their linguistic backgrounds to effectively
meet the expectations of an assignment.
Eventually, preservice tutors begin to articulate their goals and commitments in one-to-one writing
conferences. One preservice tutor states,
“If a writer brings an essay that is not written in standard English or includes stylistic choices that are
atypical to the academic discourse community, I will ensure that I encourage them in their endeavors
and focus on a conversation about what is rhetorically effective, not what is typically correct.”
Another writes,
As a tutor, I will be sure to carefully attend to a writer’s desire to “improve” their writing to match the
perceived “Standard English” which they read in their textbooks and which they hear many of their pro-
fessors speaking. Being able to write in “Standard English,” especially for a person of color, especially
for a non-native English speaker, especially for a struggling undergraduate, is, for the most pragmatic
of reasons, important to the writer’s success; and, understanding the nuanced oppression of requiring
a writer to alter their writing style and their language to meet a white middle-class English standard is
a vital conversation to have with the writer.
This sentiment is repeated by another preservice tutor who articulates the role of a tutor as follows:
Tutors, in fact, may occupy perhaps the most radical spaces of linguistic education, spaces in which the
necessarily rigid theoretical frameworks of a classroom space are dismantled, and the power to direct
one’s education is wielded by the students themselves. My role as a tutor is not to undermine scholastic
language norms, nor is it to equip students with the language of access or power, my goal is simply to
serve students in support of their own goals in the most productive way that I can. My role as a tutor is
to cultivate a rare and unique space within the institution that provides students with the authority and
autonomy to direct their own education.
Another states,
146

Teaching in America is often pigeonholed into an authoritarian structure depicted as some all-knowing
instructor dispensing knowledge unto their students followed by memorization and tests. This is the model
that I believe peer tutoring seeks to challenge in ways that are often encouraged yet hard to implicate
in concrete terms. Classrooms prescribe a strict style centered on an edited-American English that, un-
fortunately, fails to account for the plethora of unique and diverse individuals that may not have grown
up surrounded by this dialect in their homes; because of this, many are put at a severe disadvantage
throughout their early academic careers and are forced to either conform to the standard or fail reject-
ing it. I believe, however, that the Writing Center – and others like it – are uniquely situated to combat
these benchmarks and preserve every student’s unique voice. While this does not mean ignoring these
standardized conventions, our position primes us to educate students about these conventions and how
to circumvent them as necessary. As a peer tutor, I align with these sentiments and those who advocate
for them (i.e., Young) as becoming a solution to this issue rather than a perpetuator of it.
In all, it is evident in these quotes that preservice tutors have developed strong beliefs on their pur-
pose as writing tutors. They have also developed a critical consciousness towards standard language
ideologies. Perhaps most powerful is the concluding statement of one preservice tutor’s philosophy: “As
a tutor, I will work with the writer rather than on the writer” (italics added).
DISCUSSION
The readings and activities outlined in this chapter are designed to guide preservice tutors to a place in
which they can comfortably counter the hegemonic narrative around English for academic and profes-
sional purposes. Indeed, this is a challenge, and while this chapter does not resolve the tension implicit
in the tug and pull between standard language ideologies and linguistic diversity, this offering is one
way of addressing this tension. What is presented here is not static – the selected readings and activities
have changed over the past decade in an attempt to better prepare preservice tutors to adopt a critical
consciousness for multilingual writing support. The goal is to encourage critical thinking and create condi-
tions for inclusive and equitable writing support, and to give preservice tutors permission not to abide by
language expectations, especially when those expectations challenge who writers are as human beings.
Preservice tutors respond well to this current iteration of tutor preparation, though the author is still
searching for definitive activities for helping tutors to reckon with the myth of standard language in
their writing support practices. The position in which writing tutors find themselves is a difficult one.
Inevitably, with each one-to-one conference, they are caught between a competing sense of purpose. At
the culmination of the course, preservice tutors remain conflicted —at a theoretical level, many embrace
the tenets of translingualism, yet in practice, many conclude that it is not right for them to withhold
standard English writing skills because they believe doing so would disempower multilingual writers.
Indeed, it is naïve to ignore the cost of English competency. And the intention here is not to ignore that
cost, but instead to create a space for preservice tutors to critically reflect on their own language and
literacy practices so that they foster critical consciousness in their one-to-one conferences. Writing tu-
tors often transition into preservice and inservice teachers. To advocate for linguistic justice on behalf
of, or alongside, multilingual writers, tutors and teachers must develop critical consciousness and resist
the culturally imperialistic impulse to maintain order by prescribing standardized language norms that
147

reproduce hierarchy and hegemony. Overall, this chapter offers readers a reproducible research-based
practice for helping preservice tutors to do just that.
The protocol described here has grown in meaning for the author, a writing center administrator who
is constantly in search of how best to move theory into practice for her preservice tutors. Of course,
implementing this ten-week protocol in other contexts may pose a challenge, if for no other reason than
time. Instead, consider it a menu from which to pair reading and activities as appropriate, recognizing
that no one strategy effectively applies to all writing support sessions because each tutor, each writer,
and each rhetorical situation combines to produce a unique instance of one-to-one conferencing. Tutors
must draw from a broad range of strategies and techniques when working with historically marginal-
ized domestic and international writers. Those strategies and techniques are developed over time with
each one-to-one session – they cannot be boxed up with a bow and handed over in any preservice train-
ing experience. What the author has learned through years of improving on this series of readings and
activities is that tutors need to practice metalinguistic awareness and foster critical consciousness, in
themselves and with the writers with whom they work. They genuinely aim to honor linguistic difference
but find it incredibly difficult to do so while operating within a system of oppressive language standards,
particularly when they are part of that system. Tutors are with and against institutionalized language
practices, and together with writers they must tend to that tension.
REFERENCES
Baker-Bell, A. (2019). Dismantling anti-black linguistic racism in English language arts classrooms:
Toward an anti-racist black language pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 59(1), 8–21. doi:10.1080/00405
841.2019.1665415
Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the university. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 4–23. doi:10.37514/
JBW-J.1986.5.1.02
Bawarshi, A., & Pelkowski, S. (1999). Postcolonialism and the idea of a writing center. Writing Center
Journal, 19(2), 41–58.
Boquet, E. H. (1999). Our little secret: A history of writing centers, pre-to-post open admissions. College
Composition and Communication, 50(3), 463–482. doi:10.2307/358861
Bruffee, K. (1978). The Brooklyn plan: Attaining intellectual growth through peer-group tutoring. Lib-
eral Education, 64(4), 447–468.
Bruffee, K. (1984). Peer tutoring and the conversation of mankind. In C. Murphy & J. Law (Eds.),
Landmark essays on writing centers (pp. 87–98). Hermagoras Press.
Byrd, K. L., & MacDonald, G. (2005). Defining college readiness from the inside out: First-generation
college student perspectives. Community College Review, 33(1), 22–37. doi:10.1177/009155210503300102
Callahan, R., Wilkinson, L., & Mueller, C. (2010). Academic achievement and course taking among
language minority youth in U.S. schools: Effects of ESL placement. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 32(1), 84–117. doi:10.3102/0162373709359805 PMID:25431506
148

Canagarajah, A. S. (2006a). After disinvention: Possibilities for communication, community, and com-
petence. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 233–239).
Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853599255-012
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006b). Toward a writing pedagogy of shutting between languages: Learning from
multilingual writers. College English, 68(6), 589–604. doi:10.2307/25472177
Canagarajah, A. S. (2017). Translingual practices and neoliberal policies. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-41243-6
Colyar, J., & Stich, A. E. (2011). Discourse of remediation: Low-income students and academic identi-
ties. The American Behavioral Scientist, 55(2), 121–141. doi:10.1177/0002764210381870
Condon, F., & Olson, B. (2016). Building a house for linguistic diversity: Writing centers, English lan-
guage teaching and learning, and social justice. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.), Tutoring second language
writers (pp. 25–52). Utah State University Press. doi:10.7330/9781607324140.c002
Corcoran, L. (2017). Languaging 101. Journal of Basic Writing, 36(2), 54–77. doi:10.37514/JBW-
J.2017.36.2.04
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in education other people’s children.
Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–298. doi:10.17763/haer.58.3.c43481778r528qw4
Donahue, C. (2018). Writing, English, and a translingual model for composition. In R. Malenczyk,
S. Miller-Cochran, E. Wardle, & K. B. Yancey (Eds.), Composition, rhetoric, and disciplinarity (pp.
206–224). Utah State University Press. doi:10.7330/9781607326953.c010
Flores, S. M., & Drake, T. A. (2014). Does English language learner (ELL) identification predict col-
lege remediation designation? A comparison by race and ethnicity, and ELL waiver status. The Review
of Higher Education, 38(1), 1–36. doi:10.1353/rhe.2014.0041
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. National Council of Teach-
ers of English.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Continuum.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to
critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 19–50). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203005675-6
Gilyard, K. (2000). Literacy, identity, imagination, flight. College Composition and Communication,
52(2), 260–272. doi:10.2307/358496
Graff, H. J. (1991). The literacy myth: Cultural integration and social structure in the nineteenth cen-
tury. Routledge.
Graff, H. J. (2017). Literacy myths, legacies, and lessons: New studies on literacy. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203787090
149

Greenfield, L. (2011). The “standard English” fairy tale: A rhetorical analysis of racist pedagogies and
commonplace assumptions about language diversity. In L. Greenfield & K. Rowan (Eds.), Writing cen-
ters and the new racism: A call for sustainable dialogue and change (pp. 33–60). Utah State University
Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt4cgk6s.6
Grimm, N. (1996). The regulatory role of the writing center: Coming to terms with a loss of innocence.
Writing Center Journal, 17(1), 5–29.
Grimm, N. (1999). Good intentions. Heinemann.
Gutierrez, K., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture, difference, and
learning for students from non-dominate communities. Review of Research in Education, 33(1), 212–245.
doi:10.3102/0091732X08328267
Hall, J. (2014). Language background and the college writing course. Journal of Writing Assessment, 7(1).
Horner, B., Lu, M., Jones Royster, J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Opinion: Language difference in writing:
Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73(3), 303–321.
Howell, J. S. (2011). What influences students’ need for remediation in college? Evidence from Cali-
fornia. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(3), 292–318.
Inoue, A. B. (2016). Afterword: Narratives that determine writers and social justice writing center work.
Praxis. Writing Center Journal, 14(1), 94–99.
Irwin, V., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., York, C., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann,
F., Dilig, R., & Parker, S. (2021). Report on the Condition of Education 2021 (NCES 2021-144). U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Kanno, Y., & Varghese, M. M. (2010). Immigrant and refugee ESL students’ challenges to accessing
four-year college education: From language policy to educational policy. Journal of Language, Identity,
and Education, 9(5), 310–328. doi:10.1080/15348458.2010.517693
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied Linguistics.
Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts.
Language in Society, 23(2), 163–198. doi:10.1017/S0047404500017826
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United
States. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203348802
Lunsford, A. (1991). Collaboration, control, and the idea of a writing center. Writing Center Journal,
12(1), 3–10.
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2006). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. In S. Makoni &
A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages (pp. 1–41). Multilingual Matters.
doi:10.21832/9781853599255-003
Matsuda, P. K. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. college composition. College English,
57(4), 637–651. doi:10.2307/25472180
150

Matsuda, P. K., & Cox, M. (2009). Reading an ESL writer’s text. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.), ESL
writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd ed., pp. 39–47). Heinemann.
Mendez Newman, B. (2017). Tutoring translingual writers: The logistics of error and ingenuity. Praxis.
Writing Center Journal, 14(3).
Metz, M. (2019). Accommodating linguistic prejudice? Examining English teachers’ language ideolo-
gies. English Teaching, 18(1), 18–35. doi:10.1108/ETPC-09-2018-0081
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in language: Investigating standard English (4th ed.). Rout-
ledge. doi:10.4324/9780203124666
Nakamaru, S. (2010). Lexical issues in writing center tutorials with international and US-educated mul-
tilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(2), 95–113. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.01.001
National Disability Authority. (2020). What is universal design. Center for Excellence in Universal
Design. http://universaldesign.ie/What-is-Universal-Design/
North, S. (1984). The idea of a writing center. College English, 46(5), 433–446. doi:10.2307/377047
Olson, B. (2013). Rethinking our work with multilingual writers: The ethics and responsibility of lan-
guage teaching in the writing center. Praxis. Writing Center Journal, 10(2).
Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 33–40.
Riley, B. (2018). Sorry to Bother You. Annapurna Distribution.
Shin, N. (2018). The effects of the initial English language learner classification on students’ later academic
outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(2), 175–195. doi:10.3102/0162373717737378
Smith Jaggars, S., & West Stacey, G. (2014, January). What we know about developmental education
outcomes. Research Overview, Community College Research Center, Teacher’s College, Columbia
University.
Smitherman, G. (2000). Talkin that talk: Language, culture, and education in African America. Rout-
ledge. doi:10.4324/9780203254394
Smitherman, G., & Villanueva, V. (2000). Language knowledge and awareness survey conducted by
the CCCC language policy committee: Final research report. National Council of Teachers of English
Research Foundation and the Conference on College Composition.
Tierney, W. G., & Duncheon, J. C. (2016). The problem of college readiness. SUNY Press.
Tierney, W. G., & Sablan, J. R. (2014). Examining college readiness. The American Behavioral Scientist,
58(8), 943–946. doi:10.1177/0002764213515228
U. S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Academic performance and outcomes for English learners:
Performance on national assessments and on-time graduation rates. https://www2.ed.gov /datastory/
el-outcomes/index.html
Villanueva, V. (2006). Blind: Talking about the new racism. Writing Center Journal, 26(1), 3–19.
151

Young, V. A. (2010). Should writers use they own English? Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1),
110–117. doi:10.17077/2168-569X.1095
ADDITIONAL READING
Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. NCTE/
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315147383
Ball, A. F. (2006). Multicultural strategies for education and social change: Carriers of the torch in the
U.S. and South Africa. Teachers College Press.
Bell, D. C., & Youmans, M. (2006). Politeness and praise: Rhetorical issues in ESL (L2) writing center
conferences. Writing Center Journal, 26(2), 31–47.
Blau, S. R., & Hall, J. (2002). Guilt-free tutoring: Rethinking how we tutor nonnative English speaking
students. Writing Center Journal, 23(1), 23–44.
Blau, S. R., Hall, J., Davis, J., & Gravitz, L. (2001). Tutoring ESL students: A different kind of session.
Writing Lab Newsletter, 25(10), 1–4.
Blazer, S. (2015). Twenty-first century writing center staff education: Teaching and learning towards
inclusive and productive everyday practice. Writing Center Journal, 35(1), 17–55.
Blazer, S., & Fallon, B. (2020). Changing conditions for multilingual writers: Writing centers destabiliz-
ing standard language ideology. Composition Forum, 44.
Bokser, J. A. (2005). Pedagogies of belonging: Listening to students and peers. Writing Center Journal,
25(1), 43–60.
Bruce, S., & Raforth, B. (2016). Tutoring second language writers. Utah State University Press.
doi:10.7330/9781607324140
Canagarajah, A. S. (2010). A rhetoric of shuttling between languages. In B. Horner, M. Lu, & P. K. Mat-
suda (Eds.), Cross language relations in composition (pp. 158–179). Southern Illinois University Press.
Clark, R., & Ivanic, R. (1997). The politics of writing. Routledge.
Diab, R., Ferrel, T., Godbee, B., & Simpkins, N. (2012). A multi-dimensional pedagogy for racial justice
in writing centers. Praxis. Writing Center Journal, 10(1), 1–8.
Fraiberg, S. (2010). Composition 2.0: Toward a multilingual and multimodal framework. College Com-
position and Communication, 62(1), 100–126.
Ganguly, S. (2004). Tutors’ column: “Learning through trial and error: Working with ESL students at
the writing center. Writing Lab Newsletter, 29(2), 10–12.
Garcia, R. (2017). Unmaking gringo centers. Writing Center Journal, 36(1), 29–60.
152

Geller, A. E., Eodice, M., Condon, F., Carroll, M., & Boquet, E. H. (2007). Everyday racism: Anti-
racism work and writing center practice. The everyday writing center: A community of practice. Utah
State University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt4cgmkj
Grimm, N. (2009). New conceptual frameworks for writing center work. Writing Center Journal, 29(2),
11–27.
Harris, M., & Silva, T. (1993). Tutoring ESL students: Issues and options. College Composition and
Communication, 44(4), 525–537. doi:10.2307/358388
Horner, B., & Tetreault, L. (Eds.). (2017). Crossing divides: Exploring translingual writing pedagogies
and programs. Utah State University Press. doi:10.7330/9781607326205
International Writing Centers Association. (2010). Position statement on racism, anti-immigration, and
linguistic intolerance. http://writingcenters.org/wpcontent/uploads /2008/06/Arizona_Statement_fi-
nal_1-2012.pdf
Kinloch, V. (2005). Revisiting the promise of students’ right to their own language: Pedagogical strate-
gies. College Composition and Communication, 57(1), 83–113.
Lape, N. (2008). Training tutors in emotional intelligence: Toward a pedagogy of empathy. Writing Lab
Newsletter, 33(2), 1–6.
Leonard, R. (2014). Multilingual writing as rhetorical attunement. College English, 76(3), 227–247.
MacSwan, J. (2020). Academic English as standard language ideology: A renewed research agenda for asset-
based language education. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 28–36. doi:10.1177/1362168818777540
Milroy, L. (1999). Standard English and language ideology in Britain and the United States. In T. Bex
& R. J. Watts (Eds.), Standard English: The Widening Debate (pp. 173–208). Routledge.
Munger, R. A., Rubenstein, I., & Burow, E. (1996). Observation, interaction, and reflection: The founda-
tion for tutor training. Writing Lab Newsletter, 21(4), 1–5.
National Council of Teachers of English. (1974). Resolution on the students’ right to their own languages.
http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/righttoownlanguage
National Council of Teachers of English. (2010). Resolution on social justice in literacy education. http://
www.ncte.org/positions/statements/socialjustice
Nowacki, J. C. (2012). An ongoing ESL training program in the writing center. Praxis. Writing Center
Journal, 9(2).
Powers, J. K. (1993). Rethinking writing center conferencing strategies for the ESL writer. Writing
Center Journal, 13, 39–47.
Pratt, M. L. (2003). Building a new public idea about language. Profession, 2003(1), 110–119.
doi:10.1632/074069503X85472
Raforth, B., & Bruce, S. (2004). ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors. Boynton/Cook.
153

Severino, C. (1993). The “doodles” in context: Qualifying claims about contrastive rhetoric. Writing
Center Journal, 14(1), 44–62.
Smitherman, G., & Villanueva, V. (2003). Language diversity in the classroom: From intention to prac-
tice. Southern Illinois University Press.
Thonus, T. (2004). What are the differences? Tutor interactions with first- and second-language writers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3), 227–242. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.012
Thonus, T. (2014). Tutoring multilingual students: Shattering the myths. Journal of College Reading
and Learning, 44(2), 200–213. doi:10.1080/10790195.2014.906233
Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 13(3), 173–201. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.009
Williams, J., & Severino, C. (2004). The writing center and second language writers. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 13(3), 165–172. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.010
Wilson, N. E. (2012). Stocking the bodega: Towards a new writing center paradigm. Praxis. Writing
Center Journal, 10(1).
Young, V. A., Barrett, R., Young-Rivera, Y., & Lovejoy, K. B. (2014). Other people’s English: Code-
meshing, code switching, and African American literacy. Teachers College Press.
Young, V. A., & Martinez, A. Y. (2011). Code-meshing as world English: Pedagogy, policy, performance.
National Council of Teachers of English.
Conditional Knowledge: The ability to discern when and why to employ declarative and/or proce-
dural knowledge.
Critical Consciousness: An educational process in which one reflects on one’s own sociopolitical
positionality, recognizes the effects of power and privilege on individuals and groups, and develops the
self-efficacy needed to challenge systemic injustices.
Declarative Knowledge: Explicit knowledge of facts and concepts.
Higher-Order Concerns: Major or global issues in a text that affect content as a whole, such as an
unclear purpose, lack of audience awareness, insufficient development of ideas, or incoherent organi-
zational presentation.
Lower-Order Concerns: Minor or local issues at the sentence-level of a text, such as sentence
structure, grammar, and mechanics.
Metalinguistic Awareness: A cognitive process in which an individual reflects on the use of language
as a code or system to better understand how meaning is conveyed and manipulated.
Procedural Knowledge: Implicit knowledge of how to perform knowledge.
Translanguaging: The process by which multilingual writers access and employ features and strate-
gies from their full linguistic repertoire for knowledge- and meaning-making in communicative contexts.
154
APPENDIX 1
Language Attitude Survey
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1-Strongly disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Neutral, 4-Agree, 5-Strongly Agree), rate how
strongly you agree with the following statements:
1. Standard English is the correct form of English

2. Standard English is necessary in academic settings.
3. A person who wants to appear educated should master standard English.
4. Standard English is necessary in professional settings.
5. A person who wants to obtain a good job should master standard English.
6. Students with diverse language backgrounds should be taught in standard English.
7. Students need to master standard English for upward mobility.
8. A person who speaks standard English is treated better in U.S. society.
9. Only standard English is appropriate for written texts.
10. Students should learn standard English conventions to improve their ability to understand concepts
and communicate information.
11. A student who follows standard English conventions will be more likely to earn a good grade on
a class assignment.
12. A person who follows standard English conventions in a cover letter will be more likely to be invited
to interview for a job.
13. Students should be taught to employ multiple dialects for a range of rhetorical purposes.
14. There are valid reasons for using nonstandard language conventions in academic texts.
15. There are valid reasons for using languages other than English in academic settings.
16. There are valid reasons for using nonstandard language conventions in professional texts.
17. There are valid reasons for using languages other than English in professional settings.
18. Multiple dialects should be valued.
19. When a writer’s text does not follow standard English conventions, I think the person is intelligent.
20. When a writer’s text does not follow standard English conventions, I think the person is educated.
APPENDIX 2
Sample Student Essay Analysis Worksheet
Essay Title:
Instructions: Considering the types of knowledge depicture in the table below, record what regulators
of standard language norms would perceive as writing issues or errors that cause interference and how
you could apply a multilingual orientation to support the writer more equitably.
155
Table 1.
Conditional Knowledge According

Procedural Knowledge According
Issue/Error to standard language ideology,
Declarative Knowledge According to standard language ideology,
Describe the when or why is it appropriate for
to standard language ideology, how might the writer address the
issue/error and the writer to revise or edit per your
what is the issue/error? Using a issue/error? Using a multilingual
cite the page suggestions? Using a multilingual
multilingual orientation, what could orientation, how might you embrace
number for orientation, when or why is it
the writer be doing with language? the writer’s choice or how might you
reference appropriate for the writer to resist
present the writer with options?
the revisions?
*Highlight patterns of error that get in the way of meaning and consider what procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge might
best support the writer’s goals for the text.
APPENDIX 3
Observation Guide
Your Name: _______________________________ Tutor Name: _________________________

Writing Project: ____________________________ Date/Time: __________________________
During the Session
1. What do you notice about the atmosphere the tutor establishes? How does the tutor seek to appear
approachable and create a friendly, warm, and welcoming environment (i.e., begins the session
on time, comes to the front desk to welcome the writer, greets the writer by name and introduces
themselves, etc.)?
2. Comment on the way the tutor collaborates with the writer to set the agenda for the session (i.e.,
asks the writer on what they’d like to focus, asks to see the assignment/prompt, helps the writer
interpret/understand the expectations of the assignment or other writing-related task, helps identify
areas that could benefit from attention without being overly directive, etc.).
3. Comment on the way the tutor encourages a collaborative approach to the writing process throughout
the session (i.e., reads the draft aloud, listens actively and asks appropriate questions to improve
clarity and reader understanding, waits for the writer’s response, points out what’s working well
and why, provides multiple strategies when offering suggestions, avoids authoritative language
that focuses on errors, encourages the writer to draw from their own rhetorical knowledge to find
solutions when appropriate, adapts tutoring strategies based on the writer’s needs).
4. Considering the stage of the writer’s process, as well as any specific requests from the writer,
comment on the tutor’s efforts both to prioritize global issues over local issues (i.e., focusing on
intro/conclusion, organization, and development rather than correctness at the sentence-level) and
to value any language varieties evident the writer’s text.
5. What do you notice about the way the tutor ends the session? How does the tutor empower the
writer (i.e., reviews strategies the writer can utilize when revising on their own, spends the last
few minutes completing a session summary with the writer still present, helps the writer schedule
a future session)?
156
After the Session
6. Reflect on how the tutor paced the session. Consider the ways in which the tutor established an
agenda, avoided spending too much time on one error or issue, checked for understanding before
continuing, allowed time to summarize the session, and concluded the session on time.
7. Reflect on how the tutor helped the writer meet their goals for the session. Consider the ways in
which the tutor sought to identify the writer’s goals through asking questions and discussing the
requirements of a particular assignment, as well as the ways in which the tutor sought to ensure
understanding by referring back to these goals throughout the session, saving time before the close
of the session to address any remaining concerns, and assessing progress towards these goals at
the end of the session.
8. What positive elements of the tutor’s work stood out to you? What strategies did this tutor employ
that you want to borrow?
9. During this observation, did you have any insights about your own tutoring practice?
157
Section 2
Critical Inquiry
The first three chapters provide ELTS with approaches to get to know their learners’ languages and
their own languages. The next two chapters share approaches for ELTS to get to know the community
contexts of their students and themselves. The following three chapters offer tools for ELTS to critically
interrogate their teaching practice.
159
Chapter 8
Critical Praxis and Teacher
Language Awareness:
What Should Teachers Know
About Students’ L1?
Arthur McNeill
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3829-0061
Webster University, Thailand
ABSTRACT
Within the field of TESOL, opinions often differ about the role of learners’ first language (L1) in second
language learning. When teachers are aware of their students’ L1, this awareness can increase their
insights into learners’ backgrounds and cultures that may influence their approach to studying English
and attitudes towards multilingualism. Specifically, the chapter proposes that the notion of teacher lan-
guage awareness (TLA) should be expanded to include awareness of students’ language backgrounds.
TLA is regarded as an important component of the knowledge base of a language teacher. Two ques-
tionnaires are provided to assist teachers with the elicitation of information about students’ L1: (1) a
language-focused set of questions to allow comparison between a learner’s L1 and English and (2) a
sociolinguistic-oriented questionnaire that explores issues related to status and use.
INTRODUCTION
One of the most depressing facts about language learning is that while most of us manage to acquire our
mother tongue successfully by the age of six or seven, the majority of second language learners experi-
ence frustration and often failure in their efforts to master a new language. Around the world, typical ESL
classrooms are filled with students from different language and cultural backgrounds. Although all these
individuals may count as instances of successful L1 acquisition, the first languages that they acquired may
have little in common with one another in terms of grammar, syntax, phonology, discourse and writing
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch008

Critical Praxis and Teacher Language Awareness
system. While some students grow up speaking a world language, others acquire a first language that
is not widely used and whose official status may be uncertain within their own country. Yet, whatever
a learner’s first language may be, we can assume it has had a strong influence upon the individual’s
perception and understanding of the world, including their approach to learning a second language.
This chapter proposes that raising students’ awareness of their own and their classmates’ native
languages can allow students to function as language informants and provide their class with insights
into the wider second language learning experience. Student-centered classrooms can create a valuable
sense of inclusion for all members, especially those who are studying English to realize ambitions in-
volving new cultural contexts which can challenge individuals’ notions of identity and self-esteem. It is
proposed that teachers should be encouraged to pay attention to their students’ L1 profiles, with a view
to increasing learners’ engagement with second language acquisition (SLA) and providing them with
resources to articulate their views about their experience of learning of English in relation to their indi-
vidual language background. For the L2 teacher, regarding students’ individual language backgrounds
as a learning resource may require some adjustment to the regular teaching repertoire and our traditional
conception of the teacher’s knowledge base. The chapter explores how language teaching and learning
might be strengthened by extending our notion of Teacher Language Awareness (TLA) to reflect critical
praxis through enhanced awareness of students’ L1 profiles. The chapter is mainly intended for teachers
of English as a second language who teach on pre-university and in-sessional courses at English-medium
institutions.
CONCEPT
Why Does L1 Matter?
Much has been written in our field about the connection between language and thought. Nowadays, most
scholars subscribe to a weak form of the Whorfian hypothesis, which states that language influences
(rather than controls) thought. For example, Hunt & Agnoli (1991) point out that recent models of cogni-
tion indicate ways in which thought can be influenced by cultural variations in the lexical, syntactical,
semantic and pragmatic aspects of language and offer the following conclusion: “In many ways the
language people speak is a guide to the language in which they think.” (p.377). For example, research
by Boroditsky (1991) provides interesting insights into the way speakers of English and Mandarin per-
ceive time, with English speakers thinking of time horizontally and Mandarin speakers vertically. It is
concluded that L1 can play an important role in shaping habitual thought. The features of a learner’s L1
are likely to influence their acquisition of a second language. In classrooms where all of the students
speak the same L1 and their L2 teacher is also a speaker of the L1, the teacher is generally aware of
L1 influences upon students’ L2. These may affect learners’ control of grammar, syntax, vocabulary,
pronunciation, register and pragmatics. However, in multilingual classrooms, teachers seldom have a
sufficient knowledge of their students’ languages to allow them to identify all their influences upon
L2 acquisition. So, how much should an ESL teacher know about other languages? It is obviously not
practical or reasonable to expect teachers to have studied many other languages. However, it is proposed
that our notion of Teacher Language Awareness (TLA) should be expanded to include familiarity with
the main respects in which languages can differ from one another, both structurally and functionally. It
160

is proposed that a learner’s L1 profile will refer to the language itself and relevant sociocultural factors,
such as the status of the language in the learner’s country and the learner’s experience of acquiring it.
L1 in the L2 Classroom
It is understandable why L2 teachers have not been encouraged to pay serious attention to students’ L1.
For several decades, our preferred approaches to L2 teaching have focused on developing learners’ com-
municative competence. Schools tend to pride themselves on providing instruction using only the target
language. Code-switching and other uses of L1 in the classroom are generally discouraged. Cook (2001)
defines code-switching as a bilingual activity in which more than one language, typically speakers’ L1
and L2, are used both for within-sentence and between-sentences switches. In the minds of many teach-
ers, L1 is regarded as a negative influence upon SLA and a source of interference. However, Cummins
(2017), referring to recent evidence of positive transfer from L1, states:
In contrast to these common assumptions, there is overwhelming research evidence that languages in-
teract in dynamic ways in the learning process and that literacy-related skills transfer across languages
as learning progresses. When we free ourselves from monolingual instructional assumptions, a wide
variety of opportunities emerge for developing students’ L1 and L2 proficiencies by means of bilingual/
multilingual instructional strategies that acknowledge the reality of, and strongly promote, cross-language
transfer. (p.103)
Indeed, in recent years, we have seen some re-assessment of code-switching. It is now recognized
that it commonly takes place in multilingual contexts, not only because a speaker lacks knowledge of the
required language (L2), but for different communicative functions. For example, it has been suggested
that multilingual speakers manipulate their linguistic codes to establish multilingual and multicultural
identities among themselves (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2007). In fact, the use of ‘local’ languages within
the delivery of L2 programs is increasingly supported by scholars (e.g., Mahboob & Lin, 2016). However,
the use of L1 as a medium of communication in the L2 classroom is not a focus of the present chapter.
The main goal is to encourage teachers to demonstrate a higher level of awareness of their students L1
when teaching a second language. This direction is in keeping with what García (2015) calls Critical
Multilingual Awareness (CMLA). García proposes that teachers should recognize the linguistic diversity
of their students and “understand that national named languages and academic language have been socially
constructed” (p.1). However, García’s CMLA is intended for teachers of all subjects and is broader than
the TLA notion discussed here, which focuses on the specific competencies and skills of a professional
language teacher. Fairclough (2014) reminds us that the language teacher is the key to enabling learners
to develop critical language awareness from their existing language capabilities and experience:
The experience of the learner can, with the help of the teacher, be made explicit and systematic as a
body of knowledge which can be used for discussion and reflection, so that social causes for experiences
(e.g., of constraint) can be explored. (p. 16)
It is not proposed that the use of L1 in the L2 classroom should increase, but a case is made for taking
students’ L1 experience into account when designing second language instruction. The aim is to raise
teachers’ awareness of how their learners’ L1 may be valuable for creating meaningful, learner-centered
161

language instruction and creating opportunities for students to engage actively with the L2 learning
process. We have long understood that basing language instruction on students’ interests is likely to
increase their motivation. An individual’s mother tongue forms part of their identity. Indeed, for many
current ESL students, acquiring a first language has been far from straightforward and painless, when
we consider issues such as mass migration, changes to the official status of languages, L1 speakers of
a dialect and unstable language environments within an individual learner’s home. The language itself,
together with the experience of acquiring it, are topics with which second language learners can be
expected to engage confidently and willingly.
Teacher Language Awareness
As mentioned above, some broadening of our notion of Teacher Language Awareness (TLA) may provide
some practical guidelines. For several decades, the knowledge base of teachers has been a dominant
theme in education research. In the case of language teachers’ knowledge base, the following topics have
featured prominently: subject-matter knowledge; language competence; pedagogical practice. Shulman
(1999) argues that subject-matter knowledge is an essential part of teacher professionalism. Indeed,
the close connection between a teacher’s knowledge about language (i.e., subject-matter knowledge),
knowledge of language (i.e., proficiency) and pedagogical practice has become a preoccupation among
scholars (e.g., Andrews, 2003; Edge, 1988; Wright & Bolitho, 1993). It is generally recognized that
successful language teachers need to possess a high level of language awareness. However, arriving at
a single description of TLA has proved to be less than straightforward. While different aspects of TLA
have been recognized and investigated, teachers’ awareness of their students’ L1 profiles does not appear
to have received much attention in TLA research to date. A notable exception is the work of Crawford
& Gross (2019), who developed an ‘Equitable and Effective Learner Profile Survey’ that is intended
for critical socio-constructivist language teachers who wish to gather information about their students’
linguistic background knowledge, sociocultural knowledge and academic content knowledge.
James & Garrett (1991) provide an overview of the topics and domains that were considered to fall
within the scope of language awareness up to the end of the 1980s. The earlier studies tended adopt a
narrow view of TLA focused on teachers’ ability to demonstrate explicit knowledge of language items,
using appropriate metalanguage. Exploring and developing teachers’ metalinguistic awareness provided
the main focus for a number of studies (e.g., Andrews, 1997; Berry, 1997). This notion of TLA was
broadened by Wright and Bolitho (1997), who proposed an expanded view of language awareness which
reflects the ways in which teachers are required to use language in the classroom. TLA as a notion has
continued to evolve and has broadened its scope further by including teachers’ understanding of the
language of teaching materials, their knowledge of learners’ prior language learning and their ability to
distinguish between ‘hard’ and ‘easy’ items from the learner’s perspective (McNeill, 2005). We might
characterize this evolution of our conceptions of TLA as a progression from knowledge about language
(KAL) to an awareness of students’ language learning processes. Significantly, this broadening of per-
ception introduces a psycholinguistic dimension by encouraging teachers to consider students’ prior L2
knowledge and to assess the learnability of language items for particular learners. An obvious problem
in encouraging teachers to demonstrate sensitivity to students’ prior learning and make judgements
about ‘hard’ and ‘easy’ language items is that such information is not readily available and requires the
individual teacher to make judgements based on particular circumstances. This broadening of the scope
of TLA underlines both its importance and complexity. However, without wishing to make TLA more
162

elusive and less attainable, the suggested amendment related to learners’ L1 profiles is intended to make
teachers’ work more satisfying and productive and is not difficult to implement.
Revised TLA Model
Figure 1 presents a revised model of TLA, with the addition of L1 profiles. This chapter proposes that
a knowledge of learners’ L1 profiles should be added to descriptions of TLA.
Figure 1. Proposed TLA model with learner L1 profiles, adapted from McNeill (2005)
According to Figure 1, TLA consists of two main elements: Language (L2) and Learners. The Lan-
guage elements consists of three parts: (a) metalinguistic awareness, i.e., conscious knowledge of the
formal aspects of the language, often operationalized as the ability to correct, describe and explain L2
errors; (b) understanding of L2, i.e., knowledge of the meanings of the words used in a text; (c) awareness
of lexical difficulty, i.e., how difficult the language is from the L2 learner’s perspective, in particular,
the vocabulary items. The component, ‘understanding of L2’, was included in the model in the light
of evidence that non-native-speaker (NNS) trainee teachers of ESL cannot always explain the meaning
of vocabulary items that occur in teaching materials (McNeill, 1996). The component ‘awareness of
difficulty level’ was included in response to evidence that sensitivity to lexical difficulty varies widely
among both native-speaker (NS) and NNS teachers (McNeill, 2017).
The Learners element consists of two parts: (a) Prior L2 knowledge, i.e., awareness of the language
previously learned, for example, through familiarity with the L2 curriculum; (b) L1 Profiles, i.e., the
native languages of the students taking the L2 course. Knowledge of students’ prior learning is widely
163

regarded as an essential part of any teacher’s repertoire (Ambrose et al., 2010). In the case of L2 teachers,
an awareness of the language previous studied by the class allows them to avoid wasting instructional
time by repeating lessons on material already covered, while making valuable connections with relevant
prior language knowledge. The second part of the Learners element, ‘L1 profiles’, is an addition proposed
by the present chapter and is described in the following section.
L1 Profiles
A minimum expectation of this TLA component is that teachers know the name of each student’s L1
and can pronounce and spell it. Information about students’ L1 is not usually provided in school class
lists and registers. Teachers may have to obtain the information from the students directly, which has the
advantage of providing an occasion for an informal interpersonal conversation, which students generally
appreciate. The subsequent steps in deepening the teacher’s knowledge of students’ L1 may involve some
research on the teacher’s part and/or creating opportunities for students to share relevant details with the
class during activities and coursework. These insights into students’ first languages may prompt teachers
to focus more deeply on particular aspects, such as linguistic features, status, threats, etc. If teachers decide
to delve further into their students’ associations with their mother tongue, they should not be surprised
to find mentions of historical events, such as the re-drawing of national borders, the language impact of
colonization/de-colonization and the introduction of language policies that favor particular languages
and groups. The revised TLA model assumes that teachers are more likely to design their teaching ef-
fectively for individual learners if they understand students’ L1 profiles and how they were acquired.
It is important to point out that the TLA model presented here is intended to apply to all L2 teachers,
whether or not they are NS or NSS of the language being taught. A number of scholars have pointed
out that much of the literature on language teaching has been dominated historically by NS bias (e.g.,
Llurda, 2015). However, in recent years, research interest in aspects of both NS and NNS teachers has
been strong, even if both types of teacher may appear, in some studies, to be regarded as competitors.
As far as the present TLA model is concerned, there is no bias, since the underlying constructs apply
to all L2 teachers. The expectation is that successful L2 teachers should demonstrate competence in all
five parts of the model:
1. metalinguistic awareness (conscious knowledge of formal aspects of language).

2. understanding of L2 (in particular, the ability to explain the meanings of the words that appear in
teaching materials).
3. awareness of difficulty level (sensitivity about what learners find easy and difficult).
4. prior L2 knowledge (awareness of the language students have already studied).
5. L1 profiles (awareness of students’ mother tongue, its status, how it was acquired).
While NS and NNS teachers are expected to possess the above five competences, they may not ac-
quire them in the same order. For example, most NNS teachers study the target language formally at the
same time as they acquire it, so they may have a reasonable metalinguistic awareness at the start of their
language teacher education program. By contrast, many NS teachers enter language teacher education
programs with only an implicit knowledge of the language they wish to teach, so still need to acquire
explicit knowledge of the language so that they can explain its rules and formal structure. In the case
of ‘understanding of L2’, the order of acquisition may be reversed, since native speakers have generally
164

acquired most of their language’s grammar while in primary school and developed a large vocabulary
by the end of secondary school. On the other hand, many prospective NNS teachers are already adults
by the time they attain target language proficiency. The next two competencies, ‘awareness of difficulty
level’ and ‘prior L2 knowledge’ assume that teachers have had experience of L2 teaching and are able
to make professional judgements based on this experience. To some extent, the new competency in the
TLA model, ‘L1 profiles’, provides teachers with useful background information to enable them to judge
whether new language items are easy or difficult for their students to learn.
This section includes two short questionnaires that teachers might use to elicit details of their students’ L1.
They are intended to guide teachers in their L1 profiling by providing scaffolding related to comparative
descriptions of languages (Questionnaire 1), together with questions about the status of students’ L1 and
how it is regarded by its users (Questionnaire 2). The first questionnaire (Descriptive Profile) collects
information about students’ L1 linguistic features. The second (Critical Profile) asks questions about the
way a language is used and recognized within countries and is intended to raise teachers’ awareness of
language policy issues. Teachers may use the questionnaires to gather information from students about
their L1 and use the material to compile a detailed language profile of a class.
Talking about language inevitably forces speakers’ attention upon language forms. The language
used to talk about language, i.e., metalanguage, may include some terminology. However, it is hoped
that teachers (and students) will not find it necessary to introduce many technical terms that their class
members do not already know. Encouraging students to talk about their languages is meant to allow them
to tell others about the language they first learned and what the language means to them. Some of the
questions assume a degree of subjectivity on the part of the respondent. For example, students are asked
to comment on the complexity of their L1 grammar and the amount of time that is required to learn the
writing system. The focus should be the learners’ experience rather than the language itself and teach-
ers may need to exercise some restraint to avoid the temptation to run the class as a linguistics seminar.
It is suggested that the questionnaires should initially be completed by students individually, so that they
have time to reflect on the responses and can check background information about their L1, if required.
Questionnaire 1: My Mother Tongue - Descriptive Profile
Name of Language:
Countries where the language is used:

No. of speakers (approximate):
1. Writing System:
a. What type of writing system is used?
(Examples: Latin alphabet; Chinese characters; Arabic script; Devanagari script; Cyrillic
alphabet.)
b. Based on your experience, how difficult is it to learn this writing system?
165

2. Grammar/Syntax:
a. In your opinion, how complicated is the grammar?
b. How many tenses are there?
c. How many words are there for ‘you’?
d. How do you distinguish between singular and plural?
e. Is the word order flexible or fixed?
3. Pronunciation:
a. Does the language have tones?
b. How about word stress and sentence stress? Are the patterns fixed or flexible?
c. Are there many sounds that don’t exist in English? Give examples.
4. Vocabulary:
a. Does the language have a large vocabulary (e.g., Are there many synonyms)?
b. How long is a typical word? (How many syllables?)
c. Are many words borrowed from other languages? Give examples.
d. Are many English words used nowadays? In what areas/domains?
5. Implications for learning English:
a. What are the main differences between your L1 and English?
b. Which aspects of English were most difficult for you to learn? Why?
The main purpose of Questionnaire 1 is to elicit information about each student’s L1 and some of
the respects in which it differs from English. It also encourages students to reflect on the features of a
language that may make it difficult to acquire. The teacher should be prepared to assist students with the
completion of the questionnaire, if required. Students may lack linguistic knowledge (e.g., the number
of tenses, number of words in the lexicon, average word length, etc.) as well as the metalanguage that
is typically used to describe the language features. The teacher needs to be prepared to supply relevant
missing language, including essential terminology and concepts.
Questionnaire 2 has a sociopolitical emphasis and asks students to provide information about their
country’s language policy and the status of their L1 within the country. It is assumed that students will
be able to provide the details based on their own (or relatives’) experience of living there. The following
issues might be discussed in class on the basis of Questionnaire 2: official and non-official languages;
minority languages; languages used as a medium of instruction (MOI); attitudes towards particular
languages; the stability of the language situation; the extent to which English is used and local reactions
to English.
Questionnaire 2: My Mother Tongue – Its Status in my Country
Name of Language:
1. Is your language an official language in your country?

2. Does your country have any official languages? If so, what are their names? Give some details
about these languages and their importance in your country.
3. Has the government introduced any language reforms in recent years? If so, give details.
4. Do you expect any changes to the status of the country’s languages in the coming years? Give
details.
166

5. Are young people in your country happy about learning your mother tongue?
6. How do people in your country feel about the spread of English?
7. Has global English changed the language situation in your country? Give examples.
8. What do you think about these changes?
It is hoped that, by completing Questionnaire 2, students will feel confident about engaging in a critical
manner in discussions of language policy issues related to the specific language situations experienced
by members of the class. The completed Questionnaire 2 should also prepare the class for a critical
perspective on global English, based on students’ responses to Questions 6 to 8. These questions align
with Fairclough’s (2014) view of Critical Language Awareness, “I assume that the development of a
critical awareness of the world, and of the possibilities for changing it, ought to be the main objective of
all education, including language education, …” (p. 7) Obviously, teachers cannot be expected to have
detailed knowledge of the features of all students’ L1 or possess expertise in language policy. However,
language teachers need to demonstrate that they can talk about language, including sociopolitical im-
plications, in an informed way, using appropriate metalanguage and technical terms.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Some learning activities related to the above topics are suggested in this section. Teachers tend to have
different opinions about what a language teacher’s knowledge base should look like. At the same time,
teachers’ views may differ about the relevance of learners’ L1 in SLA. Both topics are likely to lead
to interesting and lively exchanges, as well as deeper understanding of the issues. The questions are
intended to guide and stimulate in-class discussion among in-service and pre-service TESOL educators.
Teacher Language Awareness
1. In your view, how much does an ESL teacher need to know about the English language? Comment
on knowledge of: (a) grammar/syntax, (b) vocabulary, (c) phonology, (d) discourse/genre. (For
small group and whole class discussion.)
2. Should we assume that an ESL teacher can understand all the language used in their teaching
materials? (For small group and whole class discussion.)
3. When teachers pre-view their teaching materials, how easy it is for them to anticipate which language
items will challenge their students the most? Why do you think some teachers find this easier than
others? (For small group and whole class discussion.)
4. Have another look at the TLA model presented in Figure 1. In small groups, discuss what the model
assumes about teachers’ language awareness. Would you like to propose any amendments to the
model? If so, re-draw it and present your amended model to the class.
167

Students’ L1 Profiles
1. (NS and NNS teachers). Give an oral presentation about your L1, based on your completion of
Questionnaire 1: My Mother Tongue - Descriptive Profile. Speakers of the same L1 may form a
group and present together, with each student reporting about a different L1 feature.
2. (NNS teachers only). What features of your L1 can make learning English challenging? Explain
why. What are the implications for teachers teaching English to students with your L1 background?
(For small group and whole class discussion.)
3. (NS and NNS teachers). When teachers give feedback to students on their L2 performance, should
they draw attention to errors that appear be attributed to students’ L1? If so, why? If not, why not?
(For whole class discussion.)
4. (NS and NNS teachers). Give examples of bilingual/multilingual use in signs and public announce-
ments in your country and comment on language use in the local mass media, including the use of
subtitles in TV programs. (Individual presentations followed by whole-class discussion.)
5. (NS and NSS teachers). Identify a movie or TV program made in your L1 which you think illustrates
typical aspects of the culture of your country. Select one or two short scenes and play the clip(s)
to the class. Try to explain to the class what makes scene(s) typical and interesting.
Ultimately, the discussion of the above Teacher Language Awareness questions in pre-service and
in-service TESOL educators’ meetings is intended to refine our notion of TLA (Figure 1). The questions
in the Students’ L1 Profiles section are intended to stimulate discussion of the L1 profiles component
of the revised TLA model.
This section provides some authentic examples of students’ comments on language policy issues in
their own country. It draws upon the author’s experience of teaching the undergraduate Global Citizen-
ship (General Education) course, ‘Crossing Borders: Language and Power’ (KEYS 4011) at Webster
University Thailand (WUT) during 2020. WUT is an English-medium institution which attracts local
and international students. To gain full admission to an undergraduate program, students need to have
attained the following English proficiency level: TOEFL 550 (Paper)/IELTS Academic 6.0. The students
whose comments are presented here were majoring in Business Administration, International Relations
or Computer Science, and came from the following countries: Afghanistan, China, India, Myanmar,
Nepal, Thailand, USA, Vietnam.
KEYS 4011 is a ‘keystone’ course and intended as a culmination of the Global Citizenship strand of the
undergraduate program. The course examines the relationship between language and power, particularly
in the way global languages like English enable populations and societies in positions of power to protect
their political, literary, philosophical and religious interests. The course explores issues of language and
power as they relate to global English, countries’ official language policy, including medium of instruc-
tion, legal system and individual identity. One of the assignments asked students to write a statement of
their country’s language policy, together with a critique of the policy. The following ten extracts illustrate
issues that students judged to be important when commenting on their countries’ language policy. The
students’ comments are grouped under the following themes: (a) threats to attaining competence in L1,
168

(b) concerns about language standards, (c) language policy and government ambitions, (d) issues with
official languages, (e) embracing multilingualism.
In order to consider some implications of the students’ comments for teachers and explore their
relevance to the ‘L1 Profiles’ dimension of the revised TLA model, two ESL teachers from WUT were
invited to respond to the extracts. They were asked to say how they might follow up on the students’
critiques if they were their teacher. The teachers’ responses are summarized after the students’ comments
on each of the five themes.
Extracts From Students’ Critiques of Their Countries’ Language Policy
Theme 1: Threats to Attaining Competence in L1
Extract 1: Thailand (1)

In my opinion, the portion of the 2010 national language policy that specifically stresses the importance
of standard Thai is a wise and useful statement. From my observation, students attending bilingual, Eng-
lish programs, or international schools in Thailand, do not develop Thai language skills that sufficiently
match up to the standard of Thai school students. When the language policy experts were conducting
research on the language situation in Thailand, it noted that Thai children were being made to learn
English too soon without having acquired a foundation in Thai, and some bilingual/international school
children were becoming “illiterate in two languages”.
Extract 2: Myanmar
Some Myanmar parents want a better education for their children and they send them to private or in-
ternational schools. As a result, many children cannot speak, read or write Myanmar, even though they
are Myanmar born and bred - and live in the country! They just use English for all their communication.
In my opinion, it is not supposed to be like that because the Myanmar language needs to be regarded as
the national language. Children should learn their national language first. Besides, many experts believe
that studying through the mother tongue leads to a better understanding of school subjects.
Teachers’ Response
“Most international schools in S.E. Asia provide courses in the local language. We need to know more
about why students who attend international schools in their own country often fail to reach an adequate
standard in the local language. As far as formal instruction is concerned, I’d like to know which aspects
of the local language present the greatest challenges. Particular skills? Linguistic features (e.g., tones)? “
“I’d like to know about students’ contact with the local language in their daily lives, including com-
munication within the family. I would also advise students and parents to check the language policy
statements of international schools to make sure there is provision for local students to acquire their L1.”
169

Theme 2: Concerns about Language Standards and Teaching Methods
Extract 3: Thailand (2)

While there have been numerous initiatives and efforts to develop English language skills for Thai
citizens, Thailand ranks lowest among ASEAN nations in English proficiency. This is surprising given
that Thailand spends a large portion of its budget, 31.3%, on education, and is highly dependent on tour-
ism. I think this problem relates to the fact that education in Thai schools is generally heavily reliant on
copying and memorizing. Language instruction is no different. It focuses mostly on teaching vocabulary
and grammar through rote memorization, a system that, in my opinion, is demotivating and ineffective.
Extract 4: Vietnam (1)

Although the Vietnamese government aims to make English a second language, they have not invested
nor have a clear policy on it. In the high school graduation exam in 2020, the average English score of
749,285 candidates nationwide is only 4.577/10. This shows the weakness in the Vietnamese education
system in terms of teaching foreign languages. Usually, the teachers of this subject are Vietnamese who
have mispronunciation and do not have much-specialized knowledge about English. Only a small propor-
tion of Vietnamese can use English fluently for all four skills because of the lack of professionalism and
practice in schools. To solve this problem, the state should focus more on training high-quality teachers
and give equal attention to the urban area as well as remote areas.
“I would ask the students to tell me about how students in Thailand and Vietnam are taught the local
language at school. Is there heavy reliance on memorization and repetition, as suggested in the critiques?
Are there agreed standards about what is correct and incorrect? Are students expected to produce ‘cor-
rect’ language or is there flexibility about how the language is used?”
“I would like to know whether some English teachers’ approach to the language is influenced by the
way the local L1 is taught as a school subject. When students study through EMI, they need to be able
to read and listen critically right from the start of their studies. I worry about the implications for de-
veloping fluency in English.”
Theme 3: Language Policy and Government Ambitions
Extract 5: Vietnam (2)

For Vietnam to develop more quickly and integrate into the region and wider world more effectively,
the Government needs to have a policy that promotes English while still protecting the interests of other
languages. Vietnam is a multi-ethnic, multilingual country, with 54 ethnic groups and more than 90 dif-
ferent languages. Each ethnic minority community has its own language and also uses Vietnamese as
a common language of communication. The problem of the relationship between languages, language
education and language use in ethnic minority areas has long been recognized and remains urgent be-
cause of the need for unification. Achieving national solidarity needs to demonstrate equality between
groups. The government must, therefore, preserve and develop the identities in the traditional culture
170

of each ethnic minority. At the same time, it also contributes to preserving and developing the diversity
of Vietnamese culture.
“The language landscape of Vietnam is obviously complex. I would ask the student to tell me about his/
her own experience of learning languages in Vietnam. For example, what is his/her ethnic group and
first language? How and when did he/she learn Vietnamese? How did these experiences influence the
student’s approach to learning English?”
“We are told that each ethnic minority community has its own language, but uses Vietnamese for com-
munication within the country. In addition, the government is promoting English in order to advance
the country’s status within the region and internationally. How motivated are Vietnamese students to
learn English? How sustainable is the current arrangement?”
Theme 4: Issues with Official Languages
Extract 6: Nepal (2)

I absolutely support the government in not naming an official language in legal documents or the consti-
tution. I think that many people would be enraged, and many riots would happen due to people thinking
they are lesser citizens because they do not have the national language as their mother tongue.
Extract 7 (Afghanistan)
The Persian language was naturally influenced by the language of Qur’an during the Arab conquest in
the middle of 7th century when Persians began converting to Islam, hence the usage of Arabic alphabets
in Persian/Dari language. The 1980 constitution cemented the equal status of Dari and Pashto as the
two official languages in Afghanistan. These two official languages are to be used in publishing, media
broadcasting or as the language of instruction in schools and universities.
However, earlier in 1978, following the Soviet-style language policy, the “Khalqi” a faction of the
communist party in Afghanistan pushed for a policy that would be to integrate a greater use of non-
dominant languages in the country such as Uzbek, Turkmen and Baluch in publications, education and
for official use within the government. However, the language policy remained as it was decided by the
constitution.
Extract 8: China
China is multilingual and multinational, with a combination of a long history, complex background, and
a massive population. Moreover, with Beijing as the center of power, it is understandable that Mandarin
Chinese is confirmed as the official Chinese language. Mandarin plays an important role in strengthening
cultural identity among Chinese around the world, which may benefit individuals from Taiwan, Singa-
pore, Malaysia, or other foreign countries. No matter where they are, Mandarin is a common medium
for effective communication. When we look at language policy objectively, implementing one primary
171

official language is easier to identify and recognize universally, otherwise the situation might lead to a
communicative mess, as we have seen in some other countries.
Looking back at my earlier experience in China, I remember slogans like, “Please speak Putonghua
(standard spoken Chinese).”, “Please write standard characters.” on walls, school corridors, etc. That
was around 2000. Obviously, at that time, many people were not able to speak Putonghua properly or
academically. In the meantime, learning standard Mandarin became an inevitable trend, influenced by
its potential for better opportunities in education, careers, expanding business markets, and so on.
While I can see the many benefits to economic growth that are associated with having Mandarin as
the standard Chinese variety, I also appreciate the threats to Chinese dialects and their cultures. Take
my province, Yunnan, as an example. There exist 25 out of 55 ethnic minorities altogether. More and
more people are losing their mother tongue, but these are replaced by Putonghua, which many citizens
are reluctant to accept. Even if I am not one of them, I can still feel great sympathy for their loss.
Extract 9: USA
Most people will be surprised to discover that the United States of America has never declared an of-
ficial language (even though English is by far the most widely spoken). Out of 328 million Americans,
239 million are mono-lingual English speakers, and thus English is the de facto national language of the
USA (Gambino, 2016). Like many aspects of American government, a language policy is considered a
state matter rather than a federal one. Only three states/territories are legally bilingual. New Mexico and
Puerto Rico have English and Spanish co-designated as official languages while Hawaii’s two official
languages are native Hawaiian and English (U.S. Educational Language Policy, 2020).
Opponents of state or federal language policy argue that it is discriminatory towards immigrants, and
I personally believe this to be true. With the rise of nationalism in the current administration, tensions
are high, and some bilingual Americans have been the target of abuse by their fellow countrymen for
daring to speak a language other than English in a public space.
“I didn’t realize the issue of official languages was so complicated. I’m interested in knowing which
body decides about a country’s official language status. I’m not sure this kind of decision should be
devolved to state level.”
“When a country has two official languages, as in Afghanistan, I would like to ask whether both enjoy
the same status and respect. Is each language associated with a particular group or class? Do the top
schools offer instruction in both Dari and Pashto?”
“It seems that we need to know more than the name of a student’s L1 and its main linguistic features.
We need to know something about its status within the student’s country – and its stability!”
“The example of Nepal suggests we shouldn’t judge a language by its official status. According to the
student, designating any one language as official would lead to instability.”
172

“For an ESL teacher, it’s reassuring to know that all students from Greater China can read and write
Mandarin Chinese.”
Theme 5: Embracing Multilingualism
Extract 10: Nepal (2)

My general thoughts about Nepal’s language policy are positive. I like the fact that Nepal has so many
languages and mother tongues. I think it is wonderful that efforts are being made to preserve certain
languages that are on the brink of extinction. Preservation programs like this should be supported by
more Nepali people and we should be delighted in the fact that our country has such high multilingualism.
“My idealism finally returned!”
It is apparent from the above comments made by students who were asked to reflect on their country’s
language policy that most of them welcomed their countries’ efforts to promote cultural and linguistic
diversity, while providing opportunities to learn English. Concerns were expressed about threats to literacy
acquisition in L1 as a result of the growing popularity of international (English-medium) schools. At the
same time, there was criticism of the lack of competent local English (L2) teachers in some countries.
More importantly, the students’ responses were based on their own experiences and observations rather
than formal study of language policy. Talking (and writing) about one’s own language background ap-
pears to allow students to make thoughtful, original contributions, while encouraging critical perspectives
concerning the complexity of language policy.
The teachers’ responses to the students’ critiques confirm the relevance of an awareness of students’
L1 to language teachers, particularly with pre-university and university students. As the teachers il-
lustrated, knowledge of students’ L1 profiles can mean more than knowing the name of a language and
its characteristic linguistic features. The ways in which students acquire their first language can vary
depending on individual circumstances. Students’ experience of acquiring their first language may
provide insights into their approach to studying English. For example, the first language may have been
taught with a focus on strict rules of grammar and pronunciation which do not carry over smoothly to the
acquisition of academic English. To return to the revised model of TLA, the teachers’ responses provide
support for proposing that language teachers can be expected to be aware of their students’ L1 profiles.
A Follow-Up Activity
Later in the above course, ‘Crossing borders: Language and Power’, the students were asked to select
an organization or institution and write a paper about its language policy based on an examination of its
official policy documents. Some of the topics are listed below:
• An examination of the language policy of a Bangkok international school.

• Do Thailand’s official curriculum documents contribute to English proficiency standards?
• Institutional language policy: University of the Western Cape.
173

• Language policy and use in a major corporation.

• Language policy and the UN.
• Language policy differences between public and private schools in Nepal.
• Language policy in the Vietnam legal system.
• Language policy tensions in Tibet.
• Language policy issues confronting healthcare professionals in India.
• Medium of instruction challenges in Myanmar.
• Policy and ideology: ecological perspectives on language and education in rural schools in Nepal.
• Prisoners and foreign language policy on mail and outside communication in USA.
• The US army and foreign language training.
• The impact of high-stakes examinations on language policy: China’s Gaokao.
While just over half of the class selected a topic related to their own country, the rest opted to write
about another country or an international organization. When asked to explain their interest in the cho-
sen topic, most students reported that they had been interested in it for some time and some had direct
experience of it. These included implications of language policy for: (a) access to services, such as legal
representation, healthcare, translators, foreign language tuition; (b) choice of medium of instruction;
(c) communication and mobility within international organizations/corporations; (d) high-stakes uni-
versity entrance examinations. Not unexpectedly, the students’ analyses of the policy documents often
revealed serious gaps between the official rhetoric and actual practice. Basing a term paper or project
on the scrutiny of actual language policy documents might also be a suitable component of a TESOL
pre-service or in-service program.
DISCUSSION
This chapter has proposed that a teacher of L2 should demonstrate some awareness of the L1 of each of
their students. A basic knowledge of the features of the L1 may help to explain some of the challenges
that learners face in their L2 acquisition and may provide insights into their assumptions about language.
Deeper levels of awareness of learners’ first languages may allow teachers to appreciate aspects of their
students’ educational and cultural backgrounds. For example, as discussed above, the status a language
enjoys both at home and internationally may affect users’ attitudes towards it and can play an important
role in shaping their identity. It is, therefore, proposed that models of Teacher Language Awareness
should be adjusted to include awareness of students’ L1 (‘L1 Profiles’), as in Figure 1. Depending on
teachers’ individual local TESOL context, they can opt for a basic or deeper level of L1 awareness. For
example, for teachers whose students have low English proficiency and may not have a clear purpose in
learning English, a basic level of L1 awareness may be sufficient. Questionnaire 1 (My Mother Tongue –
Descriptive Profile) would be an appropriate instrument for their use. However, teachers whose students
have already attained a more advanced level of proficiency and may be studying English for academic
or professional purposes or as part of a degree qualification should possess a deeper level of L1 aware-
ness. Teaching English in such contexts is likely to require teachers to understand students’ individual
language backgrounds and to engage with students on wider language and language-learning issues,
such as identity and attitudes towards the target language and the L1. For such teachers, Questionnaire
2 (My Mother Tongue – Its Status in my Country) would also be suitable.
174

As mentioned above, the use of L1 in the teaching of L2 has been controversial, particularly follow-
ing the introduction of the communicative approach in the 1970s, when all L2 classes were expected to
be conducted entirely in the target language. However, if we ‘fast-forward’ to the 2020s, we find within
TESOL, as mentioned above, a growing interest in the way L2 speakers may switch between L2 and
L1 within the same conversation. As far as classroom communication is concerned, some teachers and
scholars welcome the use of two languages together, and point out that drawing on different language
resources can be beneficial for learning. However, language teachers need to take special care concerning
students’ use of L1 in classroom activities and may need to justify how the use of L1 can contribute to
the achievement of a language lesson’s learning outcomes. As far as the aims of the present chapter are
concerned, teachers’ awareness of students’ L1 profiles may lead to more references to students’ native
languages and their cultures during explanations and discussion. However, this is not expected to lead
to increased use of students’ L1 in the classroom.
A high level of language awareness is already regarded as an essential component of a language
teacher’s professionalism. This chapter proposes that our notion of TLA should be extended to include
awareness of students’ L1. This addition to the TLA model has a number of implications for critical
praxis in TESOL:
1. Teachers’ enhanced awareness of students’ L1 profiles is likely to promote inclusive, student-centered

learning, since students’ backgrounds and cultures will feature more prominently as thematic topics
during L2 instruction.
2. Teachers’ familiarity with students’ L1 profiles will improve their awareness of the particular chal-
lenges faced by speakers of different languages when learning English.
3. An awareness of learners’ L1 profiles is not difficult for teachers to acquire. This process generally
starts with familiarizing oneself with the characteristic features of a student’s language and can
extend to policy considerations, such as its formal status and functions, as well as the student’s
experience of learning and using it.
4. NS and NNS teachers are both affected by this expectation, which does not favor or disadvantage
either group within TESOL.
REFERENCES
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning
works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Andrews, S. J. (1997). Metalinguistic awareness and teacher explanation. Language Awareness, 6(2&3),
147–161. doi:10.1080/09658416.1997.9959924
Andrews, S. J. (2003). Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge base of the L2
teacher. Language Awareness, 12(2), 81–95. doi:10.1080/09658410308667068
Berry, R. (1997). Teachers’ awareness of learners’ knowledge: The case of metalinguistic terminology.
Language Awareness, 6(2&3), 136–146. doi:10.1080/09658416.1997.9959923
175

Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of
time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0748 PMID:11487292
Boroditsky, L., & Edge, J. (1988). Applying linguistics in English language teacher training for speakers
of other languages. ELT Journal, 42(1), 9–13. doi:10.1093/elt/42.1.9
Cook, V. J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review,
57(3), 402–423. doi:10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402
Crawford, J., & Gross, E. (2019). Equitable and effective identification and assessment of language
learners’ background knowledge. Language and Education, 14(4), 48–54.
Cummins, J. (2017). Teaching for transfer in multilingual school contexts. In O. Garcia, A. Lin, & S.
May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.,
pp. 103–115). Springer., doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_8
Fairclough, N. (2014). Critical language awareness (4th ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman.
doi:10.4324/9781315845661
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge base of language teacher educa-
tion. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417. doi:10.2307/3588114
Gambino, C. P. (2016). American Community Survey Redesign of Language-Spoken-at-Home Data.
Retrieved September 10, 2020, from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-
papers/2018/demo/SEHSD-WP2018-31.pdf
García, O. (2015). Critical multilingual language awareness and teacher education. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter,
& S. May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism. Encyclopedia of language and education
(pp. 1–17). Springer., doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02325-0_30-1
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Mac-
millan. doi:10.1057/9781137385765
Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psycho-
logical Review, 98(3), 377–389. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.3.377
James, C., & Garrett, P. (Eds.). (1991). Language awareness in the classroom. Longman.
Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2007). Three fundamental concepts in SLA and their relevance in mul-
tilingual contexts. Modern Language Journal, 91, 905–920. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00677.x
Llurda, E. (2015). Non-native teachers and advocacy. In M. Bigelow & J. Ennser-Kananen (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 105–116). Routledge.
Mahboob, A., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Using local languages in English language classrooms. In W.
A. Renandya & H. P. Widodo (Eds.), English language teaching today: Building a closer link between
theory and practice (pp. 25–40). Springer., doi:10.1007/978-3-319-38834-2_3
McNeill, A. (1996). Vocabulary knowledge profiles: Evidence from Chinese-speaking ESL teachers.
Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 39–63.
176

McNeill, A. (2005). Non-native speaker teachers and awareness of difficulty in pedagogical texts. In E.
Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession
(pp. 122–138). Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-24565-0_7
McNeill, A. (2017). Native and non-native teachers’ sensitivity to language learning difficulties and
problems from a learner’s perspective: Implications and challenges for teacher education. In J. de D.
Martinez Agudo (Ed.), Native and non-native teachers in English language teaching (pp. 239-253). De
Gruyter Mouton.
Schulman, L. (1999). Foreword. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the Learning
Profession (pp. xi–xiv). Jossey-Bass.
U.S. Educational Language Policy. (2020). Retrieved September 10, 2020, from https://www.cal.org/
areas-of-impact/language-planning-policy/u.s.-educational-language-policy
Wright, T., & Bolitho, R. (1993). Language awareness: A missing link in language teacher education?
ELT Journal, 47(4), 292–304. doi:10.1093/elt/47.4.292
ADDITIONAL READING
Association for Language Awareness. (2021). http://www.languageawareness.org/

Conference on College Composition and Courses. (2015). Position Statements. https://cccc.ncte.org/
cccc/resources/positions
Council of Europe. (2021). Language Policy Portal. https://www.coe.int/en/web/language-policy/home
European Language Council. (2014). Policy Statement. http://www.celelc.org/about_us/Policy-Statement/
index.html
Kelly-Holmes, H. (2015). Analyzing language policies in new media. In F.M. Hult, & D.C. Johnson,
D.C. (Eds.) Language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp. 130-139). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
doi:10.1002/9781118340349.ch12
Lo Bianco, J. (2010). Language policy and planning. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolin-
guistics and language education (pp. 143–176). Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847692849-008
Wodak, R. (2012). Language, power and identity. Language Teaching, 45(2), 215–233. doi:10.1017/
S0261444811000048
Code-Switching: Code switching occurs when a speaker alternates between two or more languages
(or dialects or varieties of the languages) within the same conversation.
Dialect: A form of a language that is peculiar to a specific region or social group.
Language Awareness: Explicit knowledge about language.
177

Language Policy: Language policy is associated with language regulation and refers to what govern-
ments, organizations and institutions do to determine how languages are used.
Medium of Instruction: A language used in teaching. It may or not be an official language of the
country.
Metalanguage: Words or expressions that are used to describe or refer to language.
Metalinguistic Awareness: The ability to reflect consciously on the nature of language and its structure.
Minority Language: A language that is spoken by a minority of the population of a country.
Official Language: A language that is given special legal status within a country, typically the lan-
guage used within the government, e.g., parliament, courts of law, administration, etc.
Teacher Language Awareness: Teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about language in general and the
language they teach.
Writing System: A type of visual representation of language, based on a script and a set of rules
regulating its use.
178
179
Chapter 9
Flipping the Script on the
Language Teacher/Researcher:
Language Learning as a Vital Tool
to Decolonize Our Practice
Analee Scott
University of California, Berkeley, USA
ABSTRACT
Standard language ideologies, hierarchical language structures and resulting ethnic and racial inequali-
ties have long been reinforced within and by means of the TESOL (teaching English to speakers of other
languages) field. These standards and structures echo the colonial history of forced language assimilation
and indigenous erasure, a history that in many ways continues today. This chapter proposes language
learning and ongoing reflection on the language learning process as a critical framework that English
language teachers and researchers should adopt and apply to their work. When teachers and research-
ers take on the language learner identity inside and outside of classroom/research spaces, they equip
themselves to dismantle rigid power structures in TESOL, transforming the colonizer narrative into one
of decolonization, collaboration, and equity.
INTRODUCTION
Standard language ideologies have long been leveraged to create and maintain social, cultural and
economic hierarchies that perpetuate racial and ethnic inequalities in the US and around the world.
Language is considered standard when it adheres to the explicit rules and/or implicit expectations of
society’s elite—those at the top of the educational, political and/or socioeconomic ladder. As James
Milroy (2001) describes, standardization is not just about “uniformity” but about who in society uses
a (certain type of) language and how they are associated (or not) with “prestige” and “legitimacy” (pp.
531–2). Prestige and legitimacy are deeply racialized concepts, made evident in prevalent language biases.
For instance, variations of English associated with white, historically colonial powers (British English,
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch009

Flipping the Script on the Language Teacher/Researcher
Standard American English, Australian English) come with perceptions of correctness, legitimacy and
prestige, and are taught and otherwise institutionalized as “correct” English; meanwhile, variations of
English associated with non-white, historically colonized peoples (e.g. Black Standard Vernacular,
Indian English, Philippine English) are perceived as less correct, legitimate, and prestigious, though
no less uniform within their own standards (Rubdy, 2015). Frantz Fanon (1970) famously depicts the
relationship between whiteness and linguistic power as a product of colonization in Black Skin, White
Masks: “The Negro of the Antilles will be proportionately whiter—that is, he will come closer to be-
ing a real human being—in direct ratio to his mastery of the French language” (p. 18). Throughout the
book, Fanon describes how French colonization in the Caribbean tethered whiteness to correctness and
humanity (and blackness to wrongness and inhumanity) through language.
These biases about language and race have very real social and economic consequences that are
actively reproduced by academia. Pierre Bourdieu’s (1991) Language and Symbolic Power illustrates
how standard language use translates to symbolic competence within society; it grants access to being
considered credible and knowledgeable, key gateways to power and upward mobility. Teaching and
research are key institutions that uphold the relationship between standard language and symbolic com-
petence due to their control over “correctness” and “expertise.” Teachers and researchers are deemed
the valid constructors and distributors of knowledge based on how well they have learned and can re-
produce elite academic standards. In turn, education and science continued to be used to privilege the
knowledge, language and culture of dominant groups and oppress that of minoritized and/or colonized
ones. On these bases, the reproduction and rigidity of standard languages have been key mechanisms of
colonization, indigenous erasure, elitist language hierarchies and other institutionalized processes that
perpetuate ethnic and racial inequalities.
Today’s critical TESOL (teaching English to speakers of other languages) practitioner increasingly
recognizes and theorizes the need to decolonize their practice, but perhaps falls short in identifying
actionable ways to do so. Determining such methods necessarily involves seeing the deep-seated lin-
guistic power dynamics in English language teaching and research, reflecting on how one consciously
and unconsciously feeds into these dynamics and finding ways to disrupt this system in one’s everyday
practices. Applying such methods takes dedication, time and humility as an expert admitting they must
unlearn and reframe the very systems and benchmarks that propelled them to their current position of
academic and cultural power. This kind of time and humility can and should be grounded in the practitio-
ner (re)positioning themself as a learner and engaging in ongoing critical reflection about their learning.
This chapter proposes language learning itself as a process English language teachers (ELTs) and
researchers should utilize as a foundation for critical praxis. By learning a new language, teachers and
researchers have the opportunity to position themself as a non-expert as well as promote multilingual
normalcy. By continuously reflecting upon the learning process, they can identify ways to use their
critical linguistic awareness to disrupt elitist academic and linguistic values in their classrooms and
research. Of course, most ELTs and language researchers already have experience studying non-native
languages, many in fact being non-native English speakers (NNESs) who themselves have spent years
studying English. This proposal to continue learning new languages, especially those most marginalized
in one’s social or regional context, can and should be used by teachers and researchers of any language
background to enhance critical linguistic awareness and self-reflection, especially if it is not already an
ongoing practice.
The remainder of this chapter discusses how and why TESOL practitioners should leverage language
learning and translingualism to inform their teaching/research methods. The chapter identifies how
180

translingualism privileges non-English languages and their speakers in classroom/research spaces, and
how translingual practices promote fluidity of teacher/student and researcher/participant roles. These
measures aim to challenge the traditional elitism and rigid hierarchies of teaching, research and white-
centric, monolingual English standards. Current theoretical frameworks are first discussed through
an overview of literature, then specific examples of classroom and research practices that apply these
frameworks are provided.
CONCEPT
Monolingualism and Standard (American) English as Power
US institutions were founded on and continue to be upheld by white, monolingual, native English speaker
(NES) standards. Proximity to these standards and identities is proximity to competence and access to
social and institutional goods (Bourdieu, 1991; Fanon, 1970). As a result, the many multilingual individuals
and communities that do not (fluently) speak Standard American English, especially those that are not
white, face significant barriers to fair institutional access in the US. This context is especially problematic
considering how transnational the US and world are today, and how monolingual standards in the US
are at odds with the multilingual standards that dominate the rest of the world (Cruz-Ferreira, 2010).
English wields this pervasive institutional power not only in the US but across the globe. The concept
of English as a lingua franca has become of utmost importance in the world’s sociolinguistic landscape
(Crystal, 2003; Graddol, 2006; Jenkins, 2006). These authors point to the more than 1.5 billion English
speakers around the world, representing 20 percent of the world’s population. There are almost twice as
many non-native English speakers as there are native English speakers, illustrating the apparent interest
in and/or need for English as access to knowledge, participation and power worldwide. In “More than a
Lingua Franca: Functions of English in a Globalised Educational Language Policy,” Francis Hult (2017)
argues that English does not just serve as a lingua franca but as a:
lingua cultura (a language indexing socially situated value systems)

lingua emotiva (a language of popular culture and entertainment)
lingua academica (a language of research, teaching and learning)
lingua economica (a language of market forces and globalisation)
lingua tyrannosaura (a language of power or threat).
These English-dominated landscapes of power, labor, knowledge and social participation have forged
the “English as a lingua franca” phenomenon of today. This trend reinforces English language proficiency
as a gatekeeping mechanism to elite academic and professional spaces worldwide and reinforces the
relationship between whiteness and power.
Critical Responses to Monolingual, Standard Language Norms
Critical ELTs and language researchers increasingly recognize that monolingual English standards and
standard language ideologies have driven racial and ethnic inequalities in the US and around the world
(Rubdy, 2015). The US should be especially pressed to adopt translingual educational practices and has
181

the linguistic resources to do so as an increasingly transnational country. For instance, the demograph-
ics in US K-12 schools are growing significantly (and have been for decades) in multilingualism and
multiculturalism. In 2018, the Migration Policy Institute recorded 18,011,000 children with at least one
immigrant parent in the US (Children in US immigrant families, 2018). This total more than doubled
from the 8,194,000 in 1990, as did the percentage of children of immigrants out of total children in the
US from 1990–2017, as seen in figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1. Total children in the US with immigrant parents* 1990–2018

*Children aged 0–17 with at least one immigrant parent
These transnational dynamics are present in the US and beyond, demanding significant changes to
standard language ideologies and teaching/research norms. Translanguaging and translingualism, concepts
of growing importance in TESOL and applied linguistics research, are crucial to the effect of challenging
these standards. Bilingual education researcher Colin Baker (2011) describes translanguaging as “the
process of making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding and knowledge through the use
of two languages” (p. 288). Applied linguist Wei Li (2018) expands this in stating, “[Translanguaging]
is not conceived as an object or a linguistic structural phenomenon to describe and analyse but a practice
and a process—a practice that involves dynamic and functionally integrated use of different languages
and language varieties, but more importantly a process of knowledge construction that goes beyond
language(s)” (p. 15). In order to understand and incorporate translanguaging in a way that transforms
TESOL, ELTs and language researchers must be highly committed to multilingualism, the fluidity of
182

Figure 2. Percentage of children in the US with immigrant parents* 1990–2018

*Children aged 0–17 with at least one immigrant parent
roles and the disruption of traditional linguistic hierarchies, which this chapter argues begins with their
own language study and ongoing critical reflection.
Emic and Etic Perspectives
Understanding the complex systems that make up culture, language and power requires multi-layered
analyses and perspectives as a teacher and/or researcher. American linguist and anthropologist Ken-
neth Pike (1967) called for the combination of emic and etic perspectives to foster this understanding.
The terms emic and etic are derived from the words “phonemic” and “phonetic,” respectively. An emic
perspective is that of the cultural insider, the one who plays the role of informant or participant in a
research project. Emic knowledge is so inherent to its bearer that it may be difficult to recognize or
describe; it is also the most genuine understanding of the subject at hand because it is lived. An etic
perspective comes from the cultural outsider, often the investigator in the research context. Their lack of
experience with the subject creates a gap in understanding unless given the opportunity to experience it,
which researchers often seek through participant observation and/or spending lengths of time eliciting
descriptions and narratives from cultural insiders. In research, the etic perspective is often necessary
in facilitating the questioning, recording and describing process; that which is different from oneself is
much easier to identify and analyze. At the same time, robust emic experience is needed to inform that
analysis and triangulate etic observation. Thus, well-integrated emic and etic perspectives make for rich
qualitative research.
183

Critical Frameworks for Emic and Etic Perspectives
Through a critical lens, one sees that in teaching and research the etic perspectives of the dominant
elite continuously frame the emic experiences of the minoritized and othered (NNESs, people of color,
children, those with disabilities, the sick, the LGBTQIA+ community, etc.), largely in ways that rein-
force normalization and therefore privileging of dominant group experiences and knowledge. Research
has so often been undertaken without adequate (or any) reflection on how to bridge the emic-etic gap
in ways that promote social justice rather than perpetuate inequity and othering. Especially on the part
of highly educated, middle- to upper-class, white, straight, cisgender, able-bodied, neuro-typical and/
or NES researchers, the research “subjects” are studied because they are different from the researcher
and/or from what has been normed within the culture. Meanwhile, research on marginalized communi-
ties done by in-group scholars with emic perspectives, of which there is plenty, is deemed “not objec-
tive enough,” among other things, and is therefore not recognized as valid. Research thus continues
to systematically reinforce privileged researcher identities as the standard and will continue doing so
unless critical values and methods interrupt this cycle. In “Race, Culture, and Researcher Positionality:
Working Through Dangers Seen, Unseen, and Unforeseen,” Milner (2007) argues that critical racial and
cultural consciousness in research must be prioritized to promote social justice, and this consciousness
can be fostered through reflection and reframing. Researchers must explicitly name their identities and
positionalities in relation to those of their participants’ and use this awareness to nuance their analysis
through the lens of systemic, institutionalized injustice that must be repaired. If researchers adopt this
critical approach to bridging emic-etic gaps, Milner has hope that teachers and researchers can “change
and advance the research literature in ways that validate and give voice to people who have often been
silenced, misinterpreted, misrepresented, and placed on the margins” (p. 397).
Considering the need to promote multilingual normalcy and bridge gaps between emic and etic per-
spectives, this chapter proposes language learning as a practice ELTs and language researchers can and
should engage in and reflect on to reframe teaching and learning traditions. The steps below outline
potential approaches and considerations. Applied examples for each step are provided in the Portraits
of Practice section.
Step 1: Determining Language(s) of Study
As a language teacher/researcher sets out to incorporate language learning into their approach as a
practitioner, they first must consider which language(s) to study. Here are two considerations (of many)
that may guide decision-making.
1. Utility. Perhaps the most common consideration in choosing a language of study is how useful it
will be to one’s circumstances. A language that proves useful in one’s personal, academic and/or
professional life makes a lot of sense and helps one build interpersonal connections. Thus, utility
drives most language study choices, and for good reason.
184

2. Challenging Utility. While utility has clear pros, the benefits have ways of perpetuating linguistic
dynamics that critical language teachers and researchers may want to disrupt.
a. Language as commodity/capital. Language learning for personal, academic and/or professional
gain reinforces language as a commodity or tool that those with time, money and access to
education can adopt and leverage. Critical applied linguistic research explores language as
fundamentally intertwined with culture and identity, problematizing the hierarchies built on
language access and difference. Thus, one may seek out a minoritized language to learn that
is less likely to manifest as capital and more likely to promote linguistic diversity within one’s
context.
b. Colonizer and/or dominant languages as priority. Due to the language as commodity/capital
phenomenon, the most widely spoken languages (often colonizer languages) are positioned
and treated as the most useful around the world (English, Spanish, French, Mandarin, etc.).
While this reality is hardly avoidable, the critical language teacher/researcher may spend
time learning and amplifying marginalized languages as a form of resistance. In the spirit of
challenging dominant norms and assumptions; revitalizing endangered languages; and any
number of other critical linguistic values, working to advance a less dominant language and/
or indigenous language is one way to see teaching, research and other institutional practices
through an equity lens.
While any language learning choice promotes linguistic diversity and the opportunity for trans-
lingualism, utility-based or not, these are some considerations for instituting critical ideologies in the
decision-making process itself.
Step 2: Searching for Classes/Learning Opportunities
Identifying a learning space and pace can be challenging for busy, working practitioners. Here are a few
standard and non-standard ways to find language learning environments.
1. Synchronous Class. Synchronous (real-time, whether online or in-person) instruction in a group

setting is valuable for many reasons. It allows for greater interaction and practice with the target
language in a controlled environment, increased motivation and accountability, engagement with
peers, an established learning community, instantaneous feedback, communicative activities with
others, etc. Though this learning setting often presents various costs (time, money, energy, trans-
portation if in-person, etc.), the benefits are significant.
2. Asynchronous Content. Navigating busy schedules, time-zone differences (for online learning),
varying access to resources and other hurdles often make synchronous learning too difficult for
working adults. Thus, asynchronous learning, such as language apps, YouTube videos, online
self-paced courses, etc., are popular choices. These options are also often more affordable. With
asynchronous content, it is important to do everything possible to supplement individual study
with community engagement—chat rooms, practicing with friends or acquaintances who speak
the target language, texting apps that support language learning, etc. Not only does community
engagement enhance motivation and provide opportunity for experiential learning, it also supports
the bridging of emic and etic perspectives.
185

3. Community-Based Learning. A third approach is to ground language teaching and learning in the
language resources of students and/or community members, which is feasible (though not without
additional work) for the language teacher/researcher that works within multilingual communities
on a daily basis. When looking to partner with students and community members for language
lessons, it is crucial to avoid placing unwanted and/or unpaid labor on NNESs. Doing so would
further exploit the already marginalized to the benefit of the teacher/researcher and (other) domi-
nant language speakers who likely hold positional power. The author has taken part in three types
of community-based language learning that positioned students/community members as teachers,
more specifically detailed in the Portraits of Practice.
a. Student/participant as language teacher. One way to allow students to take on the language
teacher role without creating additional labor is to provide them with the opportunity to teach
a lesson or series of lessons in their native language(s) as a non-obligatory class credit op-
tion. This can be done by making it an option for a required class project, or one of various
extra-credit options. In having this as an optional project, NNES students are under no pres-
sure to take on the language teacher role. If offered, the teacher should scaffold the project
option with an outline of suggested basic language, potential lesson steps, ideal teaching tools,
etc., so the student does not have to start at zero. A researcher can adapt this approach by
giving NNES participants multiple interview protocols and/or survey frameworks to choose
from before data collection begins, one of which would involve their teaching some of their
language(s). Similar to the classroom approach, language teaching would remain optional in
this way and would take place only within the set scope of participation, not beyond. In any
learning/research context, giving students and participants (scaffolded) options is a key way
to center their agency and power instead of the teacher’s/researcher’s.
b. Cultivating translingual classroom/research spaces. Many ELTs already bring their students’
heritage languages and cultures into the classroom, but are those languages and cultures
adopted in ways that transform the space? If students/participants do choose to take on the
language teacher role as outlined above, teachers/researchers should reinforce their knowledge
and content within the classroom/research as standard. Create a culture of using the word
숙제 (sukjje) instead of homework if that is a word your Korean student/participant taught,
for example. Include their content in assessments, for teachers, and in analytical writing, for
researchers. Finding creative ways to give student/participant content longevity and weight not
only centers their knowledge but reinforces the language learning for the teacher/researcher.
c. Community member as teacher. With adult NNESs in one’s community who have the time,
interest and ability, it is possible to co-create and offer a language lesson, series of lessons or
full course for the community. At the primary/secondary school level, this could be offered
as an after-school event, an ongoing extra-curricular or a special lesson or unit on language
and culture in an English or social studies class. The teacher/presenter for primary/secondary
school could be a parent/family member of a student at the school (ideally paid), a local college
student (ideally paid or given college credit, such as a multilingual pre-service teacher need-
ing practicum or teaching hours) or another community member with the time and capacity
(again, ideally paid). At the college level, the course might be approved as a foreign language
course or could be a special lecture (series) for a class or department. Teacher recruitment
may happen through campus departments, and compensation can be monetary and/or through
needed college credit/teaching hours. The larger the scope of the offering, the larger the team
186

of organizers one may need to work with to arrange various logistics and curriculum develop-
ment. With strong enough community partnerships, buy-in and funding, ELTs and language
researchers can use their resources and networks to support community-based promotion of
minoritized languages and the compensation of their speakers.
This list of options and considerations could go on, but the details provided here begin to portray
ways of challenging traditional approaches to, and incorporating critical thought into, language educa-
tion. They also provide ideas for ELTs and language researchers to bridge emic-etic gaps and center
community investment and collaboration within their local context.
Step 3: Reflection on Learning Experience
Throughout the language learning process, it is critical that teachers and researchers engage in continuous
self-reflection in ways that are meaningful to their practices. Topics and questions for reflection should
be determined by the aspects of the classroom or research one most wants to challenge or shift. Below
are a few frameworks to consider.
1. Levels of linguistic analysis. Phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmat-
ics, as shown in figure 3. These levels of analysis are common bases for cross-linguistic research
and understanding. If a teacher’s/researcher’s practices will be challenged or served by a unique
perspective on how their language(s) are similar to and/or different from the target language, this
framework may be a good place to start. Sample reflection questions:
a. Which aspects of [level(s) of analysis] were difficult/easy for me today? Why?
b. How did different levels of analysis interact (e.g. pragmatics impacted semantics in X ways)?
c. What critical reflections can be gleaned from these linguistic levels based on positionalities
and identities of speakers/listeners (e.g. power differentials reflected in morphology accord-
ing to speaker/listener age/familiarity/gender, colonial history reflected in language transfer,
etc.)? How might this impact my teaching/research?
The levels of linguistic analysis are shown here, from most micro in the inner circle to most macro
in the outer circle.
2. Language Teaching Methods. ELTs often learn about various language teaching methods in their
second language acquisition (SLA) coursework: the Audio-lingual Approach, Grammar Translation
Method, etc. Reminding oneself of being on the receiving end of these methods can and should
inform one’s own practices. Sample reflection questions:
a. Which methods were used in today’s lesson? What was each method used for and why?
b. Did the methods feel effective for me in the ways they were used? Why or why not?
c. (If learning with other students) How did individual students respond differently to the learn-
ing methods? What are the implications?
d. What critical reflections can be gleaned from these methods based on positionalities and
identities within the classroom (e.g. certain methods heavily center the teacher, others shift
agency to students)? How might this impact my teaching/research?
187

Figure 3. Thomas’s (2005) major levels of linguistic structure diagram
3. Language Learning Motivation and Investment. Gauging one’s motivation and/or investment
throughout the language learning process spurs analysis of internal and external factors that shape
language teaching, learning and research. Motivation in language learning has long been researched
as an individual, psychological trait. Bonny Norton (1995) coined the term investment to describe
language learning as a process driven and also limited by various layers of sociocultural context
(history, politics, family, community, etc.), pivoting the TESOL field away from its focus on solely
individual, psychological learner traits. Both motivation and investment can serve as critical reflec-
tion points for language teachers/researchers to consider as they learn languages. Sample questions
for reflection:
a. How motivated did I feel today? Did this change from task to task/topic to topic?
b. What historical, sociopolitical, cultural or other contextual factors may be impacting my in-
vestment in language learning? Do different contexts (places, groups of people, etc.) change
my investment in learning/use of the target language?
c. How are my contexts different from my students’/participants’? How does this distinguish
our experiences and positionalities in the classroom/in the research context?
d. What critical reflections can be gleaned from the way identities, power dynamics, history and
other contextual factors have impacted my language use/learning, and that of my students/
participants? How might this impact my teaching/research?
4. Language, Culture, Identity and Power. The current era of sociolinguistic research also focuses
on the inextricable links between language, culture, identity and power. Language as a process
of meaning making, a signifier of identity and culture and a means of creating, reflecting and/or
perpetuating power dynamics are key ideas for language teachers and researchers to reflect on.
Sample questions for reflection:
a. How did the language I learned today reflect culture, identity and power dynamics?
188

b. How did the teaching/learning process reflect culture, identity and power dynamics?
c. What critical reflections can be gleaned from the way language, culture, identity and power
interplay? How might this impact my teaching/research?
Some, none or all of these frameworks can be used to spur reflection on the language learning process
in ways that reveal and bridge emic-etic gaps. Teachers and researchers should be creative and critical
in tailoring their reflective processes to what will best serve their students/participants, their community
and their personal growth.
Step 4: Application to Practice
Based on the language learning and reflection process, teaching and research practices should shift to
reflect critical ideologies. Examples of such applications are listed below.
1. Language Teachers. ELTs can apply their language learning experience and reflections to their
teaching in the following ways.
a. Patience. Because of their position as expert in the language classroom, language teachers
easily forget how difficult, nonlinear and necessarily repetitive language development is on
the learner’s end. Language learning is a way to remember humility and patience.
b. Learner experience as priority. Occupying the learner space also helps teachers see (or re-
member) that learner experience should take precedence over lesson plan and pedagogy. A
well-crafted lesson means little if it is not accessible to and meaningful for students. Teachers
that put their egos aside and adjust their teaching to the needs and pace of students are best
positioned to cultivate an accessible and therefore equitable learning space.
c. Student knowledge as value. When ELTs are positioning themselves as language learners, not
just language teachers, inside and outside of the classroom, they are more likely to see their
students as bearers of knowledge, not just recipients. This shift can help ELTs find creative
ways to center student knowledge and develop collective knowledge informed by everyone
in the space.
d. Ability to cultivate a translingual classroom. Non-English language representation and pri-
oritization are the baseline for disrupting monolingual classroom norms. Not only can the
incorporation of various languages into the classroom space promote multilingualism; it can
open opportunities for translingualism and translanguaging, where rigid linguistic lines are
challenged and reframed. A multilingual classroom involves the various languages of its
participants; a translingual classroom interweaves those languages, allowing them to play
off of one another and facilitate linguistic co-construction of content and what “learning” is
within the space. Blurred lines between languages are key signs of a translingual classroom.
This kind of fluidity and hybridity help challenge the hierarchical, gatekeeping qualities that
often shape monolingual and multilingual spaces alike.
2. Language Researchers. Researchers can apply their language learning experience and reflections
in critical ways as well.
a. Shifting one’s positionality within participant communities. Even if every multilingual par-
ticipant involved in a research project speaks English, a language researcher would be remiss
not to learn key aspects of the non-English language(s) of the participants/community, both
189

from sources outside of that community and from the participants themselves, so long as it
does not force additional and/or unwanted labor on them. This is a basic step in understand-
ing and subverting linguistic power. Note: researchers should be wary of linguistic and/or
cultural misappropriation. Researchers can (and often do, unfortunately) use language learning
to elevate their power and expertise in the research context rather than their participants’; to
make assumptions without adequate exploration and reflection; and/or to reinforce stereotypes
and perpetuate oppression through their analysis. If language learning and reflection are truly
used as critical foundations, researchers should find themselves better able to nuance their
investigative conclusions and uplift in-group, emic expertise.
b. Deeper sociocultural understanding. By studying the language(s) of one’s research partici-
pants (or any language, for that matter), language researchers have the opportunity to gain
a deeper understanding of how culture, history and identity are woven into language. This
process allows for rich sociocultural complexity in research analysis and allows researchers
to better a) triangulate observations, b) identify and bridge emic and etic perspectives and c)
recognize that language, culture and identity are inextricable.
c. Bridging and/or challenging one’s emic and etic perspectives. By studying the languages of
participants, emic and etic connections to participant backgrounds can be nuanced, blurred
and otherwise expanded. The researcher may learn new aspects of the language and culture
and unlearn/complicate others, all of which clarify and challenge emic and etic perspectives
on the research topic.
ELTs and language researchers will likely find infinitely more applications of language learning and
reflection to their practices, but these are a few to start that list.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
This section includes sample classroom activities for ELTs and interview questions for language research-
ers that incorporate the proposed frameworks. Activities and interview questions should, of course, be
adapted to one’s classroom and research contexts.
Classroom Activities
The following activities aim to give students the opportunity and agency to foster a translingual learning
space, whether in-person or virtually.
Classroom Dialogue around Translanguaging
In addition to facilitating needs assessments and student-driven classroom expectations at the beginning
of a course, ELTs should engage their students in dialogue about fostering a translingual classroom,
especially if it is a new concept for the group. Ideally, the teacher should begin developing individual
relationships with students and gathering background language information before opening up a whole-
group conversation. One-on-one (or, if the class size is quite large, small group) conversations with
students allow the teacher to learn more about their language backgrounds and also give them the chance
190

to begin proposing and describing components of a translingual classroom. For examples of these com-
ponents, see the following Classroom Activities in this section and/or the sources listed in Additional
Resources at the end of the chapter.
After individual/small-group conferences, the class can have a whole-group conversation about
translingual classroom practices and projects. The teacher should highlight the value of bringing all
student languages, cultures and experiences into the classroom, pointing out that students may feel initial
discomfort with the shift away from traditional, monolingual classroom norms. It is important for the
teacher to be explicit about what a translingual classroom may look like and why they want to cultivate
one. The teacher should also welcome student input and reactions and allow students to set expectations
for the teacher and one another before beginning implementation of such practices.
If a teacher pushes forward without centering student voices, desires and expectations, the critical
foundations of student power and agency are moot. The teacher should continue opening up dialogue
about translanguaging, critical linguistic awareness, and language and power as the course goes on. Over
time, students may become more comfortable and familiar with their peers and the teacher and therefore
more willing to take risks and/or provide their own ideas about how to cultivate a more translingual,
equity-minded space that bridges their own emic-etic gaps.
L1 Labels around the Room
This activity incorporates all student languages into everyday classroom talk. Note: explicit classroom
dialogue around translanguaging is important before this kind of activity.
1. L1 Labels
a. In person: Give each student a pad of sticky notes and a period of time to go around the
classroom labeling items in their L1/non-English languages.
b. Virtual: Use a shared, co-editable platform such as a shared PowerPoint/Slideshow, Google
Jamboard, Padlet, etc. Have images of items (with English labels, if needed) that your class
uses or refers to often during virtual learning. Give students a period of time to add text boxes
that label items in their L1/non-English languages.
2. Voting
a. After students have labeled items, facilitate an anonymous voting process where students
choose which non-English term should be used for each item moving forward.
b. When tallying votes, make selections that best reflect student voting and even representation
of all languages. Terms can be rotated periodically as well.
3. Implementation
a. Reveal the winning terms for each item to the class, and keep those labels visually attached
to those items however possible (make signs for the classroom, incorporate the terms in your
online learning management system, etc.).
b. Utilize both the English and the non-English terminology when you talk about the labeled
items moving forward, and encourage students to do the same.
191

L1 Mini-Units
This activity positions students as the language experts among their peers and their teacher. As discussed
in Community-Based Learning: Cultivating Translingual Teaching/Research Spaces, this activity should
be completely optional, whether as a class project option or extra-credit opportunity. The teacher should
participate as a student learning the languages being taught. Note: again, explicit classroom dialogue
around translanguaging is important before this kind of activity.
1. Sign-ups
a. Have interested students sign up to do a mini-unit on their L1/non-English language, consisting
of two or more 10- or 20-minute lessons for the class. Make sure other class project options
are available of about the same workload.
b. If multiple students have the same L1 background, students can work together as co-teachers
on their mini-unit. This requires differentiated rubrics and point systems for solo versus team
teaching.
2. Lesson 1
a. In a student’s first lesson on their L1 (teaching in English), have them teach a three- or four-
line exchange between two people, such as a common greeting exchange, introducing oneself,
making a common request, etc.
i. It is important that the teacher participate as a student and the student is as fully posi-
tioned as the teacher as possible during lessons.
b. The student should choose the method(s) for teaching but should be provided with options and
the offer of facilitation support: whiteboard use, slides, students partnering up and practicing,
group activities, etc.
i. As the teacher, ask questions during the lesson that reinforce your positionality as a
student, and encourage students in the audience to ask questions.
c. The student should provide a mini “study guide” for the next lesson’s quiz.
3. Lesson 2
a. The student should start with a short quiz, whether formal or informal. This can be done
individually on paper, through a group activity, through Kahoot!, etc.
i. Again, it is extremely important that the teacher participate as a student.
b. The student should extend the prior learning in one important way, whether that has to do
with describing cultural significance, talking about pragmatics, providing another way to say
a previously taught phrase, etc.
4. Lesson 3 + (optional)
a. The lessons and assessments can be extended further, if time permits.
b. Including student-taught material in assessments, whether those assessments are fully created
by the students or their content is included in the teacher’s assessments, is critical in order
to solidify student-teacher role fluidity. This establishes student knowledge as valuable and
necessary in the classroom space and reinforces the new language skills taught.
c. Critical consideration: the teacher must also be transparent and explicit about their position-
ality and power in being the one to ultimately assign final grades, manage the classroom,
etc. If time and class level allow, the teacher can facilitate critical conversations about these
dynamics and ways students propose to further challenge the dynamics, acknowledging that
192

they will always have to work within a hierarchical, inherently oppressive system to some
degree.
These classroom activities provide starting points for teachers to incorporate their language learner
identity into their teaching, to foster translingual learning spaces and to flip normed academic scripts in
ways that redistribute power in the classroom.
Partial Interview Protocol
The following are sample questions that incorporate a researcher’s language learner positionality into
their interview protocol. Sample context is given before each subset of questions to suggest what the
participant may have just shared with the researcher. This process depends on organically building on
what participants share about language during an interview, so the researcher should remain flexible to
what emerges from the participant.
Example Research Study: Korean-American Student

Experiences in US Public Schools
Interview Context: The participant describes 눈치(nunchi) as a key tenet of Korean communication.
Follow-Up Questions:
1. How would you define 눈치?

2. Can you give me an example of 눈치 in your family? How about with your friends?
3. Do you see 눈치, or lack of 눈치, in your school? When do your teachers have 눈치? When do
they not? How about your classmates?
Interview Context: The participant shares that Korean grammar and vocabulary change depending on
age, gender and social relationship between speakers.
Follow-Up Questions:
1. What is something in Korean that you could say to your friend, but not to your parent? How would
you change this when speaking to a parent? (Ask them to say these phrases/sentences in Korean,
then in English, pointing out the specific language differences). Why?
2. Ask the same kinds of questions for:
a. Parent vs. grandparent
b. Parent vs. teacher
c. Younger sibling vs. older sibling
d. Older peers with different genders → Does the language follow a male-female gender binary?
How or how not? Is the language adjusting to be more gender inclusive?
3. Do you think the changes that happen in language depending on age, gender, and social relation-
ship happen in English as well? How or how not?
193

Interview Context: The participant shares that there is more cultural exchange between Korea and the
US these days. They list English words that have been adopted in Korean, and describe various aspects
of Korean culture currently booming in the US: K-pop (Korean pop music), K-dramas (Korean TV
dramas), K-beauty (Korean skin care products and routines), etc.
Follow-Up Questions
1. Which native Korean speakers do you hear using English words? What words, and in what con-
texts? Why do they use these words? Do those words mean the same thing when Korean speakers
say them versus English speakers?
a. Ask the same questions, but flip to native English speakers using Korean words.
2. Do your non-Korean teachers know any Korean, or anything about Korea or Korean culture? How
about your peers?
3. Do your teachers and/or peers make assumptions about Korea and/or Korean people? How so?
4. How do you feel about what your teachers and peers know and don’t know about Korean, Korean-
Americans and Korean culture?
These examples of what participants may share about their native language and subsequent interview
question formation demonstrate how language learning can inform and enrich research methods when
organically brought into an interview by the participant.
This section provides an example of how the author engaged in Steps 1–4 from the Evidence-Based
Practices section with Tagalog language study. Portraits of her real teaching and research practices are
provided to highlight her application of Tagalog learning.
Step 1: Determining Language of Study: Tagalog
1. Utility. Because English is an official language of the Philippines and all Tagalog speakers known
by the teacher/researcher also spoke English fluently, or at least better than Tagalog, this was not
a particularly pressing or useful language for her. Utility was low.
2. Challenging Utility. Tagalog was a choice that challenged utility more.
a. Language as commodity/capital. Tagalog was not a widely spoken language in the area the
author lived in at the time; the most common non-English languages in the region were
Marshallese, Arabic and Russian. Tagalog was also not the best language choice to make her
more marketable or employable in potential future workplaces; Mandarin was probably the
most desirable language to that end.
b. Colonizer and/or dominant languages as priority. As a native English speaker and second-
language Spanish speaker, the author recognized the need to expand her linguistic and cultural
awareness beyond colonizer languages. As a language heavily colonized by both English and
Spanish, Tagalog was a language uniquely and specifically marginalized by the author’s lin-
194

guistic repertoire. She chose Tagalog to foster a critical, power-subverting language learning
process.
Step 2: Searching for Tagalog Learning Opportunities
1. Community-Based Learning. For all languages she has studied while teaching and conducting
research, community-based learning has been the author’s most common approach to language
learning. With Tagalog, the grassroots work to create the course was done by Filipinx undergraduate
students and the Modern Languages chair at the author’s graduate institution. The author joined in
as an advocate and committed student.
a. Community member as language teacher. At the author’s undergraduate and graduate insti-
tution in 2019, the Filipino American Student Union (FASU) initiated a movement to have
Tagalog courses available in the Department of Modern Languages. The author was in her
second year of the MA/TESOL program and, though not Filipinx, enthusiastically joined
FASU’s efforts in the spirit of promoting indigenous languages at the institutional level. She
signed petitions for the course and committed to register for the course if offered, working
with her graduate advisors to approve the course as a TESOL elective. The Modern Languages
department chair was fully on board to help a) secure department funding for a paid teacher,
and b) identify said teacher, a recent Filipina PhD graduate from the university’s Education
Leadership program. Tagalog 101 was officially offered in the Spring of 2020, and the author
took the course before finishing her grad program and thesis the following summer.
Step 3: Reflection on Tagalog Learning Experience
1. Levels of linguistic analysis: Phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics.

The author’s reflections focused especially on Tagalog morphology and semantics that reflected
the sounds and vocabulary of its colonizers, Spain, and later, the US. Colonial history emerged
clearly in that a number of vocabulary words in each unit were clearly adopted or derived from
Spanish or English. When learning new vocabulary, the teacher and her Filipinx peers would often
share that nowadays in the Philippines, the English word for X was much more commonly used
than the Tagalog word, especially by younger speakers. These linguistic evolutions clearly reflected
colonizer influence, and it was especially powerful to see the impacts of modern US imperialism
of the Philippines.
2. Language teaching methods. The Tagalog textbook’s approach was extensive grammar translation
through repetitive cloze activities, and the teacher supplemented this with long lists of vocabulary
and an assigned number of sentences for each new vocabulary word. While this approach may have
been fitting for Filipinx students in the class with prior oral proficiency and a desire for increased
literacy and vocabulary, the author and her graduate classmate taking the course (neither with
any prior Tagalog language experience) struggled immensely. In the author’s reflections on these
challenges, she named the need for more thorough needs assessments of students at the start of
a course, differentiation of materials in mixed-level classes, and more interactive, repetitive oral
activities for beginners.
3. Language learning motivation and investment. The author recognized that she was motivated
because of her interest in languages and the grade she was working toward in the class. She was
195

invested because the course was the result of a grassroots effort on the part of her fellow minori-
tized students, and she was passionate about increased diversity and indigenous inclusion at the
university. Deterrents to motivation arose in the lack of accessibility of the content for her level
and her oral interest in the language over literacy development. Investment was hindered by not
being required or pushed to use the language outside the classroom. These aspects reminded the
author that needs assessments to measure student language backgrounds and student goals/purpose
for taking the class are crucial for effective curriculum development and delivery. She was also
reminded to find ways to make the language present and needed outside the classroom context,
such as through community-based projects. This can be challenging with very minoritized and
devalued languages like Tagalog, but such is the reason to put effort into decolonizing language
standards in the first place.
4. Language, culture, identity and power. As described in the levels of linguistic analysis, looking at
colonizer language impact on the Tagalog language revealed striking relationships between language,
culture, identity, colonization and power. These factors were also key discussion points between
the author and her graduate classmate who also spoke Spanish and English, allowing for critical
discussion about the language content to be critical language content. The author recognized the
ways in which she needed to create more space in her own teaching and research for these critical
conversations, so that students/participants would also be able to see and challenge the hierarchies,
elitism and colonial underpinnings of standard English language traditions.
Step 4: Application of Tagalog Learning to Practice
1. Language teaching. At the same time she was taking the Tagalog course, the author was coordinat-
ing a weekly community-based adult language program through her graduate program at Gonzaga
University. She found various ways to apply her language study reflections to her teaching and
teacher mentorship in this program.
a. Class title: Gonzaga ESL Community Outreach (GECO)
b. Class context: Free adult English class in Spokane, WA. Moved online in March 2020 due
to the covid-19 pandemic.
c. Length of class: Two-hour class every Saturday morning.
d. Levels: Beginner, intermediate and advanced.
e. Students: Local adult immigrants and refugees, ages ~30-65. Languages represented included
Spanish, Portuguese, Korean, French, Russian, Haitian Creole, Arabic and Japanese.
f. Teachers: Undergraduate and graduate students at Gonzaga University in the School of
Education, especially those with TESOL specialization/focus.
g. Mentors: MA/TESOL faculty, alum and second-year students. Mentors would sign up to sup-
port teachers with lesson creation and observe lessons to give feedback and facilitate teacher
reflection.
i) Patience and learner experience as priority. The author’s struggles to meaningfully con-
nect to the long lists of advanced Tagalog vocabulary and writing-based classwork were
compelling reminders to spend ample time guiding GECO teachers for the beginner level.
She ensured they focused on speaking/listening, with an emphasis on “high-mileage”
vocabulary (words and phrases students would encounter and use most) and extensive
repetition. These foci require a lot of patience for native and advanced English speakers,
196

patience that is easily forgotten without personally being (back) in the position of lan-
guage learner. The author also pushed teachers to have frequent comprehension checks
and informal assessments to gauge what students had understood and/or were interested
in (or not), and to constantly adjust their teaching to this, so that learner experience was
prioritized over teacher lesson plans and curriculum.
ii) Student knowledge as value and translanguaging. As an adult language learner, the
author was also reminded that (lack of) proficiency in a new language does not equate
to (lack of) intelligence or capacity for critical analysis, and course content needs to
reflect this. Though these were not new ideas for the author, nor are they likely new to
practitioners reading this, continuous language learning experience and reflection on the
experience allow for emphasis, innovation and specificity in applying these ideas. For
instance, though a beginner to Tagalog, the author already spoke Spanish and English,
both of which were highly applicable to Tagalog learning. She and her Spanish-speaking
graduate classmate would translanguage with Spanish and English to make sense of
new content. They brought their critical linguistic awareness into this process as well,
reflecting on how the connections these languages had to Tagalog reflect past and present
imperialism and linguistic hierarchies. English learners, especially those in secondary
and adult education, have rich linguistic resources and are indeed some of the best criti-
cal, global thinkers based on their lived experiences, but are not always treated as such
through “watered-down” content. ELTs must be highly aware of how much their students
know and honor this by integrating students’ linguistic and experiential knowledge into
classroom content. Being (back) in the language learner position and reflecting on this
experience critically, especially as a beginner, gives ELTs powerful insight into practi-
cally applying their values to their teaching.
2. Language research. The author also collected data for her master’s thesis research during and
after her Tagalog language course. Examples of how she applied the language study to her research
approach are organized below according to the same breakdown of Step 4 in Evidence-Based
Practices. Prior to this breakdown, the research context is provided.
a. Research project title: Family Language Policy in a Multilingual Era:
Family Member Roles, Linguistic Tensions and the Generation of Choice
b. Research question: How do multilingual, immigrant families co-construct family language policy?
i. What role does each family member play in this co-construction?
ii. What linguistic tensions emerge for children of immigrants as they navigate language and
identity inside and outside the home?
c. Abstract: In the current, fourth phase of family language policy (FLP) research (King, 2016),
transnational families are making their way to the forefront of sociocultural inquiry as co-construc-
tors of multilingual language practice and identity. This ethnographic study analyzes the FLP of
three immigrant families in the US: one Korean, one Filipinx, one Latinx. In-depth, retrospective
interviews with two or three adult children from each family were used to reveal patterns in each
family’s implicit and explicit language policy. Findings suggest that parent influence, sibling in-
fluence and child agency integrate in unique ways to construct highly fluid FLPs. For children of
immigrants, tensions emerge between linguistic a) connection and disconnection, b) convention
197

and invention, and c) hierarchy and hybridity. Implications include the importance of decolonizing
institutions—particularly the language classroom and language research—and methods to do so.
i) Shifting one’s positionality within participant communities. Before engaging her research
participants in interviews about their language learning, the author positioned herself as a
learner of all three of the participants’ languages (Korean, Tagalog and Spanish). Because of
this, she was able to build rapport with the participants in ways that were centered on their
heritage languages; e.g., practicing introductions in these languages, code-switching while
sharing background information, etc. This process helped the author build linguistic connec-
tions with the participants and uplift their language expertise at the outset of each interview.
ii) Deeper sociocultural understanding. With better linguistic and cultural understanding from
her study of each participant’s language, the author was able to make more complex connec-
tions between language, identity, power and culture. This made for rich data and analysis in
her writing and conference presentations.
iii) Bridging and/or challenging one’s emic and etic perspectives. Perhaps the most significant
impact the author’s language studies had on her research was rooted in analyzing the impact
of identity through emic-etic lenses. She began by identifying her own emic, insider perspec-
tives in relation to her participants: she was a non-white-passing person of color, she was the
child of an immigrant (COI) and she was multilingual, which were identities and experiences
she shared with her participants that were pertinent to her research topic. Like them, she grew
up among other COIs and their families. Her closest childhood friends spoke and/or heard
the languages of her participants (Spanish, Korean and Tagalog) at home as the dominant
language. At the time of her research, the people closest to her (outside of her almost entirely
monolingual family) also spoke one of these three languages as their first.
Her etic positionality was not having used any of these three languages (or another non-English lan-
guage) dominantly in her own home. She was a barely simultaneous bilingual (acquiring two languages
at the same time during child language development) of English and Korean up to age five, losing nearly
all of her Korean proficiency thereafter. All of her participating COIs, however, were strong simultane-
ous bilinguals, at least in understanding their heritage non-English language if not confidently speaking
it. This last point invited deeper reflection on her linguistic experience versus theirs, especially in terms
of language brokering (a process of linguistic and cultural translation that COIs often perform to bridge
communication between one’s family and institutions, such as being an interpreter during parent-teacher
conferences, translating documents from school/the doctor/an insurance company, etc.). Her brokering
experiences were much smaller-scale and had lower stakes than those of her participants, making her
insight perhaps more etic than emic.
Through academic language study, the researcher spurred emic-etic integration, finding ways to see
deeper into but also distinguish herself from the participants’ heritage language identities. This process
made for rich, identity-conscious analysis in her thesis writing.
198

DISCUSSION
Priorities and Challenges
This chapter has offered that as TESOL practitioners work to decolonize their field, adoption of the
language learner lens can provide meaningful avenues toward critical praxis. Strategies for learning,
reflection and incorporation may vary among teachers/researchers, but the opportunities for role fluidity,
translingualism and sociocultural understanding prove instrumental across contexts. Dismantling traditional
teacher/learner scripts and monolingual dominance and standard language ideologies as mechanisms of
gatekeeping are the aims of these measures. While these aims are wholly worthwhile, they also pose a
significant problem in a world where English is tantamount to access. As TESOL researcher Sunny Man
Chu Lau (2020) has stated, “While disrupting English monolingual dominance, we should not lose sight
of its material impact on local people’s access to education and upward mobility” (p. 222). The lasting
tension remains between rejection of and access to institutional structures and capital.
In “Listening to the World: Cultural Issues in Academic Writing,” Helen Fox (1994) focuses on the
question of who must change, the institution or the individual, in order to bridge gaps between minori-
tized and institutional cultures. She speaks to academic writing norms specifically, but the issue pertains
to linguistic and cultural relations everywhere. Who changes their cultural expectations and norms to
meet the needs of the other, the NNES student or the elite, English-dominated institution? Fox’s answer
is both. There has to be give and take on both ends, a mutual commitment to evolve and invent truly
collaborative standards. The key for language teachers and researchers to recognize is that the student
has sacrificed and adjusted to institutional norms far more and for far longer than institutions have done
so. Rethinking and reframing institutional norms within our spheres of influence provides a promising
step toward more inclusive, just and integrated learning and research spaces. Language learning and
reflection as practitioners are but one conduit for transforming norms and sharing expertise.
Implications for Equity
1. Decolonization
Lau (2020) argues that decolonizing language education requires first uncovering and deconstructing
the privilege of dominant languages. “Given the prevailing global language hierarchies with English
and other named languages dominating over other minoritized and indigenous languages, any language
education has to be done in tandem with critical engagements that destabilize and demystify dominant
languages’ privileged status” (p. 222). The steps and strategies in this chapter seek to help ELTs and lan-
guage researchers begin this demystification and destabilization process for themselves and within their
spheres of influence. If one keeps these aims at the center of their own language learning and reflection,
they will uncover ways to incorporate critical frameworks into their teaching and research practices.
Lau (2020) also stresses the importance of exploring and uplifting what decolonization means to
classroom and research communities themselves. Teachers and researchers so often make assumptions
may readily—perhaps unwittingly—make assumptions, theorize and act without asking critical questions
and truly listening to those most impacted by the stratifying, exclusionary effects of elitism, colonization
and hierarchical power structures. In doing so, they perpetuate these effects even with the best of inten-
tions. This is why critical dialogue with students and participants is vital to decolonizing classroom and
199

research spaces, as is described in the Classroom Dialogue step of the Classroom Activities section. As
the one positioned with inherent power in these spaces, ELTs and language researchers must keep patience
and academic humility at the forefront of their work, language learning being a key way to sustain both.
2. Collaboration and Multiplicity
As ELTs and researchers seek to destabilize the privilege of dominant languages and center the voices
so often stripped of power, they should find themselves cultivating more collaborative English learning
and research environments. When students and teachers share the teaching stage, they share the right to
dictate and facilitate knowledge. Bringing forth and highlighting the wisdom and lived experiences of
all individuals in an academic space lays a rich foundation for collective learning, shared power, shared
resources and bridged emic-etic gaps.
With collaboration comes the ability to embrace multiplicity, replacing the idea of a black-and-white
world with a more nuanced, complex reality. For instance, as Fox (1994) argues, we must both decon-
struct the colonizer mentality perpetuated in our work and continue to give English learners access to
the linguistic capital that colonization has given so much power. Repositioning ourselves as language
learners in conjunction with our language teacher and researcher roles, not in place of those roles, is
what allows us to foster language learner agency and power. We must embrace “both-and” approaches,
seeing that flipping scripts is not a one-way or one-time process but an ongoing philosophy of fluid-
ity. Through this kind of fluidity and hybridity in TESOL, we can use our practices to move language
education and research toward a more just future.
REFERENCES
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Multilingual Matters.
Children in U.S. immigrant families. (2018). https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/
children-immigrant-families
Cruz-Ferreira, M. (2010). Multilinguals are. Battlebridge Publications.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.
Fanon, F. (1970). Black skin, white masks. Paladin.
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the World: Cultural Issues in Academic Writing. National Council of Teach-
ers of English.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next (Vol. 62). British Council.
Hult, F. M. (2017). More than a lingua franca: Functions of English in a globalised educational language
policy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 30(3), 265–282. doi:10.1080/07908318.2017.1321008
Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca.
TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157–181. doi:10.2307/40264515
200

Lau, S. M. C. (2020). Translanguaging as a decolonization project? Malawian teachers’ complex and

competing desires for local languages and global English. In Envisioning TESOL through a translan-
guaging lens (pp. 203–228). Springer.
McIntosh, J. (2020). Whiteness and Language. The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropol-
ogy, 1-12.
Milner, H. R. IV. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen,
unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400. doi:10.3102/0013189X07309471
Pike, K. L. (1967). Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior. Mouton & Co.
doi:10.1037/14786-002
Rubdy, R. (2015). Unequal Englishes, the native speaker, and decolonization in TESOL. In R. Tupas
(Ed.), Unequal Englishes: The politics of Englishes today (pp. 42–58). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Thomas, J. J. (2005). Illuminating the path: The research and development agenda for visual analytics.
IEEE.
Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30.
doi:10.1093/applin/amx039
Academic Elitism: Keeping dominant groups in power by standardizing their knowledge, language,
and culture, which become gatekeeping mechanisms to institutional access and power.
Academic Equity: Working to make content and academic participation accessible to all students,
no matter their background, prior knowledge, or identities.
Decolonization: Dismantling values and systems that keep the dominant language and culture in
power and prevent non-dominant languages and cultures from gaining power, oftentimes rooted in his-
torical and/or contemporary colonization.
Emic Perspective: An insider understanding of a culture or practice due to one’s lived experience
of that culture, often difficult to recognize because it is so normal to the individual unless questioned
by etic perspectives from a cultural outsider or investigator.
Etic Perspective: An outsider observation of a culture or practice of one that has never lived within
that culture, prone to assumptions, misunderstanding and othering unless informed by emic perspectives
from a cultural informant.
Monolingual Standards: Basing linguistic and cultural proficiency on the monolingual speaker’s
range of vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, pragmatics, etc. instead of mutual comprehensibility,
causing exclusion of non-native language speakers and multilinguals that make up a large majority of
the globe and, increasingly, the US.
Positionality: One’s role and/or power in a certain space or context based on their title, identities
and/or other factors that yield cultural expectations.
201

Role Fluidity: Rejecting rigid roles according to title, such as only teachers teach and only students
learn, embracing instead the idea that everyone has much expertise to share and everyone has much to
learn, and so facilitating a (learning) space as such.
Standard Language Ideology: The belief in “correct” and “incorrect” language production and use
(and subsequent associations with education level, socioeconomic class, racial or ethnic background,
etc.) based on rules explicitly and implicitly normed and enforced by the educated, ruling elite. This
enforcement is systematically maintained and reproduced by institutions, such as the rigid language pa-
rameters for different forms of writing, oral presentation, etc. taught in schools and used as gatekeeping
mechanisms to elite academic spaces and subsequent power.
Translanguaging/Translingualism: The bringing together of various languages to co-construct
meaning and communication without adhering to monolingual ideals of the languages used.
202
203
Chapter 10
The Critical Language
Reflection Tool:
Promoting Critical Reflection and Critical
Consciousness in TESOL Educators
Jennifer Miyake-Trapp
Pepperdine University, USA
Kevin M. Wong
Pepperdine University, USA
ABSTRACT
Critical reflection is an integral part of the teaching and learning process that requires educators to
reflect on their assumptions and practices to promote equity in their classrooms. While critical reflec-
tion practices and frameworks have been proposed in teacher education, a TESOL-specific tool that
engages with the unique complexities of world Englishes has not been developed. The current chapter,
thus, engages in critical praxis by providing an evidence-based, step-by-step reflection tool for TESOL
educators to enact inquiry. The reflection tool is called the critical language reflection tool, which offers
open-ended questions surrounding assumption analysis, contextual awareness, and reflection-based ac-
tion. Moreover, it applies a critical lens to the TESOL international teaching standards to help TESOL
educators and teacher educators foster critical consciousness in TESOL classroom contexts.
INTRODUCTION
To confront the historic inequities and injustices inherent to global English language education, TESOL
practitioners should endeavor to become adept at critically analyzing their teaching practices and contexts.
This requires engagement in ongoing inquiry that examines personal assumptions about language; situates
beliefs and biases about language within social, political, and historical contexts; and challenges TESOL
educators to reimagine their practice as emancipatory. To facilitate critical reflection and transforma-
tion, this chapter presents the Critical Language Reflection Tool (CLRT). Situated at the intersection of
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch010

The Critical Language Reflection Tool
Liu’s (2015) transformative learning framework and best practices offered by the TESOL International
Association, the CLRT acts as a guide to help language instructors and teacher educators participate in
critical inquiry. Learning activities and portraits of practice sections will demonstrate applications of
the CLRT in a variety of pre-service and in-service TESOL educator contexts. The chapter concludes
with a discussion of next steps in the development and implementation of the CLRT.
CONCEPT
For decades, reflection has been regarded as an essential teaching practice and widely included in teacher
preparation programs. Educational theorists and leaders, such as John Dewey, believed that effective
teaching entailed a reflective component beyond the scope of technical expertise (Zeichner, 1981-1982).
Dewey elaborated that “reflection is an active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or sup-
posed form of knowledge in light of the grounds supporting it and future conclusions to which it lends’’
(Dewey, 1933, p. 6). From Dewey’s perspective, reflective thinking differed from casual thought in its
intentionality. While he considered thinking a natural function, he determined that rigorous reflective
thought included processes and practices that could be taught and developed over time (Jones & Jones,
2013). Moreover, Dewey identified three attitudes that are critical for teachers to nurture in order for
meaningful reflection to occur: open mindedness, responsibility, and wholeheartedness (Zeichner &
Liston, 1996). Teachers at all experience levels need to exhibit and develop these three prerequisite
dispositions to deepen their reflective processes.
Teacher reflective practice in the context of TESOL has been the subject of recent scholarly discourse
(Best, 2011; Cirocki et al., 2014; Farrell, 2015; Farrell, 2019; Gun, 2010; Tinker Sachs & Ho, 2011).
Farrell (2015), for example, developed a framework for reflecting on practice for TESOL educators
that consists of five different stages of reflection: philosophy, principles, theory, practice, and beyond
practice. Practical reflection frameworks such as Farrell’s (2015) are helpful in engaging pre-service and
in-service TESOL practitioners in reflection that can benefit overall professional development, enhance
instruction, and contribute to student language learning.
Yet, reflection on practice alone is not enough because schooling, especially English as an additional
language education, occurs within the complexities of diverse, multilingual societies and intersecting
narratives. A turn in the field of TESOL that focuses on the development of Freire’s (1973) critical con-
sciousness in teachers is necessary to raise awareness of and empower action to confront the injustices
inherent in language education and policy. As Chan and Comey (2020) assert, TESOL educators should
actively address micro to macro-level inequities by “establish[ing] ongoing processes to be reflexive about
their biases and how their positionality affects their understanding of equity. Educators must examine
how they welcome, communicate, and value one another’s ways of being and knowing” (p. 5). Hence,
expanding teacher reflection to include critical internal and external examination could result in more
equitable and just outcomes.
Recent scholars have challenged reflective practice to extend beyond the analysis of classroom peda-
gogical decisions by incorporating aspects of situated critical reflection that examine and deconstruct
the social and political contexts of schooling. As Smyth (1989) explains:
Locating or situating teaching in a broader cultural, social, and political context amounts to engaging in
critical reflection about the assumptions that underlie those methods and classroom practices. Regarded
204

this way, teaching becomes less of an isolated set of technical procedures, and more of a historical ex-
pression of shaped values about what is considered to be important about the nature of the educative
act . . . [critical reflection] means starting with reality, with seeing the injustices of reality’s limits, and
beginning to overcome reality by reasserting the importance of learning. (p. 7).
Sustained critical reflection, what Yost et al. (2000) consider the highest level of reflection, “involve[s]
reflection on the assumptions underlying a decision or act and the broader ethical, moral, political, and
historical implications behind the decision or act” (p. 41). When educators engage in critically reflec-
tive processes, they are more likely to uncover the lived experiences and assumptions they bring to the
classroom and evaluate how that personal knowledge interacts with the broader context of schooling
and impacts their teaching decisions.
The goal of critical reflection is ultimately to construct “a more equitable, just, and democratic
society” (Dinkelman, 2000, p. 199). This involves both individual cognitive change (Yost et al., 2000)
as well as broader systemic change. Critical reflection is also situated within a social reconstruction-
ist framework. It empowers educators with the agency to interpret and construct new knowledge and
behaviors (Shandomo, 2010) that can transform the schooling experiences of all learners in society. As
Hamlin (2010) clarifies, “a social reconstructionist orientation requires that pre-service teachers reflect
on issues which extend beyond the boundaries of the classroom and consider the social consequences
of the school curriculum and their methodology as well as their effectiveness” (p. 169). Hence, critical
reflection from this lens requires educators to investigate the implications of their personal beliefs and
professional decisions in light of local and global contexts that influence language policies and English
language education.
Importantly, critical reflection is central to the enactment of culturally relevant pedagogy (Howard,
2010). For educators, critical reflection is an essential component of culturally relevant pedagogy, which
Gay (2000) describes as centering “the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and
performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning more relevant” (p. 29). While engaging
in critical reflection, teachers are actively considering their various social locations, and personal and
professional identities within a variety of intersecting constructs; thereby, analyzing the beliefs they have
about teaching, learning, their students, and the communities in which they work. This deconstruction
is necessary to confront the inequities that exist within educational systems and to focus on historically
marginalized learners, creating space for teachers to learn deeply about their own cultures and those
of their students in order to “turn critical thoughts into transformative instructional actions” (Gay &
Kirkland, 2003, p. 186). Rather than an indictment of teachers, however, Howard (2010) offers critical
reflection as a tool for empowering educators to improve their practice, rethink their philosophies, and
develop into effective educators of diverse student populations.
In addition, because critical reflection entails raising teacher critical consciousness (Freire, 1973),
the process supports equity pedagogy (Banks & Banks, 1995). As conceptualized by Banks and Banks
(1995), equity pedagogy is not simply a set of instructional strategies to engage historically marginalized
students. Instead, genuine equity pedagogy demands the dismantling of existing discriminatory institu-
tional practices and challenges the deep structure of schools that often transmit the hidden curriculum
(p. 154). According to Bennett (2001), the emphasis on equity is a direct response to school settings that
consistently produce differential educational outcomes for minority youth. For teachers to participate in
the levels of systemic change and social justice involved in equity pedagogy, they must engage in ongo-
ing critical reflection that challenges historical notions of effective education.
205

While critical reflection practices and frameworks have been proposed in teacher education (Liu,
2015), a TESOL-specific approach to critical reflection that encompasses the unique complexities of
world Englishes education needs development. The current chapter, thus, seeks to address this need for
critical praxis in the field of TESOL by providing an evidence-based, step-by-step CLRT for TESOL
educators to enact critical inquiry.
The following section describes the bodies of work underlying this CLRT. We first describe Liu’s (2015)
framework for transformative learning in teacher education, followed by the Standards for Initial TESOL
Pre-K-12 Teacher Preparation Programs (TESOL International Association, 2019). Drawing from both,
we present an evidence-based argument for the CLRT for TESOL teachers and teacher educators.
Framework for Transformative Learning in Teacher Education
To make space for critical reflections in classroom contexts, this reflection tool captures reflections on
content, processes, and goals (Liu, 2015; see Figure 1). Content reflection refers to what teachers reflect
about (e.g., an instructional approach or teacher-student interaction), and process reflection refers to the
thinking processes used to engage in reflection (e.g., constant analyzing, questioning, and critiquing
established assumptions). Both content and process reflections collectively guide teachers and teacher
candidates towards actions that enhance student learning, improve schooling, and contribute towards a
more just society for all students (Liu, 2015).
Figure 1. The processes, content, and goals of critical reflection
Drawing from tenets of critical reflection and transformative learning, Liu (2015) argues for a defini-
tion of critical reflection that encompasses content, process, and goals, asserting that:
Critical reflection is a process of constantly analyzing, questioning, and critiquing established as-
sumptions of oneself, schools, and the society about teaching and learning, and the social and political
implications of schooling, and implementing changes to previous actions that have been supported by
206

those established assumptions for the purpose of supporting student learning and a better schooling
and more justice society for all children. (p. 144-145).
Indeed, critical reflection is a cyclical process of constant self-examination of assumptions and biases
within a particular sociocultural and political environment. Without systematically engaging in reflection
that critically calls into question issues of power and privilege, teachers may inadvertently participate in
upholding systems that hinder contributions towards a more just society.
Liu (2015) offers a framework for transformative learning in teacher education that combines Brook-
field’s (1987, 1988) four-stage model of reflection and Mezirow’s (1990) call for action that arises from
reflection. Specifically, Liu’s (2015) framework merges critical reflection that includes assumption
analysis, contextual analysis, imaginative speculation, and reflective skepticism, with reflection-based
actions and reflection on the effect of these reflection-based actions (see Table 1).
Table 1. Liu’s (2015) stages of critical reflection and explanations
Stages Explanation
Teachers try to identify the assumptions about schooling and the society that underlie the ideas, beliefs,
1. Assumption analyses values, and actions that they (and others) take for granted and then assess the accuracy and validity of these
assumptions against lived experiences.
Teachers realize that their assumptions are socially and personally created in a specific historical and
2. Contextual awareness cultural context, that what they regard as appropriate ways of organizing the workplace, behaving toward
intimates, or acting politically reflect the culture and time in which they live.
Teachers explore alternative ways to current ways of thinking and living in order to provide an opportunity
to challenge prevailing ways of knowing. This is the realization that they can replace obsolete, irrational,
3. Imaginative speculation
or oppressive social arrangements with more contemporary, rational, or just alternatives. It can be both
liberating and threatening.
Teachers imagine and explore alternatives, leading to reflective skepticism. This is when teachers develop
a critical cast of mind to doubt the claims made for the universal validity or truth of an idea, practice, or
4. Reflective skepticism
institution. They call into question the belief that simply because some idea or social structure has existed
unchanged for a period of time that it must be right and the best possible arrangement.
5. Reflection- based
Based on the previous steps of reflection, teachers take action to change or improve their teaching practice.
actions
6. Reflect on the effect of Teachers analyze the effect of the reflection-based actions on student learning, upon which to make further
reflection- based actions decisions for future teaching. This may trigger another cycle of critical reflection.
The current chapter offers a CLRT that extends Liu’s (2015) framework for transformative learning in
teacher education to TESOL classroom contexts. Specifically, we consider how a reflection tool might be
operationalized in a classroom context, and draw from three of the six stages of Liu’s (2014) framework.
In Figure 1, we present a three-stage model to guide TESOL educators’ engagement in TESOL-oriented
critical reflection that includes Assumption Analysis (Stage 1), Contextual Awareness (Stage 2) and
Reflection-based Actions (Stage 3). This model integrates subfields such as sociolinguistics, language
assessment, language policies, and planning, language pedagogy, and language ideologies.
Liu (2015) refers to Stage 1 of critical reflection as Assumption Analysis. During this stage, teach-
ers actively uncover assumptions about education and society that inform their thoughts and actions.
Once identified, teachers evaluate these beliefs based on lived experiences. It is imperative that TESOL
practitioners engage in assumption analysis that encompasses the complex contexts of language educa-
207

Figure 2. Three-stage model for critical reflection in TESOL contexts
tion. For example, teachers may reflect upon the (un)conscious assumptions they have towards TESOL
(e.g., what successful English learners look and sound like), how they arrived at these assumptions,
and what evidence they can use to determine the accuracy of their assumptions. Critical inquiry in this
stage is driven by questions probing beliefs about topics such as accent, variety, nativeness, standard,
and multilingualism.
The second stage, Contextual Awareness, challenges educators to locate their constructed assump-
tions within a variety of historical and political contexts. This includes acknowledging that judgments
of appropriate instructional decisions are situated in and reflect specific times, spaces, and cultures. For
example, teachers may consider how their language use reflects their current cultural and historical posi-
tion, or how national and local language policies have impacted their language experiences. Questions
on the CLRT will reflect contextual awareness by addressing issues of language use, language policy,
and language colonizing.
The third stage, Reflection-based Action, takes the reflections from the previous two stages and
considers an action plan or next steps. Turning reflection into action, this final portion of the reflection
tool asks teachers to consider how they might change or improve their teaching practice. These action
steps are based on the specific teaching and broader sociocultural context of the TESOL educator,
the unique learning needs of students in the teacher’s class, and how realistic it is for these steps to be
achieved. Ultimately, teachers create reflection-based action steps that improve their own practice as
critical educators, which are centered on upholding equity in the TESOL classroom.
Standards for Initial TESOL Pre-K-12 Teacher Preparation Programs
In addition to critical reflection, this book chapter examines the potential of reflective practice in
global TESOL contexts. The following section, therefore, brings to the conversation a framework for
understanding TESOL domains, specifically drawing from the standards for initial TESOL Pre-K-12
teacher preparation programs (henceforth referred to as “TESOL Standards”) developed by the TESOL
International Association (2019). These TESOL Standards were created to “outline the unique content,
208

pedagogical knowledge, and skills necessary to prepare effective Pre-K-12 TESOL educators in the
United States” (p. 2). They are also performance-based standards that reflect current research trends,
which are organized into five broad standards: knowledge about language; English Language Learners
in the sociocultural context; planning and implementing instruction; assessment and evaluation; and
professionalism and leadership.
Table 2 provides a brief overview of the five TESOL Standards. These standards include sub-stan-
dards, which are not described in detail as questions in the CLRT were developed with these broader
standards in mind.
Table 2. TESOL standards
TESOL Standard Description

Candidates demonstrate knowledge of English language structures, English language use, second language
Standard 1: Knowledge
acquisition and development, and language processes to help English Language Learners (ELLs) acquire
about language
academic language and literacies specific to various content areas.
Candidates demonstrate and apply knowledge of the impact of dynamic academic, personal, familial,
cultural, social, and sociopolitical contexts on the education and language acquisition of ELLs as supported
Standard 2: ELLs in the by research and theories. Candidates investigate the academic and personal characteristics of each ELL, as
sociocultural context well as family circumstances and literacy practices, to develop individualized, effective instructional and
assessment practices for their ELLs. Candidates recognize how educator identity, role, culture, and biases
impact the interpretation of ELLs’ strengths and needs.
Candidates plan supportive environments for ELLs, design and implement standards-based instruction
using evidence-based, ELL-centered interactive approaches. Candidates justify instructional decisions by
reflecting on individual ELL outcomes and adjusting instruction. Candidates demonstrate understanding
Standard 3: Planning and
of the role of collaboration with colleagues and communication with families to support their ELLs’
implementing instruction
acquisition of English language and literacies in the content areas. Candidates use and adapt relevant
resources, including appropriate technology, to effectively plan, develop, implement, and communicate
about instruction for ELLs.
Candidates apply assessment principles to analyze and interpret multiple and varied assessments for ELLs,
including classroom-based, standardized, and language proficiency assessments, and advocate for equitable
Standard 4: Assessment
assessments for ELLs. Candidates understand how to analyze and interpret data to make informed decisions
and evaluation
that promote English language and content learning. Candidates understand the importance of facilitating
collaboration by communicating results to other educators, ELLs, and ELLs’ families.
Candidates demonstrate professionalism and leadership by collaborating with other educators, knowing
Standard 5:
policies and legislation and the rights of ELLs, advocating for ELLs and their families, engaging in
Professionalism and
self-assessment and reflection, pursuing continuous professional development, and honing their teaching
leadership
practice through supervised teaching.
The CLRT is intended to actively engage TESOL educators in situated critical inquiry. The CLRT is
presented in Table 3 and based on Liu’s (2015) framework for transformational learning and the TESOL
International Association’s (2019) Standards for Initial TESOL Pre-K-12 Teacher Preparation Programs.
Drawing from these two bodies to create a reflection tool represents an operationalized shift towards
critical praxis in the field of TESOL. Table 3 presents the CLRT in its entirety. However, like tools in a
toolbox, not all questions need to be used with each reflection entry. Rather, specific questions - or tools
- can be selected or used to guide teachers in deeper, critical reflection. The questions posed challenge
TESOL practitioners to critically reflect on their own social locations and positionalities, especially
209

those related to language, to inform the development of more equitable, culturally responsive, and just
English teaching practices.
Table 3. Critical language reflection tool
Critical Reflection
TESOL Standards Questions for TESOL Practitioner Critical Reflection
Framework
What (un)conscious assumptions do you have about Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages?
● Who should learn English?
● Why?
● Describe successful English learners.
● How should English be learned/taught?
Stage 1: Assumption Standard 2: ELLs in the ● Who should teach English?
Analysis sociocultural context (2a, 2b) ● What variety of English should be used?
● What is the appropriate setting for English instruction?
● What does proficiency in English sound like?
● Should other languages be allowed in English learning classrooms?
How have you arrived at these assumptions?
What evidence and/or lived experience can you use to determine the
accuracy of these assumptions?
What languages have been present throughout your life, and what power or
status do they have relative to each other?
What national and local language policies have impacted your language
Stage 2: Contextual Standard 2: ELLs in the experiences?
Awareness sociocultural context (2e) Which languages have you used in different formal and informal contexts
and why?
How does your language use reflect your current cultural and historical
position?
How can you seek collaborators with insider knowledge of local languages,
cultures, and values?
How can you implement culturally relevant English language instruction and
Standard 3: Planning and
assessment?
implementing instruction (3a,
Stage 3: Reflection- How can you foster the development of learner agency in your practice?
3b, 3c)
based Action How will you center equity in your teaching and assessment practices?
Standard 5: Professionalism and
How can you ensure that your family communication is respectful,
leadership (5c)
accessible, effective, and culturally affirming?
How will you use your knowledge of policies and legislation to advocate for
the rights of English learners?
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Pre-service and in-service TESOL educators would benefit from sustained and meaningful engagement
with the CLRT throughout their professional learning cycles. The CLRT is a practical guide, adaptable
to any context, that will remain relevant throughout the professional lifecycle of teachers and teacher
educators committed to critical inquiry. In this section, the CLRT is integrated into research-based best
practices in the area of teacher reflection to promote the development of critical reflectivity. The learn-
ing activities can be adapted to a variety of ELT environments.
One established practice related to critical reflection is action research (Yost et al., 2000). Action
research is a process through which teachers at all experience levels attempt to study and improve their
practice by problematizing an aspect of their classroom experience. Chant et al. (2004) observed that
210

preservice teachers undertaking action research projects in conjunction with personal theorizing activities
engaged in critical reflection that resulted in candidates “defining self, defining reflection, and defin-
ing professionalism” (p. 34). Hagevik et al. (2012) also found that preservice teachers participating in
critical and collaborative action research projects with embedded opportunities for reflection were able
to scrutinize their beliefs about teaching and learning and developed more dialogic thinking. In both
preservice and inservice settings, the CLRT could be incorporated into the action research process, en-
couraging English language educators to reflect on the CLRT questions as they analyze their data and
draw conclusions to inform classroom practice and local policy.
Critical incident analysis offers a method for analyzing classroom events that shifts the focus from
the technical aspects of teaching to the underlying circumstances, values, and decision-making processes
that caused the event to occur. Hamlin (2004) found that critical incident analysis enabled preservice
teachers to reflect on multiple levels by examining their professional values to decide whether or not their
actions in the classroom support their values. According to Griffin (2003), the use of critical incidents
improved novice teachers’ reflective ability, moved them towards a growth and inquiry orientation, and
focused their attention on the “variables” that influence classroom teaching and student learning. For
English language teachers, specifically, the CLRT questions could be used to guide individual and col-
laborative analyses of critical language instruction incidents within professional learning communities,
establishing a critical inquiry stance.
A variety of writing experiences have been successful in promoting critical reflection. Binks et al.
(2009), for example, propose narrative storytelling as “an alternative approach to reflection for student
teachers to understand and make meaning of their field experiences in an unobtrusive and connective
way” (p. 143). Dome et al. (2005) used narrative reflections in the context of diversity and issues of mul-
ticultural education. Narrative reflections proved effective in enabling preservice teachers to interrogate
their world views and examine “their own experiences, privileges, biases and assumptions” (p. 80). At all
stages of their careers, TESOL practitioners could engage in reflective writing activities framed around
the CLRT questions to further develop their critical consciousness and interrogate their positionalities
and those of their students and communities. Narrative journal instructions, for example, could include
CLRT-oriented prompts that challenged English language educators to critically reflect on their practice.
A final promising practice that stimulates critical reflection in preservice teacher education is partici-
pation in a variety of fieldwork experiences. Early and extensive field opportunities provide preservice
teachers with contexts to begin reflecting (Etscheidt et al. 2012). In addition, participating in concurrent,
but contrasting field experiences in traditional and non-traditional educational settings challenged stu-
dents’ notions of teacher and student roles and curriculum, exposing the complex relationship between
teaching and learning in context (Gallego, 2001). When structured to facilitate meaningful reflection,
field experiences and related activities have the potential to stimulate critical reflection and develop
the skills necessary for reflective practice. Providing access to multiple fieldwork experiences during
TESOL preparation provides future English language teachers with opportunities to work in a variety
of ELT settings. In these circumstances, the CLRT questions in the areas of Contextual Awareness and
Reflection-based Action are needed to help pre-service English language educators process and critically
reflect on their teaching experiences.
211

The following Portraits of Practice offer two distinct scenarios that demonstrate the versatility and appli-
cation of the CLRT. The CLRT can be implemented at various stages of TESOL educators’ professional
practice to promote critical inquiry. For example, when entering new language education environments,
teachers can engage in critical reflection to examine their positionalities in relation to the students and
the learning context. While planning culturally relevant language instruction and selecting inclusive ma-
terials, educators can refer to the questions in the tool to revisit how their assumptions may impact their
decision-making. Importantly, the CLRT can facilitate critical discussions among teachers and teacher
educators as they collaboratively interrogate their language teaching practices and policies.
This reflection tool can be applied in a variety of TESOL contexts and used with TESOL educators
and TESOL teacher educators alike. The following section illustrates portraits of practice in two unique
contexts: a TESOL educator reflecting on teaching practice; and a TESOL teacher educator evaluating
a student’s journal reflection assignment.
TESOL Educator Reflecting on Practice
A Vignette: Mr. Hamilton’s Audiolingual Speaking Lesson
Mr. Hamilton is in his third year of teaching in an elementary school. He works with a small group of
Chinese students between third and fifth grade who qualify as English Language Learners and receive
extra English language support from him. Today, Mr. Hamilton is working with a group of six students,
sitting around a table. His language objective is to help students distinguish between the /v/ and /f/ pho-
nemes as they are commonly mispronounced among Chinese heritage language speakers. Mr. Hamilton
is aware that the main difference between the two phonemes is a vibration of the throat: while the /v/
phoneme is voiced, the /f/ phoneme is unvoiced. He plans a lesson that utilizes the audiolingual method
and asks students to put their hands on their throats to feel the difference in speech production between
the two phonemes.
“Alright, students, repeat these words after me. Drive. [drive]. Van. [van]. Have. [have]. Knives.
[knives],” Mr. Hamilton begins.
He continues, “Excellent, now repeat these words after me. Wife. [wife]. Four. [four]. Forks. [forks].”
Finally, Mr. Hamilton says to the class, “Now let’s put these phonemes together in two different sentences.
Repeat after me, ‘His wife will drive the van.’ [his wife will drive the van]. ‘I have five knives and four
forks.’ [I have five knives and four forks].
Mr. Hamilton walks around the room with his hand placed on his throat, asking students to continue
repeating after him. Looking around, Mr. Hamilton notices that four students have their heads slumped
on the table. He feels a little discouraged because he thought his students would enjoy this lesson.
Mr. Hamilton’s Critical Language Reflection Tool
212

Critical language reflection questions Mr. Hamilton’s answers

Many of the students in my class this year are English Learners with Chinese as the
other language that they speak at home. In today’s lesson, I really wanted my students
to understand the difference between the /f/ and /v/ phonemes because I’ve recognized
this is a frequent mistake in their speaking skills. Proficiency in English sounds like
students knowing what the sound of all phonemes should sound like and having an
Stage 1 (Assumption Analysis):
awareness of how to physically make that sound. Acquiring this skill will make them
What (un)conscious assumptions do you have
successful, so I should teach my students this skill in a structured way. Having students
about Teaching English to Speakers of Other
repeat after me is an effective way to let students first hear what the word is supposed
Languages?
to sound like, followed by immediate and repeated practice. At first, I thought the
● Describe successful English learners.
lesson went really well as students seemed to grasp an understanding of the distinction
● How should English be learned/taught?
between the two phonemes and how to produce the sounds. At the end of the lesson,
● What does proficiency in English sound
however, there were a few students who were noticeably bored and/or unmotivated.
like?
I can see how the method I chose could be perceived as boring and unmotivating for
some students. Perhaps I should reconsider how to achieve the goal of my lesson as
there are other ways to have students practice that seem less “drill-and-kill.” Maybe
I can/should relinquish more control to the students, especially if they already have a
good idea of how to pronounce sounds and find my instruction too prescriptive.
I’ve spoken English my whole life and learned Spanish in high school (which I’ve
since forgotten). Even though America does not have an official language, it’s clear
that English is the language of power or that it has a higher status than Spanish in
this country. In fact, because English is used all over the world, it’s kind of become a
globalized language - a superpower. As I think about how I use language in both formal
and informal contexts, it’s clear I use different registers of English depending on the
Stage 2 (Contextual Awareness): context. I’m much more careful in my vocabulary choice and grammar when I’m in a
● What languages have been present formal context. In informal contexts, I let my language slide as I often just say the first
throughout your life, and what power or status word that comes to mind, and do not worry if my logic breaks down. It’s important to
do they have relative to each other? note that neither the formal or informal are better than the other as they have different
● Which languages have you used in purposes and functions.
different formal and informal contexts and Thinking back to my lesson, maybe I don’t need to have so many structures in place
why? (through the audiolingual model) because, if I think about it, sometimes the students
DO know about the difference between the /f/ and the /v/ sound, and they just find it
challenging to pronounce them. Sometimes it’s just about having an accent. As I think
about different accents when speaking English (e.g., Southern accent, British accent,
Bostonian accent), it’s not really fair to say that one is better than the other. So maybe
I’m holding my students to unfair or unrealistic demands of “native” English language
proficiency.
As I think about it more, I need to get to know who my students are, what their heritage
languages are like, and how that all influences the way they speak English in my class.
I hate to say this, but I feel like I’ve associated non-standard “American” sounding
English as students who are less capable when really it’s more about how they produce
language. I, therefore, think it’s critical that I collaborate with other members of the
Stage 3 (Reflection-based Action): communities that I teach in to gain more “insider knowledge” on the local languages,
● How can you seek collaborators with cultures, and values. This could involve me carving out time to speak with each of
insider knowledge of local languages, cultures, my English Learner students one-on-one before/after class. Thinking about equity
and values? in education, I need to really consider who my learners are and not just think about
● How can you foster the development of how they sound; they are more than their accents. If anything, their accents point to
learner agency in your practice? an entirely different way of understanding the world than me (with my own accent
● How will you center equity in your variety). When thinking about fostering learner agency in my practice, I think first of
teaching practice? all, it starts with me. I need to better understand who is in my classroom and to make
space for them to bring their lived experiences to the class. Second, I want to equip
and empower my students by helping them understand and regulate their own language
pronunciation abilities and also engage them in conversations that raise critical
awareness about what accents are, how different people view them, and the steps
needed to advocate for one’s self.
213

Analysis of Mr. Hamilton’s Critical Language Reflection Tool
This portrait of practice described a TESOL teacher who engages elementary school students in a lesson
that focuses on the /v/ and /f/ (voiced and unvoiced) phonemes. Students follow the audiolingual method
and successfully achieve the language objective, yet the teacher notices that a few students appear bored.
After the lesson, the teacher uses the CLRT to consider how his assumptions and biases informed his
instructional decisions. Using the CLRT, he engages in an assumption analysis, considers contextual
awareness, and creates reflection-based action steps. Mr. Hamilton demonstrates critical reflection as
he realizes he used scaffolds that were too rigid for his students because he did not think they could
pronounce these phonemes independently. Upon deeper reflection with the CLRT, he understands he
used these scaffolds because he believes students were not yet speaking with “native-like” accents. Go-
ing deeper, Mr. Hamilton demonstrates a heightened level of critical consciousness as he realizes that
he associates native-like accents in the language classroom with intelligence instead of prior exposure
to the language. He considers issues of power and privilege associated with the English language and
how the English language is spoken (i.e., reflecting on accents). Through critical reflection, he learns to
question his biases and resolves to get to know students and how they language. Taking his action plan
one step further, Mr. Hamilton then considers teaching students about how accents are perceived and
how to advocate for themselves, adopting a critical emancipatory orientation towards teaching in TESOL.
TESOL Teacher Educator Evaluating Student Journal
A Vignette: Professor Zojaji’s Evaluation of Ms. Saade’s Reflection Journal Entry
Professor Zojaji is a TESOL teacher educator who teaches a course on sociolinguistics. This week’s
lecture was about multilingualism and the role of students’ home languages in the TESOL classroom.
Drawing from readings about immersion pedagogy and Translanguaging pedagogy, the students in her
class discussed the merits and challenges of leveraging students’ home languages to support English
language development. After a rich discussion, students went home to write up a weekly reflection that
synthesized readings and class discussions with action steps for their TESOL classroom. Ms. Saade, a
former English learner in the United States public school system and aspiring TESOL educator, reflects
critically on her own schooling experience, eventually choosing a stance that invites students’ home
languages into the TESOL classroom.
Excerpts from Ms. Saade’s Reflection Journal
“I wasn’t allowed to use the language we spoke at home in English class. The teacher would get angry
if we did. I understand the merits of being immersed in a new language but there were a few unforget-
table, borderline traumatizing moments where I wanted to share something with the teacher so badly,
but she wouldn’t hear me out unless I spoke in English. I was so frustrated because I didn’t know how
to ask. I felt undervalued, ignored, and even a little ashamed that I couldn’t speak a language I had
never been exposed to.”
214

“Translanguaging pedagogy made sense to me. Why wouldn’t you allow students to draw from their full
linguistic repertoire to facilitate the process of meaning making? Why do teachers have an attitude where
they almost fear the home language in class? As if it’s something dirty or staining? Need I remind you
that English is already the dominant “language of power” in America and we need to be making space
for other non-English languages?”
Unsurprisingly, Professor Zojaji is pleased with Ms. Saade’s reflection. She always appreciates how Ms.
Saade draws from her lived experiences to wrestle with the critical issues discussed in class. With this
level of reflection, Professor Zojaji would normally find it challenging to think of feedback that could
further challenge her students to reflect more deeply and critically. However, turning to the Critical
Language Reflection Tool, Professor Zojaji considers how she could provide feedback according to the
three categories of assumption analysis, contextual awareness, and reflection-based action.
Professor Zojaji first examines the student’s assumption analysis from the first stage. Looking through the
list of questions to ask the student, Professor Zojaji realizes the learner has very carefully reflected upon
her assumptions about English learners. Specifically, she draws on her own experience as an English
learner to consider how the topic (i.e., medium of instruction and translanguaging) impacts the learning
experiences of her learners. The professor feels Ms. Saade addresses questions like “What is the ap-
propriate setting for English instruction?” and “Should other languages be allowed in English learning
classrooms?” and, therefore, does not prompt further stage-one reflection in the student’s journal entry.
Shifting her attention to the second stage of the CLRT, Professor Zojaji recognizes that Ms. Saade draws
squarely from her own life to address the questions, “What languages have been present throughout
your life, and what power or status do they have relative to each other?” and “What languages have
you used in different formal and informal contexts and why?” Using the CLRT to prompt deeper reflec-
tion, Professor Zojaji notices the question “What national and local language policies have impacted
your language experience?” She would like for Ms. Saade to consider how language status and power
have been shaped by systems that privilege one language over another, contributing to some of her lived
language experiences.
Finally, moving to the third stage of reflection-based action, Professor Zojaji reinforces her comment
about national and local language policies from stage two by considering the stage-three question, “How
will you use your knowledge of policies and legislation to advocate for the rights of English learners?”
Another question in stage three captures her attention as she wants to extend Ms. Saade’s understanding
of languaging in education beyond the walls of the classroom. She decides to also consider, “How can
you ensure that your family communication is respectful, accessible, effective, and culturally affirming?”
Using questions in the CLRT as a reference, Professor Zojaji writes the following response to Ms. Saade.
Excerpt from Professor Zojaji’s feedback to Ms. Saade
I appreciate your reflections about English as a language of power in the United States and how we
need to make space to consider other languages in the classroom. I whole-heartedly agree and wonder if
you’ve considered how you can ensure that your family communication with these students is respectful,
215

accessible, effective, and culturally affirming. [Reflection-based Action] As we try to understand why/
how English has established itself as a dominant language that doesn’t make room for other languages,
what do you think are some of the cultural and historical policies that promote such deficit views towards
non-English languages? [Contextual Awareness] Moreover, how can you use your knowledge of policies
and legislation to advocate for the [linguistic; educational] rights of English learners? [Reflection-
based Action]
This second portrait of practice described a TESOL teacher educator who used the CLRT to evaluate a
student’s reflection journal in a sociolinguistics course. The topic of reflection is multilingualism and
the role of using a student’s home language in the English language classroom. Drawing from translan-
guaging pedagogy (García & Wei, 2015), students in her class discuss the importance of strategically
using a student’s L1 to facilitate meaning-making in language classrooms. In her reflective journal, Ms.
Saade discusses how educators need to consider their biases in the languages they allow in the classroom
and specifically challenges educators to revisit their own language learning experiences to understand
how these biases are informed. Consulting with the CLRT, Professor Zojaji praises the reflections of
the student and encourages her to also examine the historical and cultural contexts that promote deficit-
or asset-based pedagogies as they relate to the language of instruction. Without the reflection tool, the
teacher would have affirmed the student’s reflection and found it challenging to provide feedback that
helps the student further explore issues of multilingualism in TESOL. Through the CLRT, the instructor
is able to encourage Ms. Saade to further explore the context of the issues at hand and to create action
steps that respond to these reflections. Collectively, the CLRT serves as a mechanism that fosters criti-
cal consciousness and, through actionable and potentially emancipatory next steps, empowers TESOL
educators to be part of a solution that promotes inclusion and equity in education.
DISCUSSION
The current chapter sought to engage in critical praxis in TESOL by promoting inquiry with an evidence-
based and culturally sustaining reflection tool. Drawing from the TESOL Standards and Liu’s (2015)
stages of critical reflection, these principles have been operationalized into a TESOL-related reflection
checklist, offering a step-by-step practice that helps bridge the gap between critical scholarship and eq-
uitable teaching practice for both TESOL teachers and teacher educators. Indeed, research and praxis on
critical reflection in pedagogy, particularly in teacher education and TESOL contexts, is lacking. Despite
the known benefits of critical reflection to empower educators with the agency to transform the school-
ing experience for all learners (Shandomo, 2010) and to support the enactment of culturally relevant
pedagogy (Howard, 2003), this book chapter spearheads an evidence-based, step-by-step CLRT that
teachers can use to reflect on critical inquiry. Beyond reflecting on beliefs and experiences, the current
reflection tool also demands that educators interrogate their personal assumptions while simultaneously
identifying and following through with their reflections.
Like with many emerging practices, the authors recognize that professional development and capacity-
building efforts are required to effectively disseminate this tool to the TESOL community. Specifically,
professional development needs to help cultivate critical consciousness among teachers about their teach-
ing practice as the reflection tool is designed for teachers and teacher educators to constantly analyze,
question, and critique assumptions about teaching and learning, while recognizing how these assumptions
216

are situated within a broader sociocultural and political context (Liu, 2015). To teachers’ developing
understandings of critical reflection, professional development may consider scaffolding workshops with
the processes, content, and goals of making changes that enhance student learning while contributing
towards a more just society (Figure 1). Moreover, teacher educators may benefit from workshops and
webinars that demonstrate how the reflection tool can be woven into coursework and assessments to
deeply engage pre- and in-service teacher candidates in critical reflection.
Addressing a need in TESOL praxis, the CLRT presented in this chapter serves as a starting point
for future research. Although firmly planted at the intersections of Liu’s (2015) reflection framework
and the TESOL Standards (TESOL International Association, 2019), the current reflection tool would
benefit from a thorough analysis of stakeholder perspectives to enhance the face and content validity
of the tool. Triangulating the answers of teacher and student reflections at multiple time points with
follow-up interviews to understand how the tool might raise critical consciousness and foster a depth of
reflection that contributes to transformative understandings of teaching and learning in TESOL contexts.
At the same time, when this reflection tool is incorporated into the teaching and learning process,
it has the potential to serve as a mechanism to promote deeper reflection on practice and critical issues
in language education. By nature, reflection is a sustaining process as TESOL educators engage in this
mechanism that inherently improves their teaching practice. Critical reflection further expands this pur-
pose of reflection by raising critical consciousness (Freire, 1973) and engaging teachers in understand-
ing assumptions and appropriate next steps that confront the injustices inherent in language education.
These injustices exist as micro and macro-level inequities that are affected by teacher positionality and
overarching understandings of equity (Chan & Comey, 2020). Without question, the ability to raise criti-
cal consciousness is challenging in TESOL educators who come to classrooms with biases and assump-
tions that are informed by the sociocultural environment. Yet, bridging critical theory and practice, this
chapter aimed to engage TESOL educators and teacher educators in critical praxis by providing them
with an evidence-based reflection tool to improve their practice and create a more equitable learning
environment for all.
REFERENCES
Allen, A., Scott, L. M., & Lewis, C. W. (2013). Racial microaggressions and African American and
Hispanic students in urban schools: A call for culturally affirming education. Interdisciplinary Journal
of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 117–129.
Banks, C. A. M., & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural
education. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 152–158. doi:10.1080/00405849509543674
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational Research,
71(2), 171–217. doi:10.3102/00346543071002171
Best, K. (2011). Transformation through research-based reflection: A self-study of written feedback
practice. TESOL Journal, 2(4), 492–509. doi:10.5054/tj.2010.271901
Binks, E., Smith, D. L., Smith, L. J., & Joshi, M. (2009). Tell me your story: A reflection strategy for
preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(4), 141–156.
217

Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways
of thinking and acting. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Brookfield, S. D. (1988). Organizing concepts and practices in adult education in the United States. In
S. D. Brookfield (Ed.), Training educators of adults. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Chant, R. H., Heafner, T. L., & Bennett, K. R. (2004). Connecting personal theorizing and action research
in preservice teacher development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(3), 25–42.
Cirocki, A., Tennekoon, S., & Pena Calvo, A. (2014). Research and reflective practice in the ESL class-
room: Voices from Sri Lanka. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 24–44. doi:10.14221/
ajte.2014v39n4.2
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of the reflective thinking to the educative
process. D.C. Heath & Co.
Dinkelman, T. (2000). An inquiry into the development of critical reflection in secondary student teach-
ers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 195–222. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00055-4
Dome, N., Prado-Olmos, P., Ulanoff, S. H., Garcia Ramos, R. G., Vega-Casteneda, L., & Quiocho, A.
M. L. (2005). “I don’t like not knowing how the world works”: Examining preservice teachers’ narrative
reflections. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 63–83.
Etscheidt, S., Curran, C. M., & Sawyer, C. M. (2012). Promoting reflection in teacher preparation programs: A
multilevel model. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(1), 7–26. doi:10.1177/0888406411420887
Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for
TESOL professionals. Routledge.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2019). Reflective practice in ELT. Equinox.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury Press.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. Bloomsbury.
Gallego, M. A. (2001). Is experience the best teacher? The potential of coupling classroom and community-
based field experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 312–325. doi:10.1177/0022487101052004005
García, O., & Wei, L. (2015). Translanguaging, bilingualism, and bilingual education. The handbook
of bilingual and multilingual education, 223, 240.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching. Teachers College Press.
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in pre-
service teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 181–187. doi:10.120715430421tip4203_3
Griffin, M. L. (2003). Using critical incidents to promote and assess reflective thinking in preservice
teachers. Reflective Practice, 4(2), 207–220. doi:10.1080/14623940308274
218

Gun, B. (2010). Quality self-reflection through reflection training. ELT Journal, 65(2), 126–135.
doi:10.1093/elt/ccq040
Hagevik, R., Aydeniz, M., & Rowell, C. G. (2012). Using action research in middle level teacher edu-
cation to evaluate and deepen reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 675–684.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.006
Hamlin, K. D. (2010). Beginning the journey: Supporting reflection in early field experience. Reflective
Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 5(2), 167–179. doi:10.1080/14623940410
001690956
Howard, T. C. (2010). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory
into Practice, 42(3), 195–202. doi:10.120715430421tip4203_5
Jones, J. L., & Jones, K. A. (2013). Teaching reflective practice: Implementation in the teacher-education
setting. Teacher Educator, 48(1), 73–85. doi:10.1080/08878730.2012.740153
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy.
Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. doi:10.1080/00405849509543675
Liu, K. (2015). Critical reflection as a framework for transformative learning in teacher education.
Educational Review, 67(2), 135–157. doi:10.1080/00131911.2013.839546
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipa-
tory learning. Jossey-Bass.
Shandomo, H. M. (2010). The role of critical reflection in teacher education. School-University Partner-
ships, 4(1), 101–113.
Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 40(2), 2–9. doi:10.1177/002248718904000202
TESOL International Association. (2019). Standards for Initial TESOL Pre-K-12 Teacher Preparation
Programs. Author.
Tinker Sachs, G. M., & Ho, B. (2011). Using cases in EFL/ESL teacher education. Innovation in Lan-
guage Learning and Teaching, 5(3), 273–289. doi:10.1080/17501229.2010.537755
Yost, S. Y., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, S. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical
reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Edu-
cation, 51(1), 39–49. doi:10.1177/002248710005100105
Zeichner, K. M. (1981-1982). Reflective teaching and field-based experience in teacher education.
Interchange (Washington, D.C.), 12(4), 1–22. doi:10.1007/BF01807805
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum.
219

Critical Consciousness: The process through which oppressed people learn to critically analyze the
social conditions causing their marginalization and act to change perceived inequities (Freire, 1970).
Culturally Affirming: Centers racial consciousness, supports the development of positive self-
concept, and affirms the lived experiences of marginalized racial and ethnic groups (Allen et al., 2013).
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: A pedagogy of collective empowerment characterized by academic
success, maintenance of cultural competence, and development of critical consciousness (Ladson-
Billings, 1995).
Equity: Identifying and removing barriers preventing access to marginalized groups while providing
just and fair resources and opportunities to all.
Language Policies: Transnational, national, regional, or local laws regulating the official use of
languages in a variety of contexts, such as government offices, schools, etc.
Reflective Practice: The process through which teachers use various lenses to actively reflect on
and improve their teaching practices.
220
221
Chapter 11
Critical Ethnography in a
Language Classroom:
Learning to Become an
Equitable Practitioner
Camillia A. Trombino
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9883-6353
Glendale Community College, USA
Ekaterina Moore
ABSTRACT
The chapter discusses a critical mini classroom ethnography as a pedagogical tool for educators work-
ing with multilingual learners in K-12 or adult settings. Critical classroom ethnography and culturally
responsive instruction in language teaching are discussed. For practicing language educators, a question-
naire, an interview guide, and a reflection template are offered. For pre-service teachers, a structured
observation template is included. The suggested tools are discussed in relation to equitable and inclusive
educational practices to help develop critical ethnographic skills as they pertain to critically reflective
observation which can be utilized by all teachers. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how the
mini classroom ethnography’s use by a candidate in a language teacher preparation program in the US
led to the process of critical and linguistic self-reflection and transformation towards becoming a more
culturally responsive and inclusive practitioner.
INTRODUCTION
Teachers are in a sense researchers in their own classrooms, either informally or formally, which can
help to better understand students’ language choices and cultural norms, inform oneself to be a reflec-
tive practitioner, and create space for promoting equitable moments of learning. Even when a teacher
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch011

Critical Ethnography in a Language Classroom
is not conducting a formal research study, they can engage in culturally responsive instruction (CRI) by
identifying students’ cultural and linguistic practices and experiences. This awareness can be drawn on,
endorsed, and maintained through relevant instruction that recognizes students’ strengths and contrib-
utes to empowerment and better student achievement (Powell, et al., 2016). The authors of this article
maintain that one part of this process is gaining a good understanding of the learners, while another part
is better understanding oneself in relation to the teaching space.
This chapter discusses critical praxis in language teaching and advocacy using instructional prac-
tices and tools including a critically-oriented mini ethnographic case study as a pedagogical tool for
pre- and in-service teachers working with multilingual learners to develop and/or work towards cultur-
ally responsive instruction. Pre-service teachers can be those who are completing teacher preparation
programs to begin their teaching careers while in-service refers to practicing educators in the field of
English or Other Language Education. In the chapter, the term ‘teachers’ or ‘educators’’ will be used to
refer to both pre- and in-service teachers. These can be teachers of K-12 ELD/immersion programs and
post-secondary TESOL, EFL, ELD, and/or EAP classrooms and centers of learning.
The chapter focuses on the area of language teaching and discusses the combined perspectives of
an instructor and a student who have participated in a similar assignment. We first introduce the reader
to the concept of critically-oriented ethnography and culturally responsive instruction in education as
pedagogical tools for teachers. We then discuss conducting research on one’s own teaching context,
being a careful observer, and a critical reflective practitioner by using a questionnaire (see Appendix),
Interview Guide, and Reflection Template guided by the Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation
Protocol (CRIOP) (Powell & Rightmyer, 2011; Powell et. al., 2016).
Next, we discuss the specific skills and steps that teachers should take away from doing the ethnographic
case study for their own teaching practice. To support these practitioners to become more culturally
responsive educators, fieldwork journals and an Observation Template are discussed with the CRIOP
pillars. Although any educator, whether they are a seasoned practitioner or just starting out in the area
of language teaching can use one or all of these tools at any point in their career, they can also be used
in combination to conduct the mini-ethnographic case study. We then proceed to provide an example
of how an ethnographic case study was implemented in the context of a teacher preparation program at
the University of Southern California. In this section, Author 1 discusses the process of conducting the
mini-ethnography case-study in a secondary immersion classroom and how she was lead to observe and
reflect on multilingual and multicultural students through culturally sustaining methods. Specific tools
such as course-specific fieldwork journaling and the Interview and CRIOP-based Observation Templates
are discussed in relation to becoming a more critically reflective and culturally responsive practitioner.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of the suggested approach and additional
resources for those interested in further readings.
CONCEPT
Ethnography in Education
If not presented with live moments of interaction, to theorize about a classroom one might rely on others’
descriptions, memory, and/or some degree of imagination. Recreating scenarios of classroom dynamics
for innovative future possibilities of education pale in comparison to observing and considering the lin-
222

guistic choices and positionings made daily by those in the thick of it. In making meaning of true-to-life
scenarios for pre- and in-service teachers, ethnographic case studies have assisted educators in better
understanding of linguistic and educational habits and experiences through the narrations, interviews,
observations, and reflection attached to lived, daily experiences. Ethnographic research can contribute
to reflexive linguistic analysis, for example, comparing one’s ways of speaking with that of students, and
lead to teachers being better prepared to teach all students more effectively (Alim, 2010, p. 223). It can
also lead to positive developments in language education and second language acquisition by centering
the unique experiences of minoritized language learners and creating spaces for positive change (Anya,
2016). Conducting formal research like an ethnographic case study or maintaining an informal aware-
ness of classroom linguistic practices can assist practicing teachers and be an excellent way in preparing
future teachers to excel as equity-oriented professionals in multilingual and multicultural classrooms.
As teachers learn from students and students from teachers, theory informs practice within education
and teaching in interconnected ways so that studying the linguistic practices in the language classroom
can have profound positive effects on classroom and educational policies and practice (Conteh, 2018).
Ethnography is a descriptive and interpretive research process (Copland & Creese, 2015) in which
social practices are observed and guided by theory and practices of inquiry through tools that support
the accumulation of information relevant to the focus of the study (Heller, 2011; Conteh, 2018). For an
ethnographic study in a language classroom these tools include observations, reflections, interviews, and
analysis of artifacts, such as prior student report cards, lesson plans, and classroom handouts.
In conducting an ethnographic study, it is equally important to develop an understanding, respect, and
value of the perspectives of all participants- researchers and researched. It is crucial to maintain transpar-
ency of the researcher’s role, establish commitment to respect the relevance and value of participants’
communities, and the understanding that all interaction and expression is mediated by social, cultural,
political, and historical contexts (Conteh, 2018, p. 17). Language teachers should be ethnographers of
their own classroom, orienting towards not only linguistic development of their students, but also how
this development is mediated by all of these contexts. An important consideration is the awareness of
how one’s own positioning, subjectivities, and self-awareness influence how we see and how we do
things, including research in our own classrooms. Due to the impossibility of neutrality, we see through
the lenses of our experiences and our positions in relation to that and those observed.
Critically Orientated Ethnography and Culturally Responsive Instruction
Ethnographic research can create collaborations of experience among participants. The transmission of
ideas and possibilities for understanding can take place, which perhaps do not mirror one’s own experi-
ences, place and belonging, but could instead be infinite, and beyond what one might have imagined. In
the space between one’s experience and that observed, teachers have the moral responsibility to be critical
of the unequal distributions of power and creation of value stratifications that legitimize sociopolitical,
racial, and linguistic hegemonies (Heller, 2011, p. 7). Undeniably, more powerful groups contribute to the
exclusion of minoritized peoples by way of language, race, class, culture, and gender, and in educational
spaces can be concealed in the curriculum and in the power relations among teachers, administrative
personnel, and students in and out of the classroom (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Kumaravadivelu,
2003; Alim, 2016). The exclusion of certain students can occur by affirming the dreams, abilities, desires,
and values of certain groups over others. This can occur during moments of discussion, descriptions
of textbooks, curricular materials, course content, and social relationships materialized out of practice
223

(McLaren, 1984). The combined forces of bureaucracy, administration and teaching that are induced
by and induce the dominant ideologies and social practices of authority, in addition to the conduct and
morality within educational spaces, (McLaren, 1984, p. 222) can reproduce these exclusions based on
race, gender, class, and linguistic variations. Just as disparities and proliferation of more powerful socio-
cultural elements occur in educational environments, they simultaneously occur linguistically in these
same spaces. The undervalue and racialization of speakers of a language by the very same educational
institutions that intend on educating and socializing students can have long standing positive and nega-
tive effects in classroom participation and presence (Alim, 2010; Gee, 2015; Alim & Paris, 2017), or as
Norton (2010) deems investment, in their learning communities.
“When learners speak or remain silent; when they write, read or resist, we need to understand the
extent to which the learner is valued in a particular classroom, institution or community” (Norton, 2010,
p. 351). If students’ ways of speaking and self-expression are considered erroneous or in need of ‘repair’,
they can feel ridiculed, shut down, and cease to feel connected to classroom dynamics. Without critical
discussions surrounding the presentation of standard varieties of languages in a [language] classroom,
additional varieties can be considered by students, who might speak these varieties, as substandard and
“having a lesser role in places like schools where prestige really matters” (Corson, 1999). Students’ re-
sistance to the imposition of that which does not encompass their experience (or ways of speaking) can
be connected to the idea that if their language is not good enough for society then perhaps neither are
they (Alim, 2010, p. 213). On the other hand, when students’ ways of speaking are valued, and are drawn
upon, instruction is considered more effective and results in higher levels of student achievement (Powell
et al., 2016, p. 3). Culturally responsive instruction (CRI), also referred to by other names, including
“culturally responsive pedagogy,” “culturally responsive teaching,” “culturally relevant pedagogy,” and
“culturally sustaining pedagogy” is an asset-based approach to instruction in that it considers students as
sources and resources of knowledge and skills (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2009, 2014). CRI “validates
and affirms students’ linguistic and cultural knowledge and seeks to empower students and their families
by valuing their resources and by helping them to interrogate and act upon real-world issues” (Powell
et.al, 2016, p. 3). It also considers “linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of the democratic
project of schooling” (Paris and Alim, 2014, p. 88; Paris, 2012) and promotes student success as well
as societal change (Powell et. al., 2016).
Culturally responsive teachers engaging in critical ethnography, therefore, as Madison (2005) states,
seek to represent, interpret, record, and recount as transmitters of information for those who give us
permission to tell their stories with the ethical commitment to contribute toward transforming elements
that ensure greater degree of freedom and equity for all students. This can occur during situations that
are not necessarily accepted without question, overt, and comfortable to accept and maintain a status
quo, instead “bring to light underlying and obscure operations of power and control” (Madison, 2005,
p. 5). The process requires moving through our own understanding of which we take for granted in our
own vision and experience of the world, education, and language hierarchies, or as Madison (2005)
describes of “what is”, to the emancipatory awareness of “what could be” (p. 5). Conducting classroom
ethnographic research without the sociohistorical and political context of power relations among the
observed and the observer can fall flat in a critical perspective that not only seeks to better understand
linguistic communities, but also contribute to lasting positive change in these communities.
As noted above, ethnographic case-studies are important tools for pre- and in-service teachers to
conduct short-term research into the learning environments of students and the linguistic and social
forces that shape these communities. Critically-oriented ethnography in language education maintains
224

that in order to be an observant, reflective practitioner one must understand the sociopolitical and racio-
linguistic contexts of language learning and use while analyzing one’s notions of correctness or value
in relation to those observed. One way to analyze classroom language practices is through the lens of
raciolinguistic ideologies that, in the context of the United States, maintain and examine ways of using
language against standard, White, middle-class norms while excluding or undervaluing the linguistic
practices of racialized communities that may differ (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Alim, 2016). In the context
of World Englishes, this can be akin to aligning language standards to more prestigious varieties of
Englishes that stray closer to what Kachru (1989) categorizes as Inner Circle countries (e.g., the United
States, the United Kingdom, and Australia) and less so for Outer Circle countries where English is an
official language through colonization (e.g., India and Nigeria) or the Expanding Circle where it is
mostly studied as a foreign language (e.g., China and Japan) (McKay, 2002). Students that are not seen
or heard through the more prestigious norms can be deemed as deficient or lacking as compared to their
standard counterparts (Rosa & Flores, 2017). As critically-oriented ethnographers, we should instead
attempt to interrogate the widely-accepted notions of what is perceived as normative and acceptable
according to a status quo and create space for change where racialized students are seen as valuable
community members with valid linguistic practices. This process of inquiry and analysis can help to
question, determine, and ultimately work toward dismantling the raciolinguistic ideologies that devalue
certain ways of languaging, or using language, which can have profound effects on students’ learning
practices by way of stigmatizing language and creating spaces of educational inequity especially in
communities of color (Flores & Rosa, 2015).
Within any language classroom, whether it be English language teaching or as we discuss later on,
Spanish/English dual language immersion, it is equally important to recognize that as a language teacher
one’s global knowledge and linguistic practices might be different than the contexts of classrooms where
one teaches or observes. Therefore, critically orientated ethnography and CRI can help create scenarios
of looking at the global in the local and expand one’s knowledge of the ways in which languages are
used in contact (Conteh, 2018). Language is not only the means of communication, but as Heller (2011)
affirms, houses the complexities of “production” and “distribution” of a multiplicity of “symbolic and
material resources essential to our lives” (p. 34); we use language to communicate but also to attain that
which is tangible and intangible yet essential to our being and livelihoods. Language should not be treated
“as a system of decontextualized structures”, or “neutral conduit”, due to the possibility of undermining
students and teachers in “developing a critical and ideological awareness of language”; the nature of
social practice is language (Chun & Morgan, 2019, pp. 4-5). Moreover, one should be careful to assume
that their knowledge and experience, or familiarity with a language or culture, have the same meaning
across all cultures or shared languages. In the language classroom practices such as turn-taking, calling
out, gender-role assignments, or asking questions can be contextually different to different cultures even
if a language is shared (McKay, 2002, p. 83). In addition, ways of naming and referring can change, for
example, among World Englishes which does not equate to erroneous language use, but instead simply
an additional descriptor added to a language tool belt. These same issues can arise within languages
besides English, such as in Spanish-language education and immersion programs where differing ways of
speaking occur among Spanish learners, heritage, and native-born Spanish speakers, among others. For
instance, the multiplicity of Ibero-American varieties and the socio-economic and racial implications for
Spanish speakers influence what varieties are considered a standard and who considers them as more or
less pure (Zentella, 2016). This can lead to ridiculing ways of speaking and devaluing certain students’
home language practices that also racialize or stray from a linguistic standard. Encouraging linguistic
225

aptitude is more than valuing community pluralities, but also should be concerned with “the skills,
knowledge and ways of being needed for success in the present and future” (Alim & Paris, 2017, p. 5).
In the next sections, we discuss specific practices that may aid teachers in learning to become and
excelling as critical classroom ethnographers. These tools are meant to help practicing teachers (Evidence-
based Practices) and teachers in language teaching preparation programs (Teacher Preparation Learning
Activities) better understand students and their learning needs and preferences and develop as critical
reflective practitioners and transformative intellectuals (Kumaravadivelu, 2016).
Getting to know one’s students is an integral part of being a teacher. This is especially true for TESOL
professionals who often work in multilingual and multicultural classrooms. One way to learn more about
your students is to be a critical ethnographer of your own classroom. Being a careful observer and a good
listener can help teachers learn about their students’ learning needs, strengths, and preferences. Even
before such observations can occur (before the start of the semester, for example) a teacher can collect
information that is relevant for a deeper understanding of the students. One practice that teachers can
engage in is to conduct a questionnaire about student background, learning habits, and preferences (see
Appendix). Each learning situation is unique and requires asking different types of questions. A teacher
at an adult US-based ESL classroom, for example, may benefit from knowing about the students’ prior
work and schooling, as well as current “employment demands, intended length of stay [in the United
States], or interest level”; all factors influencing learning and acculturation experiences of migrants
(Kramlich, 2021, p. 150). Some of these factors may or may not be relevant to US-based elementary
school teachers, whose classrooms may have both newcomers whose families may have fled countries
of origin and possibly experienced trauma, those who came to the United States to be reunited with their
families, as well as native-born English learners with roots abroad or “in US soil that go back for countless
generations, including American Indians of numerous tribal heritages”(Peregoy and Boyle, 2017, p. 6).
To conduct a questionnaire that is appropriate for a specific context, therefore, a teacher needs to
first analyze the teaching context and then put together and distribute a questionnaire that asks ques-
tions appropriate for the setting. Knowing your teaching context is crucial and related to instruction as
the “broader social, political, historical, and economic conditions that affect the lives of learners and
teachers [will] also affect classroom aims and activities” (Kumaravadivelu, 2016, p. 239). The following
steps are therefore suggested:
1. Analyze your teaching context. Consider the following: type of an institution and types of programs
offered in your institution; hours of instruction in both your program and other programs, class size
and teacher:student ratio, additional services available to the students (i.e. tutoring, counseling),
specific language/learning support.
2. Based on your preliminary research, design a questionnaire for your learners. If possible, make
this questionnaire available in your learners’ L1.
3. Ask your learners to fill the questionnaire out.
4. Analyze the answers to your questionnaire and determine whether follow-up interviews are needed
for you to better understand your learners.
226

Once the teacher has analyzed the initial questionnaires, they may decide that follow-up interviews
are needed to better understand the students’ needs, strengths, and preferences. To prepare for interviews,
the teacher should formulate questions they want to ask their learners. These questions will be unique
for each learner. However, following the guidelines for conducting interviews will help teachers ensure
that they receive relevant information that they seek.
In Figure 1, we suggest that teachers take time to prepare for interviews with their learners by com-
posing interview questions ahead of time. As the focus of an interview is to “obtain a special kind of
information” (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016, p. 108), the teachers should consider the specifics that they
are trying to learn about and from their learners. There are different types of questions that teachers
should consider asking, including background, knowledge, experience and behavior, opinion and value,
and feeling questions (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). The different types of questions will elicit different
types of information from the learners and will allow the teacher to learn more about their students.
“Knowledge questions,” for example, are meant to elicit information about the students’ actual knowl-
edge of a situation (Patton, 2015). It may be useful, for example, for a teacher to know whether their
students have a clear understanding of their class (e.g., “What will we focus on in our class?”), infor-
mation about the available school resources (e.g., “What are the drop-in hours at the writing center?”),
or to elicit information about the students’ understanding of situations outside of the learning context,
such as knowledge of community resources (e.g., “What types of services does your library offer?”).
Having a clear understanding of the knowledge that the students have or lack will help the teachers in
their planning and may influence their curriculum and instructional choices. In addition to having a clear
understanding of the student’s knowledge of certain things, teachers will benefit from knowing about
their students’ feelings, opinions, and values, as well as their experiences.
During an interview, it is suggested that the teachers explain the purpose of the interview to the learner.
It is important to remember that if the information collected by the teachers will be used for research
purposes (see next Section on conducting a classroom ethnography) that extends beyond the classroom
(presenting findings of research at professional conferences or publishing in a professional journal,
for example), the teacher-researcher should plan to seek an approval from their school’s Institutional
Review Board (IRB). Part of an approval for such research is acquiring an informed consent from the
minors’ parents, or adult participants, and an assent from older children participating in the research.
The standard informed research consent forms usually include the following components: “Identification
of the researcher; identification of the sponsoring institution; identification of the purpose of the study;
identification of the benefits for participating; identification of the level and type of participant involve-
ment; notation of risks to the participant; guarantee of confidentiality to the participant; assurance that
the participant can withdraw at any time; provision of names of persons to contact if questions arise”
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p.92). However, each IRB may have additional specific requirements for
consent. It is also advised that a letter explaining the purpose of research should also be provided to the
study participants/caregivers in language that they will understand.
In addition to explaining the purpose of the interview and assuring confidentiality, the teachers
should also try to make their students feel at ease and avoid asking certain types of questions. Yes-no
questions, for example, will provide very little information to the teacher. Such questions as “Do you
like the program?” is better rephrased as “What do you like about the program?” as it will provide the
teacher with the specific aspects of the program that the student enjoys. In addition to asking questions
that would allow for fuller responses and more information, the teachers should avoid asking questions
that may “lead” the learners in their answers. The “leading questions reveal a bias or an assumption”
227

that the teacher may be making about the learner (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016, p. 121). The leading
questions may make a learner feel that they need to answer in a way that the teacher will approve of or
be happy with. A question “Describe the difficulties your family had coming to the US,” for example,
assumes that the learner’s family in fact had such difficulties. Finally, multiple questions in one should
also be avoided as answers to these questions may be difficult to understand. If a student answers “Ok”
to the question, “How do you feel about your teachers and your textbooks?”, it will be very difficult for
the teacher to know whether the student is happy with textbooks or teachers only, or both the textbooks
and the teachers.
In addition to avoiding such questions, a teacher should be open to skipping a question from their
list if they already received an answer and be open to ask probing follow up questions, i.e., “questions
or comments that follow up on something already asked” (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016, p. 122). Asking
follow-up questions may allow the teacher to collect additional valuable details and ask for clarification.
“Tell me more about this” and “Really?” are examples of probing for details and clarification, respectively.
Table 1. Interview Guide
Prepare your interview questions ahead of time.

Consider asking various types of questions:
• -Background/demographic questions (e.g., How old are you? Who lives with you?)
• -Knowledge questions (e.g., How many books will we read this semester in our English
• class?)
• -Experience & behavior questions (e.g., Tell me about your typical weekend; What are you likely to do first thing in the
morning on Saturday?)
• Opinion & value questions (e.g., What is your opinion about our school schedule?)
• -Feeling questions (e.g., How do you feel about school?)
Help your interviewee feel at ease by smiling, being aware of your tone, and non-verbal communication. Open with a rapport building
question, such as “Tell me about what you like to do on the weekend.” Ask for neutral and descriptive information in the beginning of
your interview.
Questions to avoid:
• -Yes/No questions (e.g., Do you like the program? Has it been difficult for you?)
• -Leading questions, i.e., questions that make assumptions (e.g., Describe the difficulties your family had coming to the U.S.)
• -Multiple questions in one (e.g., How do you feel about your teachers and your textbooks?)
Your questions may be answered before you get to them if you’re satisfied with the response, skip the question.
Follow-up your questions with probes:
• -Ask for details (e.g., “Tell me more”, “What does that look like to you?”)
• -Ask for clarification (e.g., Can be in the form of a pause/silence to give the
interviewee think time. Can be an utterance “Uh-huh”, “Really?”)
(Adapted from Merriam and Tisdell, 2016; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2015)
While formal interviews with students and other relevant parties may be difficult to conduct, it is
important for teachers to remember that informal conversations could serve a similar purpose. Informal
conversations with learners and other relevant parties may take place in between classes, on the way
to the parking lot or a bus stop, or during special time allotted during class (when other students are
engaged in small group or individual work, for example).
Similar to how teachers can engage in informal conversations throughout the academic year, they
should also engage in continuous observations of their students and self-monitoring of teaching. To make
these observations more meaningful, the teachers should engage in a continuous process of reflection.
Reflection can be a process that professionals engage in during practice, i.e., “reflection in action” and
following practice, i.e., “reflection on action” (Schon, 1992). While reflection-on-action requires thinking
228

about the actions that have taken place, reflection-in-action involves evaluating the situation and chang-
ing action accordingly in the moment. Similar to how jazz musicians “feel where the music is going and
adjust their playing accordingly,” (Schon, 1992, p. 55), teachers adjust their practice during their teaching
based on the evaluation of the situation in the moment and the consideration of learner needs. In addi-
tion to thinking about when reflection takes place, an important consideration is how teachers reflect.
Laravee (2008) discusses four levels of reflective practice in teachers (pre-reflection, surface reflection,
pedagogical reflection, and critical reflection). At the highest level of “critical reflection” teachers “are
concerned about the issues of equity and social justice that arise in and outside the classroom and seek
to connect their practice to democratic ideals... as well as self-reflection” (Schonn, 1992, p. 343).
Combining teaching with observations of their students and reflecting on how well they are attuning
to the issues of equity and their own beliefs and biases is not an easy task. A reflection template could
be a powerful tool used by novice and veteran teachers alike that allows them to examine their own
practice by answering the specific questions about their own teaching. To aid the teachers in making
their reflections systematic, we recommend thinking about specific aspects of Culturally Responsive
Instruction (CRI) discussed above that are known to create an equitable learning environment.
The Reflection Template below includes the following elements from the Culturally Responsive
Instruction Observation Protocol (CRIOP): (1) Classroom Relationships; (2) Family Collaboration; (3)
Assessment Practices; (4) Curriculum/Planned Experiences; (5) Instruction/ Pedagogy; (6) Discourse/
Instructional Conversation; and (7) Sociopolitical Consciousness/Diverse Perspectives (Powell & Right-
myer, 2011; Powell et. al., 2016; https://www.uky.edu/projectplace/criop). Classroom relationships, the
first pillar of CRIOP, emphasizes building positive relationships with the students, which is based on
“valuing students’ cultures and experiences” (Powell et. al., 2016, p. 19). Family collaborations refers to
forming a relationship of partnership between educators and parents where both parties are “intimately
and mutually involved” in the educational process (Seitz, 2011, p. 59). Assessment is viewed in CRI as
a process that allows educators to move from the “culture of evaluation” to “culture of learning” in their
classrooms in that teachers “learn from the students… so that [they] can appropriately scaffold their
learning” focusing on students’ strengths, competencies, and resources that they bring to learning” and
not on their deficits (Powell, 2011, p. 90).
Similarly, Curriculum and Planned Experiences need to consider the student’s experiences and “reflect
our diverse human experience, and promote the habits of mind that are important for active participation
in a democratic state” (Cox, 2011, p. 121). Engaging in culturally-responsive Instructional Practices,
teachers understand how their students’ cultures influence learning and involve “using students’ own
lives and strengths as the focal point” (Chambers Cangrell & Wheeler, 2011, p. 167). Discourse patterns
vary across cultures, and culturally responsive teachers need to be aware of the “interaction patterns of
the groups(s)” that their students belong to and “accommodate these varied communicative practices”
to promote student engagement (Powers, 2011, p. 194).
Additionally, the traditional IRE (teacher initiation of a prompt or a question, response by a student,
evaluation by a teacher) discourse pattern that is prevalent in many classrooms does not allow for a
genuine conversation and may be “detrimental to English language learners because they need many
opportunities to practice speaking about ideas” (McIntyre et.al., 2009, p. 98). Moreover, for English
language learners there is a need for an explicit discussion of and instruction in the “language of power”
that takes place in concert with the “affirming of their native language” (Powers, 2011, p. 201). Cultur-
ally responsive teachers recognize that there is a “relationship between power, language, knowledge, and
ideology… and the inequalities that exist” (Carter, 2011, p. 237) and encourage Critical Consciousness,
229

the last CRIOP pillar. “Teaching students to question - while simultaneously addressing standards - is
central to an enriched and meaningful experience for students” (Carter, 2011, p. 241).
While the CRIOP protocol is usually used for observations and teacher interviews, we believe that
this could also be a valuable tool for teacher self-reflection when opportunities for observations and
interviews with colleagues may not be feasible. To facilitate reflection-in-action, we recommend that
teachers consider these seven pillars as they teach. We believe that a regular reflection-on-action that is
done with the help of this tool will eventually lead to an ability to reflect-in-action, as teachers will be
able to “bring [the] past experiences to bear on the unique case” (Schon, 1991, p. 140).
TEACHER PREPARATION LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Completing a full-fledged ethnography is usually not practical for language teacher candidates in the
duration of a semester-long University course and can be intimidating for in-service practicing teachers.
Additionally, the critically-oriented ethnographic research needs to be structured in a way that allows
teachers to apply what they have learned during their ethnographic work to their future teaching practice.
This includes an ability to be a careful observer who can design instructional materials and activities
that best fit the learner needs, strengths, and preferences. To achieve this goal, teachers are suggested to
engage in systematic structured fieldwork in one specific classroom. This fieldwork consists of structured
observations, examination of the learning context, as well as conducting questionnaires and interviews
(such as those mentioned above) with relevant parties, including host and other teachers, student parents
or caregivers, and school administrators.
One way which can help teachers to conduct a critically oriented ethnography is by using a focused
Fieldwork Journal. In the field of Anthropology, where ethnographic research originated, fieldwork
journals are informal notes, observations, and reflections recorded by a researcher. For a novice teacher-
researcher, however, it is not always clear what should be included in the journals and what information
does not make it there. For pre- and even in-service language teachers doing fieldwork observations can
be a daunting task. Orienting towards issues of equity and inclusion and approaching classroom obser-
vations through a critical lens is not intuitive, especially in situations where in-service and pre-service
teachers have participated in educational experiences that are similar to those they are now observing.
“Making familiar strange” (Conteh, 2018) can be difficult. Providing teachers with themes and topics
to “observe for’’ is suggested as a solution to this commonly occurring problem. Ideally, these themes
and topics should be consistent with the topics covered in the language teacher preparation course
where the ethnographic case study is used. We suggest that teachers fill out weekly journals, reflecting
on specific prompts aligned to weekly course readings. For example, the unit on “Getting to know your
students” where teachers will first be exposed to appropriate readings on the topic, may culminate in the
following journal prompt: What strategies to get to know students are you observing in your placement
classroom that you would like to implement in your own teaching? Which ones do you want to avoid
and why? In responding to the prompt, teachers should not only record the practices that they observe
in the classroom, but also reflect on whether they see these practices as valuable for their own teaching.
In addition, to make classroom observations more meaningful, it is suggested that instructors provide
a template that includes the points discussed above: 1) an observation template that allows to not only
record the observed behaviors, but also reflect on the observed behaviors 2) journal prompts that are
consistent with the topics that the teachers in class and can reflect on after each observation. The specific
230

Table 2. Reflection template
Not at To a great Specific examples

Points For Reflection Occasionally Often
all extent from teaching
Classroom relationships: Establishing teacher care and a culturally responsive classroom environment.
Demonstrate care for students.
Communicate high expectations to all students.
Create a learning environment that is respectful towards one another
and towards diverse populations.
Students work together productively.
Family collaboration: Promoting open communication between families and the teacher, developing partnerships with parents and caregivers, and valuing
“funds of knowledge”.
Establish a genuine partnership (equitable relationship) with parents/
caregivers.
Reach out to meet parents in positive, non-traditional ways.
Encourage parent/family engagement in the classroom.
Intentionally learn about the families’ linguistic/cultural knowledge/
expertise to support students’ learning.
Assessment Practices: Discovering students’ strengths and literacy competencies, and observing students’ potential for learning.
Use formative assessment practices that provide information
throughout the lesson on individual student understanding.
Allow students opportunities to demonstrate their learning in a variety
of ways.
Use authentic assessments to determine students’ competence in both
language and content.
Provide students with opportunities for self-assessment.
Curriculum/Planned Experiences: Developing and adjusting curricula that teach content, skills, and strategies within the context of students’ own worlds.
Make explicit links to students’ cultural knowledge
Affirm students’ identities
Prepare students to understand multiple perspectives
Involve students with real-world relevant issues to empower them to
transform their communities.
Instructional Practices: Incorporating students’ cultural knowledge and affirming students’ racial and cultural identities.
Instruction is contextualized in students’ lives, experiences, and
individual abilities.
Provide students with opportunities to engage in active, hands-on,
meaningful learning tasks, including inquiry-based learning.
Focus on developing students’ academic language.
Use instructional techniques that scaffold student learning.
Provide students with choices based upon their experiences, interests,
and strengths.
Discourse: Providing abundant opportunities for student conversation and explicitly having discussions about the “language of power”.
Promote active student engagement through discourse practices.
Promote equitable and culturally sustaining discourse practices.
Provide structures that promote academic conversation.
Provide opportunities for students to develop linguistic competence.
Critical Consciousness: Exploring issues important to students and their families, encouraging students to engage in problem-solving of real-world issues,
and analyzing biases in texts and aspects of popular culture.
The curriculum and planned learning experiences provide
opportunities for the inclusion of issues important to the classroom,
school, and community.
The curriculum and planned learning experiences incorporate
opportunities to confront negative stereotypes and biases.
The curriculum and planned learning experiences integrate and provide
opportunities for the expression of diverse perspectives.
(Adapted from CRIOP, Powell & Rightmyer, 2011; Powell et. al., 2016; https://www.uky.edu/projectplace/criop;)
231

points to reflect on should be included in the observation protocol. These may include the seven points
on culturally responsive instruction that we suggested for practicing teachers to regularly reflect on above
(Powell et al, 2016; Powell & Rightmyer, 2011): (1) Classroom Relationships; (2) Family Collabora-
tion; (3) Assessment; (4) Curriculum/Planned Experiences; (5) Instruction/ Pedagogy; (6) Discourse/
Instructional Conversation; and (7) Sociopolitical Consciousness/Diverse Perspectives.
Table 3. Observation template
Instructions Part 1: Complete the template below for each classroom observation.
In the column “Time,” indicate the time when the observed behavior took place.
In the column “Teacher behavior,” record what you see and hear the teacher do.
In the column “Student behavior,” record what you see and hear the students do.
In the column “CRIOP Pillar Observed,” indicate which pillar you witnessed if any. You may use the following abbreviations:
1. Classroom Relationships = CR
2. Family Collaborations = FC
3. Assessment = A
4. Curriculum/Planned Experiences = C/PE
5. Instruction/Pedagogy= I/P
6. Discourse/Instructional Conversation = D/IC
7. Sociopolitical Consciousness/Diverse Perspectives = SC/DP
In the column “Questions/Notes,” record any other inferences or questions you may have about the observed practice.
Instructions Part 2: Complete this part of the template after you have read the weekly class readings and have concluded your classroom
observation for the week. In the column “Journal Prompt,” write the prompt from the Fieldwork Journal that you are responding to. In the
column “Reflection,” write your response to the journal prompt.
Table 4. Observation template part 1
Date: Location:
Class: Teacher:
Time: Number of students:
Time Teacher behavior Student behavior CRIOP pillars observed Questions/Notes
Table 5. Observation template part 2
Journal Prompt Reflection
Analyzing oneself and ways of speaking in relation to those observed helps to consider one’s own norms
and biases regarding language use in and out of the classroom. As we discussed above, this is not always
instinctual. We come from potentially different (or the same) places with normalized ways of speaking
232

and performing language and bring to these spaces that which we have learned and are learning. For
one of the authors, (Camillia), conducting the mini-ethnographic case study as part of a MAT-TESOL
program was instrumental in seeing new ways of looking at language teaching, specifically in a secondary
Spanish/English dual immersion program in the US. Camillia was instructed as part of the assignment to
utilize the Interview Guide, reflection, and observation templates with a course-aligned field work journal
to conduct structured observation and note-taking on a language learner in a school setting. Examining
her positionality with these tools and the above mentioned CRIOP pillars became an important step in
the TESOL teacher preparation program and her future teaching career. In what follows, we discuss the
steps of the assignment and how Camillia’s experiences informed her reflections- about the classroom,
the host teacher, the case-study student and later herself- and the process of becoming a more critically-
oriented, reflective, and culturally responsive practitioner.
When Camillia began formal observations at the target school, she did not have a specific direction
that she was observing for beyond language use and learning. Because it was a Spanish/English im-
mersion middle school, she wanted to get a sense of the secondary immersion classrooms and school
culture. The requirements of the teacher preparation program stipulated that she conduct observations
once a week for at least 15-20 hours total. She observed 6th grade homeroom and Spanish Language
Arts (SLA) classes and an 8th grade History in Spanish class one to two times a week for 10 weeks. The
first journal prompt in the Observation Template elicited a reflection on conducting the case-study and
any fears or anxieties Camillia might have had:
I am excited to begin the case study project and understand how the intersection of the student I’ll be
working with and the classroom I observe influence each other. I hope to understand something about
their learning styles, differentiated learning, personality, how social affiliation with peers influences
behavior/language and any additional influences (home life, extra-curricular activities, etc.). I am not
sure how open any of the students will be in speaking to me for the case study. More than anxiety, I’m
excited to begin this process and understand a student better, and to observe an older Spanish immersion
class since last year I worked in 2nd grade immersion.
These notes show Camillia’s initial thoughts concerning the school and a reflection on what she was
hoping to observe. Yet, in order to formulate her interview questions, it was necessary to observe and
pinpoint a specific student. A subsequent journal prompt from the Observation Template asked teachers
to consider the rationale behind choosing a student for the case-study and to focus on the reasons why.
The following entry shows her thoughts concerning this decision:
The homeroom and Spanish Language Arts (SLA) classes are the same students. The teacher suggested
I base the case study on a 6th grade student in the SLA class. I have not decided on the student since at
this time since I have only been able to observe two classes. I would like to speak to the teacher again
after observing more classes to determine a low-performing student (possibly with an IEP) in the target
language (Spanish) in the 6th grade class. This is due to my interest in how immersion programs support
students with differentiated learning.
Several teachers Camillia spoke with helped select a case-study student (CSS) by making suggestions
about who would be a good candidate. Ultimately, she chose the student because of his outspokenness,
joviality, and genderfluidity; she hoped to come to understand how he considered the program and
233

how it affected him socio-emotionally and linguistically as a Spanish-learner with an IEP. During the
observations, the teacher suggested that she install herself in a back corner of the classroom, therefore,
she quietly observed the interactions, language repertoires, and instruction. Overall, observing during a
regular schedule was helpful to see the same student in the same classes for the duration of the assignment.
She hoped that the consistency of her presence in the classroom would help the CSS feel more at ease.
In preparation for the initial interview with the case-study student, referred to as X below, Camil-
lia drafted open-ended questions related to interview protocol from the Interview Guide. She prepared
Background and Demographic questions, e.g., Where were you born? Where do you live? Experience
and Behavior questions, e.g., Tell me about your experience so far at the school. Tell me about some
of your favorite moments, Opinion and Value, e.g., If you could give advice to your younger self, what
would you say? and Feeling questions e.g., Do you feel you can be your authentic self? What does that
mean to you? The following excerpt from Camillia’s journal highlights the process of beginning her
interview process, techniques she used to help the interviewee feel more at ease, annotations about her
use of follow-up questions during the interview, and notes to herself for subsequent sessions:
I was only able to interview X for 15 minutes and will continue doing so because he is only available
during homeroom. Understandably he seemed a bit shy, and I had to ask a lot of follow up questions
to get more answers from him. Before we started, I told him a little about myself and the purpose of my
interview. I thanked him for his participation and told him that if he felt uncomfortable with any question,
or did not feel up to interviewing, he could tell me and I would move on or we could skip the interview,
no questions asked. A possible theoretical focus is the role of positive socio-emotional learning in the
school because he said that it feels like a family and he’s friends with the “whole school”. Also, I asked
him what two words describe him and he said, “Unique and happy”; the next interview I will ask him
to expand on this.
As part of maintaining critically-oriented interview protocol, it was important that Camillia give the
CSS space to interview on his own terms and share with him the power that he had in the conversations
between them. In addition to gathering information for her study, she intended to make the participant
feel at ease in the process. By informing him of his right to make decisions during the interview if he felt
uncomfortable during any part, she intended to level the power relations between them as teacher and
student. She also made modifications in real time during the sessions dependent on the CSS’ availability
and where they could quietly meet for privacy. Furthermore, beyond interviewing, Camillia utilized the
CRIOP pillars on the Reflection Template to identify specific topics that the host teacher demonstrated
in class or shared with her which helped to begin to center the study. One of such examples was regard-
ing CRIOP #4 Instructional Practices, or contextualizing instruction to students’ lives and experiences
and providing opportunities to engage in active, hands on inquiry-based learning, as well as CRIOP #7
Critical Consciousness, or incorporating opportunities to confront negative stereotypes and biases and
integrate and provide opportunities for the expression of diverse perspectives:
In the US History class, the host teacher creates learning opportunities by engaging students in discus-
sions with historical figures and events bridged to current ones. For example, the students were discussing
Andrew Jackson’s policies and historical weight and she shared a “fun” fact with the class: ‘Did you
know that Trump hung a portrait of Andrew Jackson in his office upon presidency?’ This question en-
gaged the students in chatter with the teacher and each other about what they thought this action meant.
234

She posed it so they considered Jackson’s stance and how that related to Trump. The class was very
motivated to discuss this, including some students who were not normally talkative shared their opinions.
The teacher bridged the content of a US history class to the relevance of the historical moment they
were living and asked students to find the relevance between the two presidents. This led them to make
a connection between past and present political ideologies and the significance of one having a portrait
of another. She clearly explored real-world issues that were relevant to her students and had them ana-
lyze aspects of popular culture that they were living at the moment of instruction. These observations
propelled Camillia to conduct a follow-up interview with the teacher and inquire into her social justice
methods of instruction. Furthermore, CRIOP #4 Curriculum and Planned Experiences, was observed
in which the teacher adjusted curricula to make it more relevant to the students, and CRIOP #7, Criti-
cal Consciousness, or incorporating learning planned learning experiences that integrate and provide
opportunities for the expression of diverse perspectives. The teacher stated she had made modifications
to the curriculum by incorporating other textbooks to the history class beyond a standard one they were
required to use, highlighting the lack of critically-written and culturally-sustaining content textbooks in
Spanish for secondary students as reflected in the following journal entry:
The teacher shared with me that in the 8th grade History class the students are using a standard US
history textbook in Spanish that falls short of a critical perspective. Therefore, they dually read and
consult with a translated copy of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States to compare
main historical concepts and points of view in an attempt to think critically about who writes history
and looking at more than one source. This was an area of interest for me in understanding the teaching
ideologies and if ethnic studies as a resource for instruction was utilized in the classroom/school.
Camillia observed that the host teacher provided students with hands-on, meaningful learning oppor-
tunities most of the time that integrated and provided opportunities for the expression of diverse perspec-
tives. Additionally, she sought out supplemental materials that maintained these learning opportunities
and encouraged the students to also develop knowledge that affirmed their own cultural and linguistic
identities. Yet, as Camillia reflected on CRIOP #5 Discourse, or providing abundant opportunities for
academic student conversation, she questioned whether there were sufficient opportunities for students
to expand linguistic competence in Spanish, especially in the higher performing history class. The fol-
lowing shows her initial reflection on this topic:
In the US history class, the teacher generally conducts housekeeping and greets the class in English
and then gives instructions in Spanish for the day then translates the main points (repeats) in English.
I believe that she could use more Spanish in order to create an atmosphere for students to use Spanish
during group work because they rarely (if never) speak Spanish with each other even though they do a
lot of group work. In my observations, I notice that she uses more English when keeping them on task,
redirecting them, answering short questions, and explaining projects. She shared with me that out of the
three grade levels that she teaches, this class shows the highest proficiency in Spanish, therefore, I believe
that she could push them a bit harder to engage with each other in Spanish, especially during group
work. This is not to say that she has to enforce a Spanish-only rule, yet I believe the lack of interaction
in Spanish is a missed opportunity for the students to work on their academic language. I question if the
students whose L1 is not Spanish are receiving enough opportunities for output and input in the target
235

language that prepares them to increase their proficiencies. I plan on consulting with the teacher more
in regard to language scaffolding.
The observations lead Camillia to inquire about the host teacher’s ideologies regarding the use of
English to bridge Spanish. She ruminated over how ELLs in the US are not always recognized as need-
ing language scaffolding in English content classes and, yet the teacher was providing quite a bit of
this to Spanish Language Learners (SLL). She contemplated the overuse of English to scaffold Spanish
and whether it was to the students’ detriment or favor. Later on in the semester, the fieldwork journal
prompted a focus on CRIOP #5 Discourse, or explicitly having discussions about the language of power
through equitable and culturally sustaining discourse practices. By analyzing her initial observations
and course readings regarding second language acquisition and language ideologies present at the site,
she reflected on her own beliefs and the case-study focus topic became clearer. Camillia paid closer
attention during her weekly observations to the students’ and the teacher’s discourse beyond her initial
awareness of the use of non-standard language not common in standard Spanish, but among Spanish
speakers in California. She realized that there were no discussions about discourse or (in)formalities
regarding language standards in Spanish:
I recognize that like McKay’s (2014) reference to Singlish as a variety of English has social and economic
implications that deviate from those who believe there is a standard of English that the population should
be adhering to. I wonder how this dichotomy exists with Spanish in the US (and the world) as Spanglish.
Mixing Spanish and English is a common practice in the US for people with varying proficiencies in both
languages. In insular Mexico, Spanglish is used by more affluent people and maintains a class difference
than Spanish-only or Spanish mixed with an indigenous language. Spanglish in the US has a wide range
of socio-economic, class, and ethnic implications (that differ than in Mexico) and is generally used by
speakers in (not always) informal means of communication. I plan on consulting with the teacher more
in regard to her language ideologies and using English in the Spanish-target classroom. I have observed
her using some non-standard Spanish: cognates that aren’t the same in both languages (introducir for
presentar), consistently uses ‘so’ as a connector in Spanish, adds -es to second person singular tú, i.e.
fuistes, ¿ya terminastes?, and addresses class with tú form instead of plural form, ustedes. My interest is
not to shame or judge her use of Spanish, but to understand her point of view and vision for her students.
The more Camillia observed, reflected, and journaled her case-study topic revealed itself as an inquiry
into translanguaging, or in the case of the observation classroom using English to scaffold Spanish, and
how regionalisms and non-formal Spanish in academic settings in the US could create equitable spaces for
learners who speak these same varieties outside of school. Her process of inquiry helped to question and
interrogate widely accepted norms of ‘correctness’ of Spanish language use and required that she reflect
on her learning as a heritage Spanish speaker who came up against the imposition of Spanish language
standards in educational and professional settings in the US and Mexico. Camillia considered how the
additive and subtractive dichotomies of both languages in the US and abroad, specifically Mexico, are
used by different social classes, and the implications of these ideologies in the mostly Latinx working
class neighborhood where the observations physically took place.
The more she observed, took notes, spoke with study participants, and analyzed her own language
ideologies in structured ways her perspective began to shift. In the course readings and in her own re-
search, she read about language transfer, the socio-cultural and economic implications of standards in
236

Spanish with the intersection of race and ethnicity, and how language, identity, and classroom environ-
ments shape motivation and learning. Essentially, she was forced to face her own language biases and
education. Questions about language use, class, and Spanish-language standards emerged through the
lens of her own experiences and she began to ask herself during the course of the project, ‘How is the
language of heritage speakers in Los Angeles shaped and considered by the plurality of Spanish speakers
at the intersection of socioeconomic class and identity? Are regionalisms of lower socio-economic class
considered substandard and shunned upon in the dual immersion classroom, or embraced as an addition
to language repertoires for Spanish speakers in the US as a means to create spaces of inclusion?’ The
more Camillia observed and analyzed how the teacher used non-standard Spanish, she began to under-
stand that whether or not the teacher was conscious of her language use, the repertoires she pulled from
created a classroom culture encouraging discussion, inquisition, and positive socio-emotional learning
for students- and was best reflected in the case-study student who was targeted in the observations and
interviews.
Overall, completing the mini-ethnographic case study was instrumental for Camillia in pivoting from
a deficit to an additive view of language use. Although language is always changing and is internalized
and utilized for a myriad of purposes, its essential function is communicative and utilitarian albeit in-
fluenced by identity and the power dynamics of speakers. Completing interviews, journal entries, and
observations in the dual immersion classroom while consulting the CRIOP pillars aligned with readings
gave her a window into the processes of languaging that was not always concerned with notions of cor-
rectness, instead validating people’s ways of speaking. This process made Camillia question her own
ideologies related to Spanish-language teaching in California and an understanding of how and why
to validate students’ linguistic and cultural background and funds of knowledge. Looking back on her
observation notes towards the end of the assignment, a shift within her occurs. She writes:
In my own practice, I can become a transformative intellectual by bridging professional theories in the
field of language education with my personal theories that arise in experience and teaching, taking a
critical and emancipatory stance on issues in order to understand all angles of influence, and co-creating
knowledge with my students so that they have a voice, and their education is meaningful to them.
While Camillia’s experiences with the case study project helped her reimagine and work towards
sustaining linguistic practices that are not tied to linguistic supremacy (Alim, 2004; Alim & Smither-
man, 2012), but instead to linguistic diversity and equity. Without the structured fieldwork prompts and
observations, such evolution may not always be possible. Aligning the class readings and the journal
prompts in ways that allow teachers to observe what the phenomena that are discussed in class, contrib-
utes to the Praxis orientation in the language teacher preparation programs. Attending to the issues of
equity and social justice in the course curriculum prepares the teachers to take a critical approach to their
classroom observations and reflections. Camillia’s questions about socio-economic and class influences
may not have been possible without explicit attention to these issues in the course and the associated
journal prompts. The documented shift in her view of the classroom practices that initially condemned
the teacher’s language use to the one of acknowledgement and challenge was made in part possible
through both the attention to these issues in the course readings and discussion and the observation
protocols that explicitly asked to attend to them. The ethnographic case-study as a pedagogical assign-
ment for her future teaching practice gave her the opportunity to observe social and linguistic practices
in the classroom that she had previously observed in her community, call to question commonly held
237

beliefs, and gave her the tools toward challenging and dismantling value stratifications about language
in her future teaching career.
DISCUSSION
Using an ethnographic case study in a language teacher preparation program has the potential to prepare
the future teachers to view practice within broader sociological, cultural, historical, and political con-
texts (Larivee, 2008) and provide them with opportunities to practice the skills they need to be careful
observers and critical researchers in their own classrooms. Just as we encourage the use of the mini
case-study by teachers in language teaching programs to engage in structured observations and reflec-
tions to meaningfully observe and focus on issues pertaining to language and social justice and equity,
so can in-service teachers. Understandably, for practicing teachers this can be time-intensive, therefore,
conducting a questionnaire and using the aforementioned Interview and Reflection Templates can shed
light on working towards culturally responsive and critically-oriented teaching through the seven CRIOP
pillars: (1) Classroom Relationships; (2) Family Collaboration; (3) Assessment Practices; (4) Curricu-
lum/Planned Experiences; (5) Instruction/ Pedagogy; (6) Discourse/Instructional Conversation; and (7)
Sociopolitical Consciousness/Diverse Perspectives (Powell & Rightmyer, 2011; Powell et. al., 2016).
The tools for critically-oriented reflection and interviews related to the skills that students in a
teacher preparation program learn during the completion of the case study project, have potential to
be of continuous use for language teachers working with diverse multilingual student populations and
wishing to excel as critical ethnographers in their own classrooms. As mentioned above, we recognize
that it is not always possible to have the time to be observed and receive direct feedback from our peers
or superiors, therefore, these tools are also designed to be used in a reflexive way. They can be used to
sustain dynamic community practices and empower students by honoring and supporting student cultural
and linguistic identities and practices which can potentially improve academic investment, key tenets
of Culturally Responsive Instruction (CRI). Furthermore, critical reflexivity gives the space to analyze
oneself and the learning communities, “critique them and raise critical consciousness rather than avoiding
problematic practices and keeping them hidden” (Alim & Paris, 2017, p. 10). It allows for interrupting
dominant narratives by inspecting those which we might hold true for ourselves yet differ from those
of our students and their families.
The example ethnographic case-study implemented by one of the authors of this chapter sheds light
on the process of such study, and the ways in which it can encourage socially and linguistically respon-
sible actions in future teachers. We maintain that it is important to “(re)conceptualize language as social
practice” through critical literacy work informed by broader disciplinary understandings of power and
inequality (Chun and Morgan, 2019, p. 5) because there are ethical ramifications to the values we hold
that can unconsciously reproduce exclusionary practices in educational spaces. It is our hope that with
continued orientation towards being researchers and critical classroom ethnographers, with the use of
the suggested tools, educators strive towards excellence for all students as they work towards being trans-
formative intellectuals (Kumaravadivelu, 2003) working towards language equity, inclusion and justice.
238

REFERENCES
Alim, H. S. (2004). You know my steez: An ethnographic and sociolinguistic study of styleshifting in a
Black American speech community. Duke University Press.
Alim, H. S. (2016). Introducing raciolinguistics: Racing language and languaging race in hyperracial
times. In H. S. Alim, J. R. Rickford, & A. F. Ball (Eds.), Raciolinguistics: How language shapes our
ideas about race (pp. 1–50). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190625696.003.0001
Alim, H. S., & Paris, D. (2017). What is culturally sustaining pedagogy and why does it matter? In H. S.
Alim & D. Paris (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing
world (pp. 1-17). Teachers College Press.
Alim, H. S., & Smitherman, G. (2012). Articulate while Black: Barack Obama, language, and race in
the U.S. Oxford University Press.
Alim, S. (2010). Critical language awareness. In N. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics
and Language Education (pp. 205–232). Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847692849-010
& Francis. doi:10.4324/9781315682280
Bagley, C., & Castro-Salazar, R. (2012). Critical arts-based research in education: Performing undocu-
mented historias. British Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 239–260. doi:10.1080/01411926.2010
.538667
Carter, Y. G. (2011). Sociopolitical Consciousness and Multiple Perspectives: Empowering students
to read the world. In R. Powell & E. C. Rightmyer (Eds.), Literacy for all students: An instructional
framework for closing the gap (pp. 233–257). Routledge.
Chambers Cangrell, S., & Wheeler, T. (2011). Pedagagy/Instruction: Beyond “Best Practices.”. In R.
Powell & E. C. Rightmyer (Eds.), Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing the
gap (pp. 152–189). Routledge.
Chun, C. W., & Morgan, B. (2019). Critical Research in English Language Teaching. In X. Gao (Ed.),
Second Handbook of English Language Teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education.
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_56-1
Conteh, J. (2018). Researching Education for Social Justice in Multilingual Settings: Ethnographic
Principles in Qualitative Research. Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Copland, F., & Creese, A. (2015). Linguistic ethnography. In Linguistic ethnography (pp. 12–28). SAGE
Publications Ltd. https://www-doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.4135/9781473910607
Corson, D. (1999). Language Policy in Schools: A Resource for Teachers and Administrators. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cox, A. (2011). Curriculum and planned experiences: Bridging the classroom with students’ worlds. In
R. Powell & E. C. Rightmyer (Eds.), Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing
the gap (pp. 119–151). Routledge.
239

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Sage (Atlanta, Ga.).
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum Qualitative
Social Research, 12(1). http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/
scholarly-journals/autoethnography-overview/docview/870465772/se-2?accountid=14749
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity
in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. doi:10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149
Gee, J. (2015). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (5th ed.). Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315722511
Heller, M. (2011). Paths to post-nationalism: A critical ethnography of language and identity. Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746866.001.0001
Kachru, B. B. (1989). Teaching World Englishes. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 85–95.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical pedagogy primer. Peter Lang.
Kramlich, D. J. (2021). The language classroom as transformative response to the unique needs of mi-
grants and refugees. In B. L. Leaver, D. E. Davidson, & C. Campbell (Eds.), Transformative language
learning and teaching (pp. 149-157). Cambridge University Press.
Press.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Towards a critical race theory of education. Teachers College
Record, 97(1), 47–68.
Larivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teacher’s level of reflective practice. Reflective
Practice, 9(3), 341–360. doi:10.1080/14623940802207451
Madison, D. S. (2005). Introduction to critical ethnography: theory and method. In Critical ethnography:
Method, ethics, and performance (pp. 1–16). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://www-doi-org.libproxy2.
usc.edu/10.4135/9781452233826.n1
McIntyre, E., Kyle, D. W., Chen, C., Kraemer, J., & Parr, J. (2009). Six principles for teaching English
language learners in all classrooms. Corwin.
McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches.
Oxford University Press.
McLaren, P. (1984). La vida en las escuelas: Una introducción a la pedagogía crítica en los fundamentos
de la educación. Siglo XXI editores.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
240

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
Jossey-Bass.
Norton, B. (2010). Language and identity. In N. Hornberber & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and
language education (pp. 249–269). Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847692849-015
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice.
Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. doi:10.3102/0013189X12441244
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. doi:10.17763/
haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Peregoy, A. F., & Boyle, W. F. (2017). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for
teaching K-12 English learners. Pearson.
Powell, R. (2011). Culturally responsive assessment: Creating a culture of learning. In R. Powell &
E. C. Rightmyer (Eds.), Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing the gap (pp.
87–118). Routledge.
Powell, R. (2011). Classroom Climate/Physical Environment: Creating an inclusive community. In R.
Powell, R., Chambers Cantrell, S., Malo-Juvera, V., & Correll, P. (2016). Operationalizing Culturally
Responsive Instruction: Preliminary findings of CRIOP Research. Teachers College Record, 118, 010306.
Powell, R., & Rightmyer, E. C. (2011). Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing
the gap. Routledge.
Powers, S. W. (2011). Discourse/instructional conversation: Connecting school and personal discourses.
In R. Powell & E. C. Rightmyer (Eds.), Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing
the gap (pp. 190–230). Routledge.
guage in Society, 46(5), 621–647. doi:10.1017/S0047404517000562
Schon, D. A. (1992). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge.
Sietz, K. A. (2011). Parent Collaboration: Developing partnerships with families and caregivers. In R.
Wright, W. E. (2019). Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research Theory, Policy,
and Practice (3rd ed.). Caslon.
241

Zentella, A. C. (2016). “Socials,” “poch@s,” “normals” y los demás: School networks and linguistic
capital of high school students on the Tijuana-San Diego border. In H. S. Alim, J. R. Rickford, & A. F.
Ball (Eds.), Raciolinguistics: how language shape our ideas about race (pp. 327–346). Oxford University
Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190625696.003.0019
ADDITIONAL READING
& Francis. doi:10.4324/9781315682280
Bashir-Ali, K. (2006). Language Learning and Definition of One’s Social, Cultural and Racial Identity.
TESOL Quarterly, 40(3), 628–637. doi:10.2307/40264549
Chun, C. W., & Morgan, B. (2019) Critical research in english language teaching. In X. Gao (Eds.)
Second Handbook of English Language Teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education.
Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_56-1
Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. E. (2011). Between Worlds: Access to second language acquisition.
Heinemann.
García, O., & Torres-Guevara, R. (2009). Monoglossic ideologies and language policies in the education
of U.S. latinas/os. In E. G. Murillo, S. A. Villenas, R. Trinidad Galván, J. Sánchez Muñoz, C. Martínez,
& M. Machado-Casas (Eds.), Handbook of latinos and education: Theory, research and practice (pp.
Critically-Oriented Ethnography: A collaborative branch of ethnography that seeks to study the

customs, cultures, and practices of people(s) and/or communities with their permission to represent,
interpret, record, and transmit information with the ethical commitment to contribute toward transform-
ing elements that ensure greater degree of freedom and equity.
Culturally Sustaining Instruction: An asset-based approach to instruction in that it considers stu-
dents as sources and resources of knowledge and skills, validating and affirming students’ linguistic and
cultural knowledge and seeking to empower students and their families by valuing their resources and
by helping them to interrogate and act upon real-world issues. Also referred to as culturally responsive
pedagogy, culturally responsive teaching, culturally relevant pedagogy, and culturally sustaining pedagogy.
Ethnography: A branch of anthropology that is concerned with studying and recording the customs,
cultures, and practices of people and/or communities.
Language Teaching Program: An education program that is designed for learners of a second lan-
guage (i.e., any language that is not a person’s first or native language(s)), including, but not limited to
ESL, EFL, foreign language, heritage language, and dual language programs.
242

Raciolinguistic Ideologies: Ideologies or ideas that maintain certain linguistic practices attached to
specific racialized bodies. These can be additive or negative language practices that maintain stereotypes
and ways of speaking.
Reflection: A process of systematically examining one’s own and others’ teaching practices and
other relevant experiences.
Reflective Practitioners: Teachers who systematically engage in the process of reflective practice
to improve the quality of their instruction.
Transformative Intellectuals: Teachers who see themselves as “change agents” who exhibit a high
level of socio-political awareness and orientation towards equity in their instruction.
243
APPENDIX
Table 6. Example of questions for a learner questionnaire
Personal Background Questions

What is your name?
What do you want me to call you?
What is the best way to communicate with you?
(e.g., include phone number, email address; talk after class)
How old are you?
Where were you born?
What cities/countries have you lived in and for how long?
(e.g., Moscow, Russia: 2010 - 2015)
How many years have you been in the U.S.? (If you were born here, write “was born in the U.S.”)
How old were you when you came here (if not born here)?
Family and Household Questions
How many people live with you in your home? Indicate who lives with you (e.g., 4 people: brother, sister, grandfather, father)
How many siblings do you have? Are they older or younger?
Do both of your parents live with you? If not, where do they live?
Do family members in your home speak English? How well do they know English?
(e.g., Mother: beginner level; Brother: advanced level; Uncle: intermediate level)
Are your parents literate in their first language(s)? (e.g., Mother: reads and writes in Italian; Father: does not read or write in Japanese,
but reads and writes in Spanish)
Language and Educational Experiences Questions
What languages can you speak, read and write in?
(e.g., Ukrainian: speak; Russian: speak, read, write)
What language(s) do you speak at home and with whom?
How do you usually use the languages that you know?
(e.g., English: at work; Spanish: at home; Italian: read online articles; Mandarin Chinese: on the phone with grandparents)
Have you attended school in the U.S. before? For how many years? What grades have you completed?
Have you attended school outside of the U.S.? For how many years? What grades have you completed?
Employment Questions
Do you have a job? What do you do?
What jobs have you had in the past?
Did you work before coming to this country? If so, where?
Interests Questions
What are your hobbies and interests? What is your favorite sport if any?
What do you usually do in your free time?
What is your favorite food?
Questions about Learning
What helps you learn?
What gets in the way of your learning?
What skill is easiest for you in English: speaking, listening, reading, or writing?
What skill is the most difficult for you in English: speaking, listening, reading, or writing?
What aspects of language learning do you find the most challenging?
What aspects of language learning come easy to you?
What do you wish to improve on this semester?
Why do you want to learn English?
Additional Information Questions
What else do you want me to know about you?
What would you like to know about me?
244
245
Chapter 12
Using Autoethnography
to Engage in Critical
Inquiry in TESOL:
A Tool for Teacher Learning and Reflection
Qinghua Liu
USC, USA
ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the author proposes using the qualitative research method of autoethnography to improve
one’s practice in teaching English to students of other languages (TESOL). This chapter first includes an
overview of autoethnography followed by discussion of evidence-based practices and learning activities
that apply the methodology. The chapter then explores the method through a case study involving the author
and her son. Through this autoethnography account, the author demonstrates the process of collecting,
analyzing, and interpreting autobiographical data to gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and our
students. The case demonstrates how intersectionalities, including race and gender, have an impact on
the learning experiences. In this way, this protocol has methodological and pedagogical implications
for TESOL praxis. This chapter finally discusses the implications of this methodology in TESOL as a
viable qualitative research methodology to gain new insights and understandings for TESOL educators.
INTRODUCTION
The number of both students and teachers within the Teaching English to Speakers of Other Language
(TESOL) field continues to grow around the world. Educators and scholars in TESOL are in constant
pursuit of more robust research and teaching methodologies to serve a widening array of students. For
example, Cumming (1994) proposed applying descriptive, interpretive, and ideological orientations as
alternative methodologies in TESOL research; and Eisenhart (2001) suggested that educators needed more
critical methodologies and research protocols to address teaching and learning environments, including
multi-layered social, cultural, and political contexts. Anderson (2006) argued that autoethnography is
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch012

Using Autoethnography to Engage in Critical Inquiry in TESOL
an important element in a complete qualitative social research agenda. Chang (2008) further claimed
that through autoethnography, educators could collect, analyze, and interpret their own autobiographical
data to gain a cultural understanding of the connectivity between self and others. These and other works
show the potential benefit of applying autoethnography as educational professionals. The questions then
become, how can TESOL graduate students or educators apply the autoethnography method in TESOL
teaching and research? Are there accessible protocols to guide the use of this method? And, how can
autoethnography help to deepen educators’ understandings of themselves and their students?
This chapter reviews autoethnography and the related concepts of positionality, intersectionality, and
reflexivity. Next, the chapter introduces a protocol for how to conduct autoethnographic research for a
novice English Language Teacher (ELT) with no previous knowledge of autoethnography. Then a portrait
of practice describes two research experiences, and how the author’s intersectionality, including race and
gender roles, mutually impacted her positionality, as a Chinese, female graduate student, mother, and
minoritized woman. This chapter employs intersectionality as an overarching interpretive framework to
make sense of the author’s autoethnographic research experiences as a TESOL female graduate student
and Chinese mother in the United States. Commonly, sources of discrimination and oppression in society,
education, and the workplace involve combinations of two or more social identities, such as race and
gender (Crenshaw, 1991). This chapter also explores how the different positionalities from the author
impact teaching and student learning. Finally, it also explores critical praxis within TESOL by connect-
ing internal and personal experiences with outward social and cultural experiences and exposing one’s
vulnerable self and “multiple layers of consciousness” (Ellis & Bochner, 2000, p. 739). In this way, this
chapter has personal and pedagogical implications for other ELT.
AUTOETHNOGRAPHY
Anthropologists and sociologists have been writing and using autoethnography since colonial periods. The
term ethnography comes from the Greek words ethnos, which means people and graphei, which means
to write. As one kind of qualitative method, ethnography differs from positivistic inquiry, which often
tests hypotheses to find them true or false, as it does not require a hypothesis to begin the research. As
Hughes (1992) stated, ethnography can provide comprehensive insights about the cultures, interactions,
lives, families, and perspectives of a particular group of people. Ethnography grew from anthropology,
when researchers such as Malinowski and Boas were “immersing” themselves in fieldwork for a long
period and getting a comprehensive understanding of the culture and interaction between people. These
early ethnographies often focused on people and cultures subjugated under colonialism.
Autoethnography adds to the root terms of ethno and graph auto, which refers to self (Canagarajah,
2012). Chang (2008) also points out that autoethnography is grounded in ethnography and, as a self-
narrative, has “self-transformative potential” (Chang, 2008, p. 54) to support a deeper cultural under-
standing of both self and others. The major difference between ethnography and autoethnography is
that the researcher is the insider in the research in an autoethnography, instead of “trying to become an
insider” as in an ethnography (Duncan, 2004, p. 3).
Autoethnography has proliferated and used within various fields to explore diverse topics, such as
cultural identity, health, nursing, and education (Chang, 2008). Specifically, scholars have published
various works to conceptualize autoethnography within education. Amongst the scholarship, there are
extensive discussions about the theoretical and methodological perspectives of educational autoethnogra-
246

phy. Educational autoethnography frames learning and teaching as culturally informed and contributing
to cultural development (Yon, 2003).
Researchers have not yet paid autoethnography enough attention in language teaching, and there is
limited research about autoethnography within TESOL research (Mirhosseini, 2018). Canagarajah (2012)
illustrated the importance of this method by stating “TESOL professionals in diverse communities can
use this genre to represent their professional experiences and knowledge in a relatively less threaten-
ing academic manner” (p. 262). Also, Canagarajah demonstrated how to negotiate different teaching
practices by brokering local community practices in his autoethnography work. Park (2014) argued
that researchers could gain a deeper understanding of not only themselves but also the students, and
explore the dialogical thought exchange between researchers and students within TESOL by applying
the autoethnography method.
Autoethnography can range in focus from a researcher’s personal experiences to professional and
cultural aspects. It is “an autobiographical genre of writing that displays multiple layers of conscious-
ness, connecting the personal to the cultural” (Ellis & Bochner, 2000, p. 739). As mentioned by Chang
(2008), “every piece of writing reflects the disposition of its author” (p. 14). In this way, autoethnography
can offer a way to make sense of one’s own life, while exploring a deep appreciation of the positionality
of both self and others. What’s more, autoethnographies in TESOL could help illuminate the teaching
experiences of educators and the schooling experiences of students, thus helping to reveal disparities
between different individuals based on race, class, and gender.
Positionality
Autoethnography offers a way to explore the positionality of both self and others, in terms of “where
one stands in relation to ‘the other’” (Sharan et al.,2001, p. 411). Autoethnography is a way of seeing,
building on dialogue and on a reflexive recognition of the researcher’s own positioning (Rampton et al.,
2015, p. 22). Thus, positionality represents a space in which objectivism and subjectivism meet. In this
way, it is important for autoethnographic researchers to develop the emic (insider) as well as etic (out-
sider) stances necessary to reflect the perspectives of the others and their own. The autoethnographer’s
goal is to make the familiar strange through subjective monitoring (Conteh, 2018). Some scholars, how-
ever, question the quality of autoethnographic research given the subjective position of the researchers
themselves. Peshkin (1988) describes subjectivity as “a garment that cannot be removed” and stresses
the importance of self-awareness for all researchers, regardless of research method.
Positionality is important for researchers to understand themselves, teachers, and students, in terms
of different social identities, standpoints, and cultures. Research in TESOL often focuses on the identi-
ties of English learners, but pays less attention to the voice of the researchers themselves and “how the
research activity shapes the researcher’s subjectivity…” (Norton & Early, 2011, p. 324). Fortunately,
there has been a recent movement toward exploring researcher subjectivities (Canagarajah, 2012; Denzin,
2014; Norton & Early, 2011). Park (2014) explored how the researcher and the participants co-construct
their identities, influence each other, and even create changes through the research activity. Suhr (2014)
displayed how her identity as a non-native English teacher was influenced by her teaching experiences
in an English-speaking country through her autoethnographic study.
247

Intersectionality
A second important concept connected to autoethnography is intersectionality. The origins of the inter-
sectionality framework grew out of feminist and womanist scholars of color showing that most feminist
scholarship was by middle-class, educated, White women, and that an inclusive view of women’s posi-
tions should substantively acknowledge the intersections of gender with other significant social identi-
ties, most notably race (e.g., Dill, 1983; Hull et al., 1982; Moraga & Anzaldua, 1981). The evolution
of intersectionality has been traced to the Black feminist response to the limitations of the accumulated
disadvantage model (Mullings, 1997) and the recognition that the intersections of gender with other
dimensions of social identity are the starting point of theory (Crenshaw, 1994, 2005).
In this way, investigating the intersectionality between languages and their contexts is a key factor in
exposing the ideologies that underpin social injustice, because language intersects with other contexts,
such as race, socio-economic status, and gender, in complex ways. Autoethnographic research, with
its emphasis on the researcher’s positionality and as an attempt to connect research with self and with
others (Ngunjiri et al., 2010), could create important spaces for inquiry in TESOL. Through exploring
the complexities of how race, socioeconomic status, and gender are constructed through language and
also how they contribute to the ways we use language in our daily lives, we can better “understand the
systemic inequalities in a particular setting” (Conteh, 2018, p. 25). This approach requires “blurring
the sometimes-too-solid dichotomies of theoretician-practitioner, researcher-teacher, [and] individual-
society” (Mirhosseini, 2018, p. 77).
In this chapter, I will employ intersectionality as an overarching interpretive framework to make sense
of my autoethnographic observations and research experiences as a TESOL graduate student and intern
teacher in the United States. I will mainly focus on the intersection of race and gender.
AUTOETHNOGRAPHY IN TESOL
Teacher and researchers who apply autoethnography must be “willing to dig deeper into their memories,
excavate rich details, bring them onto the examination tables to sort, label, interconnect, and contextualize
in the sociocultural environment” (Chang, 2008, p. 51). Therefore, as a method to be used by TESOL
practitioners, certain questions come to the fore: How does one engage TESOL pre-service and in-service
educators with no prior knowledge about this method in conducting an autoethnography? How does one
dig, excavate, bring, label, interconnect, and contextualize related information, as Chang mentioned?
Is there a general protocol to support this form of research? To answer these questions, the following
sections will present summaries of the key aspects of conducting autoethnography within TESOL.
Data Collection
Data collection is central to research and lays the foundation for the later data analysis and writing. The
process of data collection in autoethnography commonly involves field notes and a reflection journal,
very similar to participant observation tools used by ethnographers. Figure 1 is the field work template
used by the author to collect data during research experiences.
In order to improve recall of details, a researcher should complete fieldwork notes during events or
on the same day. Second, using a personal reflection journal is helpful to not only capture additional
248

Table 1. Template of field notes journal
Date of encounter or event:

Description of activity:
Reflections on experience:
related details, but also to help establish a researcher’s own positioning in the specific contexts for data
analysis. The form of personal journal can be flexible and does not need to follow a standard template.
A researcher should also complete regularly a personal journal as close in time to research events as
possible. For example, in my personal journal, I wrote about my experiences and feelings at different
points, such as observing a graduate student teacher at an adult school, or noticing how I, as a Chinese
mother, interacted with my son’s classroom teacher. The following excerpt from my reflective journal
shows an example entry of how I resonated with the author of an article as a mature graduate student
and ELT candidate, and how this moment led to an idea about using the autoethnographic method.
When I read these words, I cannot believe that I even experienced the same things as Small described:
“I heard about weekend parties, and how someone wrote the paper drunk between 3:00 and 4:30 in the
morning, and how unfair the grading was, and why did we have to take so many liberal studies courses
anyway” (Bourke, 2014, p. 37) in her book ‘my freshman year.’ Small had to adopt the fiction of being
a mature student seeking to complete her education in order to complete her autoethnography work. By
contrast, I am a real mature graduate student and I already got a master’s degree in Anthropology and
was familiar with the ethnographic method. Under these circumstances, I believe I am competent to do
my research through autoethnography perspective.
Reflexivity
Another important facet of autoethnography is reflexivity, which was endorsed by Bourdieu, in which
“one critically examines one’s own position within the field of academic production - not in order to
be more objective and less subjective, but rather to understand the false distinction between these two
categories” (p. 30). There are differences between reflective practice and reflexivity. Reflexivity means
bringing in one’s own positioning of the data generated and sharing one’s unique perspective on the
teaching and learning relationship. Many research methods downplay not only the role of researchers
themselves but also the extent to which the researcher influences the context and findings of research.
As a result, some scholars advocate reflexivity, which focuses on the importance of mutuality of the
self and others in each study context. For example, Anderson (2006) argues that reflexivity entails self-
introspection about the reciprocal influence between the researcher and informants. Park (2014) noted that
she applied reflexivity in her autoethnographic study instead of reflective practices because reflexivity
helps to understand the dialectical relationship between researcher, educator, and the students, and the
mutual influences between them. In Figure 2, a sample list of questions displays the author’s attempt to
implement reflexivity in her research concerning the mutual influences between the author, students,
and teachers and their interactions.
249

Table 2. Sample questions for reflexivity
• What could result from teaching and learning activities in the classroom from my point of view? …from my students’ point of view?
• What types of intersectionality exist for the teacher, students, and me, in terms of race, gender, class, other?
• What are the various positionalities in this setting between the teacher, the students, and me?
• How does my positionality impact each students’ learning?
• How do my presence and positionality influence this study context?
Absolute objectivity is elusive. Recognizing this allows TESOL educators and researchers to examine
their own role in the institutional and professional contexts in which they operate with more vigorous
reflexivity.
Narrative Writing
A qualitative method of inquiry often used in autoethnography is narrative writing, because it can focus
attention on the human experiences in research. The findings are often expressed in autoethnography in
the form of personal narratives, or a story, or even poems (Connell & Clandinin, 1999, p. 281; Denzin,
1989). Narrative writing allows researchers to express their own internal emotions and feelings and find
the relationship between past and present environments. Turning our experiences into self-narratives—
autoethnographic, autobiographical, introspective, reflective, or other personal writings—is a way of
making sense of our lives legitimate from an autoethnographic standpoint (Spigelman, 2001).
Narratives also offer the opportunity to develop sociocultural understanding of individuals’ experi-
ences (Somekh & Lewin, 2005), and the telling of stories and creation of narratives allow individuals
to construct the self, along with offering transformative opportunities for changing society (Byrne &
Lentin, 2001). As a Chinese female scholar in the United States, it is of importance for me to voice my
experience. The following part of this chapter will demonstrate two experiences from my autoethno-
graphic research, one as a TESOL graduate student observing a class and the other as a Chinese mother
in the United States who supported her child in learning and identity negotiation.
AN AUTOETHNOGRAPHIC ACCOUNT OF MOTHERING
This portrait of autoethnographic practice is from my experience as a graduate student majoring in TESOL
who supported my son in his English learning at home, and as a Chinese mother of an eight-year-old boy
in the United States. During the nearly one year of living experience in the United States, I kept a habit
of writing my reflective journal entries to record the daily emotional moments. In addition, I contacted
my son’s classroom teacher very often to keep a close eye on his learning and development at school via
email correspondences and informal conversations after school. Then I applied the reflexivity strategy to
deal with the above data in order to explore how my son’s English language learning was associated with
not only his socialization, but also mine. I sought to answer these questions: To what extent did I support
my son in code-switching between English and Mandarin Chinese as a Chinese mother and a graduate
student majoring in TESOL in the United States? How did my positionality influence my son’s identity
shift to accompany his language socialization process? I am using the notion of language socialization
250

as “the acquisition of linguistic, pragmatic and other cultural knowledge through social experience” and
as “equated with the development of cultural and communicative competence” (Duff, 2010, p. 427).
School and Classroom Context
My son was a first-grade student in an elementary school in Los Angeles. The A (the pseudonym of the
school) elementary school was awarded a California Blue Ribbon in 2019. This elementary school has
diverse student demographics: 32% of the total 713 students are White, 26% are Asian, and 24% are
Hispanic. The student-to-teacher ratio is about 25:1 in this school, higher than the California state level of
23:1. As for my son’s English language proficiency, he had not learned any English systemically before
he came to the United States. What’s more, he was the only student whose L1 was Mandarin Chinese
in his classroom, which made it more difficult for him to study at the A school as the language mainly
used in his classroom was English. The classroom teacher and students cannot speak or understand any
Chinese. My son sometimes spoke Chinese when he played with other Chinese kids at the playground
during recess time. In addition, I always spoke with him in Chinese when we were at home, unless I
helped him with English work.
The Mother of a Novice English Learner
My son’s study did not go very well at first. I received a lot of complaints since his first week from his
classroom teacher, who positioned my son as an unruly and not academically well-performing student.
After getting more information, I felt deeply sorry for my son because his classroom teacher in a school
did not take his English language proficiency level and his first language into consideration. Compared
with all the other kids in that classroom whose first language is English, my son’s English proficiency
lagged far behind them. And he could not even distinguish between the lower-case letters “n” and “h”
and “b” and “d.” I recorded his learning experience in my journal as follows.
When I picked David up on the first day of school, he told me that he did not go to buy lunch even if I
taught him to learn his student number many times, and I even write the number on a small paper. He
told me he is too shy, and he does not know where to go and what to say. Tears filled in my eyes at that
moment.
However, his oral daily English improved quickly, more than I could have imagined. Besides, with
the help of the technology, including useful apps such as Khan Academy kids, Learning Edge, Dream
Box, and others, he could listen to stories and study on the iPad by himself. My personal journal in the
next one to two months recorded his improvement, such as the following.
Today he told me, ‘Mum, I already know the meaning of the sentence like “what are you doing.” I asked
him who and when did he learn from? He said, “he was asked by his classmates during the recess time
on the playground when he was using a small branch to draw something.
When I wanted to say goodbye to David at the school playground, his classmate, a lovely girl, came to
say, “David, come to play with me.” At that moment, I was so excited that David could make friends
with his classmates, even though he could not speak much English, and maybe they could just use simple
251

words and gestures to communicate. It’s amazing. He also told me he learned the words like “one more
time,” “hold on,” and “be careful,” and he just wanted to check whether he understands the meaning
of these words correctly.
Meanwhile, my son’s classroom teacher still emailed me several times to mention his reticent behavior,
highlighting things like, “he just says ‘I don’t know’, but I still believe that he knows the answer and he
just would not like to participate in classroom activity.” This question perplexed me for a while, and I
tried to figure out the reason behind my son’s reticence in his classroom. However, my son’s learning at
the swimming and tennis courses demonstrated another story. His energy and enthusiasm in sports made
him often deserve positive appraisal and inspiration from the coaches. Meanwhile, he was motivated a
lot to work harder during the sports class.
I cannot imagine that David first gets his confidence from his swimming lesson and tennis lesson. Both
his swim and tennis instructor praise him, such as “David, you are a good swimmer, Nice job,” “David,
you are an awesome tennis player.” I find it inspired him to work hard after receiving these encourag-
ing words.
Based on my son’s different learning experiences at school and sports class, I noted my reflections
on them. First, my positionality as a TESOL graduate student gave me some insider perspective to better
understand my son’s learning experience and to impact his learning as well. I could resort to professional
articles to find my answers. As argued by Norton & Gao (2008), TESOL educators should be concerned
with the conditions under which the students speak the target language. In my son’s classroom, the reason
why he often struggled to speak is that he was under conditions of marginalization, feeling unsafe and
not supportive. In his sports class, even though he even did not know the academic words of the specific
motion, such as backstroke or breaststroke, he still got high praise from the coach, which increased his
confidence and pushed him to further improve. My son’s improved fluency and accuracy in daily spo-
ken English does not correspond to his limited academic English proficiency, which is ignored by his
classroom teacher. His teacher has little knowledge of the difficulty of the academic learning activity
for an English-learning beginner, even falsely considering him as lacking in cognitive abilities. Through
several conversations with his classroom teacher, I argued that the most appropriate instruction content
for him is not only focusing on the materials used in his classroom but also on basic, high-frequency
words. Otherwise, he could not understand the instruction content, not to mention taking part in his
classroom activity. However, this teacher did not follow my suggestion. I supported my son by myself. I
focused on the academic vocabulary development, and improving his listening, speaking, reading, and
writing skills of the high-frequency words using some helpful digital resources. I realized that instead
of his mathematical ability; it was his lack of knowledge about the mathematical academic words that
could partly explain why my son was not willing to participate in math class.
Second, my positionality as a Chinese mother in the United States, is a function of my status as an
outsider. Whether I was positioned as a responsible and supportive mother puzzled me before. After
this reflection, I realized that my positionality also had an influence not only on myself but also on my
son and the teacher as well. I was born and grew up in China, where I was socialized into “cultures of
academic excellence” and was positioned as a member of a dominant culture. I was raised in a family
where academic excellence was highly valued. Before coming to the United States, as a middle-upper
class member in China, my racial and gender identity as a Chinese female had a different meaning from
252

that in the United States. Meanwhile, like most Chinese mothers, I positioned myself as an incompetent
mother because of my low self-efficacy, “those who focus on their incompetence and judge themselves as
incapable of doing whatever they think is important to being a good parent- are likely to appraise a child-
rearing problem as a threat rather than a positive challenge” (Holloway, 2010, p. 51). In China, females
always choose to continue to work after getting married and even delivering a baby. In this way, females
are struggling to fulfill their family roles as a wife and a mother and suffering from pressure from their
husband and mothers-in-law. They also have to push themselves to work hard to get a job or promoted.
After my reflection on my experiences, I argued that the low self-efficacy positionality could be
explained by the discrepancy between the role of perfection and the low self-efficacy. Role perfection
means such things as the ability to endure trouble and pain, coolness in the face of threat, patience,
dependability, persistence, self-reliance, and intense personal motivation (Holloway, 2010, p. 53). The
high-frequency word, super mother, may exactly describe the concept of role perfection. I had always
self-doubted myself, like Miyuki did in the book, Women and Family in Contemporary Japan, which
stated, “she started from a general cultural schema about what it took to be a good parent but within that
form she was able to creatively improvise and move beyond, in order to figure out how to be ‘my kind
of mother’” (Holloway, 2010, p. 69). My parents and close friends questioned me about my decision to
come to the United States. From their perspective, I was not a responsible mother because I do not to
pay attention to my son’s school study like most of the other mothers in China.
Even though I received a lot of negative feedback from his teacher, I always had high expectations
for my son. I did not let myself drown in these negative words. I was concerned about this teacher’s
decision to exclude my son from the weekly spelling test, which is also a sign of her low academic
expectation of my son. After my several continuous requests, this teacher finally agreed to include my
son in this spelling test, which is a great motivation for my son’s English learning. As a Chinese mother
in the United States, my consistent and strong support and belief in my child is of great importance
in his school learning. Even though this teacher considered me a harsh and strict mother, I had strong
self-confidence in my judgement and did not give up easily. This teacher gradually changed her attitude
about me and appraised my actions after that.
After my self-reflection on my identity as a mother, I grew from a position of low self-efficacy as
an imigrant mother from China socialized to believe I did not meet a certain standard of perfection to
a more and more confident Chinese mother who dared to challenge the White teacher’s instructional
method in the United States. Without the graduate study experience in the United States, I would not
have become such a confident mother. I realize that building a dialogue between TESOL educators and
parents is of utmost importance for students’ learning progress.
Chinese Identity
As mentioned before, my son was immersed in an English-only learning environment during his school
time. The district where we lived in Los Angeles was White-dominant, and most of our neighbors were
not from China. Under these circumstances, talk between me and my son, like the following excerpt from
my personal journal, intrigued me a lot. It also showed that he positioned himself as a Chinese boy and
this valuable Chinese identity led him to invest in learning Chinese in the United States.
Today, something unhappy happened to David. He just cried and spoke with me, “Mum, please speak
with me in Chinese when I am with you.” I do not know why he cried at first, and then he told me, “Be-
253

cause I am a Chinese, I don’t want to forget my First language.” At that moment, I realized that it’s my
duty to help my son with both Chinese and English.
This above conversation happened in October 2019, two months after our arrival in the United States.
In fact, before then, I was not sure whether it is appropriate for me to continue to speak Chinese with
my son, because it is common that many Chinese mothers tried to speak English to their kids at home
as much as possible. My positionality as a TESOL graduate student gives me insider perspectives upon
which to reflect. Dornyei (2001) argued that investment tries to build meaningful connections between
a learner’s commitment to learn a language and their changing identities. With the previous theories of
investment, which assumed that learners who do not learn the target language assiduously are not suf-
ficiently committed to the learning process, Norton suggested the notions of “investment” and “imag-
ined communities” and contributed to the field of language learning and teaching (Norton, 2001). The
notion of investment “signals the socially and historically constructed relationship of learners to the
target language” (Norton & Gao, 2008, p. 110) and their contradictory desire to learn and apply it in
a different setting. Also, this notion of investment (Norton, 2001) implies that language learners have
changeable identities in time, space, and social interaction. After reading these TESOL major articles,
I had deeper understandings about the interrelation between investment and identity and supported his
Chinese learning. We continued to have our story time before bedtime as our daily routine, the same as
we did in China. During the story time every night, I always read Chinese children’s books to my son for
about 15 minutes. These books include different styles of children’s books. The utmost reason I chose
them is that most of them had been his favorite books since kindergarten. However, there are still some
Chinese characters in the texts that he was not familiar with. In this way, every night, we followed the
similar protocol to read Chinese books. I read to him first, then he pointed the words with his fingers
while reading the sentences. If there were any words that he did not recognize, I would speak these words
aloud and stress the pronunciation and meaning of the unfamiliar words to my son. During the reading
activity, I paused and asked him some questions to check his understanding abilities.
Today I took David to watch the movie “snowman.” He is super excited to hear the words in Chinese,
such as “nai nai”(grandma) and “shi tou jian dao bu.” All the plot in this movie takes place in China.
I tell David some background information about these places. He asks me why the American movie in-
cludes some Chinese words. I response like this, “China and America are the two biggest and powerful
countries in the world, and more and more cooperation are undertaking between these two super big
countries, and that’s the same reason why we are here.”
This moment further proved that his positionality was as a transnational Chinese boy in the United
States. I could tell by his proud feelings when he heard the Chinese sounds in the film theater. He was
so proud of being Chinese that he would like to follow the Chinese words with the film. Through my
reflection, as a Chinese mother, I was so glad to see my son’s developments in Chinese learning and
self-acknowledgement of his Chinese identity. More than that, his proud feeling about his Chinese iden-
tity helped him to accommodate his school life more smoothly and laid the foundation for his English
learning and academic progress.
254

LEARNING ACTIVITIES
As a pre-service or in-service educators, many ELTs observe English language teaching. This could
include observing a mentor or host teacher’s classroom, one’s own classroom, or the classroom of a col-
league. This fieldwork experience can serve as an opportunity to try out autoethnography. For example,
as a graduate student in TESOL, as a non-native English speaker and TESOL teacher candidate in United
States, as part of my coursework, I engaged in classroom observations 2 hours per week. During this
time, I regularly wrote reflective memos in my reflective journal, which helped me to reflect on the data
I gathered from an autoethnographic perspective.
Write in a Reflection Journal
Write in a personal reflection journal after your observation of teaching and learning or after your own
teaching practice. The form of personal journal can be flexible and does not need to follow a standard
template. A researcher should also complete their personal journal as close in time to observation or
teaching events as possible.
Reflexivity
Consider one or more of sample questions for reflexivity in Figure 2. Sample Questions for Reflexiv-
ity in one or more of your reflection journal entries. In answering any of these questions the goal is
to consider influences between the author, students, and teachers and their interactions. For example,
while writing in a reflective journal after observations of an adult English as a Second Language (ESL)
course, I learned that the learning material and content should take the target students’ actual needs and
goals into account because they may be from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. Also, the
classroom teacher should be a leader, guider, and facilitator to scaffold target knowledge for students.
Consider Your Intersectionality and Positionality
Write one or more journal entries in your journal about identity and power. In your journal, what are
social identities like race, ethnicity, gender, ability, religion, socioeconomic status, citizenship, or im-
migration status, etc. that are important to you and to your students? Where do you occupy positions of
power and marginalization? Where do your students occupy positions of power and marginalization?
How do these various identities intersect in the English language classroom? For example, I learned
that my appearance in the classroom often had some influence on students. First, my positionality as a
Chinese female graduate student in a Predominately White Institution in the United States was a func-
tion of my status as an outsider. During one field observation period, I experienced a bit of a struggle,
as mentioned in my reflective journal and outlined below.
I am totally shocked to receive the text from the Chinese student in the class I am observing. She told
me that one Mexican student told the teacher that she did not feel safe after being requested to write her
name and nationality in my notebook. It is unbelievable that the teacher even agreed [with] her opinion
by saying ‘she is indeed weird.’ I cannot imagine why my reasonable behavior to get the demographic
255

information was considered an invasion of privacy. I just followed the basic protocols of my research.
The picture of their talk about me haunted in my mind a lot.
This above example shows how I was positioned as a “weird Chinese female” by those in my observa-
tion class, including the teacher and a student. I had been thinking a lot about whether and how to make
some explanations for the entire class to clarify my actual intent to just follow the basic protocol and get
the basic demographic information of the entire class. I finally decided to keep silent and pretend not
to know the label they positioned on me. There is an old saying in China that clean hands do not need
washing. Under this philosophy, I entered the classroom with a clear conscious in my following observing
period. Nothing needed more explanation, from my point of view. It also demonstrated that I employed
quiet resistance based on “practical wisdom” and “critical spirituality” (Dantley, 2003).
Second, my positionality as a future ELT and researcher is a function of my status as an insider. For
the ELT, we may have to cast off stereotypes about ESL students in our mind and practice more criti-
cally reflective thinking. For example, when the students make deficit assumptions about pre-service
teachers in the classroom, host teacher and faculty mentors should equip new teachers and researchers
with backup plans to make timely adjustments in order to achieve the goal of equity and inclusion, and
to not make minoritized new teachers feel like they are positioned as outsiders based on their intersect-
ing social identities.
DISCUSSION
Autoethnography has enabled me to explore my position as an outsider/insider and to grow culturally

and professionally. As for my cultural growth, I gained a deeper understanding of my experiences as a
Chinese female and mother of color in the traditionally English-speaking country. As for professional
growth, all my experiences and reflections have highlighted power, language, and culture entrenched in
language pedagogies in the English language classroom in the United States and showed examples of
how to navigate dynamics of power, language, and culture. This autoethnographic research gives me an
opportunity not only to speak my voice personally, but also to accept my positionality as an outsider/
insider.
One of the most important methodological implications of this autoethnographic study is the applica-
tion of autoethnography for ELTs, and English language learning students by engaging in reflexivity and
narrative writing to inquire about their teaching and researching experiences in the United States and
all over the world. Also, autoethnography could help them prepare fully to become culturally sensitive
teachers for their students from diverse cultural, language, and racial backgrounds. As shown in my two
portraits of practice, my diverse positionalities impact students’ learning and on teacher practices, some-
thing I learned through autoethnographic reflexivity. As mentioned by Chang (2008), autoethnography
is helpful for students to reflect on the forces that have shaped their character and to know more about
self, including race, gender, education, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, and so forth. It is worthwhile for
minority members within the TESOL field to participate in these type of studies, speak out their voices,
and present their separate outsider/insider positionality under the impact of racism and other forms of
marginalization, providing a more diverse, inclusive learning and teaching environment within TESOL
education.
256

REFERENCES
Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Qualitative Research Methods, 35(4), 373–395.

doi:10.1177/0891241605280449
Bourdieu & Wacquant. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourke, B. (2014). Positionality: Reflecting on the Research Process. Qualitative Report, 19(33), 1–9.
doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1026
Canagarajah, S. (2012). Teacher development in a global profession: An autoethnography. TESOL
Quarterly, 46(2), 258–279. doi:10.1002/tesq.18
Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Left Coast Press.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1999). Narrative inquiry. In J. P. Keeves & G. Lakomski (Eds.),
Issues in Educational Research (pp. 132–140). Elsevier Science.
Conteh, J. (2018). Researching Education for Social Justice in Multilingual Settings: Ethnographic
Principles in Qualitative Research. Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against
women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241. doi:10.2307/1229039
Cumming, A., Tarone, E., Cohen, A. D., Connor, U., Spada, N., Hornberger, N. H., Pennycook, A., &
Auerbach, E. (1994). Alternatives in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive, and ideological orienta-
tions. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 673–703. doi:10.2307/3587555
Dantley, M. E. (2003). Critical spirituality: Enhancing transformative leadership through critical theory
and African American prophetic spirituality. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(1),
3–17. doi:10.1080/1360312022000069987
Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive biography. Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412984584
Denzin, N. K. (2014). Interpretive Autoethnography. SAGE Publications. doi:10.4135/9781506374697
Dörneyi, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Longman.
Duff, P., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural identities and practices in
postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 451–486. doi:10.2307/3587834
Duff, P. A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. Erlbaum.
Duncan, M. (2004). Autoethnography: Critical appreciation of an emerging art. International Journal
of Qualitative Methods, 3(4), 28–39. doi:10.1177/160940690400300403
Eisenhart, M. (2001). Educational ethnography past, present and future: Ideas to think with. Educational
Researcher, 30(8), 16–27. doi:10.3102/0013189X030008016
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. Denzin & Y.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733–768). Sage.
257

Garcia, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs and practices
for English learners (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2),
106–116. doi:10.1177/0022487102053002003
Holloway, S. D. (2010). Women and family in contemporary Japan. Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511761317
Hughes, C. C. (1992). “Ethnography”: What’s in a Word—Process? Product? Promise? Qualitative
Health Research, 2(4), 439–450. doi:10.1177/104973239200200405
McKay, S. L., & Wong, S.-L. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency
in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Re-
view, 66(3), 577–606. doi:10.17763/haer.66.3.n47r06u264944865
Merriam, S. B., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M.-Y., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G., & Muhamad, M. (2001). Power
and positionality: Negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures. International Journal
of Lifelong Education, 20(5), 405–416. doi:10.1080/02601370120490
Meyerson, D. (2001). Tempered Radicals: How people use difference to inspire change at work. Harvard
Business School Press.
Mirhosseini, S. A. (2018). An invitation to the less-treaded path of autoethnography in TESOL research.
TESOL Journal, 9(1), 76–92. doi:10.1002/tesj.305
Mullings, L. (1997). On our own terms: race, class, and gender in the lives of African American women.
Routledge.
Ngunjiri, F. W., Hernandez, K. C., & Chang, H. (2010). Living autoethnography: Connecting life and
research. Journal of Research Practice, 6(1), E1. Retrieved May 12, 2013, from http://jrp.icaap.org/
index.php/jrp/article/view/241/186
Nieto, S. M. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. Pearson
Allyn & Bacon.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In M. Breen
(Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 159–171). Pearson
Education.
Norton, B., & Early, M. (2011). Researcher identity, narrative inquiry, and language teaching research.
TESOL Quarterly, 45(3), 415–439. doi:10.5054/tq.2011.261161
Norton, B., & Gao, Y. (2008). Identity, investment, and Chinese learners of English. Journal of Asian
Pacific Communication, 18(1), 109–120. doi:10.1075/japc.18.1.07nor
Park, L. E. (2014). Shifting from reflective practices to reflexivity: An autoethnography of an L2 teacher
educator. English Teaching, 69(1), 173–198. doi:10.15858/engtea.69.1.201403.173
Peshkin, A. (1988). In Search of Subjectivity—One’s Own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21.
doi:10.3102/0013189X017007017
258

Rampton, B., Maybin, J., & Roberts, C. (2015). Theory and Method in Linguistic Ethnography. In J.
Snell, S. Shaw, & F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic Ethnography. Palgrave Advances in Language and Lin-
guistics. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137035035_2
Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (Eds.). (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. Sage.
Spigelman, C. (2001). Argument and Evidence in the Case of the Personal. College English, 64(1),
63–87. doi:10.2307/1350110
Suhr, M. (2014). Identity re-construction: An autoethnographic inquiry of an experienced non-native
English speaking teacher in an English-dominant country [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby, Canada.
Swan, M., & Smith, B. (2001). Learning English. A teacher’s guide to inference and other problems.
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667121
Yon, D. A. (2003). Highlights and overview of the history of educational ethnography. Annual Review
of Anthropology, 32(1), 411429. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093449
Autoethnography: A qualitative method where the researcher uses reflection and narrative writing
to make sense of personal experiences in a cultural, social, and political context. Chang (2008) claimed
that through autoethnography, educators could collect, analyze, and interpret their own autobiographical
data to gain a cultural understanding of the connectivity between self and others.
Intersectionality: The intersection of multiple social identities including gender, race, social class,
and national origin. This concept was developed by Black feminist response to the limitations of the
accumulated disadvantage model (Mullings, 1997) and the recognition that the intersections of gender
with other dimensions of social identity are the starting point of theory (Crenshaw, 1994, 2005).
Positionality: A researcher’s or teacher’s relative social, cultural, and political location in relation
to another person in a particular context. Positionality is closely related to a person’s social identities,
standpoints, and cultural practices.
Reflexivity: Bringing in one’s own positioning of the data generated by sharing one’s unique per-
spective on the teaching and learning relationship. In the tradition of reflexive sociology, Bourdieu and
Wacquant (1992) define reflexivity as “one critically examines one’s own position within the field of
academic production - not in order to be more objective and less subjective, but rather to understand the
false distinction between these two categories” (p. 30).
259
260
Chapter 13
Achieving Praxis for
TESOL Educators:
A Reflective Self-Checklist to Support
Culturally Sustaining Practices
Samantha Jungheim
Jacqueline Vega López

ABSTRACT
Shifting educational landscapes have revealed a need for structured critical reflection. While research
on culturally responsive teaching practices and critical reflection prompts exist, there is little in the way
of short, synthesized resources for busy educators who desire to change systems of inequity. The authors
of this chapter have developed the TESOL educator reflective self-checklist (TERS) for on ground and
online educators that utilizes recent research on motivation to activate critical reflection and further
culturally sustaining classroom practices. This chapter expands on the evidence and development of
this reflective checklist, implementation of the checklist, and provides vignettes of the checklist in use.
INTRODUCTION
Critical reflection is a valuable step in praxis, but how can educators achieve praxis without any support?
Research indicates that educators are better equipped to elevate their socially just classrooms when they
have a reflective framework to accommodate them (Dewey, 1910; Schön, 1987; Bryan & Abell, 1999;
Deaton, 2012). This chapter asserts that purposeful and habitual reflection through the completion of
a self-checklist can enable practicing or training TESOL educators to enact critical praxis regularly in
their learning environments. Rather than requiring educators to scour through research, the TESOL
Educator Reflective Self-Checklist (TERS) provides reflective statements that distill current research
and best practices.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch013

Achieving Praxis for TESOL Educators
Originally, this checklist was born out of need, as many educators struggled with the transition to
online classrooms in spring 2020. Due to governments’ regulations regarding the global COVID-19
pandemic, educators were no longer able to teach in person, as planned. The pressure to maintain high
teaching standards left little time for educators to reflect during the pandemic; thus, a need for critical
reflection in online classrooms was the leading call to action for the authors in summer 2020. At the
onset of the pandemic, the authors were enrolled in a TESOL master’s program at a private university in
a southwestern area of the United States, where they engaged with sociopolitical issues as both teachers
and students. Bearing contemporary challenges in mind, the authors developed this checklist and pre-
sented it virtually at the CATESOL 2020 Annual State Conference. After presenting the checklist and
receiving additional feedback, the authors reworked their initial checklist to create the version presented
in this chapter (refer to Appendix).
CONCEPT
Theoretical Framework
Simply stating the terms “culturally responsive teaching,” “culturally sustaining pedagogy,” “critical
pedagogy,” and the like evokes the names of such scholars as Drs. Gloria Ladson-Billings, Geneva Gay,
Sharroky Hollie, Django Paris, H. Samy Alim, and Paulo Freire. The groundwork in which these theories
is rooted has cultivated newfound pedagogical perspectives over the years. Asset-Based Pedagogies like
these bring in the strengths of the diverse student population to the forefront; these factors may include
but are not limited to influences or personal characteristics involving culture, immigration status, dis-
ability, or sexuality (López & Louis, 2009; Chavez, 2016; Krutkowski, 2017; Morrison, 2017). Practi-
tioners of these pedagogies leverage student “funds of knowledge” to improve their learning experience,
which refers to the set of “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and
skills” students bring into the classroom (Moll et al., 1989). When pertaining to language learners, this
experience draws in the application of Translanguaging Pedagogies1 by consistently including home
language practices that promote additive bilingualism (Lambert, 1981; Garcia et al., 2017). At its heart,
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP) and its various iterations aspire to transform classroom instruc-
tion into a practice that respects students as the multifaceted people they are. It seeks to position them as
empowered and critically conscious individuals equipped to extend their agency throughout the myriad
aspects of their lives.
Hollie defines Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teaching and Learning (CLR) as a “valida-
tion and affirmation of the home (indigenous) culture and home language for the purposes of building
and bridging the student to success in the culture of academia and mainstream society” (Hollie, 2011, p.
23). In CSP, Paris and Alim move one step further by proposing that creating a responsive curriculum
is not enough to produce equitable schooling—in addition, educators and administrators should seek to
“sustain the lifeways of communities [of color] who have been and continue to be damaged and erased
through schooling” (Paris & Alim, 2017). This is especially true for educational spaces existing in plu-
ralistic societies and is markedly important for TESOL educators who often work with multilingual and
multicultural students. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy thus emboldens a conceptualization of cultural,
linguistic, emotional, socioeconomic, and political factors as a shared responsibility of educational insti-
tutions, for the sake of both community equity and liberation. This concept of pedagogy has developed
261

in direct response to the centuries-long stigmatization of and lack of systemic support for culturally
and linguistically minoritized students in major institutions and social structures. Culturally Sustaining
Pedagogy effectively harmonizes a student’s communicative repertoire, or the cumulation of ways they
choose to communicate depending on social context, as well as their distinct Discourses, which apply
to the unique, interchangeable identities a student may assume throughout the different contexts of their
lives. By also acknowledging, validating, and fostering a student’s range of communicative repertoires2,
instructors resist the deep-seated high-power disparity between society’s dominant Discourse3 and a
student’s home-based Discourse (Rymes, 2010; Gee, 2015). Translanguaging in the classroom bridges
a student’s variety of Discourses with those of the educational institution through explicit instruction
about the construct of correctness versus appropriateness in a given context (Wei & Lin, 2019). While
bridging Discourses is central to this theoretical stance, extending the CSP mindset into multiple contexts
can feel like an unfamiliar practice for educators (Cantrell et al., 2014).
A reflective practice as defined by Larrivee ranges from “analyzing a single aspect of a lesson to
considering the ethical, social, and political implications of teaching practice” (2008, p. 341). Nearly a
century before, Dewey wrote that reflection is “that which involves active, persistent, and careful consid-
eration of any belief or practice in light of the reasons that support it and further consequences to which
it leads” (Dewey, 1910, p. 6). The authors have written this chapter with these definitions in mind as
they encapsulate the holistic essence of an educator’s ever-changing classroom experiences and the need
for them to remain versatile in their reflective considerations as well as their teaching. Here, reflective
practice is appropriate for anything from an instructor’s experience in building ethical relationships with
students to scaffolding to meeting students’ unique needs, as long as it is a teacher practice that ultimately
affects students. Reflection can become critically oriented by adding dimensions of reflection to it that
examine one’s deeply held biases and also considering societal issues of power (Fook, 2015). Making
a reflective practice critical may thus look like an instructor’s moving past attributing a student’s in-
class problematic behaviors to general issues of engagement or personality, instead addressing possible
power structures represented in the lesson material that are incompatible or inconsistent with, or even
antagonistic toward, those of the student’s home culture. An example is a lesson that references historical
periods of oppression of a community to which a student may belong.
From reflecting critically to implementing action, praxis guides instructors through transformation
toward more socially just practices on both an independent and societal level (Burke & Lumb, 2018).
The TESOL Educator Reflective Self-Checklist (TERS) uses CSP as the foundational theory on which
to boost educators working in diverse contexts to achieve all aspects of praxis. In a philosophical sense,
praxis is an “iterative circle of being/becoming (ontology), knowing (epistemology), and doing (actions
with consequences)” (Longo & Lindsay, 2011, p. 704). In this chapter, praxis refers to the marriage of
theory, practice, and action as a never-ending process to confront and erode the separation of theory
and practice within the frame of education. These principles and processes are entirely interdependent
in that pedagogy is informed by an instructor’s reflection and action, and action is dictated by their
reflection and pedagogy. Duncan-Andrade & Morrell (2008) outline five steps anatomizing critical
praxis: identifying a problem, analyzing the problem, creating a plan of action to address the problem,
implementing the plan of action, and analyzing and evaluating the action (2008, p. 25). The TERS is
based on this model (see Figure 1).
Finally, there is a pillar of restoring critical reflection for teachers and students alike, which is crucial
throughout the critical praxis cycle as outlined in steps 2, 3, and 5 in Figure 1. Critical reflection may
require interrogating and redefining systems of power on a number of scales. Giroux (2010) discusses
262

Figure 1. The TERS critical praxis cycle
this using a Freirean framework and contends that this practice demands preparing students to “be in-
formed citizens, nurture a civic imagination, or … be self-reflective about public issues and the world
in which they live’’ (Freire, 1994; p. 716). The ideas of critical reflection as they pertain to both teach-
ers and students have been woven into the checklist (refer to Appendix). Overall, the analytical process
required to complete this checklist can help illuminate the impact that educators’ classroom practices
have on their language-learning students.
The TERS streamlines praxis by establishing a perpetual cycle of action, reflection, and construction
of theory in relation to the realities of instructors’ educational contexts. The majority of the TERS has
been tailored to apply to both on-ground and online settings; however, it includes several statements
that are phrased specifically in reference to online teaching contexts. This tool revolves around a series
of statements that prompt instructors to reflect on their classroom practices through the lens of CSP. In
this chapter, the authors have chosen to use “CSP” as an overarching term because they believe it lends
itself exceptionally well to capturing the dynamic influence of students’ backgrounds on the very fabric
of their schooling (Paris, 2012). The TERS endeavors to support students by enabling educators to ex-
amine their own alignment with CSP, improve upon their classroom practices, and track their progress
by completing the checklist multiple times throughout a given period. Implementation of the TERS on
a wider scale can generate an accumulation of data to promote future CSP scholarship, which is a topic
discussed later in the chapter.
Existing Tools for Teacher Reflection
Current educational research on critical inquiry has aided immensely in the formulation of this checklist.
In 2008, Larrivee introduced a three-part instrument including an observer assessment, a self-assessment,
and an action plan to meet the needs of future reflective practitioners (Larrivee, 2008). This tool is de-
signed to assess a teacher’s level of reflection and, with routine use, build upon it. Full application of
263

Larrivee’s tool requires the involvement not only of an educator themself for the self-assessment and
action plan but of a mentor or supervisor for the observer assessment. Moreover, the two assessment
portions of this instrument each contain four separate levels of reflection: Pre-reflection, Surface re-
flection, Pedagogical reflection, and Critical reflection. Individual sections contain statements related
to an educator’s current teaching practices and are categorized in accordance with the levels of critical
analysis, which vary from reflecting on teaching episodes as isolated events to considering the theory
and rationale behind pedagogical approaches or the ethical implications of classroom practices.
Years later, in 2013, the Kentucky, United States-based Collaborative Center for Literacy Develop-
ment (CCLD) piloted the Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol (CRIOP) at three
public elementary schools in the state to address the persistent achievement gaps between “students from
middle-class White backgrounds and students from culturally and economically diverse backgrounds”
(Cantrell et al., 2014). The seven pillars of the CRIOP model combine a number of elements: classroom
relationships, family collaboration, assessment, curriculum, instruction/pedagogy, discourse, and socio-
political consciousness. All together, these produce a developmental framework, with on-site support, to
guide teachers toward increased utilization of culturally responsive practices. As its name suggests, this
model depends chiefly on an in-class teacher observation component, which was performed by two field
researchers throughout the study, as well as an instructor interview component. The researchers evaluated
their teacher observations by assigning a rating to the teachers’ practices as a percentage based on the
CRIOP indicators. One area in which the authors found the CRIOP to be most useful was in unveiling
the broad scope of CSP and the corresponding need for instructors to assimilate these behaviors into
the very core of their teaching practices. Ideally, CSP would become permanently embedded in their
pedagogical framework and always implemented in the classroom.
While tools like Larrivee’s survey and the CRIOP have paved the way for greater instructor success
in critically reflective practices, the TERS uniquely positions critical reflection as a practical, digestible,
and ongoing professional learning activity. The authors operationalize and systematize critical reflec-
tion for English language educators to help them achieve praxis through this self-service instrument.
Rather than being divided into different levels of reflection, each section of the checklist centralizes on
a distinct component of educational instruction, each of which may resonate differently with individual
instructors. Like Larrivee’s instrument, the TERS also contains an “action steps’’ segment. However, the
authors added a complementary section, which focuses on determining possible obstacles to success in
order to increase the likelihood of creating achievable action steps. This interdisciplinary approach uses
strong empirical evidence from research on cognitive strategies developed by Dr. Gabriele Oettingen
in the field of behavioral psychology (Oettingen, 2014). The TERS encourages educators to use mental
contrasting4 with implementation intentions that promote goal-directed behavior to ensure that they can
create real changes in their practices.
The comprehensive structure of CRIOP influenced the development of the checklist in this chapter as
it brought to light how intricate and daunting CSP can be to instructors possessing little to no experience
with this framework. The authors strove to create a tool that retains this multidimensionality but with-
out the over-complexity that a number of instructors have perceived in the CRIOP. To accomplish this,
the authors instead integrated components of CSP into the aspects of classroom instruction with which
educators are typically already well-versed. However, the TERS is innovatively designed entirely for
individual use and thus does not require a more knowledgeable observer to help instructors complete the
process of reflection. While the checklist can be used easily for collaboration with multiple colleagues or
264

mentors, instructors are also able to use this tool entirely on their own time and at their own pace, as a log
in which they can record and review areas that need self-improvement or fulfillment in their pedagogy.
The underlying structure used in the TERS includes four fundamental steps. The first step is to observe
the extent to which a variety of equity-minded practices are employed in one’s classroom. The second
is to identify potential obstacles that may prevent one from fully enacting any one of these practices.
The third is to create a concrete, achievable action plan that considers the specific measures needed to
overcome these obstacles through effective action. The fourth and final step is to use the checkbox to
identify practices that one has already enacted and therefore do not require further action.
TESOL Educator Reflective Self-Checklist (TERS)
37 Statements with 5 main sections
• Teacher Reflection (11 statements)

• Curriculum Design (9 statements)
• Learner Outcomes (6 statements)
• Classroom Management (6 statements)
• Student Engagement (5 statements)
The TERS is divided into five sections, all of which aim to aid educators in identifying key areas that
need improvement. Each section has an overarching theme: Teacher Reflection, which focuses on the
instructor themselves and their general practices as an educator; Curriculum Design, which considers
the curriculum’s structure; Learner Outcomes, which centers on the instructor’s given student learner
objectives/outcomes; Classroom Management, which investigates optimization of classroom operations;
and Student Engagement, which centers on promoting equity within the classroom by leveraging stu-
dents’ linguistic and cultural repertoires. The first half of each section contains between five and eleven
reflective statements, each accompanied by an empty checkbox and a space to indicate the extent to
which the statement is applicable (“yes,” “somewhat,” or “no”).
In total, the self-checklist has thirty-seven reflective statements. When using the checklist, an instruc-
tor can read each statement one at a time, then assess its relevance to their own context and denote their
response in the appropriate box on its right-hand side. Importantly, statements such as “My classroom
activities and/or assessments provide opportunities to express diverse perspectives (i.e., confronting
biases or interrogating systems of power)” may seem intimidating, especially to those new to practic-
ing CSP. However, a small-scale application of this principle, as explained by the eighth statement in
“Curriculum Design” on the TERS, can allow educators to mark “yes”. For example, an educator who
allows students to write about a member of their community rather than only white historical figures for
an essay assignment about inspirational historical figures would be allowing students to express “diverse
perspectives,” as mentioned in the assessment. An educator can also check or mark the box on the far
left-hand side of the form to denote that the matter to which a statement refers has been resolved and/or
does not require further reflection or action.
265

In the second half of each section, after the series of statements, there are two blank boxes in which for
an educator to write. These boxes are side-by-side, with the one on the left titled “What obstacles might
I face?” and the one on the right titled “What action steps can I take?” The “obstacles” box is intended
to allow an instructor to expand on what is currently preventing or may prevent them from responding
“yes” to any of the statements listed above. For example, an educator who states “no” to “I regularly
view and reflect on recordings of my online instruction” may want to elaborate on how school policies
prevent them from recording their class sessions or perhaps why they do not feel they have time to sit and
view full recordings of their sessions. Another educator may grapple with the reality that their students
do not have a considerable or maybe any voice in choosing the type of content to study and thus mark
“no” in response to “I use student feedback to source and select content.” A potential obstacle is that
asking students who are young and/or have not yet developed advanced communication skills to choose
their own content may be less than realistic. The TERS allows an educator to acknowledge and reflect
on such obstacles. An educator can use this section to anticipate and prepare for challenges, thereby
increasing the likelihood of success should obstacles arise.
The “action steps” box is reserved for ideas one might have about overcoming those obstacles, especially
ones that feasibly can be accomplished. The act of reflection in general and the “action steps” section
in particular are methods that allow users of the TERS to enact praxis. By identifying actions they can
take, an educator is beginning to utilize CSP. Educators may believe that inevitable and insurmountable
challenges are endemic to their teaching conditions, but the process of critical self-reflection encourages
them to adopt growth mindsets instead of seeing their classroom contexts as fixed spaces with obstacles
they can never overcome. The TERS provides space for an educator to imagine an array of possibilities
depending on factors like school policies and accessibility. For example, if an instructor is not able to view
their classroom recordings because of regulations or limitations outside their control, using the TERS
to create pertinent action steps may lead them to develop alternate methods of documentation, perhaps
purposefully setting aside time to take notes about their lessons shortly after they end. Similarly, action
steps to overcome the aforementioned obstacle regarding student voice in content selection may consist
of simply limiting the scope of grade-, level-, or subject-appropriate content, offering students explicit
guidelines, rather than unilaterally directing study toward specific people or events. Another action could
be providing students with the option of bringing in culturally or linguistically specific songs or stories
of their heritage or assigning a project focused on contemporary social or political events happening
in their communities outside of school. Just as educators ask their students to learn and evolve, they
themselves must seek ways to do the same. An educator can assess the appropriateness of the TERS
statements in relation to the various aspects of their teaching contexts. What are the students’ language-
learning goals? Where in the world is the educator located and at which type of institute? How much
freedom does the instructor have in shaping classroom practices and policies? The answers to these types
of questions are likely to have an impact on one’s overall responses to the TERS. The authors are less
focused on encouraging educators to respond “yes” to all the statements than on their making progress
and looking for solutions to any obstacles that might prevent them from doing so. Many teaching con-
texts pose unforeseen obstacles, and educators must reflect on the impact of these obstacles in relation
to creating or maintaining culturally sustaining classrooms. The TERS is designed to ignite educators’
intrinsic motivation through self-assessment (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010).
This version of the TERS is a Microsoft Word document that can be saved easily as a portable docu-
ment format (PDF) file. The authors have seen educators print the TERS or use tablets to handwrite their
responses, type their responses into Word documents, or use PDF-editing software to log their responses.
266

Depending on whether they have print or e-book versions of this chapter, educators can share PDF files
or scanned versions of the checklist. The TERS is adaptable for optimal critical reflection.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Timing is a powerful skill discussed in teacher training courses. Though TESOL and Teaching English
as a Foreign Language (TEFL) training programs typically focus on timing in reference to in-class
practices (e.g., when to model language or when to assess students), the authors believe that providing
educators with a tool they can use at any time to encourage reflection best allows them to achieve praxis.
Educators do not necessarily lack the desire to reflect; however, they may not have habitual or critical
reflective practices. The checklist was designed to engage educators in critical reflection through the
act of completing the TERS.
One method to guarantee critical self-reflection is to schedule time for it around students’ assessments.
Establishing checkpoints for critical reflection will improve educators’ alignment with CSP. After grad-
ing students’ formative or summative assessments, educators can spend 15 minutes to an hour filling out
the entire checklist. During this time, they can plan the actions they will take, if any, to improve their
classroom practices. With students’ successes and challenges fresh in the teachers’ minds, they can see
clearly what aspects of their classroom promote CSP and what could be improved.
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages trainers can use the TERS as an assessment tool for
student teachers who are placed at fieldwork sites. A common component of Master of Arts in Teaching-
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (MAT-TESOL) programs requires candidates to par-
ticipate in guided observations of their fieldwork classrooms and to write multiple reflections regarding
them. As part of these assignments, TESOL students, as pre-service teachers, can complete the TERS
self-checklist before they student teach to better prepare themselves for obstacles they might encounter
as in-service English language instructors. After their student teaching, they can further reflect on their
practices and how these relate to future teaching opportunities. Working through the TERS multiple
times in a MAT-TESOL program can better scaffold lessons on pedagogy and prepare pre-service teach-
ers to write educator’s philosophy statements. The authors recommend that TESOL trainers assign the
self-checklist more than once as a formative critical assessment for their student teachers.
The authors do not recommend a specific number of times to complete the TERS, mainly because
school programs differ in duration and scheduling. For example, one private language academy may only
offer month-long courses in which instructors’ students rotate frequently, so recurring monthly engage-
ment with the self-checklist makes sense. Other instructional contexts may include educators’ working
with the same student group throughout the academic year, in which case mid-semester completion of
the TERS might be more useful. The checklist should be utilized differently to maximize its value across
all teaching contexts.
Beyond critical reflection on teaching practice or the field of English language instruction is reflection
on the larger dynamics of personal success and social justice. The TESOL field has yet to see long-term
or widespread implementation of CSP, so in order to aid educators in forming habitual critical reflec-
tion, the authors have applied research on motivation and positive psychology to the TERS. The authors
were inspired by the Wish-Outcome-Obstacle-Plan (WOOP) intervention, which is an evidence-based
motivational strategy used as a tool for goal achievement (Oettingen, 2014). Integrating theories beyond
those specific to the TESOL field into the TERS has allowed the authors to design an instrument that
267

encourages teachers to succeed in their intentions to create socially just classrooms. In the next sec-
tion, educators share their own experiences and how using the TERS could allow them to improve their
teaching practices and contexts.
The TERS was developed to afford users a minimum level of flexibility that allows instructors hail-
ing from a variety of contexts to use it easily. This flexibility/adaptivity can be particularly useful for
prospective or new in-service educators for whom critical reflection may not be a common practice.
The goal is for this tool to help make critical reflection easier for teachers by providing a clear structure
and process, perhaps eventually guiding them to a point at which critical reflection gradually becomes
a natural part of their teaching practice. In this section, the authors share three stories, each recounting
an interview and written in narrative format to capture its subject’s voice, describing the experiences of
three current English language educators and their responses in various contexts to the TERS. In March
2021, the authors conducted three separate virtual interviews, each lasting between one and two hours.
Each interview followed the same protocols, and each educator was asked the same series of questions
focused on three main areas: the contexts of their instruction; their experiences using the TERS; and
the benefits they gained from it, if any. For each vignette, the authors recount the interview, then end
with a series of unique reflective questions (refer to each “Things to Consider” sub-section for deeper
discussion of these vignettes and the TERS).
John’s Story: TEFL in South Korea
For the past five years, John has been teaching English to K-12 students at various schools, private and
public, in South Korea. Next week, John will start teaching at an International Baccalaureate (IB) all-
boys middle school after having finished a year of teaching at a public elementary school. He knows
that soon, he will have a Korean co-teacher, as he did at the public school, and that the IB school uses
technology extensively in the classroom. At the private language academies, or hagwons, John found
that his students had a range of abilities and interests. As an educator, he had more freedom but far less
guidance than he received at the public elementary school.
John tries to understand his students and uses foundational knowledge he has gained from reading
articles from the Korean TESOL organization. He states that his students, with a few exceptions, were
raised in Korea and with Korean-speaking backgrounds. Most of John’s students have not traveled outside
of South Korea. As an expatriate American native English-speaking teacher, John’s role is to expose
students to different cultures. When he is planning a lesson, he considers how he can share information
in ways students can understand. For example, once he taught a lesson about families and was able to
present different types of families to his class of eight middle-school students. He says, “One example I
used was from someone I actually knew in my personal life—they were part of a family with four moms,
all equal guardians. After a little while, my students really began to better grasp the whole concept of
how diverse families can be.” He loves broadening his students’ perspectives with such lessons.
One challenge to maintaining a culturally sustaining classroom is that his schools have instructed
him not to mention students with different learning abilities. If a student has a disability or behavioral
disorder, he is supposed to send the student outside or “not cause a fuss.” Fortunately, he has seen some
268

progress in the past five years, with more support for special needs students. For example, in 2019-2020,
John saw that special needs students were assigned someone in the classroom to aid them in their el-
ementary school classes. Though John was told not to accommodate or consider these students’ needs,
he wonders, “Is there something more I can do?”.
When John was enrolled in a TEFL training program, he concluded his first educator reflection. Af-
ter having been placed at a hagwon, he was no longer required to reflect on his teaching. He would try
to make a point of reflecting in his own time, but the school administration did not seem to care about
implementing reflective practices. During break times, he would talk to colleagues about his plans to
deviate from teaching the textbook’s material. At the public school in Korea, city officials required edu-
cators to fill out self-evaluations six months after their start dates. The self-evaluations asked questions
about the school, co-teachers, and student, but John felt that the purpose of these evaluations was more
for bureaucracy than for critical reflection or self-growth. What else could John do?
During the last few weeks of 2020, John conducted his classes on Zoom. He and his colleagues
spent the first week of classes focused on the technical side of teaching on Zoom; then, they were able
to transition quickly to improving the quality of their lessons. He found himself wrapped up in trial and
error, especially with COVID-related class activities and classroom management. John believes that his
own reflection was somewhat dependent on whom he worked with--for example, his relationship with
his co-teacher. During the pandemic, he made changes rapidly with his co-teacher. He hopes to reflect
more on his teaching practices in his new position at the IB school.
When he filled out the TERS, he considered the variety of contexts in which he has taught and his
future IB classroom. John took 20 to 30 minutes to complete the TERS, but he wishes he had spent even
more time writing in the “obstacle/action steps” boxes. He noted that devoting sufficient time to reflec-
tive practice makes it more meaningful. John is not sure about his new school’s policies, but he can see
himself using the checklist three to four times a year.
Usually, John’s teaching contexts require him to follow either a strict national curriculum or teaching
materials acquired by the school’s director. Thus, curriculum design can limit John’s ability to imple-
ment critical pedagogy. Other challenges on which he reflected in the TERS were about engaging his
students. He noted that some hagwon textbook series are filled with short lessons and bland topics that
are uncontroversial and unrelated to the news or the world. While filling out the checklist, he realized
that a solution could be to not teach the textbook, but he might consequently get in trouble.
Teaching at a public elementary school was challenging for John because he needed to meet bench-
marks and therefore had no time to make content more relevant to students’ lives outside the classroom.
The obstacle he reflected on was how to work around standards that do not consider what is interesting
and useful to students but instead focus on preparation for high stakes tests. John thought that his action
responses were variations of answers to the question “How can I work around the standards that I have
been given?”
His idea was to implement “recovery” days so as not to overwhelm students. On the days after major
tests, for example, he could play games with students that tapped into their interests. At the hagwon, he
had more time with students and more freedom in the classroom whereas elementary school teachers have
very limited time. However, through fostering relationships and collaborating with his co-teachers, he
could try to take more action steps toward greater freedom. He wonders, “Will the IB school be different?”
In the future, he will print the TERS before filling it out. He prefers having physical copies of docu-
ments to help him organize thoughts in a way that is clearer than he can while staring at a screen. John
finds that writing on a piece of paper is a different mental task from typing into a Word document. If
269

the checklist is printed out, then he will probably complete it at the end of each semester or every a few
months. At the IB school, he would love to look at the TERS regularly with colleagues. Perhaps, at a
teacher’s meeting, he can discuss obstacles and actions with other instructors at his school, and they can
look together at previous checklist responses to compare them and try to spot patterns.
According to John, critical self-reflection is beneficial. He wants to remain honest with himself and
address his shortcomings. He joked about imposing the self-checklist on his colleagues. Perhaps he could
give the TERS to his co-teachers, and then they could use it to plan together? John acknowledges that
teachers’ and staff’s being more thoughtful translates to benefiting students. John remembers that giv-
ing feedback as an undergraduate to his professors was beneficial to future students. However, he notes
that in Korea, students typically are not asked for their opinions or feedback. He has found that school
administrators there believe that everything and everyone, even students, should have utility for their
academic institutions. In any context, though, John sees the value in completing a self-reflective checklist.
Things to Consider
• Have you had similar experiences to John’s?

• How does culture play a role in John’s classrooms?
• Can you think of other solutions to John’s obstacles?
• Are John’s solutions culturally responsive or learner-centered?
• Can you conclude that John, after using the TERS once, is enacting praxis?
Gianna’s Story: Private Language Institute in California
Gianna has been teaching for the past three years. She has spent half of that time in her current position
as a part-time English language instructor in an Intensive English Program (IEP) in southern California.
She is responsible for teaching five classes to her highly diverse international students, who come from
countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, China, Guatemala, and Ukraine, just to name a few. Her students range
in age from 17 to 65 years old, and her classes range in size from five to 20 students. Overall, Gianna
describes her group of students as a very diverse learning population, saying “They are diverse in age,
language proficiency, cultural background, socioeconomic status, and language goals”.
When talking about her students, Gianna gushes: “I love them!” She describes them as generally
highly motivated although each has very different goals. Some are working toward eventually making
their way to American universities while others want to find jobs in their new English-speaking world in
order to support their families. Besides the wide range of reasons her students have for learning English,
they also bring a variety of interests and backgrounds to class. To accommodate this diversity, Gianna
constantly differentiates her instruction--both beforehand, planning lessons, and on the spot, during class
sessions. In one particular class, a number of students were hoping to gain employment as accountants,
so Gianna interlaced accounting terms and occupational phrases with the rest of the unit’s vocabulary
words. To encompass all her students’ assorted needs, she strives to teach foundational study skills
regularly that would be useful to any language learner.
Beyond personal interests and future professions, the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of Gianna’s
students greatly impact her teaching. She tries to make her lessons more culturally relevant by incorporat-
ing the lived experiences and strengths of her students as much as possible. Gianna’s institute operates
more similarly to an English-only space than a multilingual one; thus, she must constantly walk a fine
270

line between leveraging her students’ linguistic backgrounds and keeping instruction focused entirely on
English. Part of this practice includes actively encouraging her students to use online translators during
class sessions and for homework assignments.
In her now entirely online classes, Gianna uses tools like Google Classroom, Google Jamboard, and
Zoom in tandem to meet the needs of her students. Depending on the class, she teaches grammar, read-
ing, conversation, academic writing, or life survival skills. She even once taught a class on American
slang. The content she teaches is based on books chosen by her director of education, including text
series from National Geographic Learning and Ventures. Like many in her profession, Gianna designs
the materials she uses on her own from start to finish—lesson plans, classwork, formal and informal
assessments, and so forth. She must also grade everything herself.
One source of frustration for Gianna is having to make certain that her class materials align with the
provided textbooks. Although Gianna technically has the freedom to create all the lesson materials herself,
she finds the scope of content and strategies in her textbooks to be, at best, extremely limiting and, at
worst, downright irrelevant. She feels that this confinement prevents her from creating worksheets and
assessments that give her students opportunities to truly showcase their individual strengths and express
their diverse perspectives. Unfortunately, Gianna holds little power to change the textbooks used as part
of the school’s curriculum. While she may not always agree with the content or methods presented in
the texts, she must base all her materials on them.
Another area in which Gianna sees room for improvement is in how she handles social justice topics
that require a more critical lens. Her students are adults from a wide variety of cultural and political
backgrounds, which she understands have shaped their views on social justice. Oftentimes, she has erred
on the side of simply not discussing these issues in her classroom at all, not only because she is nervous
about students’ reception and is not confident in her abilities to lead a discussion of that sort but because
her school discourages it. Gianna often ponders the relevance of introducing social justice topics in her
classes, since she believes that her students generally do not care much about the American political
system. How could she talk about important sociopolitical issues in respectful yet meaningful ways?
After completing the TERS, Gianna feels she can overcome a majority the obstacles she identified.
For herself, she suggests reflecting critically on her own teaching practices through viewing her record-
ings more often, utilizing the TERS for guidance at the same time. This is a feasible solution for Gianna
because all her lessons are automatically recorded online, and she has easy access to them. Part of her
strategy is to plan more intentionally to view her recordings once or twice a month rather than once or
twice a year. She believes that taking the time to view her recordings will give her a greater chance to
pinpoint moments in her lessons that could have included more opportunities for students to voice their
opinions. As for integrating social justice issues into the classroom, the action steps Gianna created
were rooted in being as sensitive as she could to students’ feelings and beliefs while acknowledging and
speaking out on any topics relevant to her class. Gianna realistically sees herself using the TERS during
a break time, like spring recess, or at the end of every semester. She is interested in saving and organizing
her responses to the TERS in a way that could help her track her progress over time. In her own teach-
ing context, Gianna believes that a reflective practice like using the TERS is something her colleagues
could comfortably get on board with as well. She also recognizes the value of using this checklist on a
larger scale, perhaps by distributing it to all the English Language Development educators or bilingual
administrators within a district and making it part of professional development workshops. Overall, she
feels that completing the checklist has guided her toward more culturally sustaining teaching practices.
271

Things to Consider
• How do Gianna’s and John’s experiences differ?

• How do you bring your students’ interests and experiences into diverse classes?
• Do you feel that your institution’s required textbooks are limiting you or your students?
• Do you talk about any social justice issues in your classroom (i.e., about generational conflicts,
gender, or race)? If so, how do you introduce them?
• What are some ways to discuss sensitive topics in the language classroom?
Lucia’s Story: ELD Student Teacher in a Master’s and Credential Program
Lucia is currently in her final semester of a combined Master of Arts in Teaching English to Speakers
of Other Languages and credential program in southern California. She is fulfilling her student teaching
requirements at a public, state-funded high school. Lucia was placed in a mixed-grade English Language
Development (ELD) class with a credentialed ELD host teacher. As part of her program’s requirements,
she teaches the same class four consecutive days a week for one and a half hours per day with a teacher’s
aide. She has upward of 30 students, all of whom are immigrants from Mexico or Central America and
speak Spanish fluently. In Lucia’s case, this is a huge plus because she has been bilingual in English
and Spanish since childhood.
Like many educators teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, Lucia has never actually met her
students in person. In fact, because her school policy cannot require students to turn on their cameras
during instruction, she does not even know what some of them look like. In her past in-person student
teaching experiences, she recalls having had a much easier time determining her students’ language skill
levels based on peer conversations she would overhear during their collaborative exercises and conver-
sations. Now, her students are muted during most of her lessons, so she has had trouble ascertaining
their English language proficiency and literacy skills. She must base her assessments entirely on their
state-administered language proficiency exam results, which can be highly inaccurate.
On a typical day, the first half of Lucia’s lesson is synchronous, and the second half is asynchronous.
She has structured them as such with her students’ needs in mind since many of them have taken on
additional family, work, or household responsibilities because of the pandemic. “Many students’ fami-
lies have been evicted and are homeless,” she explains. Lucia prefers having her students work on her
assignments during scheduled class time, when she is readily available, in case they have any questions.
She wants to provide as many opportunities as possible to help students catch up on other homework
as well. While Lucia knows that these practices are effective in terms of helping her students stay on
top of their schoolwork, she also knows that the asynchronous portions and overall structure of online
schooling have severely limited her students’ English exposure. How can she get them to practice speak-
ing English more?
After nearly an entire calendar year of student teaching in a pandemic, Lucia has found that one
of the most glaring problems plaguing her students’ educational success is rooted in increasingly ex-
acerbated technological inequities. Although supporting her students virtually has not been easy, she
believes that she has positively inspired them by sharing her own similar educational journey. She also
understands that her students are already skilled in reading, writing, and critical thinking in their native
Spanish language, so she regularly leverages the fact that she, too, is a native Spanish speaker. However,
272

Lucia makes it clear that technological barriers have been nearly impossible to overcome, especially for
someone in her position.
“This pandemic has definitely shined a light on child and educational poverty,” she says. When stu-
dents are not participating in class as expected, she continues, “Ninety-nine percent of the time it is just
something technical.” If students are having problems with technology used for class, her host teacher’s
policy is for them to call the district’s or the Learning Management System’s (LMS) integrated technical
support department, which can both entail long processes that deter students from getting the help they
need. While her school provides students with free Chromebooks, they are not usable for everything
students need to participate fully in class. Lucia realizes that the common obstacle for teachers strug-
gling with similar issues is simply lack of funding for their schools—particularly institutions serving
Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) students. Lucia hopes to take action regarding this
in the future by advocating for her students, applying for government grants, and if successful in this
purchasing more inclusive and accessible materials.
Using the TERS was Lucia’s third experience with teacher reflective practice—the previous two
were completed as assignments for her teacher training courses. Throughout the checklist, she found
that many practices it outlines were already second nature to her because her teacher training program
constantly challenges her to grapple with similar topics. “Right now, a lot of this is common sense to me
and still fresh in my mind,” she says. With regard to timing, Lucia feels that it would be most strategic
to use the TERS sometime in the middle of a semester to keep her on track. For her, it makes the most
sense to reflect in the middle of an instructional period on whether or not she is teaching to the best of
her abilities so that she has time to change any ineffective practices before the course ends.
Lucia foresees its being especially useful to use the TERS in future instances in which not all of her
students share her native language. Her previous and current classroom experiences have been with teach-
ing only students whose native language is Spanish, so she believes that the TERS will help her adjust
to the academic and cultural needs of students from less familiar backgrounds. Lucia sees her current
and future students as the individuals who will benefit most from her implementing this checklist in her
teaching practices. In her words, “My students would ultimately be advantageous because if I am consis-
tently saying ‘no’ to the statements, it means I am not adhering to their needs.” She also argues that all
teachers, not just TESOL educators, should use the TERS because English language learners are typically
integrated into public schools’ mainstream content area classes while enrolled in their ELD programs.
Things to Consider
• Do you have experience teaching or learning online? If so, what was or is it like?
• What are some ways to create meaningful teacher-student and student-student connections in on-
line classroom settings?
• How could Lucia create more opportunities for her students to practice their speaking skills during
remote learning?
• How could you help Lucia increase accessibility to the required technology for her students de-
spite inadequate technology from her school?
• What are some ways you could advocate for your current or future students to help them get the
support they need?
273

DISCUSSION
Critical reflection is a cyclical process that requires educators to tap into higher-order thinking. The TERS
simplifies it, which allows educators to move directly into critical reflection. The authors believe that an
abundance of information combined with a lack of support and structure can hinder educators in their
pursuit of culturally sustaining practices. While educators may have access to articles and other resources
that explain and encourage critical reflection and CSP in the classroom, a variety of factors can make it
difficult for them to implement these concepts and tools in their practices. After having completed all of
their other teacher duties, educators may find it difficult to keep up with the latest developments in the
TESOL field. Moreover, without structure, having to determine areas of focus (e.g., student engagement)
for critical self-reflection can add a barrier to the process. The TERS allows educators to overcome these
significant obstacles with an easy-to-use tool.
Furthermore, the TERS is intended to be used for data collection and future analysis in classroom-
based action research (CBAR) or other research methodologies. Educators can record their experiences,
obstacles, actions, and progress easily with the TERS, which can act as a survey or a template for further
CSP scholarship and inquiry. The authors acknowledge that the validity and reliability of self-reported
data would need to be addressed in the CBAR or further scholarship regarding the TERS. Still, the
concepts and structured critical reflection presented in the TERS can guide users’ informal educational
research in their own classrooms by providing a template that can be reused as many times as neces-
sary to document data over the course of weeks, months, or years. Over time, they can analyze the data
they have collected from completed checklists to find trends, identify new questions or issues regarding
their teaching, and expand CSP praxis scholarship. For example, an Intensive English Program (IEP)
instructor could collect multiple completed TERS over the course of six months and thus change their
summative assessments to better serve their student population.
As discussed in the “Portraits of Practice” section, the checklist can be used on a wider scale—across
departments, institutions, or districts. With the TERS as their guide, colleagues can discuss specific
obstacles and actions to overcome them. Each vignette the authors have presented illustrates a need for
deeper discussion about strategies to improve culturally sustaining classroom practices. In fact, schools
could use the TERS as supporting documentation for grant applications or to receive further funding
through other means (i.e., donations) because this tool can illustrate how bilingual texts and other cul-
turally inclusive materials and practices have improved classrooms or school environments, making the
institutions they serve worthy of special consideration for financial awards. Finally, parents, guardians,
and community members can see themselves represented in the language classroom and therefore become
inspired to invest further in students’ educations.
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages trainers can use this chapter in support of devel-
oping pre-service educators’ awareness of future classroom challenges they may face or current issues
they may observe on their fieldwork sites. For a flipped lesson, student teachers can read the “Portraits
in Practice’’ section before class. Synchronously, in pairs or groups, student teachers can discuss the
questions under “Things to Consider” for one or all of the vignettes. Posing real-world problems and
questions, the vignettes can better prepare less experienced educators to implement CSP in their own
classrooms. Another in-class opportunity to support student teacher learning is to create a Frayer Model,
which is a graphic organizer designed to help analyze a concept including its definition, characteristics,
and examples--using the theories or key terms from this chapter (Frayer, 1969). Student teachers can
work collaboratively on creating a TESOL praxis lexicon on Jamboard, Padlet, or another educational
274

technology tool. In addition, TESOL trainers can assign the TERS for pre-service teachers to complete
with their fieldwork classroom in mind. The TERS can provide a framework for deeper discussion between
the guiding/host teacher and the TESOL student. Finally, the TERS can scaffold pre-service teachers
before they write longer case-study or reflection papers for their programs’ summative assessments.
When the authors initially designed the TERS, they were MAT-TESOL student teachers themselves.
The authors had a strong desire to become better educators, but even with guidance, they struggled
to find a clear path toward professional growth within the TESOL field. Many new English language
educators may have the same concerns, and feeling a lack of power can stunt recent TESOL graduates
who are starting their careers in the field. However, by using the TERS, English language teachers less
experienced with CSP can find clear strengths and weaknesses in their practice of it. The TERS can
thus empower new teachers and advance social justice scholarship and practice. Through encouraging
individual accountability and growth, the TERS aids the transition from pre-service to in-service TESOL
educator and beyond.
REFERENCES
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices.
Pearson Education.
Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach el-
ementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121–139. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-
2736(199902)36:2<121::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-U
Burke, P. J., & Lumb, M. (2018). Research and evaluation equity and widening participation: Praxis-
based frameworks. In P. J. Burke, A. Hayton, & J. Stevenson (Eds.), Evaluating equity and widening
participation in higher education. Institute of Education Press.
Cantrell, S. C., Correll, P., Malo-Juvera, V., & Ivanyuk, L. (2014). Culturally Responsive Instruction
Observation Protocol (CRIOP) Professional Development: Year 2. Collaborative Center for Literacy
Development.
Chavez, A. F., & Longerbeam, S. D. (2016). Teaching across cultural strengths: A guide to balancing
integrated and individuated cultural frameworks in college teaching. Stylus Publishing.
Deaton, C. (2012). Examining the use of a reflection framework to guide teachers’ video analysis of their
science teaching practice. The Electronic Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 1–21.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath & Co. doi:10.1037/10903-000
Duncan-Andrade, J. M., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving
from theory to practice in urban schools. Peter Lang Publishing. doi:10.3726/b12771
Fook, J. (2015). Reflective practice and critical reflection. In J. Lishman (Ed.), Handbook for practice
learning in social work and social care: Knowledge and theory (pp. 440–454). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Frayer, D., Frederick, W. C., & Klausmeier, H. J. (1969). A schema for testing the level of cognitive
mastery. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
275

Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving “Pedagogy of the oppressed”. Continuum.

Garcia, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices
for English learners. Teachers College Press.
Garcia, O., Lin, M. Y., & May, S. (2017). Bilingual and multilingual. Springer International Publishing.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1
Gee, J. (2015). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (5th ed.). Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315722511
Gee, J. P. (2015). Discourse, small-d, Big D. https://academic.jamespaulgee.com/pdfs/Big%20D,%20
Small%20d.pdf
Giroux, H. A. (2010). Rethinking education as the practice of freedom: Paulo Freire and the promise of
critical pedagogy. Policy Futures in Education, 8(6), 715–721. doi:10.2304/pfie.2010.8.6.715
Hollie, S. (2011). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning: Classroom practices
for student success. Shell Education.
Hollie, S. (2018). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning: classroom practices
for student success (2nd ed.). Shell Education.
Jungheim & Lopez. (2020, October). Zooming Out: A Reflective Checklist to Improve Online English
Instruction. CATESOL 2020 Annual State Conference. TESL Student Forum virtual presentation.
Krutkowski, S. (2017). A strengths-based approach to widening participation students in higher educa-
tion. RSR. Reference Services Review, 45(2), 227–241. doi:10.1108/RSR-10-2016-0070
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children.
Jossey-Bass.
Lambert, W. E. (1981). Bilingualism and language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sci-
ences, 379(1), 9–22. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb41993.x PMID:6951502
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice. Reflective
Practice, 9(3), 341–360. doi:10.1080/14623940802207451
Longo, F., & Lindsay, G. (2011). Knowing nursing through inquiry: Engaging students in knowledge
creation. The Journal of Nursing Education, 50(12), 703–705. doi:10.3928/01484834-20111116-05
PMID:22085210
López, S. J., & Louis, M. C. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education. Journal of College
and Character, 10(4). Advance online publication. doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1041
Lucas, P. (2012). Critical reflection. What do we really mean? In Collaborative education: Investing in
the future — Proceedings of the 2012 ACEN National Conference (pp. 163-167). Australian Collabora-
tive Education Network (ACEN).
276

Moll, L. C., Velez-Ibanez, C., & Greenberg, J. B. (1989). Year one progress report: Community knowl-
edge and classroom practice: Combining resources for literacy instruction (IARP Subcontract No. L-10).
University of Arizona, College of Education and Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology.
Morrison, K. (2017). Informed asset-based pedagogy: Coming correct, counter-stories from an informa-
tion literacy classroom. Library Trends, 66(2), 176–218. doi:10.1353/lib.2017.0034
Oettingen, G. (2014). Rethinking positive thinking: Inside the new science of motivation. Penguin.
Oettingen, G., Pak, H., & Schnetter, K. (2001). Self-regulation of goal-setting: Turning free fantasies
about the future into binding goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 736–753.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.736 PMID:11374746
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in
a changing world. Teachers College Press.
Rymes, B. (2010). Classroom discourse analysis: A focus on communicative repertoires. In N. H. Horn-
berger & A. Luke (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 528–546). Multilingual Matters.
doi:10.21832/9781847692849-021
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learn-
ing in the professions. Jossey-Bass.
Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language
learners: A pedagogy of promise. WestEd.
Wei, L., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Translanguaging classroom discourse: Pushing limits, breaking bound-
aries. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 209–215. doi:10.1080/19463014.2019.1635032
Critical Pedagogy: A teaching philosophy to which interrogation of systemic inequities is central.

Students are viewed as active civic members of society (rather than passive learners) who are agents in
liberation.
Critical Reflection: A process of considering and interrogating one’s beliefs, feelings, experiences,
and actions, their impact, and enacting conceptual or practical change.
Culturally Responsive Instruction: Attributed to Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings, this term refers to
a teaching practice aimed at preparing culturally and linguistically minoritized students for success in
mainstream society by affirming their home cultures and languages. This term has been criticized for
its lack of criticality in the field of education and for not reflecting widespread changes within society.
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy: A teaching philosophy that centers on leveraging students’ unique
cultural skill sets and knowledge in the classroom, particularly with reference to Black, Indigenous, and
People of Color (BIPOC) students.
277

Educational Equity: A philosophy and/or practice that promotes providing historically underserved
students with individualized support, differing from educational equality in that it is not the same gen-
eralized support that every student receives (i.e., a complimentary school planner).
Emerging Bilinguals: Language students who are in the process of simultaneously developing their
home language and a second language.
Pedagogy: A teaching philosophy that provides a framework for educators to follow, dictating their
approaches to best teaching practices.
Social Justice: The concept of fairness and privilege that individuals and groups have within society,
particularly regarding wealth, access to resources, treatment within legal systems, etc.
ENDNOTES
1.
Translanguaging Pedagogies encapsulate all approaches to teaching emergent multilingual students
by leveraging their home languages in the meaning-making process such that both the target lan-
guage and the home languages are being exercised or developed.
2.
One’s communicative repertoire is “a collection of ways individuals use language and literacy and
other means of communication (gestures, dress, posture, or accessories) to function effectively
in the multiple communities in which they participate’’ (Rymes, 2010, p. 528). Cultivating one’s
communicative repertoire is essentially cultivating one’s identity in the communities to which one
belongs, carefully considering anything from positionality to social role to purpose in the process.
Behaving “correctly” or “appropriately” in a certain situation can vary widely depending on both
the social context in which this situation takes place and the communicative function one wishes
to fulfill. See Rymes (2010) for more information.
3.
The particular meaning of the word “discourse” within sociolinguistics, anthropology, and related
fields is distinguished by a lowercase versus uppercase “d.” Written with a lowercase “d”, “discourse”
indicates oral or written speech and paralinguistic features in basic communication. “Discourse”
written with a capital “D” refers to “the ways in which people enact and recognize socially and
historically significant identities … through well-integrated combinations of language, actions,
interactions, objects, tools, technologies, beliefs, and values’’ (Gee, 2015).
4.
Mental contrasting is a self-regulation technique developed by psychologist Dr. Gabriele Oettingen
to help with goal-setting and strengthen commitment to its implementation. The strategy involves
“individuals firstly [imagining] a desired future or health goal that [is] contrasted with the reality
preceding the goal state, which after reflection is viewed as an obstacle” (Oettingen et al., 2001).
278
APPENDIX
The TESOL Educator Reflective Self-Checklist (TERS).
Figure 2.
279
Figure 3.
280
Figure 4.
281
Figure 5.
282
Figure 6.
283
Figure 7.
284
Figure 8.
285
Figure 9.
286
287
Chapter 14
Critical Consciousness Checklist
Shane Donovan Liliedahl
International Education Center, USA
ABSTRACT
This chapter aims at providing pre-service and in-service teachers with a tool to analyze the criticality
of their lessons. Teacher training programs are focused heavily on reflection of the effectiveness of an
educator’s classroom. This reflection generally concerns itself with ensuring that students meet learn-
ing targets and master the content. This chapter examines reflection through the lens of critical praxis,
including positions of power, funds of knowledge, and meaning making. It provides a recommended
checklist of questions aimed at facilitating an analysis of the extent to which lessons and activities
successfully allow students to inhabit positions of power, access their funds of knowledge, and make
meaning. Implications of critical reflective inquiry will enable teachers to more equitably guide students
through their education.
CONCEPT
In this chapter, teachers will undergo the process of analyzing their lessons through a critical lens.
Similarly, administrators will also be able to utilize the tools outlined in this chapter to deconstruct their
programs to ensure student equity and cultural sustainment. While TESOL teachers have extensive ex-
pertise in language acquisition, Simmons (2019) notes that, “there is a gap in knowledge pertaining to
the extent of critical consciousness among teachers of ELs” (p. 15). When taking into consideration that
ELs, or English Learners, are a significant portion of minority groups in the English speaking world,
it becomes clear that teachers of ELs can better cater to the needs of their student base by investing in
raising their own critical consciousness.
Raising critical consciousness will be achieved through a checklist of questions targeted at the level
of success a lesson or curriculum has had within critically addressing the culture and identity of the
students. These questions can be further used as a springboard into discussions among staff, community
members, and community leaders. After analyzing and reflecting, teachers and staff will be prompted to
improve the critical consciousness of their lessons through continued research and inquiry into answers
for the questions put forth.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch014

Changes that are implemented as a result of a critical consciousness analysis can benefit students
in a variety of ways. Simmons (2019) suggests that if teachers are successful in integrating critical
consciousness into their pedagogy, students will also internalize critical consciousness and become
better learners. Huang (2013) also describes how raising critical awareness within students can lead to
stronger written work and stronger analytical reading skills as students are able to take on a variety of
personal identities. It is therefore likely that the students with internalized critical consciousness will
be more invested in, and score higher, on their classes, and in turn, score higher on standardized tests
that require an essay component.
The check-list of questions put forth will cover a range of critically conscious topics including: posi-
tions of power, funds of knowledge, empowering students and their identities, and providing for authentic
dialogue, or meaning making. All of these topics are key to understanding and implementing critical
consciousness, a term that itself has had numerous interpretations over the years. Critical consciousness
was detailed by Freire (1970), who discusses a critical pedagogy as one that empowers those who have
historically been institutionally disadvantaged. As English speakers have colonized the world, ELs almost
always fall into the category or institutionally disadvantaged. It is up to students’ teachers to raise both
the students and the teacher’s own critical consciousness, which according to Diemer et al. (2017) is a
combination of reflection and action towards the goal of social justice and sociopolitical participation
(as cited in Simmons, 2019). Examples of sociopolitical participation could be attending city council
meetings or writing letters to your congressman to enact social and political change. Within the class-
room, this often takes on the appearance of providing a safe space for students to voice their concerns
about social inequalities, which cover a broad range of topics such as racial injustices of incarcerated
peoples, or the wage gap between lower-rung workers and CEOs. Giroux (1983) believed that teachers
had a responsibility to guide students in the expansion of their skills as agents of social change. For
teachers unaccustomed with guiding their students in this manner, the checklist in this chapter presents
an accessible, simple introduction to critical consciousness while also creating opportunities for deeper
reflection on critical consciousness.
A fundamental concept that will be key to understanding and implementing subsequent aspects of
critical consiousness is identity. Norton (2000) defines identity as, “... how a person understands his or
her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how the
person understands possibilities for the future” (p. 5). A critically conscious teacher will take into con-
sideration a student’s identity, and how that identity is influenced by social, cultural, and political forces.
Instead of seeing learners as being motivated, or unmotivated, teachers can change their perspective
to recognize that a student is affected by the perspective of the opportunities available to their identity.
With this perspective in mind, teachers can then help students by allowing them to expand their identi-
ties. This will, in turn, increase students’ investment, or desire to acquire a range of material resources
that betters their cultural capital (Norton, 2008). By doing so, a student’s identity adapts and transforms.
Their identity becomes an asset to their language acquisition process.
Cultural Capital is a key aspect of critical consciousness and stems from students’ different types
of background knowledge. Bourdieu (1996), describes cultural capital as a social power relation that
provides one with value in a given field. Crawford and Gross (2019) note that a critically conscious
TESOL teacher is one who helps students to consider how their background and linguistic knowledge
influences their class status and access to capital. In today’s society, one’s background and language are
directly connected to their class in society and the opportunities to better themselves in the future. Criti-
cal language teachers are able to incorporate an aspect of a lesson that allows students to enhance their
288

cultural capital while engaging and analyzing with the knowledge through their own cultural lenses. This
can be done in a number of ways, for example, creating professional networks by inviting app developers
as speakers to a tech-focused ESL class. When teachers utilize funds of knowledge and cultural capital,
they encourage students to use their own cultural knowledge to analyze and acquire new knowledge.
Another aspect of critical consciousness stems from Funds of Knowledge, which Moll et al. (1992)
define as “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential
for household or individual functioning and well-being” (p. 133). A teacher who makes use of students’
funds of knowledge takes into account the students’ experiences and skills learned through a history
of culture and family knowledge. Making use of a students’ funds of knowledge is valuable for those
whose voices have been silenced, such as minorities and people of color. This is an essential aspect for
teachers to incorporate into their lessons, because in doing so, the teacher can empower students’ sense
of voice, or “... the assertion and acknowledgement of the personal and community experiences of people
of color as sources of knowledge” (Ladson-Billings and Tate, 1995, p. 35). When the source of students’
knowledge is recognized, such as their family and community, students will also feel that their identity
is being recognized, thereby increasing their cultural capital, and the critical consciousness of a lesson.
Crawford and Gross (2019) also describe the value of meaningful dialogue in critical consciousness
to “help develop multilingual communicative competence” (p. 50). The checklist in this chapter will
refer to this as authentic dialogue and meaning making. An example of meaning making and authentic
dialogue would be to pose questions to students, ask them to identify problems, and create solutions for
these problems (Schleppegrell and Bowen, 1995). By negotiating with their peers in this way, students
have the opportunity to hone and refine their critical thinking and language skills, while also expanding
upon their identities. For example, posed with a question of, “Should the death penalty be removed?”,
students would first need to identify reasons why it is currently in place, who is affected by it, its effec-
tiveness, and other possible solutions to replace it. This provides incredibly deep, higher order thinking
while also encouraging students to become versed in content areas they might not have been exposed
to previously. This in turn, also connects back to social capital, as students will acquire new knowledge
and skills that could increase their future opportunities. Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) also noted that
authentic dialogue and meaning making can help guide students in the expansion and acceptance of their
cultural identities while deconstructing injustices in society.
Another vital aspect of critical consciousness is Positions of Power. Positions of power refers to at-
tempts at recognizing current power disparities and providing opportunities for students to challenge,
interrogate, and critique them. Crookes and Lehner (1998) have recognized the lack of growth in teach-
ers’ critical consciousness during training programs, while programs seem only to be devoted to meeting
learning standards. Many teacher training programs limit their focus to how to teach a good lesson, how
to keep control of a classroom, how to include every student, and so on. While this is indeed valuable,
little work is done to build their awareness of racial, cultural, and societal influences in the classroom. On
the other hand, when given the opportunity to discuss perceptions of race in a safe space, Flynn (2012)
notes that students appreciated being able to share their perspectives. Students who are able to speak
out about such perceptions and experiences regarding race, gender, social class and so on, will be more
engaged in class and stronger critical thinkers. Furthermore, when speaking out instead of remaining
passive regarding sites of social struggle, students will be empowered to challenge the reproduction of
dominant ideologies and work towards social change (McLaren, 2003; Norton and Toohey, 2004). How-
ever, it cannot be assumed that teachers can simply adjust their lessons to work towards social change
289

for their students. Teachers need more support on how to advocate for their students in order to produce
social change (Liggett, 2010).
A final concept of critical consciousness that will be put forth in the chart is the concept of Student-
Centered Learning. This concept allows students to take control of their education and make choices
within the classroom that, in turn, continue to help develop their identity and validate their funds of
knowledge. Williams (2017) notes the influence of John Dewey’s theoretical perspective on student-
centered learning, and states, “when teachers plan for instruction, student interests will be taken into
consideration and curricular subjects will be integrated” (p. 93). Dewey believed that lessons should
focus more on the learner and their interests, rather than the content imposed by the teacher. Crookes
and Lehner (1998) describe critical pedagogy as resulting from, “personal and social choices that re-
flect a desire to understand both the word and the world and to act upon these choices” (p. 327). They
suggest that students be given extensive power in decision making, such as having students create their
own material. This is incredibly valuable, as McLaren (2003) points out that classrooms often reproduce
the ideologies of dominant cultures, or cultures that have, and try to maintain, a monopoly over power.
It is dominant cultures that create the English as a Second Language textbooks that are used in ESL
classrooms, and as such, students may not find themselves represented in those books. If teachers are
able to use their students as a source of material, they can empower their critical consciousness while
sidestepping the dissemination of dominant discourse. Moreover, this student-centered learning produces
opportunities for students to inhabit different positions of power, as they become colleagues with the
teacher in a community of learners.
Aside from the checklist outlined in this chapter, other organizations have created excellent standards
for teachers to refer to and guide the development of their social advocacy. One such standard is the Social
Justice Standards: The Teaching Tolerance Anti-Bias Framework. This framework provides extensive
descriptions of standards students should be able to meet at each grade level, from K-12. It breaks down
social justice into four main categories: Identity, Diversity, Justice, and Action. While it is an excellent
resource, it is not as easily applicable to ESL learners, especially those outside of K-12. Many of the
guidelines seem geared towards situations that children might encounter in their classrooms. Furthermore,
its extensive list of standards makes it hard to boil down the essential outcomes that critically conscious
teachers should be continually aware of and incorporating in their lessons. Thus, the simplicity of a
checklist can help make critical consciousness more accessible for ESL teachers.
The concepts outlined previously have been distilled into question form in the next section in order
for teachers to analyze the critical consciousness of their lessons.
CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS CHECKLIST
Below is a list of questions that can be used to guide teachers in developing their critical consciousness.
In total, there are 12 questions that will be used to identify criticality in the classroom. Table 1 provides
questions for teachers to reflect on while planning their lessons. Each question is a simple yes or no
question for teachers to “check off” as they go about their planning. The ease of checking off a list was
chosen in order to make accomplishing each task more attainable. It is not meant to be a moment in
which teachers extensively plan out each detail to explicitly meet the criteria below. However, if aspects
of these questions are an essential part of the lesson, then teachers should be encouraged to delve deeper
into the question and any tangents the questions may lead to. Additionally, if a question was not marked
290

as being included in the lesson, teachers should take the time to reflect on and adjust in order to better
provide a critically oriented lesson.
Table 1. Pre-lesson checklist
Questions Yes / No
1. Have I planned opportunities for students to inhabit different positions of power?
2. Have I planned opportunities for students to interrogate and critique power disparities?
3. Have I planned opportunities for students to build awareness of, speak up about, and stand up to prejudice,
injustice, and exclusion?*
4. Have I planned opportunities for students to access their funds of knowledge?
5. Have I planned opportunities for students to expand their cultural capital?
6. Have I planned a student-centered lesson?
7. Have I planned equal opportunities for students during the lesson/ activity?
8. Have I anticipated students’ ability to access the material?
9. Have I incorporated material that correlates with students’ identity?
10. Have I provided opportunities for students to expand on their identities?
11. Have I provided opportunities for students to build awareness of advantages and disadvantages of their
membership in identity groups? *
12. Have I planned opportunities for students to engage in authentic dialogue or meaning-making?
* Adapted from Social Justice Standards: The Teaching Tolerance Anti-Bias Framework
Table 3 provides samples of statements that teachers can respond to in order to reflect on the criti-
cal success of their lesson. The use of a Likert scale will provide degrees for teachers to respond to the
statements, recognizing that there are different degrees of success within a lesson. It is recommended
that teachers fill out the 3rd column Table 3 with explanations and examples from the lesson to support
the accuracy of their chosen degree. If teachers feel that students were not able to meet the statements,
the 3rd column can be used for teachers to reflect on ways to improve.
1 ---------------------- 2 ---------------------- 3 ---------------------- 4 ---------------------- 5

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Table 2. Post-Lesson Checklist and Reflection
Scale Descriptors
1- Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neutral 4 - Agree 5 - Strongly Agree
Students/the lesson did Students/the lesson Students/the lesson Students/the lesson
Students/the lesson met
not take any steps toward took a few, small steps partially worked towards mostly met and achieved
and achieved the goal
the goal outlined in the toward meeting the goal the goal outlined in the the goal outlined in the
outlined in the statement.
statement. outlined in the statement. statement. statement.
291

Table 3.
1. Explain / Provide examples

Statements 1-5
2. Ideas for improvement
1. Students were able to inhabit different positions of power.
2. Students were able to interrogate and critique power
disparities.
3. Students were able to build awareness of, speak up about,
and stand up to prejudice, injustice, and exclusion.
4. Students were able to access their funds of knowledge.
5. Students expanded their social capital.
6. The lesson was student-centered.
7. Students had equal opportunity during the lesson/activity.
8. Students were able to access the material.
9. Material was incorporated that correlated with students’
identity.
10. Students expanded their identities.
11. Students built awareness of advantages and disadvantages
of their membership in identity groups.
12. Students engaged in authentic dialogue or meaning-
making.
Table 1, 2 and 3 should be provided as downloadable materials for teachers and programs. While
teachers can, and should, use the third column in personal reflection, it is highly recommended that
it be used in conjunction with a group of teachers. Teachers should seek evidence of students’ critical
engagement within the lesson and, if lacking any, should brainstorm ways their lessons can improve in
the twelve areas listed.
The frequency and extensiveness of the implementation of the checklist will vary depending on the
context it is being used in. On initial uses, it is recommended that a program dedicate a staff meeting
to go over the checklist and dive in to understand the concepts together. The head teacher or program
administrator can make sure to go over the terminologies on the checklist with some examples (these
can be directly from this chapter) and answer any questions they may have. After meeting as a whole,
teachers can breakout and meet in groups based on the levels they are teaching.Within those groups,
teachers can pick a lesson from a unit and try to collaboratively complete the pre-lesson checklist to-
gether while discussing and explaining whether to write yes or no for each of the questions. After this
initial meeting and collaborative completion of the checklist within groups, teachers would be expected
to teach that lesson to their classes with the post-lesson checklist in mind. Afterwards, teachers will fill
out their own post-lesson checklist and come back again for another staff meeting where they will meet
back in ther groups and go over their explanations and areas of growth. After becoming accustomed to
the checklists, teachers should complete a checklist by themselves once every 4-6 months to refresh the
concepts and ensure that implementation is being achieved. It is recommended that the initial collabora-
tive meeting be repeated annually.
Teacher meetings can incorporate this questionnaire so that a group may analyze and reflect together.
This would be particularly effective for groups of teachers that teach the same lessons as a part of their
292

program. Within those PLCs, or professional learning communities, teachers can draw upon the knowl-
edge and experience of their colleagues, therein recognizing the funds of knowledge of an educational
team. By incorporating and utilizing a diverse range of teachers’ funds of knowledge, lessons will be
more likely to become more inclusive and diverse.
The questionnaire could also be used by programs when creating and planning curriculum to help
guide the creation of critically conscious lessons. Teachers can use the questionnaire to evaluate the
effectiveness of the curriculum as a whole and ensure that all points are accounted for over a series of
lessons, as opposed to a single lesson. Planning with this bigger picture in mind will also encourage
teachers to consistently incorporate meaningful opportunities for students.
This is further useful in developing the criticality of a staff as a whole through evaluations. Program
administrators and head teachers can use the questionnaire when observing a teacher’s classes. Teach-
ers should be provided with the Pre-Lesson Checklist prior to the lesson and their observation, and
then program administrators can use the Post-Lesson Checklist when observing to guide them in what
to look for. After the lesson, the observed teacher should also be given time to fill out the Post-Lesson
Checklist and reflect. Following this, the observed teacher and program administrator can meet to review
and compare their notes on the lesson. Program administrators and head teachers can also have teachers
use the checklist for beginning of the year and end of the year goal setting. Teachers can choose one or
two statements from the checklist that they themselves feel need improvement in their teaching at the
beginning of the year. They can also share specific ideas they have in mind in order to improve in those
areas. Administrators can use the personal goals set by teachers during their observations or evaluations,
and then meet with them at the end of the year to reflect on their growth overall. This whole process will
encourage and set a tone for continuous reflection and improvement from the staff.
The next section introduces a portrait of practice that can be used as an example of how the tables
might be used in a real lesson. The lesson will depict the author’s own classroom during a small group
and class wide discussion. The author will then analyze the critical effectiveness of the lesson to demon-
strate the checklist implementation. The author will describe the activity, analyze which areas of critical
praxis were met, and identify which require continued improvement.
The following is an example of how the checklist could be used to reflect on the criticality of a lesson.
The author analyzes one of their own lessons, a class discussion and presentation on culture, using the
checklist.
The class’ background is made up entirely of Spanish students taking English classes on a scholar-
ship provided by the Spanish government to better prepare them for their futures in tech-related fields.
These students have graduated from high school, and are enrolled in “Grado Superior”, a program that
acts as a transition between high school and university in Spain. Many of these students intend to go
to university in America to study technology related fields, so an overarching goal of the program is to
prepare students for studies and life abroad. This class represents the highest level of the program, with
most students in the C1 range of the CEFR.
The theme of this lesson’s unit was “World Culture”. Prior to the discussion, students watched a Ted
Talk video about how culture shapes our identity. Students had also learned and practiced passive voice
grammar in connection with the unit. The following discussion aims to guide students in analyzing cul-
293

ture while using the passive grammar from previous classes. During the discussion, students must take
notes on a shared Google Slide presentation that they will later use to present their ideas to the class.
Students discussed four main questions related to culture:
1. What traits and qualities are valued in your culture? What traits and qualities are valued in American
culture? How are they similar or different?
2. What qualities are valued in the workplace? What about in education? Give some examples.
3. How is culture defined around the world? How are our identities affected by our culture? What
aspects of your culture do you identify with?
4. Globalization has diminished, and in some cases extinguished, minority cultures around the world.
In this period of globalization, how can a person’s cultural and national identity be preserved? What
can we do?
Instructions for the activity follow below, and include roles such as note-taker, and presenter.
1. Discuss the questions with your group.

2. Make a slide with your group and take notes on it. Designate a note-taker or two.
3. Be prepared to share with another group. Choose a presenter or two to represent and speak on
behalf of your group.
Table 4. Pre-lesson checklist
Questions Yes / No
1. Have I planned opportunities for students to inhabit different positions of power? Y
2. Have I planned opportunities for students to interrogate and critique power disparities? Y
3. Have I planned opportunities for students to build awareness of, speak up about, and stand up to prejudice,
Y
injustice, and exclusion?*
4. Have I planned opportunities for students to access their funds of knowledge? Y
5. Have I planned opportunities for students to expand their cultural capital? Y
6. Have I planned a student-centered lesson? Y
7. Have I planned equal opportunities for students during the lesson/ activity? Y
8. Have I anticipated students’ ability to access the material? Y
9. Have I incorporated material that correlates with students’ identity? Y
10. Have I provided opportunities for students to expand on their identities? Y
11. Have I provided opportunities for students to build awareness of advantages and disadvantages of their
Y
membership in identity groups? *
12. Have I planned opportunities for students to engage in authentic dialogue or meaning-making? Y
* From Social Justice Standards: The Teaching Tolerance Anti-Bias Framework (2016)
In Table 4, many of the questions were marked as “yes” because they were directly incorporated into
the lesson. Examples of this include creating roles such as “note-taker” and “presenter” that can allow
for equal opportunities, question seven, within a group work setting. Students whose funds of knowl-
294

edge and cultural capital place value on public speaking can take on the presenter role, while students
whose funds of knowledge and cultural capital don’t place value on public speaking can still participate
through note-taking. Another topic that was directly incorporated into the lesson was the expansion of
identities. By including the discussion questions, “How is culture defined around the world? How are
our identities affected by our culture? What aspects of your culture do you identify with?”, students are
able to recognize and acknowledge their own identities, while also rejecting stereotypes that they don’t
identify with.
Other topics may not have been directly addressed by the questions or instructions of the activity, but
they were still marked “yes” because they were taken into consideration, and ways of addressing them
were brainstormed prior to the lesson. For example, it was recognized that students might not inherently
build awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of membership in identity groups, so to offset this,
the teacher would be prepared to step in and guide discussions to address the topic.
As shown in Table 5, many aspects of critical praxis were met. Some highlights included authentic
dialogue or meaning-making, expanding social identities, and accessing funds of knowledge and cultural
capital. These questions were assigned a score of 5 because the teacher was able to identify specific
evidence from the lesson that students engaged on a critical level. For instance, the teacher recognized
that students were able to expand their identities by both acknowledging aspects of their culture that
made up part of their identity, and also by recognizing stereotypes of their culture that they don’t iden-
tify with. During the lesson, students discussed the cultural tradition of bullfighting in Spain, and took
it upon themselves to speak out against the practice and call for change. In this situation, the classroom
provided a safe space for students to voice their opinions and take on the identity of an advocate for
change in their community.
While many questions were marked by success, others could still use a great deal of improvement.
The teacher realized that there had been little to no opportunity for students to speak up about injustice
and prejudice. After analyzing the lesson, the teacher incorporated two additional questions into the
discussion:
1. “What cultural groups have been subjected to prejudice and injustice in Spain?”
2. “What are some ways to recognize and counter prejudice against those cultural groups?”
By incorporating these questions, the teacher has ensured that their lesson has become further criti-
cally conscious for future iterations. It has also had an indirect effect on the teacher’s own pedagogy,
as they will be more critically aware of opportunities to incorporate prejudice and injustice into future
discussions.
Furthermore, a few 2’s, 3’s and 4’s were assigned to certain questions that the teacher determined had
limited success during the lesson. When analyzing question 11, building awareness of advantages and
disadvantages of identity groups, the teacher realized that the lesson did not address this area explicitly
enough, and thus most groups of students did not broach the subject. However, one group did discuss how
society values and idolizes “ambitious” people who use others for their own gain. The group started to
critique this aspect of their culture, but their discussion could have been facilitated better by the teacher
to deconstruct the wealth gap. Furthermore, seeing as only one group, out of four, was able to engage
with this part of the checklist, a higher score would have been unwarranted.
295

Table 5. Post-Lesson Checklist and Reflection
1. Explain / Provide examples

Statements 1-5
2. Ideas for improvement
Students took on different roles during the lesson, including note-taker, discussion
1. Students were able to inhabit leader, and presenter. While these roles were useful, it could have been stronger if
4
different positions of power. students were asked to take on the roles of a politician or community leader tasked
with preserving cultural identity.
Students acknowledged power disparities when discussing Globalization in
2. Students were able to interrogate question #4, but did not fully interrogate them. Students could have interrogated
3
and critique power disparities. and critiqued the disparities more by connecting the discussion to the effects of
colonization.
Students did not speak up about or stand up to prejudice and injustice. Discussion
3. Students were able to build questions could have been better planned to include an element about prejudice,
awareness of, speak up about, and stand 1 injustice and exclusion in Spain. For example: “What cultural groups have been
up to prejudice, injustice, and exclusion. subjected to prejudice and injustice in Spain?” Or, “What are some ways to
recognize and counter prejudice against those cultural groups?”
4. Students were able to access their Students were able to draw upon their individual town’s festivals and traditions
5
funds of knowledge. when discussing culture
Students’ cultural identity and knowledge were the prime sources of material for
this lesson. This helped to empower and demonstrate that students’ identities are
5. Students expanded their social valued, which can in turn promote an increase in social capital.
5
capital. Students also had the opportunity to reflect on which aspects of their culture hold
the most capital in other countries, specifically in regards to education and the
workplace. Students noted the need for teamwork in diverse work environments.
Students were able to discuss aspects of their culture that they were interested in
and create their slides how they saw fit. This aspect could have been improved by
6. The lesson was student-centered. 3 providing more questions that students could select between, thus allowing them to
decide what is most important to discuss. Additionally, students could have been
guided in constructing their own discussion questions.
Small groups of 3-4 students allowed each student to voice their opinion in their
groups. Students were also taught how to guide discussion so that each person was
7. Students had equal opportunity
5 included. Students were instructed that using their L1 to explain complex ideas to
during the lesson/activity.
confused students was completely acceptable, but that any information they put on
the slide had to be in English.
Students understood the questions, were able to implement the grammar, and small
8. Students were able to access the
5 group sizes contributed to participation from each student. Students could use their
material.
L1 to explain complex ideas as needed.
All of the material and questions drew upon students’ own ideas to provide the
9. Material was incorporated that
5 content of the lesson. Thus, the lesson was inherently correlated with students’
correlated with students’ identity.
identity.
Students were able to identify parts of their cultures that they identify with, but
10. Students expanded their
5 also parts that they don’t and have been stereotyped into. For example, students
identities.
noted that they don’t identify with “bullfighting” culture in Spain.
Students discussed ways to preserve dying cultures, but a discussion question on
11. Students built awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of the dying cultures was not included and could
advantages and disadvantages of their 2 have added importance to the need for preservation.
membership in identity groups. However, one group did guide their discussion into talking about how “ambitious
people” use their success to “hurt”, or take advantage of, others.
The lesson engaged students in authentic dialogue in a few ways; 1. Sharing,
12. Students engaged in authentic
5 suggesting, and adding their own ideas to the slides, and 2. Negotiating which
dialogue or meaning-making.
information was relevant enough to include in the slide.
296

After analyzing the lesson, the teacher recognized aspects of critical consciousness that were lacking
and was able to incorporate them into subsequent lessons and activities. For example, a follow-up activity
was designed as a reflection of the discussion. The activity asked students to write a journal detailing
different Spanish identities. Because students had not built awareness of the advantages and disadvantages
of identity groups in the original lesson, this was included into the follow up activity. After describing
the identities, students were asked to explain which groups they identified with, and why. They were
then asked to discuss the advantages and disadvantages that came with their membership in the groups
they identified with. Students ended their journals by explaining their opinions on the identity groups
and how they hope the groups will change in the future.
When using the chart for reflection, it is important for teachers to note their successes, but it is es-
sential that they take more time analyzing and imagining solutions for the areas that were met with less
success. Programs could require that teachers fill out the lower-scored sections of the chart with specific
examples and strategies that could be implemented in the future, should the lesson be repeated. Addi-
tionally, teachers should be encouraged by their programs to work collaboratively with their colleagues
to analyze their lessons. In doing so, teachers will have a greater well of resources to draw upon, which
could in turn improve the criticality of their lessons even further.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
The following are recommended activities that in-service and pre-service teachers can do to practice
exercising their critical consciousness through the implementation of the checklists.
Activity 1: Critical Consciousness Video Analysis
The purpose of this activity is to use the pre-lesson checklist as you design and implement a lesson, and
the post-lesson checklist to evaluate and reflect on the critical success of the lesson. This activity should
be used in teacher training programs. This will help to develop your own critical consciousness as you
plan and develop lessons. The instructions that follow will suggest completing the activity as a group,
but teachers can also complete it alone.
Part 1: Design
In groups of 2, create a 10-20 minute lesson for your target student base. Times can be adjusted depending
on the needs and limitations of the practice environment. If the teachers are not currently working in a
classroom, encourage them to imagine the group of students they anticipate working with in the future.
Take time to write down and identify details about your student base. Consider areas such as: culture,
first language, limitations of the class or environment, and goals of the students.
Design a lesson of your choice, and after designing it, review the pre-lesson checklist. Is there anything
you missed? Is there anything that you aren’t confident that you planned for enough? Make adjustments
as necessary, and try to check off each box.
297

Part 2: Recording
Join with another group, or two, and teach your lesson using the additional group members as your
students. Record a video of your lesson, at least 10 minutes in length, and review the video with your
partner using the post-lesson checklist. Pause the video as necessary to take notes on direct observations
that relate to the checklist topics.
• What are students doing?

• What are students saying?
• How are they reacting?
Afterwards, with your partner, discuss the degree to which the lesson succeeded in meeting each
question on the checklist. Assign a score to each box. Which areas were strongest? Which areas could
be improved?
Part 3: Analysis and Reflection
Write a 4-5 page analysis comparing the strengths and weaknesses of your lesson. Provide specific
examples from the lesson that support your reasoning and reference back to the concepts outlined at
the beginning of this chapter. Include discussions of critical capital, funds of knowledge, positions of
power, identity, student-centered learning, and authentic dialogue and meaning making. Work with
your partner to determine more critically developed alternatives that could be implemented should the
lesson be taught additional times in the future. In addition, touch on ways the lesson could be critically
expanded on in subsequent classes.
For programs that are more limited by time and budget, teachers should write a short journal noting the
strengths and areas that could be improved, and should instead focus more on the discussion of the more
critically developed alternatives. Teachers should meet with program administrators or their instructors,
during office hours, to discuss their observations and alternatives for more critically conscious lessons.
Activity 2: Observation and Evaluation
This activity is recommended for use by program administrators when evaluating teachers, or for use by
the facilitators of teacher education programs when they evaluate pre-service teachers. The purpose of
this activity is to observe the lesson of an in-service teacher and evaluate its critical consciousness by
using the post-lesson checklist. This activity will only make use of the post-lesson checklist, but it will
provide a useful opportunity to exercise recognition of critical consciousness from an outside perspective.
Part 1: Observation
Reach out to a teacher on staff, or a teacher in the education program and schedule a date to observe
their teaching. If possible, meet with the teacher prior to the lesson to learn about the goals of the les-
son, the target audience, and the planned activities. If the teacher is comfortable with it, you can record
the lesson for future review. This is highly recommended as the recorded video would be essential to
allow the observed teacher to reflect on their own lesson. While observing the teacher’s lesson, fill in
298

the post-lesson checklist. Be sure to write down direct observations that relate to the checklist topics.
Consider these questions:

• What is the teacher doing?
• What is the teacher saying?
Part 2: Evaluation and Discussion
Meet with the observed teacher to go over the results of the post-lesson checklist. If possible, the ob-
served teacher should also fill out the post-lesson checklist prior to the meeting. Comparing two dif-
ferent post-lesson checklists would help guide the discussion and could provide enlightening insights,
considering how each teacher brings their own pedagogy to the table. The goal of this meeting should be
twofold. First, the observed teacher should be able to walk away with alternatives that could have been
incorporated into the lesson that was taught to increase critical consciousness. Second, the observed
teacher should walk away with optional ways to critically expand in subsequent lessons. For example, if
an in-class discussion activity missed an opportunity for students to critique power disparities, then the
next class could include a journal prompt targeted at critiquing power disparities,
Activity 3: Observation and Reflection
The purpose of this activity is for a pre-service or in-service teacher to observe the lesson of an in-service
teacher. This activity will only make use of the post-lesson checklist, but it will provide a useful op-
portunity to exercise critical consciousness from an outside perspective. This task is also lower-stakes,
as the teacher doing the observation will not be evaluated on a lesson. In this situation, the observed
teacher does not need to receive feedback, although it would be beneficial, because the goal is for the
observing teacher to expand their critical consciousness.
Part 1: Observation
Reach out to a teacher on your staff, or in your program and request to observe part, or all, of their les-
son. Teacher education programs should work to connect pre-service teachers with current in-service
teachers from nearby school districts. If possible, meet with the teacher prior to the lesson in order to
learn about the goals of the lesson, the target audience, and the planned activities. If the teacher is com-
fortable with it, you can record the lesson for future review, but it is not necessary. While observing the
teacher’s lesson, fill in the post-lesson checklist. Be sure to write down direct observations that relate to
the checklist topics. Consider these questions:

• What is the teacher doing?
299

• What is the teacher saying?
Part 2: Analysis and Reflection
Write a 4-5 page analysis and reflection of the criticality to the teacher’s lesson. What areas were stron-
gest? Which areas could the teacher improve in? Provide specific examples from the lesson that support
your reasoning, and reference back to the concepts outlined at the beginning of this chapter. Include
discussions of critical capital, funds of knowledge, positions of power, identity, student centered learn-
ing, and authentic dialogue and meaning making. Determine more critically developed alternatives that
could be implemented should the lesson be taught additional times in the future. Finally, touch on ways
the lesson could be critically expanded on in subsequent classes.
DISCUSSION
The questions detailed in this chapter can be very useful to help guide teachers and programs as they
develop their social advocacy. However, there are a number of inherent issues that should be kept in
mind when using these lists.
First, the list of questions developed above are by no means an exhaustive list. In trying to make
an “essential” list, it is only natural that valuable nuances will be left out. It should be noted that the
questions were selected by the author, who, like other teachers, is influenced by their own cultural back-
ground and status in society. Thus, when implementing these questions, it is recommended that teachers
and programs use their own judgement to remove or add questions as they see fit. When doing so, it is
crucial to analyze one’s own cultural background and reflect on the values and expectations associated
with such a background.
Secondly, this list might not be reflective of the needs of every student body, or every student within
the student body. It may be more necessary in some school situations to focus more heavily on how to
speak up against social injustices and prejudice, and focus less on authentic meaning making, or vice
versa. For example, two or three questions to reflect on positions of power may be inadequate and may
instead require 10 or more. Teachers and programs can refer to the additional resources section of this
chapter to help guide them in the creation of their own questions.
In addition to challenges with the list, there remain challenges in regards to the target audience. It
should be noted that oftentimes higher level language students will be those most able to challenge and
deconstruct the dominant culture. It is simply easier because their language has developed to a point to
facilitate authentic dialogue and meaning making. As might be imagined, the same holds true for older
students who have had time to develop a maturity of thought. However, this should not discourage teach-
ers from using the checklist. Some aspects will hold true for all learners, such as the incorporation of
material from the students themselves. When attempting to incorporate the more difficult concepts of
critical consciousness, teachers should note that it is not always necessary for students to express them-
selves in the ways that dominant ideologies expect them to. A lower level English learner may wish to
deconstruct power inequalities in their own language, and younger students may be able to better express
themselves through the use of images instead of words. In short, it is recommended that teachers not
immediately dismiss questions from the checklist that seem challenging, or impossible, based on their
context. There is almost always a workaround.
300

While any one list of questions will not be perfect, the act of reflecting, and acting, upon these topics
will doubtlessly help guide and empower students.
REFERENCES
Bourdieu, P. (1996). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Polity Press.
Crawford, J., & Gross, E. (2019). Equitable and Effective Identification and Assessment of Language
Learners’ Background Knowledge. Language and Education, (October/November), 48–54.
Crookes, G., & Lehner, A. (1998). Aspects of process in an ESL critical pedagogy teacher education
course. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 319–328. doi:10.2307/3587586
Diemer, M. A., Rapa, L. J., Park, C. J., & Perry, J. C. (2017). Development and validation of the Critical
Consciousness Scale. Youth & Society, 49(4), 461–483. doi:10.1177/0044118X14538289
Flynn, J. E. (2012). Critical pedagogy with the oppressed and the oppressors: Middle school students
discuss racism and White privilege. Middle Grades Research Journal, 7(2), 95–110.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, I. V. W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers Col-
lege Record, 97(1), 47–68.
Liggett, T. (2010). ‘A little bit marginalized’: The structural marginalization of English language teachers
in urban and rural public schools. Teaching Education, 21(3), 217–232. doi:10.1080/10476211003695514
McLaren, P. (2003). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R.
D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (1st ed., pp. 69–96). RoutledgeFalmer.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using
a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.
doi:https://education.ucsc.edu/ellisa/pdfs/Moll_Amanti_1992_Funds_of_Knowledge.pdf
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Long-
man/Pearson Education.
Norton, B. & Gao, Y. (2008). Identity, investment, and Chinese learners of English. Academic Press.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (Eds.). (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524834
Powell, R., Cantrell, S. C., Malo-Juvera, V., & Correll, P. (2016). Operationalizing Culturally Responsive
Instruction: Preliminary Findings of CRIOP Research. Teachers College Record, 118(010306), 1–46.
Schleppegrell, M. J., & Bowen, B. (1995). Problem-posing: A tool for curriculum renewal. ELT Journal,
49(4), 297–306. doi:10.1093/elt/49.4.297
301

Simmons, C. L. (2019). Critical consciousness: A measurement tool for english to speakers of other lan-
guages (ESOL) teachers in U.S. K-12 education (Order No. 27543844). Available from ProQuest Disserta-
tions & Theses Global. (2321028721). Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.pro-
quest.com/dissertations-theses/critical-consciousness-measurement-tool-english/docview/2321028721/
se-2?accountid=14749
Social Justice Standards the Teaching Tolerance Anti-bias framework. (2016). Retrieved March 23, 2021,
from https://www.learningforjustice.org/
Whitaker, M. C., & Valtierra, K. M. (2018). The dispositions for culturally responsive pedagogy scale.
Journal for Multicultural Education, 12(1), 10–24. doi:10.1108/JME-11-2016-0060
Williams, M. K. (2017). John Dewey in the 21st Century. Journal of Inquiry and Action in Education,
9(1). https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/jiae/vol9/iss1/7
Authentic Dialogue and Meaning Making: Creating opportunities for students to take part in
meaningful discussions, such as posing questions in which students must identify problems and suggest
solutions.
Critical Consciousness: Guiding students towards social justice through the use of reflection and
subsequent action.
Cultural Capital: How a student’s background and linguistic knowledge influences their class status
and access to capital.
Funds of Knowledge: A student’s learned experiences and skills stemming from a history of culture
and family knowledge.
Identity: A person’s understanding of their relationship to society and the world.
Positions of Power: Empowering students to recognize power disparities and then provide opportu-
nities to interrogate them and speak up against them.
Student-Centered Learning: Allowing students to take control of their education and make choices
within the classroom that continue to develop their identity.
302
APPENDIX 1
Table 6.
Expanding Checklist Discussion

Expand the discussion of when, how much time, and rationale for using the checklist.
A paragraph has been added to page 12 detailing how much time, when, and how often to utilize the checklist.
Table 7.
Terminology
The first part of the chapter needs to either streamline the use of terminology or explain how each term that is used is related to the terms
that seem to be similar. E.g., what is “critical consciousness” and what is its connection to “critical pedagogy.” A term “critical identity”
is used, but it is not explained what the meaning of it is. “Critical praxis” is used in the middle of the first part, but it is never explained.
There are multiple places of this through the chapter and I point it out in the body of the MS.
Terminology has been edited and streamlined to only use “critical consciousness” throughout the “concept” section. This has also
streamlined the concept section
Table 8.
Copy-edit and Revise APA format

Copy-edit and revise APA formatting.
Paper has been copy-edited and revised. Spacing issues and grammar issues have been revised.
APPENDIX 2
Table 9.
Scale Descriptors
As for the critical consciousness checklist, the authors gave a scale of 1 to 5 for pre-service and in-service teachers to reflect on their
teaching. However, it didn’t explain how to make sure that all teachers will hold the same standard to evaluate or reflect on their own and
other’s teaching because the scale of 1 to 5 can be subjective. If the authors could give clarifications and specific criteria, for example,
for statement four “Students were able to access their funds of knowledge”, scale 5 matches - students’ cultural identity and knowledge
were the prime sources of material for this lesson; students had the opportunity to reflect on which aspects of their culture hold the most
capital in other countries, etc., the same for each scale of other statements.
A chart with scale descriptors was added to page 10 to make scale ratings clearer. However, specific scale descriptors for each individual
question were not added in order to keep the scale applicable for all questions.
303
APPENDIX 3
Table 10.
Cultural Capital Discussion

In a similar fashion, terms such as “cultural capital” “social capital” and ‘cultural frames” are used without fully being explained. More
literature is needed in the discussion of cultural capital.
Terminology in this section has been streamlined into “cultural capital” only. A description of cultural capital was added referencing
Bourdieu, as recommended by the reviewer, on page 4.
304
305
Chapter 15
Promoting Prospective TESOL
Educators’ Critical Reflection
Through the 4D Framework
Ni Yin
University of Southern California, China
Xiaodi Sun
Chuqi Wang
ABSTRACT
Within the field of teacher education, the significance of promoting critical reflection is highlighted by
scholars because it is generally believed that teachers engaging in critical reflection are more able to
examine bias, challenge embedded assumptions, and take actions toward educational justice. In the field
of teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL), there is a growing interest in the cultiva-
tion of educators with critical reflection ability. In this chapter, the authors introduce a set of effective
tools by which worldwide pre-service TESOL educators can practice critical reflection. The sets include
a 4D framework and a worksheet. By incorporating this tool into learning and future English teaching
lives, pre-service TESOL educators can be involved in continuous cycles of high-level critical reflection.
Through learning on their own reflections, teachers can gain new insights, improve teaching skills, and
ultimately, create a more just society for students.
INTRODUCTION
Critical reflection is a term that has been studied by scholars from a wide range of fields, such as medi-
cine, business, and nursing (Middleton, 2017; Steyn & Le Roux, 2007; Williams, 2001). When it comes
to the field of teacher education, ample research has demonstrated that critical reflection enables teach-
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch015

Promoting Prospective TESOL Educators’ Critical Reflection Through the 4D Framework
ers to examine personal biases (Lin & Lucey, 2010) and positionalities (Acquah & Commins, 2015),
examine and critique taken-for-granted assumptions (Brookfield, 1995), develop deeper understandings
of the power structures in society (Ross, 2015), challenge injustice with strong commitment (Grant &
Sleeter, 2010), and eventually, further support “student learning, better schooling, and a more just society
for all children” (Liu, 2015, p. 10-11). Especially for the TESOL field, where teachers’ and students’
backgrounds are diverse, constantly engaging in critical reflection to provide greater and more equitable
support to students becomes more crucial for educators.
Unfortunately, As Farrell (2018) has noted, encouraging and guiding TESOL teacher candidates
to learn and practice critical reflection in development programs is rare. What all pre-service TESOL
teachers all over the world need is a TESOL-specific, detailed, and reproducible guide to promote their
appreciation of critical reflection and support them to carry out the process of it (Zhu, 2014). In an
attempt to solve this problem, the authors developed a 4D framework and a worksheet for pre-service
TESOL educators to practice critical reflection. The set of the 4D framework and worksheet is an easy-
to-follow tool that can be used among prospective teachers themselves without additional facilitators. In
this chapter, the introduction, usage and practice advice of the framework and worksheet are presented.
CONCEPT
Critical reflection involves the consideration and examination of sociocultural and political issues that
impact teachers’ practice (Farrell, 2018). According to Fook (2007), there are two main ways to ex-
plain critical reflection. The first one was given by Mezirow (1991) who defined critical reflection as
a method to explore, challenge, and replace fundamental assumptions which originate from teachers’
lives. Another interpretation of critical reflection focuses more on the role of power (Brookfield, 1995),
including reflecting on social and political factors that limit daily thinking or practice (Riley et al., 2003).
The commonality of these two definitions is that critical reflection can lead to transformative actions
(Fook, 2007). Critical reflection thus is not just thinking on the surface (Farrell, 2018), but thinking in
a deeper and more profound way by taking multiple factors into consideration (Brookfield, 2009; Hat-
ton & Smith, 1995). This is true when it comes to language learning, especially in the field of TESOL,
where English language teachers and students are coming from diverse linguistic, sociocultural, and
political backgrounds.
Besides incorporating the sociocultural and political aspects into critical reflection, the authors also
place a high value on the moral and emotional dimensions of such reflection. Teachers who reflect on
moral issues of teaching practice and believe their practice has a moral impact on students and schooling
are more likely to care about students as human beings and create a just learning environment (Sharil &
Majid, 2010; Yang, 2009). Further, Deng and Yuen (2011) have argued that reflecting on the emotional
dimension of teaching practices benefits pre-service TESOL teachers, when they become vulnerable
facing dilemmas and struggling with insecurities, which is common during their roles and lives transi-
tioning as future English language teachers.
Critical reflection scholars in education generally emphasize the significance of critical reflection
that is beneficial for teachers to realize not only the impact of their instruction and attitudes on students
and the whole society, but also the impact of the environment and background on their teaching practices
(Farrell, 2018). Abednia (2012) noted that it is crucial and necessary for pre-service English language
teachers to learn and practice how to reflect critically on their previous ideologies, learning and/or teach-
306

ing experiences, and initial motivation to start the teaching journey. As Abednia (2012) pointed out, after
engaging in critical reflection practice, pre-service TESOL teachers moved their positions from where
they adopted the dominant ideology without questioning to where they were able to think critically about
their role as future language educators. The practice of critical reflection not only helps cultivate more
critical thinkers, but also nurtures actors who position themselves as social agents of justice (Gorski &
Dalton, 2020; Liu, 2015). Therefore, during this particular stage, researchers suggested that pre-service
TESOL teachers be provided with a guide to critically inspect their beliefs and stances in order to raise
their awareness of the power they have on learners’ lives during English teaching (Hernandez, 2015).
However, Farrell (2018) pointed out that it is rare for TESOL pre-service teachers to engage in criti-
cal reflection because they tended to be unwilling to start deep and critical reflection unless they were
prompted.
To date, many reflective frameworks have been presented by scholars, such as Borton’s (1970) “What?
So what? Now what?” model, Kolb and Fry’s (1975) Experiential Learning Cycle, Bain’s (2002) 5R
Framework, and Bassot’s (2013) Integrated Reflective Cycle. These frameworks and models are informa-
tive, but they were not targeting critical reflection within the field of TESOL specifically. The authors
were able to summarize four broad stages of reflection common throughout these previous works, which
are: describing an experience, evaluating outcomes, referring to literature for analysis, and preparing
for the future. In order to cater to the needs of prospective TESOL teachers, two important abilities that
teachers should possess within the field of TESOL should also be emphasized, namely the ability to
challenge and question previously held opinions, and view English teaching and learning through the
lens of sociocultural, political, moral, and emotional factors. Thus, standing on the shoulders of giants,
the authors developed the 4D framework (see Figure 1) as a tool for critical reflection, specifically for
prospective TESOL educators. The 4D stands for four verbs: describe, dissect, doubt, and do. This frame-
work, which frames critical reflection is a never-ending cycle, can serve as a tool for pre-service TESOL
teachers to express themselves, examine and analyze past experiences, call previously held assumptions
into question, and ultimately, take efforts to become equity-minded English language educators. A list of
guiding questions is also provided along with the 4D framework to offer teacher candidates purposeful
and structured prompts to push them to reflect critically (Campbell & Baikie, 2013; Gelfuso & Dennis,
2014). The authors organized the basic content of the framework and the questions into a worksheet
to better scaffold teachers and also, ensure the sustainability and feasibility of the 4D framework. The
details of the worksheet will be discussed in the following section.
THE 4D FRAMEWORK AND THE WORKSHEET
There are four steps in the 4D framework, so the worksheet includes a table that has four columns includ-
ing the name of the step, instruction, guiding questions and a blank box for response (see Appendix). The
instruction columns give teachers a general view of the purpose and focus of this step. When it comes
to the third column of the table, there is a series of guiding questions which includes not only general
questions that are adapted from Borton (1970), Gibbs (1998), Bain (2002), and Bassot (2013), but also
TESOL-specific questions that were originally developed by the authors, following Whipp (2003) who
revealed that a combination of more tailored and general questions helps facilitate high-level critical
reflection. The blank Response column is where teachers can either type in the table or write down their
307

Figure 1. The 4D framework
responses after printing the worksheet out. In the following sections, the authors break down the table
in the worksheet row by row to illustrate the four steps in the framework.
The first step of the 4D framework is called Describe, which is to have teachers describe experiences
about English teaching and learning. Considering that it is difficult and even impossible for people to
be completely objective when recounting a past event, the authors only asked teachers to represent it as
honestly as possible. Prospective teachers are kindly requested to avoid drawing inferences in order to
help themselves understand the original experiences. The content of this step is in Table 1.
Table 1. The first step of the 4D framework: describe
Steps Instruction Questions Response

Describe an experience about English
teaching and learning as honestly
as possible. You can present your 1. What happened?
feelings and thoughts during the 2. What was your role in the experience?
Describe
experience in this step. Note that 3. What did you see, hear and do?
the goal here is to describe only; 4. What was the context of the experience?
avoid analyzing and interpreting the
experience at this stage.
The second step of the 4D framework is called Dissect, which aims to help educators analyze each
detail of the experience they described in the first step. Teachers’ feelings and thoughts, whether it was
before, during, and/or after the experience, can be further explained here to figure out why it matters
to recall this specific piece of memory. In this step, educators are expected to discover and articulate
their identities, beliefs, and theories – Farrell (2018) called these three “hidden aspects of teaching” (p.
308

33) – about English teaching and learning. In this dissection step, question prompts are moving teachers
from description to critical reflection by encouraging them to reflect on each aspect of the experience
on a deeper level. The content of this step is in Table 2.
Table 2. The second step of the 4D framework: dissect

1. What makes you remember this
experience? Why is it worthwhile for you to
reflect on this situation?
2. What were you thinking about other
people at that time?
3. What did you assume other people were
thinking at that time?
4. Why did you think in this particular way?
A deeper analysis of each detail of the
5. How does this experience affect you
experience can help you discover and
afterward, academically, emotionally, and/
Dissect understand what shaped your thoughts
or socially?
and influenced your actions in terms
6. What was your view on English, English
of English teaching and learning.
teaching and learning reflected from your
thought?
7. How does the majority in society view
English, English teaching and learning?
What factor(s) contribute(s) to these
particular perspectives? (The “society” here
refers to the one that influences you the
most.)
The third step of the 4D framework is called Doubt, which is to reflect beyond one’s own teaching
practice, that is to explore and examine the sociocultural, political, moral, and emotional issues that
influence pre-service teachers’ practices. Teachers are encouraged to doubt, challenge, and question
tacitly embedded assumptions about English teaching and learning that they discovered. Teachers are
also encouraged to refer to literature and resources at their disposal, for example course readings if they
are or have been a part of a teacher preparation program, to justify their thoughts. The guiding ques-
tions are designed to prod teachers into considering the same situation from different angles in order
to assist them to understand the multiple dimensions of English teaching practices. The content of this
step is in Table 3.
Based on the previous three steps, the last step of the 4D framework is called Do, which is about
taking actions, which is often overlooked but crucial if teachers intend to learn from experiences and
move forward (Bassot, 2016). After reviewing their descriptions, dissections and doubts, pre-service
TESOL teachers should develop a plan to be well-prepared for situations that are similar to the one
they describe in the first step in the future. In order to better support English language learners within
a broader context, the plan should be as concrete as possible, and the prompts can lead teachers to the
goal. The content of this step is in Table 4.
The guiding questions in the worksheet as outlined above are meant to provide direction for teachers
to reflect on their practice. The questions are not rigid constraints, so teachers should follow their own
pace and even write down ideas that are not asked as long as they find it helpful for their professional
growth. When being asked to represent experiences without interpretation during the Describe step,
309

Table 3. The third step of the 4D framework: doubt

1. Do you and the majority of people in
society have the same views on English,
English teaching and learning? If so,
why? If they are different, what are some
possible reasons resulting in the divergence?
(The “society” here refers to the one that
influences you the most.)
2. Do you see other explanations or other
possible behaviors in the experience?
Using your own further realizations as 3. How do others define an ideal or effective
well as outside literature, question the English teacher? What abilities and qualities
ideas and challenge the assumptions do these English teachers possess within a
that you have discovered up till now. broader sociocultural, political, moral and
You can also validate what you emotional context? How does this definition
Doubt
have learned through the previous apply to your context?
steps by justifying your thoughts. 4. Describe how others define an ideal
Multiple factors should be taken into English language classroom. What
consideration in this step. teaching practices contribute to or hinder
the realization of this ideal classroom and
how? To what extent is this ideal classroom
achievable in your context? Why?
5. Identify relevant concepts or theories
you have learned about (e.g. in your teacher
preparation or through your own research)
that might challenge your existing ideas or
assumptions. How can these concepts and
theories help improve your effectiveness as
an English teacher?
Table 4. The fourth step of the 4D framework: do

1. What will you do if you encounter a
situation that is similar to the one you
described in the first step?
2. How is your new action literature-
Make a plan with a detailed supported, i.e. based on relevant, research,
explanation to be better prepared for concepts or theories?
similar situations in the future. The 3. What might be the consequences of the
plan should be as concrete as possible new action?
Do
including how you will make sure the 4. How will your new action benefit others,
plan works. Multiple factors should especially your English language learners?
be taken into consideration in this 5. Why will you do this in this particular
step. way? What sociocultural, political, moral,
and/or emotional factors will you take into
consideration?
6. What skills need to be improved to make
sure the new action will work well?
teachers start to realize what biased opinions they have made. In the Dissect and Do step, teachers face
up to themselves by questioning their assumptions and exploring the causes of their subjectivity. These
310

three steps prepare teachers for coming up with a feasible plan in the Do step. The prompts guide teach-
ers to gradually move from narrating a personal story at surface level to taking a critical stance on their
teaching practice and role as future English teachers. By focusing on observable and concrete situations,
teachers can use the questions to discover and challenge embedded beliefs, and finally to make changes
towards equity and social justice in future teaching.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Pre-service teachers are recommended to use the 4D process when doing teaching fieldwork or intern-
ships, so they will have more concrete teaching experience to reflect on. However, for pre-service teach-
ers who do not have many teaching experiences, they can also use the framework to start to reflect on
the events related to English teaching and learning that they encounter. For instance, the 4D framework
and worksheet can facilitate reflection on past teaching or learning experiences, or it can be used to
analyze practice teaching scenarios, or examples of teaching encountered during classroom observations.
Whenever a teaching example or incident prompts teachers to think or question, it is suggested that they
briefly jot that down on their mobile phone, a post-it note, or the like, and then complete the worksheet
later. Natural breaks or pauses in teaching are especially good times to use the framework, for example
during exam periods or at the end of a unit, semester, or other teaching segments.
Actually writing or typing down responses is one of the most recommended ways to practice criti-
cal reflection (Hernandez, 2015). In this way, results of critical reflection using the 4D framework and
the worksheet are easily saved and collected. Pre-service teachers can in this way compare their own
documents after practicing critical reflection with the 4D framework a couple of times. Through such
comparison, it is possible to observe changes in thinking and growth in one’s practice, which can serve
as an important motivation to further establish the habit of critical reflection. Further, considering the
important role that feedback plays in teacher formation, reflections resulting from the 4D process can
be useful for sharing with others, whether instructors, cooperating teachers at fieldwork sites, other
teacher candidates.
Based on multiple times using the framework, the estimated completion time for the worksheet can
range from forty minutes, if done quickly, to well over an hour. The third and fourth steps of the worksheet
generally require more time than the first two steps, especially since they ask educators to identify and
bring in concepts and theories to validate their thoughts and plans. It is not necessary, however, to com-
plete all the steps at once. Teachers may complete the process in smaller segments, one stage at a time.
In this section, two examples of using this framework and the worksheet by one teacher named Amy
are introduced. Amy was born and raised in China for twenty more years. After finishing her Bachler’s
degree in China, she continued her education in the United States. The first time Amy completed the
worksheet to practice critical reflection was in February of 2021 when she was just graduated from a
TESOL master’s program in California, the United States. The second time Amy completed it was in July
of 2021 when she was one month into an internship as a homeroom teacher at an international school
in Guangdong, China. After presenting her responses to the guiding questions under each step in the
311

worksheet, the authors explain how the 4D framework helped Amy reflect critically step by step. In the
end, the similarities and differences between the examples are discussed.
Amy’s First Completion of the Worksheet
The response of the questions of the first step (Describe) is as follows:
I did my fieldwork during the TESOL program in a second-grade English classroom in a public school
in California, the United States. My role in the classroom was more of a student teacher. One day, I
noticed a student named Jack handed in a crumpled assignment to my cooperating teacher without any
explanation, and then I felt a bit angry. However, I was even more shocked because the teacher smiled
and said “thank you” to Jack instead of strictly scolding him for handing in a paper like this. I did not
say or do anything to the student, but I guessed I looked dazed and confused.
Amy briefly described and contextualized her experience in the first step but did not make interpreta-
tions, which laid a good foundation for the next steps. The response of the questions of the second step
(Dissect) is as follows:
I clearly remember this experience because of the huge discrepancy between my thoughts and the teacher’s
behaviors. I was not only surprised but also confused at how calm my host teacher behaved. I felt angry
at Jack because I believed he destroyed his homework intentionally. I thought he was not respectful at
all to the teacher and English learning. I assumed the teacher thought the same as me, but it turned out I
was wrong. I viewed Jack in this particular way because I treated English seriously and always kept my
assignments neat and clean when I was at school to show my attitude. If someone does not act like me,
it means that the student does not respect English. I asked my cooperating teacher about my confusion
and after she told me what she knew about Jack and some possible reasons for his crumpled paper, I
felt ashamed like never before. According to the cooperating teacher, Jack’s family had a very unstable
economic condition because of his alcoholic parents.
At that time, considering that English plays an important role from primary school to high school in China
where I grew up, I believed that students should keep assignments in perfect condition, hand in them on
time and get every question right to prove that they make an effort on English learning. English teach-
ers should make every endeavor to supervise students’ learning and improve their test scores. I thought
the general goal of teaching English in China is to improve students’ scores for high-stake exams, and I
found that my perspectives reflect this dominant view. The students should follow the teachers’ instruction
word for word and achieve high scores to demonstrate their learning efforts, as English accounts for a
large portion of exams. Generally, for students, getting a higher score in English means greater chances
of entering a better school afterward. As for teachers, they should commit to improving students’ Eng-
lish scores because the bonus a teacher can earn is in direct proportion to students’ progress in scores.
Based on the first step, Amy here further expressed her feelings and thoughts after the experience to
figure out what assumptions she had made at that time and what caused her biases. With the help of the
prepared questions, Amy deeply reflected on the contributors to her tacitly made assumptions, especially
in relation to sociocultural and economic issues. In this step, Amy gained a greater understanding of
312

English, English teaching and learning. Her responses to the questions of the third step (Doubt) are as
follows:
Such dominant ideologies in Chinese society may potentially cause my thoughts about that student. The
view of my family and former English teachers influenced my growing context and my thoughts on English.
In other words, I treated English, English learning and teaching in the exact same way as they believe.
As I review this experience now, I found that I made assumptions based on my growth background and
how my previous teachers had treated me. I assumed Jack handed in a crumpled paper because he didn’t
treat assignments seriously just based on what I saw and experienced before. But there were multiple
alternative explanations to his behavior. For example, he may undergo a tough family financial condi-
tion. It is also possible that his puppy may accidentally destroy his homework, or he was mistreated
by others. Simply put, the appearance of his homework may be caused by external issues, not himself.
In my view, a good English teacher should have a general knowledge of students’ backgrounds in order
to better support them and avoid jumping to groundless assumptions. Understanding students’ individual
needs and funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 2005) is the basis and prerequisite of teaching with scaffold-
ing strategies (Walqui, 2008). Moreover, students should be treated as human beings in the classroom
rather than exam machines. In my ideal classroom, there should be an inclusive teacher who aims to
provide every student with equitable and various access to learning content (Borja et al., 2015), and
students who are willing to actively participate in class. This ideal classroom depends heavily on the
good rapport between teachers and students. In order to move toward my goal of being a good English
teacher and realization of an ideal classroom, critical reflective practice is a crucial booster since it
can always remind me to think twice before acting and be equity-minded. Personally, whether it is to
become a good English teacher or to create an ideal classroom, it makes sense in any context because
students are all human beings who want to be respected rather than misunderstood and prefer a good
relationship with others to a bad one.
Amy in this step explored and analyzed the underlying reasons behind her behaviors and thoughts by
comparing dominant societal ideologies and personal ideologies. By considering alternative explanations
of the student’s behaviors, Amy was able to challenge previously held assumptions. Moreover, Amy
reconsidered an English teacher’s role and developed a goal for future teaching with strong literature
support after realizing multiple dimensions of English teaching and learning. The response of the ques-
tions of the fourth step (Do) is as follows:
I feel humiliated about the thoughts I had at that time. I could not imagine how much harm would be
done to Jack if I scolded him. Therefore, in the future, I will avoid judging any students just based on one
behavior and critique them without knowing them. When a student hands in a crumpled paper in my future
classroom, I will also smile and say “thank you” to the student, just like my cooperating teacher did,
to acknowledge him or her for completing the assignment. I will friendly encourage the student to keep
papers in good shape. If the student is reluctant to do so, I will try to understand this behavior through the
student’s eyes by reflecting on whether the assignment is too difficult, or my English teaching strategies
are too uninteresting, or there are some problems in our teacher-student relationship (Whipp, 2003). A
private conversation with the student might help because the more I know about the student as a person,
313

the more likely I am to consider the situation from his or her perspective (Quigley, 2014). By doing so,
students can know that I care about them and try as best as I can to understand their individual needs
and assist them with English learning, which is significant for creating an effective, safe and supportive
classroom (Alder, 2002). The benefits of showing care rather than unwarranted judgments can not only
help students discover their personal motivation to succeed in learning English but also develop their
sense of belonging to the classroom (Eisenbach, 2016).
Since every student in an English language classroom might have different first languages, cultural
backgrounds, economic conditions, purposes of learning English, and learning styles (Borja et al.,
2015; Prashnig, 2005), I cannot assume that their behaviors and attitudes of English are the same as I
or what I expect, or the same as each other. I will try to collect more information about my students by
arranging private conversations with them or having teacher-parent conferences regularly, giving them
chances to express opinions on me and the class, and doing research on their cultures (Brown, 2007).
In this way, I will become more inclusive during teaching, and thus, build more harmonious teacher-
student relationships.
Amy made a concrete plan based on reflections in previous steps to better support students when
coming across a similar situation in the future. She provided evidence from literature and theories
learned in the TESOL program to explain some of the possible consequences of the new action, why
some strategies are necessary to reach the expected outcome and how students can benefit from this
plan. After this step, Amy successfully synthesized previous reflections and put the knowledge she has
learned in the program into practice.
Amy’s Second Completion of the Worksheet
The response of the questions of the first step (Describe) is as follows:
I was doing my internship in an international school in Guangdong, China. The students I taught were
first-graders and they were all English Language Learners. All the teachers and students are required to
speaking English in the classroom. In primary school, there will always be two teachers in each class, that
is one subject teacher who is responsible for teaching the content and one homeroom teacher who stays
with students the whole day and is responsible for managing the classroom. There were three teachers
in the classroom and my role was a homeroom teacher assistant because the job was my internship. I
was with different classrooms of the first grade every day.
During my first time with Class One, the English subject teacher asked the students to write down one
sentence on their small whiteboard with a marker. All students were working on their sentences except
one student named Lucas who wrote nothing on his whiteboard. The subject teacher scolded him because
of his inactive participation in front of the whole class. Lucas still refused to start writing and even threw
the marker on the floor, so I walked to him and warned him that if he keeps doing nothing and inter-
rupting the class, I will send him to the Dean’s office. Lucas then started kicking the table and said to
me, “I will never listen to you”, which made me feel even angrier. However, at this time, the homeroom
teacher of this class took him out of the classroom and patiently comforted him waiting for him to calm
down. A few minutes later, Lucas came back in the classroom with a new marker on his hand, sited down
314

and started writing. The homeroom teacher told me afterward that Lucas acted like that was because
his marker was out of ink and he was reluctant to tell the subject teacher.
In the first step, Amy began by sharing a brief description of the school and classroom demograph-
ics and objectively describing an incident that she wanted to reflect on in the second paragraph. The
response of the questions of the second step (Dissect) is as follows:
It is worthwhile for me to reflect on this incident because I was surprised at how the student Lucas behaved
differently after I talked to him and his homeroom teacher talked to him. This is also the first time I dealt
with a student who interrupted a class like this rather than merely whisper to elbow partners. There may
have two reasons that cause me to act like this. Firstly, at that time, I thought that Lucas would follow
the teachers’ instructions if he knew the serious consequences of not doing so. In the classroom, teachers
have absolute authority, and scolding and warning are two main ways to show authority. Secondly, before
actual teaching in this class, I have heard many other teachers in the school talking about Lucas. From
those conversations, I knew that Lucas has been expelled by many other international schools because
he always broke the rules, disturbed others and got involved in arguments and fights. Thus, Lucas to me
has already become a naughty boy who needs more attention and stricter discipline.
However, what the homeroom teacher reacted to this situation showed me that being extremely strict is
not a cure-all method to manage a classroom. The homeroom teacher agreed with me that Lucas needed
more attention because he did have many behavior issues, but more attention sometimes means more
care and love rather than be stricter. The stricter the teacher was, the worse Lucas behaved because
he did not like being constrained. Besides, the homeroom teacher told me that Lucas would never go
to teachers for help if he had any questions or problems that he could not do himself because he would
feel embarrassed. I then realized that paying more attention to him is to help him solve difficulties more
actively. The statement that teachers should tailor teaching and managing strategies to cater to students’
different needs starts to make sense to me.
There is an old and famous saying in China that says, “A strict teacher produces outstanding students”.
Many believe that strict teachers help students grow faster academically and teachers should have absolute
authority in the classroom, so students will obey the instructions. Even though a gentle teacher seems to
be more like a friend to students, a strict teacher is more preferred when it comes to improving students’
grades. Personally speaking, my parents are strict with me when I was young, so I think being strict is
the right way to treat young children. However, being gentle and strict is not the opposite of each other.
Amy analyzed deeper about how her preconceived opinions caused this event and other factors that
resulted in her attitude and behaviors toward the student. Through her analysis, she realized and corrected
her misunderstanding about teaching. The guiding questions in the worksheet helped her find out the
underlying reasons for her misunderstanding and why she had those misunderstands. The response of
the questions of the third step (Doubt) is as follows:
Same as the majority of people in China, I still believe being strict is necessary when teaching. More
importantly, however, I now see the importance of being gentle. Instead of holding a strict attitude or
315

gentle attitude toward students all the time, teachers should be flexible according to students’ diverse
personalities and learning backgrounds.
As looking back now, I lost my patience with Lucas so quickly because of my stereotype of him. Merely
based on other teachers’ comments about him, I directly blamed the problem on himself without even
asking him anything because, at that moment, I thought he intentionally refused to practice English. I
felt like I knew him, but actually, I was wrong. If students do not want to participate in English class,
there are many reasons that teachers should consider: the tasks are too challenging, students already
find the tasks too easy, the teaching content is not interesting, and/or students feel uncomfortable with
the content for personal reasons (Saito & Khong, 2017).
As for the definition of a good English teacher and an ideal classroom, my opinion does not change much
compared to the last time. What I want to add here is that talking to other teachers about the class or
students that I am going to teach is beneficial as it indeed helps me get to know the students more (Moll
et al., 2005). But it is significant to keep in mind that not to let those constructive suggestions from oth-
ers become stereotypes. Paying more attention to some specific students is suggested whereas drawing
conclusions on them without knowing further about any details may hurt them emotionally.
In this step, Amy demonstrated what she has learned from reflecting on the experience by doubting
and challenging the assumptions she has held. The authors are glad to see that she typed down some
words here to remind herself not to repeat the same mistakes. Also, from her responses to all the three
steps, Amy not only elaborated her ideas of being a good English teacher but also realized a way to
avoid making assumptions but getting to know more about students. The response of the questions of
the fourth step (Do) is as follows:
In the future, if a student is reluctant to participate in class, I will go to him/her and patiently ask him/
her what happened to find out the reasons behind the behaviors. Squatting down by students’ seats and
patiently listening to them is a signal that tells them that teachers care about them and value their feelings
(Garza, 2009). If I figure out that the student just wants to play around and do nothing, I should firstly
kindly encourage and remind him/her to try his/her best because students come to school for learning,
improving and growing. Meanwhile, I should show the student that I have expectation and confidence
in him/her that he/she can do better, which according to Duff (2010), it is an effective way to motivate
students. Warning students should serve as the last resort. Thus, to be more specific, when I finish my
internship and become a full-time homeroom teacher, I will try many different management strategies
at the beginning and take notes about students’ reactions to see what strategies are more effective to
whom. Also, I would like to incorporate this framework and worksheet into my teaching routine because
reflecting along with those tools helps me organize my thoughts and discover assumptions that I make.
After analyzing the experience and questions the assumption, Amy concluded her critical reflection
by typing down what she will do specifically to get well-prepared for her future teaching journey. This
shows that Amy did gain new knowledge and skills after using the 4D framework and the worksheet to
reflect critically. Moreover, Amy validated her plan by using literature to support her.
In these two examples, Amy reflected on experiences that she acted or thought differently from her
cooperating teacher and the homeroom teacher, two more experienced teachers. When she analyzed the
316

reasons for her behaviors, although she mentioned both the impact of society and her family, that is her
growing background, on her teaching ideologies and practice, she focused on different aspects of the
impact. Because the first experience Amy described happened in the United States where students’ home
culture, first language, and family financial status are unfamiliar to her, she paid more attention to the
sociocultural and economic issues. In her second reflection example, the authors see more attention to
the emotional aspects of teaching and learning since Amy shared more similarities with the students in
the international school. The guiding questions in the Dissect and Doubt step facilitated Amy to reflect
broader by taking multiple factors into consideration.
When it comes to the plan in the last step (Do), compared to the first reflection example, Amy
added a few ideas about teaching strategies and more importantly, she gained new insights to improve
her teaching practice in the second example. In the first one, after she realized the vital importance of
knowing as much as she can about her future students, she figured out several strategies to reach that
goal. For instance, she wrote that she would consider using private conversations, conducting teacher-
parent conferences and doing research to know students’ backgrounds. In addition to that, she further
mentioned in the second example that communicating with other teachers in advance can be beneficial.
Besides talking about teaching techniques and strategies, in the second one, Amy mainly focused on
what attitudes teachers should hold when teaching. Her teaching mindset changed from being merely
strict to being flexible in shifting between strict and gentle. She also found it significant that teachers
should be patient and encouraging and have great confidence in students. What teachers should do and
what teachers should think in mind become equally important to Amy.
With the help of the framework and the guiding questions, Amy discovered and examined the as-
sumptions she has held by identifying where those assumptions came from. The authors believe that
after these critical reflection practices, Amy not only understood better what various influences she will
exert on students through her teaching practice but also had a clear direction of where to put effort into.
DISCUSSION
Encouraging teachers to practice critical reflection can be challenging. Some teachers don’t immediately
see the value of it and others might be reluctant to confront unpleasant aspects of themselves, or difficult
experiences and challenges in the process of learning to teach. That is why the authors developed the 4D
framework and the two examples of its use by one pre-service teacher in the section above were offered
to show how much a teacher can grow in terms of both practical teaching strategies and teaching mindset.
Liu (2017) reported that only when tasks or activities about critical reflection are linked to practical
teaching strategies would teachers show interest in practicing and making changes. Accordingly, the
authors intended to address this challenge by designing a Describe and Do step in the 4D framework.
By doing so, teachers are encouraged to reflect on a concrete incident, but not only reflect in their mind,
but also make an actual action plan in response. The 4D framework and the worksheet also provide
pre-service TESOL teachers with effective opportunities to critically interrogate their assumptions, and
link theory with practice by applying concepts and theories from the literature to their practice. Taken
together, the tools guide teachers to critically analyze and challenge their teaching ideologies, incorpo-
rate concepts and theories into their teaching practice, and engage them in ongoing action to improve
learning and teaching.
317

As international student teachers, the authors have always shifted back and forth between different
cultural, social, and educational contexts. Growing up in an Asian educational background that high-
lights the rote-teaching system and teacher authority, the authors used to hold limited views of students
without further questioning. However, critical reflective practices and the learning of related theories
have fostered their reconstruction of teaching beliefs toward more equitable and differentiated strategies
and boosted their confidence and abilities as international English language teachers. Thus, the authors
are confident that the 4D framework and the worksheet can serve as tools to provide pre-service TESOL
teachers with detailed guidance on critical reflection about personal histories and, as a result, motivate
them to take action to create a better and more just classroom and even a better society for all students.
REFERENCES
Abednia, A. (2012). Teachers’ professional identity: Contributions of a critical EFL teacher education
course in Iran. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 706–717. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.005
Acquah, E. C., & Commins, N. L. (2015). Critical reflection as a key component in promoting preser-
vice teachers’ awareness of cultural diversity. Reflective Practice, 16(6), 790–805. doi:10.1080/14623
943.2015.1095729
Alder, N. I. (2002). Interpretations in the meaning of care. Urban Education, 37(2), 241–266.
doi:10.1177/0042085902372005
Bain, J. D., Ballantyne, R., Mills, C., & Lester, N. C. (2002). Reflecting on practice: Student teachers’
perspectives. Post Pressed.
Bassot, B. (2013). The Reflective Journal. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Bassot, B. (2016). The reflective practice guide: An interdisciplinary approach to critical reflection.
Routledge.
Borja, L., Soto, S., & Sanchez, T. (2015). Differentiating instruction for EFL learners. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(8), 30–36.
Borton, T. (1970). Reach, touch, and teach: Student concerns and process education. McGraw-Hill.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. (2009). The concept of critical reflection: Promises and contradictions. European Journal
of Social Work, 12(3), 293–304. doi:10.1080/13691450902945215
Brown, M. R. (2007). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms, and
schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(1), 57–62. doi:10.1177/10534512070430010801
Campbell, C., & Baikie, G. (2013). Teaching critically reflective analysis in the context of a social justice
course. Reflective Practice, 14(4), 452–464. doi:10.1080/14623943.2013.806299
Cooper, C. W. (2003). The Detrimental Impact of Teacher Bias: Lessons Learned from the Standpoint
of African American Mothers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(2), 101–116.
318

Deng, L., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2011). Towards a framework for educational affordances of blogs. Comput-
ers & Education, 56(2), 441–451. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.005
Duff, P. (2010). Language socialization. In N. Hornberber & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and
language education (pp. 427–454). Miltilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847692849-018
Eisenbach, B. B. (2016). A conversation of care: Unpacking and engaging pre-service teacher ideolo-
gies. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(6), 223–227. doi:
10.1080/00098655.2016.1215720
Farrell, T. (2016). Anniversary article: The practices of encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in
reflective practice: An appraisal of recent research contributions. Language Teaching Research: LTR,
20(2), 223–247. doi:10.1177/1362168815617335
Farrell, T. (2018). Research on reflective practice in TESOL. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Fook, J. (2007). Reflective practice and critical reflection. In J. Lishman (Ed.), Handbook for practice
learning in social work and social care, second edition: Knowledge and theory (pp. 440-454). Jessica
Kingsley.
Garza, R. (2009). Latino and white high school students’ perceptions of caring behaviors: Are we cul-
turally responsive to our students? Urban Education, 44(3), 297–321. doi:10.1177/0042085908318714
Gelfuso, A., & Dennis, D. (2014). Getting reflection off the page: The challenges of developing support
structures for pre–service teacher reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2013.10.012
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit.
Gorski, P., & Dalton, K. (2020). Striving for Critical Reflection in Multicultural and Social Justice
Teacher Education: Introducing a Typology of Reflection Approaches. Journal of Teacher Education,
71(3), 357–368. doi:10.1177/0022487119883545
Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (2010). Turning on learning: Five approaches for multicultural teaching
plans for race, class, gender and disability. Wiley.
Knapp, S., Gottlieb, M., & Handelsman, M. (2017). Enhancing Professionalism Through Self-Reflection.
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 48(3), 167–174. doi:10.1037/pro0000135
Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.),
Theories of Group Process (pp. 33–57). John Wiley.
Lin, M., & Lucey, T. (2010). Individual and group reflection strategies: What we learned from preservice
teachers. Multicultural Education, 18(1), 51–54.
Liu, K. (2015). Critical reflection as a framework for transformative learning in teacher education.
Educational Review, 67(2), 135–157. doi:10.1080/00131911.2013.839546
Liu, K. (2017). Creating a dialogic space for prospective teacher critical reflection and transformative
learning. Reflective Practice, 18(6), 805–820. doi:10.1080/14623943.2017.1361919
319

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult education. Jossey-Bass.

Middleton, R. (2017). Critical reflection: The struggle of a practice developer. Academic Press.
Moll, L., González, N., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing practices in households,
communities, and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Prashnig, B. (2005). Learning Styles vs. Multiple Intelligences (MI). Teaching Expertise, 9, 8-9. Re-
trieved from https://www.rcsdk12.org/cms/lib/NY01001156/Centricity/Domain/9842/ls%20vs%20
mi%20tex9_p8_9.pdf
Riley, S., Sims-Schouten, W., & Cahill, S. (2003). Exploring the dynamics of subjectivity and power
between researcher and researched. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 4(2), 40.
Ross, K. (2015). Quality as critique: Promoting critical reflection among youth in structured encounter
programs. Journal of Peace Education, 12(2), 117–137. doi:10.1080/17400201.2014.979400
Saito, E., & Khong, T. D. H. (2017). Not just for special occasions: Supporting the professional learning
of teachers through critical reflection with audio-visual information. Reflective Practice, 18(6), 837–851.
doi:10.1080/14623943.2017.1361921
Steyn, B., & Le Roux, I. (2007). Experiential learning and critical reflection as a tool for transfer of busi-
ness knowledge: An empirical case study of a start-up simulation intervention for nascent entrepreneurs.
Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Ekonomiese en Bestuurswetenskappe, 10(3), 330–347. doi:10.4102ajems.
v10i3.694
Walqui, A. (2008). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. Interna-
tional Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. doi:10.1080/13670050608668639
Whipp, J. L. (2003). Scaffolding critical reflection in online discussions: Helping prospective teachers
think deeply about field experiences in urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 321–333.
doi:10.1177/0022487103255010
Williams, B. (2001). Developing critical reflection for professional practice through problem‐based learning.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34(1), 27–34. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.3411737.x PMID:11430603
Yang, S. (2009). Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice. Journal of Edu-
cational Technology & Society, 12(2), 11–21.
Zhu, H. (2014). Reflective thinking on EFL classroom discourse. Journal of Language Teaching &
Research, 5(6), 1275–1282. doi:10.4304/jltr.5.6.1275-1282
4D Framework: A four-step tool for pre-service TESOL educators to conduct critical reflection.
The letter “D” stands for the four verbs: describe, dissect, doubt, do.
5R Framework: The framework developed by John D. Bain, Roy Ballantyne, Colleen Mills, and Nita
C. Lester aims to guide people to reflect through reporting, responding, relating, reasoning, reconstructing.
320

Critical Reflection: The exploration and questioning of the existing assumptions and/or ideologies,
and taking new actions considering sociocultural, political, moral, and emotional factors.
Dominant Ideology: Thoughts, values, beliefs, and attitudes that belong to the majority of a social
group.
Equity: An achievement in education that students receive resources and support they need academi-
cally, physically, and mentally regardless of their sociocultural, economic, political background.
Experiential Learning Cycle: The learning cycle developed by David A. Kolb and Ronald E. Fry
has four stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active ex-
perimentation.
Integrated Reflective Cycle: A model of reflection developed by Bassot has four steps: the experi-
ence, reflection on action, theory, and preparation for the future.
Social Justice: The fair distribution of goods which includes not only materials things but also non-
material concepts, such as rights, power, responsibilities, and social relations.
321
APPENDIX
Table 5. The 4D framework and the worksheet
322
323
324
Section 3
The first four chapters provide ELTs with approaches to leveraging technology in critically minded ways
to advocate for all students. The next four chapters provide ELTs with approaches to advocacy through
professional collaboration to transform professional practices in TESOL.
326
Chapter 16
Designing Text Message
Learning to More
Equitably Reach Students
Wherever They Go:
UNICEF SMS Lessons for
Venezuelan Migrants/Refugees
Katherine Guevara
ABSTRACT
This chapter describes how TESOL educators can partner with global aid organizations, local commu-
nities, and learners themselves to leverage low-tech yet innovative learning solutions like text-message
lessons with the goal of more equitably reaching learners, particularly those affected by disruption to
their education such as those who are migrants/refugees. Taking such action as advocates committed
to closing opportunity gaps arising from social issues affecting language learning not only involves the
TESOL educator in the six principles for exemplary teaching of English learners but also UN Sustainable
Development Goals as a framework, trauma-informed teaching and learning, and the concept of text
messages used as micro-learning. Through a UNICEF case study of practice in action, the author pro-
vides a stepwise how-to for redesigning curriculum into micro-learning appropriate for text-message
delivery and offers considerations and recommendations for its dissemination, evaluation, and potential
application to many other contexts and learner populations at scale.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on the advocacy aspect of critical praxis in TESOL as it relates to supporting TESOL
educators committed to positive social change and working with others to close opportunity gaps and
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch016

Designing Text Message Learning to More Equitably Reach Students Wherever They Go
solve injustices related to languages and language learners around the world. In this case, the opportunity
gap relates to Venezuelan migrant/refugee (see Key Terms and Definitions) student access to continue
learning that has been disrupted due to their movement through Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru in
hopes of resettlement, and specifically needed during the COVID-19 pandemic occurring in the midst of
their migration and resettlement (ECW, 2020). In particular, this practical chapter highlights an option
for closing the stated gap through action TESOL educators can take as advocates (TESOL, n.d.b) to more
equitably reach Venezuelan migrant/refugee learners wherever they go; using TESOL’s Six Principles
(TESOL International Association, 2021; Hellman, Harris & Wilbur, 2019; Short, et al., 2018) and the
UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 4 (UN, n.d.) as frameworks, it provides a protocol for teachers to
plan and enact collective change efforts to address a social issue that impacts language learning by means
of redesigning curriculum to ready it for dissemination to learners who can access it via text message.
The author presents considerations, a stepwise how-to, recommendations and implications for creating a
text-message learning campaign (see Key Terms and Definitions) based on her work as a consultant for
UNICEF on education in emergencies for the most vulnerable learners (see Key Terms and Definitions)
in Latin America and the Caribbean (Guevara, 2020; UNICEF LACRO, n.d.) from May 2020-January
2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, the work of other TESOL educators who strive to be
action-oriented advocates at the intersection of sustainable development goals, trauma-informed teach-
ing and learning (see Key Terms and Definitions), and micro-learning (see Key Terms and Definitions)
via accessible technology has significant potential for more equitably reaching and benefiting all kinds
of learners and during times of non-emergency/crisis as well.
CONCEPT
TESOL’s Six Principles for Exemplary Teaching of English Learners (TESOL International Association,
2021; Hellman, Harris & Wilbur, 2019; Short, et al., 2018) provide a conceptual framework for analyzing
the author’s UNICEF text-message learning campaign for Venezuelan migrants/refugees as a case study
yielding practical recommendations and a how-to for replication by other TESOL educators. Principle 1:
Know Your Learners requires a unique non-TESOL specific critical orientation through the lens of UN
Sustainable Development Goal 4 Quality Education and how progress on that goal plays out with real
Venezuelan migrant/refugee learners in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, particularly during the
COVID-19 pandemic, and using data from aid organizations rather than traditional academic research
sources like peer-reviewed journals. Principle 2: Create Conditions for Language Learning involves a
look at how Venezuelan migrants/refugees can continue learning at all despite constraints and by using
creative yet low-tech solutions that provide access to learning. Principle 3: Design High-Quality Language
Lessons occurs in the Evidence-Based Practice Section as the Learning Activity, a list of considerations
in the form of questions to answer before designing a text-message learning campaign (see Table 1),
and Portrait of Practice, a stepwise how-to for designing the text message lessons themselves. Principle
4: Adapt Delivery as Needed comes into play with the adaptation of existing curriculum on which the
text-message learning campaign is based through the lenses of access, context, and trauma-informed
teaching and learning (see Table 2). Principle 5: Monitor and Assess Language Development can be
seen within the design of the text-message learning campaign itself as recommended messages 4 and 5
in each lesson sequence (see how-to steps) and mentioned in the Discussion. Principle 6: Engage and
327

Collaborate within a Community of Practice can be found in the Discussion where the author provides
5 serious implications that will require engagement as advocates and global collaboration to address.
Principle 1: Know Your Learners
In the case of learners who are Venezuelan migrants/refugees, equitably reaching them wherever they
go involves a critical orientation that relates much more to practice than theory, and uses evidence from
the field on real progress being made on UN Sustainable Development Goal 4 (UN, n.d.) where it in-
tersects with the target learner population. TESOL educators will need to understand the framework of
UN Sustainable Development Goal 4 and how it plays out in context in this case to be able to relate to
external partners and their relevant expertise, goals, and motivations in the human rights and interna-
tional development space.
First, conceptual background to what creates the current opportunity gap for these learners did not
start with the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the pandemic has caused serious disruptions in learning
across the Latin American and Caribbean region affecting more than 150 million learners. This repre-
sents a significant setback and the reversal of years of progress on UN Sustainable Development Goal 4:
Quality Education which aims to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong
learning opportunities for all” (UN, n.d.). Examples of how learning was interrupted include the fact
that most governments mandated schools be closed to stem the spread of the virus, and most schools
still remain fully or partially closed at the time of writing. Provided alternatives during school closure
such as online learning were not accessible for what UNICEF calls the most vulnerable learners, or
those who are rural/remote, indigenous, migrant/refugees, girls, and those with special needs. For the
most vulnerable children, this lack of access to learning can have serious negative consequences. In the
poorest 20% of households in low-income countries, a group to which migrant/refugee learners belong,
only 34% will complete school (UN, n.d.) under ideal conditions. The longer they remain out of school,
due to their migrant/refugee status coupled with the challenges of the pandemic, the greater the risk that
they will not return to schools once they resettle in a new country and schools reopen.
Thus, COVID-19 has only exacerbated an already dire situation facing migrants/refugees in the region
that extends beyond their educational needs. Additionally, COVID-19 has further disadvantaged already
vulnerable and marginalized intersectional populations of migrants/refugees who are girls, rural, without
Internet, and with special needs. Being out of school puts migrant/refugee children--who already faced
increased risk of economic poverty, malnutrition, gender violence, trafficking, child labor, psychological
trauma, and xenophobia due to their circumstances--at even greater risk.
Principle 2: Create Conditions for Language Learning
More than 6 million Venezuelan migrants/refugees want their children to continue their education--
including their study of English--but face challenges helping them do so while moving through and
resettling in Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, and Peru, even more so during a pandemic. While most mi-
grants/refugees in the region are the 6 million Venezuelans attempting to resettle in other countries in
the region, which represents the second largest migratory crisis in the world after Syria, there is another
vulnerable population of internally displaced people (currently 8.1 million in the region) within their
own countries that experts predict will only grow due to COVID and the resulting need to migrate for
survival to find work and food in other locations (Almagro et al., 2020). In addition to the crises of
328

Venezuelan, Syrian, and internally displaced people, other global shifts in migration that impact the
learner populations TESOL educators serve globally include a record number of unaccompanied minors
entering the U.S. at the southern border with Mexico due to violence, natural disasters, food insecurity,
and poverty in their Central American home countries (UNHCR, June 2020). In fact, the UN Refugee
Agency UNHCR estimates half of the 26 million refugees globally are under 18 and therefore considered
school-aged minors (UNHCR, June 2020).
The Venezuelan crisis shows just how quickly TESOL educators may receive an influx of migrant
learners to their classrooms, such as the case with Colombia which saw an 850% increase in Venezuelan
school children in less than 2 years and by the height of the pandemic in April 2020 (ECW, n.d.). Due to
the COVID-19 pandemic, traditional in-person educational support options, such as temporary learning
centers, normally provided through agencies like UNICEF and the UNHCR are not available. The aid
agencies urgently seek innovative ways to continue their support (e.g., through Education Cannot Wait)
remotely and often in partnership with local Ministries of Education and educators, including teachers
of English (ECW, n.d.). Therefore, the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic also provided a timely op-
portunity to implement a text-message learning solution appropriate for this population that might not
have otherwise been considered.
Accessing online learning may not be possible for migrants/refugees and leads to an increased risk
of falling behind (ECW, n.d.). In Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru school closures delay learning
especially for migrants/refugees without access to distance education, meaning they lack Internet, de-
vices, and how-to information, so “it is important to explore alternative education pathways that could be
implemented to help accelerate learning for children to catch up and better integrate into the education
system” (ECW, 2020). In this context, it is essential and increasingly urgent to be able to provide a way
for learning to reach migrants/refugees that does not rely on access to Internet, the provision of devices
and training on how to use them, or complicated program enrollment. In finding a more equitable way
to reach these learners wherever they go via text message, it is hoped that the possible negative impacts
of their educational disruptions are minimized.
UNICEF lists the following as the main educational challenges in the Latin America and Caribbean
region during the COVID-19 crisis (UNICEF, n.d.) which the author’s data collection for UNICEF
confirmed (Guevara, 2020).
• Limited access of most vulnerable children to online learning platforms.

• Some countries do not have an online national curriculum, nor content adapted to children and
adolescents with disabilities, indigenous children, migrants, and refugees.
• Limited knowledge and capacity of teachers to use online platforms and distance learning
resources.
• Limited offline initiatives to respond to educational needs of most vulnerable children without
internet access.
• Lack of educational materials culturally sensitive and adapted to all languages spoken in the
region.
• Lack of tools to monitor and evaluate progress of learning outcomes.
Migrant/refugees’ limited access to technology (especially during the pandemic) since existing
in-person support has moved online, and the need to prioritize work over school present barriers to
learning. While emergency education during the pandemic has creatively continued for many learners
329

in the region via television, radio, printed materials, Internet, and even loudspeaker, such technologies
tend to be unavailable for migrant and refugee families. Most migrant/refugee learners are not attending
virtual classes and only receive one-on-one tutorials from teachers who telephone students directly on
their mobile phones or contact them via WhatsApp (UNHCR, April 2020). Even though schools were
not fully accessed by nor entirely safe environments for migrants/refugees before the pandemic, their
closure leaves this population with a lack of protection that results in the need “to rethink the education
system and its role in providing protection for vulnerable groups” (ECW, 2020).
Venezuelan migrants/refugee learners can access educational content (e.g., lessons) via a family mem-
ber’s mobile phone so long as the content is available offline/without Internet. Agencies like UNICEF
and UNHCR employ basic text messaging or SMS (see Key Terms and Definitions) as one of the many
creative solutions devised to deliver educational content offline that reaches these youth and allows them
to continue their education while waiting to officially resettle and register into a local school system
once schools reopen. Examples like Kenya’s Eneza Education (see Portrait of Practice) show that such
SMS learning is not only possible but also effective (Eneza Education, n.d.).
Mobile phones are ubiquitous in the developing world though the majority of users do not have Internet.
This solution requires neither the provision of phones nor the building of Internet infrastructure—thus
a minimal ask in terms of capital; this makes for an affordable project once an expert educator has been
paid to develop the curriculum into text messages and a provider has been paid or acquired to deliver
them. UNICEF, UNHCR and others like them have a responsibility to fulfill their mission/goals/targets
and must (re)allocate resources to supporting the continuance of education for migrants/refugees in the
region. They must substitute any in-person support they were providing. It makes sense for them to use
capital/funding on an SMS text message-based learning campaign to reach this target population. It
makes even more sense to implement this as an appropriate response during the COVID-19 pandemic
because migrants/refugees who might have been able to mainstream into a new country’s school system
cannot do so because schools are closed, and even if they were to mainstream into a closed school system
offering online learning, could not access that online learning. Additionally, during the pandemic, in-
person support regularly provided from aid agencies was also suspended such as the typical provision
of temporary physical learning spaces run by these agencies.
EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE(S)
The author’s UNICEF text-message learning campaign for Venezuelan migrant/refugee learners was
developed in response to the recommendations provided by the Consultancy to Provide Recommendations
of the Education in Emergencies (EiE) Interventions to Support the Most Vulnerable Communities for
Continuous Learning in Latin America and the Caribbean (Guevara, 2020; UNICEF LACRO, n.d.). The
target learners for the text-message learning campaign are Venezuelan migrants/refugee youth in Brazil,
Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru studying math and reading at an intermediate level. The target audiences
for executing the delivery of and training on the learning campaign are UNICEF education experts in
Latin America and Caribbean country and regional offices who will work with local telecom partners
to disseminate the learning campaign to participants’ phones, train parents/families how to sign up and
support their children’s use of the text-message learning material, and provide optional interaction/
support such as a local teacher who could answer student questions about the content by text message.
330

Principle 3: Design High-Quality Language Lessons
Based on this experience, the author provides a stepwise how-to for redesigning existing curriculum into
micro-learning appropriate for text-message delivery. After reviewing this section, TESOL educators
may be ready to select an existing content and begin mapping out and chunking up their own curriculum
readying it for SMS delivery. The author starts with a learning activity in the form of a list of consider-
ations to keep in mind when planning for the dissemination of SMS lessons (see Table 1). Guidance for
designing the learning campaign itself comes as a portrait of practice and includes the recommended
length of each message, the number of messages comprising a lesson, interpreting the content through
the lenses of context, access, and trauma-informed teaching (see Table 2), and the assessment strategy
via text questions. Further recommendations are provided for evaluating effectiveness to determine
whether learning has occurred, and potential application of text-message learning to many other relevant
contexts and learner populations at scale.
To provide the above, the author used her own work as a consultant for UNICEF on education in
emergencies for the most vulnerable learners in Latin America and the Caribbean which included re-
search and development of a 100-message, two-subject, one-way, text-message learning campaign for
Venezuelan migrants/refugees in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. This required a detailed review
of the provided and previously approved localized curriculum, the analysis of the curriculum content for
appropriateness, the prioritization of the content per set number of total messages, the re-design of the
content into micro-learning appropriate for scheduled text-message delivery, and recommendations for
country offices on dissemination and assessment. The main deliverable was an Excel table that serves
as a schedule showing each text message for both subjects that will be sent out and in what order. At the
time of press, UNICEF country offices were in collaboration with local telecoms or international text
message providers to finalize dissemination.
Learning Activity
In order to apply insights gained by the author through her work with UNICEF to the TESOL educator’s
own preparation of a text-message learning campaign, the following learning activity is designed to en-
gage readers in using the specific concepts and practices from this chapter. Table 1 presents this learning
activity in the form of non-exhaustive reflection questions that any practitioner interested in designing
a text-message learning campaign will need to address before getting started. Questions are organized
by thematic considerations covering the target learner population, technology access, curriculum, and
dissemination. An invitation for the reader to provide additional questions for each consideration that
are appropriate to their own context is provided under Other.
Portrait of Practice
The author presents a detailed account of how a strategy was used to develop a UNICEF text-message
learning campaign for Venezuelan migrants/refugees, and how teachers across several TESOL contexts
could use it for their own learners and purposes. What follows is a stepwise how-to workflow a TESOL
educator can use for repurposing existing curriculum into a series of text-messages to be delivered as
one-way micro-learning to mobile phones that do not require Internet. While it may be possible to hire
a company or assistants to help with the repurposing of existing curriculum, there is no substitute for a
331

Table 1. Considerations before implementing a text-message learning campaign
Consideration Questions to Address
● Is there both a need and desire from the target learners themselves for a.) a learning campaign b.) on the
proposed topic c.) delivered via text message?
● How will the target learners and their community be involved in the creation of the text-message learning
campaign at every stage?
● Is the target population of learners literate in the language and language level to be used in the text messages?
Population ● Are adults controlling access to use of a mobile phone to allow the learner to use it for this purpose literate
in the language and language level to be used in the instructions provided for setup/enrollment in the learning
campaign (they typically help the learner signup)?
● What accommodations will be provided to learners who are unable to use a text-message system (e.g., can a
screen reader read the text messages aloud)?
● Other:
● Do the target learners have consistent access to mobile phones capable of receiving text messages?
● Will learners be sharing the same mobile phone with other learners in order to participate?
● Do unaccompanied minors have the same access to mobile phones as accompanied ones?
● Do adults controlling access to use of a mobile phone allow their learner(s) to use it consistently for this
Technology Access purpose?
● Are the target learners located in camps or settlements that provide more frequent and/or stable Internet
access? If so, consider expanding possibilities beyond basic text messages to WhatsApp groups and other
Internet-connected learning opportunities if appropriate for, needed, and wanted by the learners.
● Other:
● Is any existing curriculum available and appropriate to redesign into a text-message learning campaign? If not,
is it feasible and desired to create a brand-new curriculum for this purpose?
● Is the existing curriculum to be repurposed equivalent to (or can be made equivalent to) academic standards
set by the home country of the learners to keep them “on track” as best as possible? -or- Is the existing
curriculum to be repurposed equivalent to (or can be made equivalent to) the academic standards set by the
destination country of the learners to ensure they can “mainstream” into the official school system as best
possible?
● Have the learners been asked if they need and want the curriculum being proposed?
Curriculum ● Does the curriculum reflect the local context of the learners including their cultural and linguistic heritage and
experiences, particularly in the examples used (e.g., character names and their activities)?
● Has the curriculum been revised through the lens of trauma-informed teaching and learning to identify
and remedy content that could emotionally trigger the learners (e.g., the mention of a family, home, food, or
possessions in the exercises)?
● Has the curriculum been revised through the lens of access to identify and remedy requirements that learners
might not be able to meet (e.g., the need to use a pencil or dictionary to answer questions posed)?
● Can the learner “pick up” the curriculum from any point and continue if a sequence of learning is interrupted?
● Other:
● Why is dissemination via text message better in this case than other non-Internet means such as via radio,
television, videos, printed materials, in-person instruction, etc.?
● Will text messages be one-way or two-way (interactive)? If interactive, who will be responsible for responding
to learners’ texts (e.g., questions and answers) and on what schedule? How does this affect the curriculum
design?
● Is a text message maximum length the standard 160 characters or 80 words?
● Who controls the mobile phone ecosystem where learners are located? Are local telecoms private,
nationalized/government, or hybrid?
● Will it be necessary to work with more than one telecom if learners are located in multiple regions or
countries, or can text messages be sent and received internationally across borders?
● How can text messages be delivered so they are free for recipients/learners?
Dissemination
● Can text messages be sent free, perhaps sponsored by or in partnership with local telecom providers, the
government, or other agencies?
● If messages are sponsored to be free, how many messages are permitted and over what time period (e.g., the
local telecom agrees to make 100 messages free to send and receive over 3 months)?
● If messages can’t be free, what will learners be charged and how will they pay?
● How does the available number of messages over a certain time period affect the frequency of when they can
go out and the curriculum design?
● Do learners agree to receive this number of messages at the given frequency (e.g., once a day) over that certain
time period?
● Do learners or those responsible for them agree to the cost, if any, and the payment method?
● Other:
trained TESOL professional required to at least review if not create the learning content. The 10 steps begin
after the teacher/designer has gone through the learning activity of considerations before implementing
332

a text-message learning campaign (see Table 1) and has acquired the existing curriculum. Note that the
steps culminate with the lessons ready for dissemination but it will be up to the teacher/designer to ar-
range dissemination (see Table 1 for considerations). Any marketing or training that may be required for
uptake, as well as the assessment of learning itself and the assessment of the creation and dissemination
process are not covered, yet suggestions are made for this in the Discussion section. Through personal
communication with the author, Wambura Kimunyu, CEO of Kenya’s Eneza Education which is listed
by UNESCO as a digital learning solution, and has successfully provided SMS government-aligned
curriculum and text-message tutoring to more than 10 million learners who show a 23% improvement
in academic performance after 9 months, advised on the decision of how many text messages should
comprise a lesson and their most appropriate sequence (Eneza Education, n.d.; UNESCO, 2020).
Step 1: Analyze the existing curriculum flagging content areas that a.) do not reflect the local context
of the learners including their cultural and linguistic heritage and experiences, particularly in the
examples used (e.g., character names and their activities); b.) could emotionally trigger the learn-
ers according to the lens of trauma-informed teaching and learning (e.g., the mention of a family,
home, food, or possessions in the exercises), and c.) ask for requirements the learners might not be
able to meet according to the lens of access (e.g., the need to use a pencil or dictionary to answer
questions posed). If unsure, consult both local partners representing the learners and their com-
munity as well as other subject experts or specialists. (See Table 2)
Step 2: Decide if the flagged content is possible to revise or should be excluded altogether. If unsure,
consult both local partners representing the learners and their community as well as other subject
experts or specialists.
Step 3: Revise the usable yet still inappropriate content until it reflects the local context of the learners,
will likely not emotionally trigger the learners, and will not ask learners to complete requirements
they are unable to complete due to access. If unsure how to revise, consult both local partners
representing the learners and their community as well as other subject experts or specialists. (See
Table 2)
Step 4: Begin parsing up the existing, available, revised content into themes or topics. If already thematic
or topic-based, adjust where needed.
Step 5: Prioritize lesson themes or topics. Base this prioritization on a balance of learner needs (e.g.,
learners who desire job skills for the informal economy) and the subject matter expertise of the
designer (e.g., learners typically struggle with the irregular past tense). If the availability to cre-
ate and send more text messages opens up later, lower priority themes or topics could always be
added to the essentials.
Step 6: Plan for 5 messages delivered in a sequence to comprise one theme or topic that will become
a lesson. Knowing this, decide how many of the prioritized themes or topics from Step 5 can be
included according to the total available number of text messages to be sent (e.g., 100 total messages
would yield 20 topics each comprised of 5 text messages). Don’t forget the count needs to accom-
modate how many messages will be needed for the introductory and concluding texts required for
welcoming and setting up learners (and the adults providing their phones) to the learning campaign
and covering next steps once it ends. The introductory messages should provide an overview and
sign-up instructions for adults who will help the learners use a phone to complete the program,
and a conclusion should provide a summary or review of all lessons. The introductory messages
are the only ones directed to adults; all other text messages are for learners.
333

Step 7: Set up an Excel or Google Sheet or other matrix-like table to organize and store the content by
lessons; think of this as the scheduled order in which texts will be sent. Label the columns (Lesson
1, Lesson 2, …) and label the rows (Message 1, Message 2, Message 3, Message 4, Message 5).
State the learning objective under each lesson; remember the lesson objective will be limited to a
skill accomplishable after only 5 text messages, each one shorter than 160 characters or 80 words.
This objective indicates the skill focus of the lesson made up of 5 text messages, in other words,
what learners will be able to do by the end of the lesson. This information is intended for those in
charge of the program and is not typically sent to participants. Additional rows only intended for
those in charge of the program and that may prove helpful are Curriculum Correspondence indi-
cating how/where the text message lesson aligns with the existing source curriculum or not, and
Didactic Notes describing educational observations about the original content and any important
changes that were made to it during the process of adapting it to text-message format (see Table 2).
Step 8: Begin with Lesson 1 Message 1 as a welcoming introduction to the topic. Provide content in
Message 2 and 3, either continuing from 2 to 3, or increasing in difficulty from 2 to 3.
Principle 5: Monitor and Assess Language Development
Create a related assessment or assignment in Message 4 (e.g., 1-3 questions to answer) aligned to the
lesson objective and based on the content from Messages 2 and 3. Provide answers, explanations, and
positive feedback in Message 5. Repeat for each 5-message theme or topic until all have been sequenced.
Step 9: Repeat steps 1-3 via both internal and external review where the external review also includes
user testing.
Step 10: Incorporate revisions and feedback from Step 9 until the learning campaign reaches the final
draft stage and is ready for dissemination.
Principle 4: Adapt Delivery as Needed
As Steps 1-3 of the process of redesigning curriculum into text-message learning rightly prove to be the
most time and thought-intensive, concrete examples of how the author utilized the lenses of context,
access, and trauma-informed teaching to analyze and update the existing curriculum are provided in
Table 2. In addition to analyzing the content of the existing curriculum, it may also be necessary to ques-
tion the skills or learning objectives being taught for their relevance for the target learners due to their
situation and to prioritize the teaching of skills most requested or relevant (see the Discussion section).
DISCUSSION
Despite the following enumerated challenges, the potential relevance and sustainability of using text-
message learning to more equitably reach learners, especially those without Internet, wherever they go
overwhelms most constraints. Concerns and limitations include the fact that aid agencies, teachers, and
other partners may not do a good job marketing/training adults on what the text-message learning cam-
paign is and/or how to sign up by texting a short code to enroll youth in the program. Adults may not
be able to, or want, youth to use their phones. Each ministry of education may insist their own national
334

Table 2. Example of existing and revised content for a UNICEF one-way text-message micro-learning
campaign for Venezuelan migrants/refugees in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru
Existing Content Issue Notes Revised Content

Context issue: learners are not currently
in school due to the double crisis of the
Practices writing a letter to a teacher about Email to a teacher references not being able
pandemic and their migrant/refugee status
being absent from school to complete homework
as they have not yet settled or been placed
into a local school system
Context issue: while the story does Shortened version of the story while
Uses a story common to learners’ shared
represent learners’ culture, it is too long to retaining its most significant cultural
cultural mythology
recount via text message symbolism
Gives learners a choice to use items from
Access issue: learners likely do not have
Asks learners to use scissors, ruler, and their surroundings or imagine a bird flying
these items and cannot acquire them in
other items to make measurements with a small suitcase that has certain
order to fulfill the assignment
measurements and weight
Trauma-informed issue: the learners are not
able to celebrate with friends nor do they
Discusses a party with friends and an Example of a magician who can make
have an abundance of food or possessions/
abundance of food and gifts things like flowers appear and disappear
gifts; they may have had these things in
the past
Context/Trauma-informed issue: learners
are migrants/refugees who had to leave
Examples reference internal body parts
their homes and most belongings behind,
References furnishings of a family home such as lungs and the environment such as
and in some cases, leave family members
trees and cars
as well; they do not currently live in their
family home and may not have furnishings
Context/Access/Trauma-informed issue:
learners have left their home country due
Counting coins (without mentioning the
Tells the story of two siblings with the goal to extreme financial hardship and resulting
currency because it may be different as
of saving their money to buy candy at the hunger; store shelves were bare and any
they migrant through countries) to buy
store money saved needed and still needs to go to
necessities
purchasing subsistence necessities; siblings
may have been separated
curriculum be used rather than adopting international curriculum such as from an aid agency. Those in
charge of (re)designing curriculum may lack training in how to create SMS-sized lessons. The content
may not be consistent with what they were learning in their home country. Local telecoms may refuse
to partner to make the text messages free to users for reasons including xenophobia. All of the above
may work perfectly only to assess that no learning has occurred, or there is no follow-up assessment to
determine whether learning has occurred.
However, all countries and aid agencies in UNICEF’s Latin America and Caribbean region have real-
ized the majority of their 165 million students out of school due to COVID-19 cannot “just go online” to
continue learning. For other populations of their most vulnerable learners (rural/remote, without Internet,
indigenous, girls, and those with special needs), they have already employed creative ways to continue
learning during COVID-19 via television, radio, WhatsApp, newspaper, delivery of printed resources,
phone hotlines and trees, loudspeaker, and community effort (Gallano, 2020; Guevara, 2020). Using basic
SMS text messages to continue learning would appeal to existing sensibilities and personal habits in the
region, are affordable, relatively quick to produce, scalable and could be used for other vulnerable popula-
tions, for everyone, with or without a pandemic. This experience not only shows text-message learning
335

provides a benefit to help students recover from missed opportunities for educational continuity caused
by temporary migration status, but also that a global emergency like a pandemic can provide opportune
timing to implement text-message and other innovative learning approaches that may otherwise have
not been considered. Additionally, the experience highlights how text-message learning could continue
in use post-pandemic to bridge opportunity gaps following the re-opening of schools such as using it
in conjunction with other hybrid in-person/at-home options that may result in the transition period to
full in-person return as well as for supplemental instruction upon a full return, or even to disseminate
information for families about how to register in the school system once reopened.
To accomplish a text-message learning campaign of any kind, for any subject, in any language, at any
level in practice requires some, though surprisingly not very much, capital investment which is needed
for two main elements of the solution—paying an expert(s) educator to create the message content/les-
sons and paying for the messages to get to the learners so it remains free for them to participate in the
program. The source of capital depends on whether or not local telecoms are used for message delivery.
If local telecoms are used, capital could come from major partnering aid agencies such as UNICEF or
UNHCR. Otherwise, capital could come from national governments who often have these telecoms un-
der a degree of their control anyway. If local telecoms are not used, other sources of capital could come
from aid agencies or governments paying foreign companies (e.g., outside of Latin America) with the
technology, engineers, and experience to make international text messages work (this is not particularly
easy) unless they offer it pro bono. Ultimately, at the time of press, UNICEF decided to take the author’s
micro-lessons created for text-message delivery and let each regional country office leverage existing
partnerships with local telecoms to manage the free delivery of the SMS lessons to learners.
Principle 6: Engage and Collaborate within a Community of Practice
Unfortunately, it has taken a pandemic to spotlight the existing inequities in access to and quality of
learning opportunities for historically marginalized populations of learners, including English language
learners (ELLs) who are classified as migrants and/or refugees. Fortunately, many of the creative attempts
to provide access to quality education for these populations developed in response to the COVID-19 pan-
demic can, should, and hopefully will continue to be used after it. Some of these solutions were nothing
new in Latin America and Caribbean that had used them for decades yet appeared completely innovative
and novel to many outside it. No matter what, the intensity of global challenges facing TESOL advocates
engaged in action as they strive to more equitably reach learners classified as vulnerable will require
nothing short of their global collaboration through the TESOL Advocacy Action Center (TESOL, n.d.b)
and in community, as well as the opening of that community to non-TESOL partners working in human
rights and development. What follows are five implications for TESOL praxis of striving together to
more equitably reach learners, particularly migrant/refugee learners, wherever they go. There is plenty
to do and a place for all kinds of interested TESOL advocates and the different skill sets they bring.
Implication 1: Towards More User-Centered and Inclusive Research and Design
The TESOL research community can approach research about and support for vulnerable learners from
an abundance mindset to look for opportunities in a population rather than negativity and deficiencies;
for example, a rural migrant/refugee learner may have an abundance of traditional social networks that
can be utilized to disseminate information and a girl migrant/refugee may have an abundance of influ-
336

ence on younger siblings in her care that can be used to shape their perceptions of gender roles. Might
learners be re-categorized positively as “most resilient” rather than “most vulnerable”?
The TESOL research community must expand the definition of what constitutes a “vulnerable learner”
to include those of African descent/the African diaspora and those of mixed races in the Latin America
and Caribbean region who traditionally face higher levels of poverty due to a history of systematic rac-
ism and discrimination. CEPAL (2020) highlights this regional fact: “...gaps by ethnic and racial status
in access and educational achievement...are associated with historical and structural exclusion and dis-
crimination towards the Afro-descendant and indigenous population…[and] the combination of these
axes of social inequality reinforces the circles of exclusion and vulnerability”. Analysis of inequality
and skin tone across the Americas found clear evidence of social inequality and discrimination on the
basis of skin tone (Sanchez et al., 2020; Zizumbo-Colunga & Flores Martínez, 2017). Brazil, Mexico,
and Peru all found persistent inequality by skin color (UNESCO, 2020). Those of African descent are
specifically mentioned, among others, in the Guide to Inclusive Responses in the Americas with a Focus
on Rights During COVID-19 in the Americas (INEE, 2010).
TESOL researchers must also consider the intersectionality (see Key Terms and Definitions) of mem-
bers of vulnerable populations when they belong to more than one vulnerable population. For example,
analyze which risk factors and types of support affect a learner who is not only a migrant/refugee but
also a girl with special needs. Researchers must also consider potential differences and/or intersectional-
ity among the ages and life stages of children and youth, including their characteristics and rights, for
example children 0-6, primary level 6–12 and adolescents 12-18 who each require specific recommenda-
tions tailored to them (ECW, 2020). Researchers should continue to consult UNICEF experts and their
networks, as well as migrant/refugee students themselves, to provide additional information on which to
base further recommendations including intersectional data and data on internal migrants/refugees (within
the same country). CEPAL (2020) underscores TESOL Principle 6 for Exemplary Teaching of English
Learners by recommending the collaborative exchange of information: “it should be remembered that
there is no one-time recipe for all countries. To this end, it is essential to have experiences from other
countries and to consult teaching staff and experts from academia and other sectors.”
TESOL researchers must adhere to new data collection methods recommended by the JIPS (2020)
reference guide for choosing and planning a sampling approach for research with displaced populations;
data collection is being redefined to help ensure collection methods reach vulnerable populations. For
example, might a survey be sent by text message, might paper copies of a survey be dropped and col-
lected by drone? The categories used to label “vulnerable learners” during data collection should be
defined at the start and based on labels used by the learners themselves.
TESOL educator-designers must utilize human-centered design (IDEO, n.d.) to plan interventions
that involve representatives of the vulnerable learners themselves; only when learners themselves are
involved in decision making will educational solutions be most effective. Otherwise, assumptions made
about what learners need without actually asking them--the type of education and type of dissemination
of it--will be incorrect and ineffective, if not damaging; this echoes INEE’s Handbook on Minimum
Standards for Education in an Emergency (2020). All educational recommendations should be aligned
to the norms, international, and inter-American standards on the human rights of migrants/refugees and
displaced persons (Almagro et al., 2020).
337

Implication 2: Providing a More Responsive Curriculum for Learners
The focus on education in emergencies for migrants/refugees appears to prioritize health and safety first
with educational materials also provided in person such as at temporary learning spaces, via radio, and
online with equipment/access provided (Guevara, 2020). It is surprising that educational support for
migrants/refugees focuses on these traditional subjects given that youth and adults depend on informal
employment, and child labor remains common amongst out-of-school migrants/refugees (Almagro et
al., 2020).
The call to TESOL educators would be to provide education to both students and parents/families
focused on practical skills--immigration paperwork, job skills, information about the host country school
system and anti-human trafficking. They will likely need to enter the informal economy as “necessity
entrepreneurs” and require related skills (UNESCO, n.d.a). Additionally, CEPAL (2020) suggests the
following topics be prioritized in learning objectives and content: “aspects related to care and health,
critical and thoughtful thinking around information and news, understanding of social and economic
dynamics, and strengthening behaviors of empathy, tolerance and non-discrimination.” Do this by
engaging migrant/refugee communities through text-message approaches and via WhatsApp Trees as
recommended by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR, April 2020).
Trauma-informed teaching and learning (NCTSN, 2020) as well as Universal Design for Learning
(CAST, 2018) are two fundamental teacher training topics for all educators including TESOL educators.
Save the Children (2020) and Gallano (2020) agree that wellbeing and psycho-emotional support are
integral and educators need training in how to foster this in students, as well as support for their own
psycho-emotional wellbeing. To accomplish this, teachers require what CEPAL (2020) calls “priority
support” in technical training aligned to the UNESCO (n.d.b) ICT Teacher Competence Framework,
methodological training, socio-emotional support for themselves and training in how to provide it for
students and families, protected working conditions, and local teacher support networks. American Fed-
eration of Teachers (2016) offers an example with their TESOL-recommended Immigrant and Refugee
Children: A Guide for Educators and School Support Staff. As suggested by CEPAL (2020), “prioritize
the skills and values that have been revealed as priorities at the current juncture: solidarity, self-learning,
self-care and others, socio-emotional competences, health and resilience, among others.”
Implication 3: Delivering Learning via Familiar and Low-Tech Dissemination
Many countries where TESOL educators work lack the infrastructure to even be able to focus on the
challenges of online teaching and learning; online learning is simply not an option. The majority of the
time, a learner’s existing and lower-tech resources are preferred ways of dissemination and receiving
information over imposed, gifted, donated, new, higher-tech devices (Guevara, 2015). Finding ways to
utilize existing resources already part of the lives of vulnerable populations (such as their own mobile
phones) means they already have them, probably know how to use them, and feel more comfortable
with them. Often, imposed devices require users to be trained not only on how to use the device but also
on how to repair or manage it, such as with charging or updates. Many times imposed devices aren’t
accepted for use at all.
When a TESOL educator opts for the familiar and low-tech it usually also proves to be more cost-
effective than providing higher tech solutions, and cost-effectiveness will become even more important
given predicted education budget cuts. As CEPAL (2020) notes: “...were it not for the pandemic, educa-
338

tional expenditure would have increased by 3.6% from 2019 to 2020 (from $514 billion to $532 billion).
However, given the projected contraction in GDP in the region, the amount of resources available for
education could decrease by more than 9% by 2020 alone.” Finally, training on how to use a resource,
especially if the resource requires or is technology, is essential for all parties; parents and families as
well as teachers often need just as much educational support and training about their roles in providing
education to the most vulnerable as the most vulnerable do themselves.
Implication 4: Preparing Recipient School Systems
As mentioned, in the Colombian school system, enrollment of Venezuelan students has soared “from
34,000 in 2018 to over 334,000 (50.1% female and 49.9% male) in April 2020 [during COVID-19], an
increase of over 850% in less than two years.” (ECW, 2020) Despite increased enrollment of migrants and
refugees in Ecuador, about 34,000 Venezuelan learners remain outside the education system not attending
school (ECW, 2020). To prepare, schools receiving migrant/refugee students resettling to new countries
will need to update school system databases to be able to receive immigrant student documents or the
undocumented to enroll in school and be eligible for emergency education resources provided by their
governments and offer training on how to enroll. For example, in Colombia, an assessment found only
half of caregivers reported receiving information on how to enroll a learner in school, and 22% reported
both a lack of knowledge and lack of necessary documentation. Others do not enroll their children out
of fear of being asked about their immigration status (ECW, 2020).
Simultaneously, for students and teachers who are not migrants/refugees, including many TESOL
educators, training, and education against xenophobia, particularly any associations between COVID-19
and migrants/refugees, are needed in hopes to reduce discrimination and violence towards this population
(Almagro et al., 2020). UNHCR’s partner in Colombia has begun such bias recognition and reduction
training via a virtual platform to equip approximately 100 teachers in Cartagena with tools and strate-
gies to foster social inclusion and prevent xenophobia. Gender-based violence (GBV) caused in part by
xenophobia is another threat to girls’ access to education and well-being; female Venezuelan migrants/
refugees have experienced harassment by teachers and peers which correlates to rising absenteeism (ECW,
2020) In Peru, Venezuelan migrant/refugee students have a 20% dropout rate, significantly higher than
the 2-3% average (ECW, 2020). TESOL advocates who can help get hate out of schools can also help
keep migrants/refugees in school.
For those who achieve school enrollment and persist, problems occur with schooling itself due in
part to an absence of government or pedagogical guidelines for how to best integrate these learners and
provide quality learning. An alarming 90% of Venezuelan migrant/refugee girls and 88% of boys report
the Colombian curriculum to be very different from what they were learning in their home country and
therefore a significant limitation to their learning (ECW, 2020). Clearly, TESOL advocates could help
put plans in place for how to assess these learners. CEPAL (2020) warns that the responsibility of evalu-
ation is a major and concerning issue that must be fair, especially since crises affect “various aspects of
students’ readiness for...exams, including progress in learning, infrastructure availability and even the
state and development of socio-emotional skills.”
339

Implication 5: Bracing for Widespread Hunger Prioritized Over Education
Perhaps some of the most challenging work ahead for TESOL advocates may have nothing to do with
teaching and learning at all as they shift focus to food acquisition and distribution. A shocking 94.3% of
Venezuelan families living in Ecuador say access to food is their single most urgent concern (ECW, 2020).
For Venezuelan migrants/refugees in Peru, the International office of Migration (IOM) and UNICEF
report 68% demand food, followed by transportation (40%), security (30%) and legal assistance (29%)
with education listed as the absolute last priority (ECW, 2020). As a majority of migrants/refugees report
their priority concern is food not education, schools may need to implement or maintain open school
and other food programs. CEPAL (2020) notes that “In addition to disrupting educational trajectories,
the closure of schools affects the food and nutrition of the student population, especially in the most
vulnerable sectors” and has led to the majority of countries in the region maintaining a school feeding
program; schools were kept open just so teacher and parent committees could keep providing food.
The World Food Programme (WFP) has issued an urgent call for food assistance funding citing the
number of acutely hungry people has increased 82% since pre-pandemic levels and warning the big-
gest increase has been seen in Latin America due to the additional factors of climate shock, economic
pressures, conflict, and migration, leading to multiple response efforts in the region (WFP, 2020a). UN
agencies predict the global economic downturn resulting from COVID-19 will spark massive malnutrition
and migration (Von Braun, 2020;WFP, 2020b); the contraction of the regional economy will hit hardest
those who rely on the informal sector for jobs, with women and migrants/refugees particularly affected.
Emergency efforts TESOL advocates will take to help the most vulnerable learners and their families
stay alive may very well overtake any need to keep them learning. This crisis brings new meaning to
the refrain that students need to Maslow before they can Bloom.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was in part supported by UNICEF Latin America and Caribbean Office (LACRO) whose
programming attempts to reach 193 million children and youth in 36 countries and territories.
REFERENCES
Almagro, L., Méndez, N., de Toledo, G. A., & Muñoz-Pogossian, B. (2020, April 7). Guía Práctica de
Respuestas Inclusivas y con Enfoque de Derechos ante el COVID-19 en las Américas - World. ReliefWeb.
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/gu-pr-ctica-de-respuestas-inclusivas-y-con-enfoque-de-derechos-ante-
el-covid-19-en-las
American Federation of Teachers. (2016). Immigrant and Refugee Children: A Guide for Educators and
School Support Staff. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/im_uac-educators-guide_2016.pdf
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. UDL. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
340

CEPAL. (2020, August). La educación en tiempos de la pandemia de COVID-19. Comisión Económica

para América Latina y el Caribe. https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/45904-la-educacion-tiempos-
la-pandemia-covid-19
ECW. (2020). Multi-Year-Resilience Programme (MYRP) Country Office (CO) Needs Analysis. UNI-
CEF (Internal document).
ECW. (n.d.). Education Cannot Wait. https://www.educationcannotwait.org/
Eneza Education. (n.d.). Eneza Education. https://enezaeducation.com/
Gallano, H. R. (2020, June 17). El derecho a la educación en tiempos de crisis: Alternativas para la
continuidad educativa - Sistematización de estrategias y respuestas públicas en América Latina y el
Caribe ante el cierre de escuelas por la pandemia del covid-19. https://reliefweb.int/report/venezuela-
bolivarian-republic/el-derecho-la-educaci-n-en-tiempos-de-crisis-alternativas-para
Guevara, K. (2020). Consultancy to Provide Recommendations of the Education in Emergencies (EiE)
Interventions to Support the Most Vulnerable Communities for Continuous Learning in Latin America
and the Caribbean. UNICEF LACRO (internal report).
Guevara, K. C. (2015). Emerging best practices for using offline mobile phones to train English teachers
in developing countries (Dissertation).
Hellman, A., Harris, K., & Wilbur, A. (2019). The 6 principles for exemplary teaching of English learn-
ers: Adult education and workforce development. IDEO. https://www.ideo.com/post/design-kit
INEE. (2010, December 3). INEE Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery.
https://inee.org/resources/inee-minimum-standards
JIPS. (2020, May). Joint IDP Profiling Service-The New Normal: Collecting Data Amidst a Global
Pandemic. https://www.jips.org/jips-publication/the-new-normal-collecting-data-amidst-a-global-
pandemic-may-2020/
NCTSN. (2020, December 15). Child Trauma Toolkit for Educators. The National Child Traumatic Stress
Network. https://www.nctsn.org/resources/child-trauma-toolkit-educators
Sanchez, P. M., Doherty, D., & Dobbs, K. L. (2020). Skin Color and System Support in Latin America.
Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 1–21. doi:10.1017/rep.2020.13
Save The Children. (2020, April 14). Learning must go on: Recommendations for keeping children
safe and learning, during and after the COVID-19 crisis. Resource Centre. https://resourcecentre.
savethechildren.net/library/learning-must-go-recommendations-keeping-children-safe-and-learning-
during-and-after-covid
Short, D., Cloud, N., Hellman, A., Becker, H., & Levine, L. (2018). The 6 principles for exemplary
teaching of English learners: K-12. TESOL International Association. https://www.tesol.org/the-6-
principles/the-6-principles
TESOL. (n.d.). TESOL Advocacy Action Center. TESOL International Association. https://www.tesol.
org/advance-the-field/tesol-advocacy-action-center
341

UN. (n.d.). Goal 4 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/
goals/goal4
UNESCO. (2020, July 7). Distance learning solutions. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/edu-
cationresponse/solutions
UNESCO. (n.d.). Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all.
UNESCO. unesdoc.unesco.org. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718/PDF/373718eng.
pdf.multi.page=23
UNESCO. (n.d.). ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/themes/
ict-education/competency-framework-teachers
UNHCR. (2020, June). Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2019. United Nations High Commis-
sioner for Refugees. https://www.unhcr.org/5ee200e37.pdf
UNHCR. (2020, April). UNHCR Engaging with Communities via “WhatsApp Trees”. UNHCR Opera-
tional Data Portal (ODP). https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/77836
UNICEF. (n.d.). COVID-19: Education preparedness and response. UNICEF Latin America and Carib-
bean. https://www.unicef.org/lac/en/covid-19-education-preparedness-and-response
UNICEF LACRO. (n.d.). Children in Latin America and the Caribbean. UNICEF Latin America and
Caribbean. https://www.unicef.org/lac/en/children-latin-america-and-caribbean
Von Braun, J. (n.d.). Forecast 2020: Financial Meltdown and Malnutrition. United Nations. https://www.
un.org/en/chronicle/article/forecast-2020-financial-meltdown-and-malnutrition
WFP. (2020, July 2). Coronavirus and hunger: WFP ready to assist largest number of people ever: World
Food Programme. UN World Food Programme. https://www.wfp.org/stories/coronavirus-and-hunger-
wfp-ready-assist-largest-number-people-ever
WFP. (2020, May 27). Coronavirus puts 14 million people at risk of missing meals in Latin America
and the Caribbean. World Food Programme. https://insight.wfp.org/covid-19-puts-14-million-people-
at-risk-of-missing-meals-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean-a54e42789153
Zizumbo-Colunga, D., & Flores Martínez, I. (2017, November 7). Is Mexico a Post-Racial Country?
Inequality and Skin Tone across the Americas. Center for Research and Teaching in Economics. Center
for Research and Teaching in Economics, CIDE. https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/ITB031en.pdf
Intersectionality: Term used to describe how a learner could fit into more than one of UNICEF
LACRO’s definitions of a most vulnerable learner (see entry below), such as a learner who is both a girl
and a migrant/refugee or an indigenous learner with special needs living in a rural area without internet.
342

Learning Campaign: The duration of planned learning taking place through text-message micro-
learning (see entry below) including the time span/commitment and number of messages; typically,
learning campaigns represent a single topic or theme at a single level of study.
Micro-Learning: Learning from short modules or lessons both in terms of their length and the time
needed for completion; the chunking up of curriculum into bite-size units appropriate for text-message
delivery.
Migrant/Refugee: Terms used to describe people who are forced, or feel an urgency to self-relocate,
from their home most often by leaving almost everything behind in their home country for another
country where their entry is likely not permitted, though sometimes by relocating internally to another
region within the same country; migrants/refugees may pass through regions and countries on their way
to a destination and/or attempt resettlement.
Most Vulnerable Learner: Term used by UNICEF Latin America and Caribbean division (LACRO)
to refer to learners who are rural/remote, without Internet, indigenous, migrants/refugees, girls, and those
with special needs; note the possibility of intersectionality (see entry above) where a learner could be
classified into more than one vulnerable group.
SMS: Also known as a text message delivered to a mobile phone that does not require Internet con-
nectivity; different from MMS which is a text message that also includes images such as a picture or
video whereas an SMS only includes text.
Trauma-Informed Teaching and Learning: According to University at Buffalo’s School of Social
Work and its Institute on Trauma and Trauma-Informed Care, trauma-informed education recognizes
that learners’ actions result from their life experiences, which in many cases have been sudden, upsetting,
or traumatic either by official clinical definition or a personal one. Childhood abuse, relationship, or
household disfunction, sexual assault, abandonment, poverty, accidents, community violence, the effects
of structural racism, combat, and many other traumas may impact students’ ability to learn.
343
344
Chapter 17
Critical Praxis Through a
Social Media Ecosystem
Eric Chao Yang
University of British Columbia, Canada
ABSTRACT
The use of social media in language education is evident in the plethora of online content generated by
education organizations. Teachers and learners alike have used platforms such as Facebook, YouTube,
and Instagram to access and disseminate learning content in the forms of text, images, podcasts, and
videos. However, despite the prevalence of social media in the language-learning sector, its pedagogi-
cal use has been limited to learning language features. This chapter analyzes the potential use of an
ecosystem of social media platforms to augment varied modes of TESOL instruction, namely live, online,
and hybrid, through a critical lens in higher and adult education. The integration of critical content and
critical thinking development in social media platforms, in which authentic content is directly consumed,
co-created, and disseminated, enables TESOL teachers to help learners become aware of how power
shapes information, how to resist coercion, and challenge the status quo.
INTRODUCTION
“Why do things have to be like this?” This is the overarching question posed by education practitioners
who encounter biases and inequities in practice yet struggle to find, conduct, and use research to ques-
tion power and facilitate change. One possible solution lies in critical praxis, defined here as bridging
pedagogical theory and practice from a critical lens (Waller et al., 2017, p. 4). In the context of Teach-
ing English to Students of Other Languages (TESOL), critical praxis offers English teachers a way to
encourage “students” critical thinking so that they may be aware of oppression and learn how to fight
against it (Pessoa & de Urzêda Freitas, 2012, p. 753).
One approach used to facilitate critical praxis in TESOL is computer-assisted language learning
(CALL). A conventional CALL approaches center around using computer technologies to enable English
learners to play an active role in the co-construction of knowledge. Through CALL and the use of the
Internet, learners can interact around meaningful, authentic, and diverse language content in various con-
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch017

Critical Praxis Through a Social Media Ecosystem
texts (Kessler, 2013, p. 616). This participatory learning approach facilitates greater dynamic interaction
amongst students and enables them to access the learning of meaningful content free from restrictions
of institutions and authorities. However, CALL is limited by its lack of access; not all students own
computers, and some may be less than motivated to use school learning platforms outside the classroom.
Compounding accessibility is the current COVID-19 pandemic, which has forced both language learners
and teachers to jump from live to hybrid or fully online instruction with little or no transition period.
An augmentation to conventional CALL, hybrid, or fully online instruction is the use of social media
in higher and adult education in regions where platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube
are ubiquitous. Social media is also accessible by smartphones, which typically have a higher penetra-
tion rate than laptops or computers needed for traditional CALL systems. In Taiwan, over 98% of the
population owned a smartphone in 2019 (Wong, 2020). As for social media, Facebook alone was used
by 98.9% of all Taiwanese Internet users in the same year. YouTube came in next, being used by 80%,
while Instagram was used by 38.8% of the population (Huang & Chung, 2020). Thus, in terms of ac-
cessibility in Taiwan, a combination of social media platforms could supplement the varied modes of
TESOL instruction. Social media platforms also have the added advantage of enabling learners to ac-
cess, co-construct, and exchange language in a digital setting that they already regularly use to acquire
authentic information and interact with the world. The boost in accessibility, authentic content, and
participatory engagement enables more non-restrictive discourse and practices under a critical lens.
Thus, this chapter aims to explore the potential of the integration of three social media platforms, hereto
referred to as a social media ecosystem, to augment critical praxis. The implementation of such a system
will be explored in three ways.
First, the chapter examines how the author defines pedagogic concepts such as critical praxis, and
shows how his practice, an online course with a social media ecosystem, attempts to align with these
concepts.
Second, the author’s online course on English learning through the news will be examined from
conception to delivery. The course was designed to provide language instruction, and develop critical
thinking and media-related literacies using seven news domains (e.g., healthcare, business, and technol-
ogy). The overarching goal of the main course was to help students recognize how power shapes news
creation and dissemination by drawing upon Bloom’s Taxonomy and collaborative learning. A social
media ecosystem (See Appendix 5) was later added to provide content that was more critical and to
facilitate discussion on the platforms used to create and disseminate news.
Third, the chapter discusses the pedagogic and practical concerns of implementing a supplementary
social media ecosystem. The ecosystem, for example, might increase teacher-student engagement in a
region where there is high Internet penetration and social media usage, but may widen the urban-rural
divide in others. Critical content may be banned in specific political contexts, with dissemination or
discourse of such content resulting in severe legal consequences or life endangerment. In such instances,
critical praxis requires deliberation and differentiation. Additionally, the delivery of critical content on
social media, for example, does not always translate into critical thinking and socially transformative
action. The author reviews his practice and discusses how such a proposed system could be refined to
provide a more impactful critical praxis.
345

CONCEPT
Critical Praxis and Power
Critical praxis can be defined as “the bringing together of ideology critique, self-reflection, and eman-
cipatory action.” Educators who engage in critical praxis strive to go beyond the limitations of formal
instruction, content, and curriculum by working together with students and communities to bring forth
social change (Arnold et al., 2012, p. 281). Rather than an end goal for teachers, critical praxis can be
viewed as a process of deliberation and self-reflection that propels instruction beyond the rigidities of
the education system to assist groups and communities resist coercion and challenge the status quo. In
TESOL, language, literacy, and communication instruction play essential roles in such social transforma-
tion, as it can aid students and communities in recognizing and resisting coercion, setting the foundation
for social change (Arnold et al., 2012, p. 282).
Understanding the concept of power is crucial in critical praxis. There exist numerous definitions of
power, but most revolve around questions of “who can influence what society looks like and who controls
the means that allow such influence” (Fuchs, 2021b, p. 2). Power is frequently associated with coercion,
domination, violence, and asymmetry. However, it can also have a transformative capacity, providing ac-
tors the agency to facilitate participatory social systems in which power is more symmetrically distributed
(Fuchs, 2021b, p. 4). By recognizing this duality of power, TESOL instructors can use language content
and instruction that bring awareness to how power operates and how to resist it to bring forth change.
A possible criticism of critical praxis, or rather any practice that seeks to construct meaning in the
complexity of views, is that there exists no standard to justify one’s interpretation of views. There is a
multiplicity of voices of what power is and what needs to be challenged. Moreover, since critical praxis
aims to challenge and possibly abolish a previously dominant power structure, it could be used as a tool
for a new orthodoxy to acquire and secure power. Nevertheless, to the author, critical praxis is not about
the inclusion of all viewpoints as it is impossible to achieve, but whether a teacher’s practice can define
itself to challenge power.
To be a critical practitioner, in this light, is not to seek change for the sake of replacing power with
power. A teacher who engages in critical praxis can be thought of as one who views practice through the
lens of Heidegger’s notion of “being in the world.” That is, by “being in the world,” educators may face
a sense of uneasiness in the uncertainty of their practice. Rather than turning away, they can choose to
remain within this uneasiness and continually examine and interrogate existing power as needed (Dall’Alba
& Barnacle, 2015, pp. 1455-1457). Critical praxis is therefore the practice of engaging in a continuous
process of ethical consideration, and using practice to understand, question, and change existing power
structures. It is only through this mindset that a pedagogic tool like the social media ecosystem proposed
in this chapter can be used as a vehicle for change.
Bloom’s Taxonomy and Critical Thinking
In the author’s TESOL course, Bloom’s Taxonomy serves as an all-encompassing scaffold to facilitate
the critical thinking skills foundational in developing media-related literacies. The taxonomy provides a
framework of six major categories in which critical thinking can be cultivated (Armstrong, 2016). Criti-
cal thinking, in this context, is a set of skills that one uses to process and interpret information, make
judgments and decisions, and take actions to bring about change. While the taxonomy does not address
346

all aspects of critical thinking (e.g., collaboration and empathy), it suffices as a gateway to higher levels
of cognition.
The connection between critical praxis and critical thinking is that the former fosters the latter for
the purpose of identifying, challenging, and changing “the process by which a grossly iniquitous soci-
ety uses dominant ideology to convince people this is a normal state of affairs” (Brookfield, 2004, p.
viii). Through critical praxis, in which critical thinking plays a key role, students can learn to challenge
existing ideologies and power relations with the overarching goals of self-empowerment and liberation.
Media-Related Literacies
As the primary goal of the author’s course is to help students recognize the role power plays in news
creation on social media, media-related literacies are integrated into the coursework (Jones-Jang et al.,
2021, p. 374). Media-related literacies include four types of literacies: media, information, news, and
digital literacies. Media literacy development can help students become aware that media have com-
mercial, ideological, and political motivations, opening the doorway for them to become informed civic
participants. Training in information literacy can take this awareness further by enabling students to
develop a framework for finding, evaluating, and using information to act on the world. The develop-
ment of news literacy is similar to media literacy in that it can strengthen civic engagement. However,
it focuses on critically evaluating and analyzing news by highlighting its conditions of production and
influence. Along with digital literacy, which is a set of skills that one needs to understand, compose, and
communicate information through digital technologies, other media-related literacies can help students
develop an arsenal of skills needed to combat misleading news (Jones-Jang et al., 2021, pp. 374-377).
Critical media literacy takes the conventional scope of media-related literacies a step further. It frames
them as “an act of resistance or at the very least an inoculation against media domination” (Merchant,
2013, p. 2). A more nuanced conception specifies it as a process of social construction that explores the
relationship between representation and power while examining the role of media content producers
(Merchant, 2013, p. 2). To move towards critical media literacy, TESOL practitioners can supplement
classroom text with critical content from media such as newspapers, television, and social media. Such
content is critical in that it facilitates a process of reflection and interrogation of dominant assumptions
about language, culture, and social issues (Kubota, 2016, pp. 193-194).
A Social Media Ecosystem
Social media are “forms of electronic communication through which users create online communities
to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content” (Merriam Webster, n.d.). Under this
definition, Facebook, being the most widely used social media, springs to mind, and so do platforms
like Twitter and Instagram (Obar & Wildman, 2015, p. 5). A precise definition of the term is elusive
due to two main variables: the rate at which technology is rapidly evolving and the rapid expansion of
the term’s concept. In this chapter, a more specific definition stipulates that four features characterize a
social media platform: (1) users partake in both content consumption and creation, (2) user interaction is
the driving force of the platform, (3) users can create specific individual or group profiles that allow for
search identification, and (4) users can connect and form online networks through their profiles (Obar
& Wildman, 2015, pp. 6-10).
347

When viewed under a critical lens, social media can be exploitative or coercive, as big tech companies
can control the output of posts and the frequency in which one sees them through algorithms. Police
and other government authorities can also use social media to surveil dissenters, even in private groups.
By contrast, in the case of occupy movements in North America; they can also be used to reach out
to people to garner support for social causes (Fuchs, 2021a, p. 3). TESOL teachers and learners must
recognize this dual nature of social media when consuming and creating information on social media
platforms such as Facebook.
The term social media ecosystem is often applied in marketing to refer to a sphere of influence com-
prised of integrated social media platforms (Hannah et al., 2011, pp. 267-268). The concept of such an
ecosystem allows marketers to focus on their target audience in diverse platforms and propagate their
content throughout the system (Hannah et al., 2011, p. 268). In the specific context of this chapter, a social
media ecosystem is used analogously to describe the sustainable integration of social media platforms
in which course content is filtered and presented in diverse forms through different platforms, namely
Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. The system is made sustainable in that the teacher first creates the
course content, then the content is recycled, co-constructed, and maintained by both the teacher and the
students.
By using a social media ecosystem rather than a single platform, more students would be able to
access supplementary course content. An added benefit is that those who choose to engage the contents
of multiple platforms can learn to use diverse ways to communicate since each platform requires a
specific form of engagement. Thus, when a student can find a platform with which he or she feels most
comfortable, that student is then more likely to share his or her thoughts. Such a system can facilitate
a participatory culture, as students are encouraged to comment and share what they know, thereby
validating and empowering them as their work is recognized by the community (Edutopia, 2013). For
example, a discussion on environmental protection in a conventional learning platform may not yield
much engagement unless students are evaluated for their response. However, the same discussion in
a smaller Facebook group could offer students a safer environment of “like-minded” people. Such an
environment, along with a more casual support structure, such as the gamification system of points or
badging available on Facebook, may motivate student engagement in community events (Greenhow &
Lewin, 2016, p. 22). Furthermore, on social media, the task of providing feedback does not fall solely on
the shoulders of the teachers as individual members of the community can contribute (Edutopia, 2013).
“Fake news” has permeated all facets of life, ranging from social media interaction to presidential elec-
tions. Fake news can be defined as “fabricated information that mimics news media content in form but
not in organizational process or intent” (Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1094). The creators and outlets of fake
news do not ensure the accuracy and credibility of information, but rather disseminate misinformation
or disinformation for purposes ranging from personal amusement to creating deceptions to achieve
political aims. At times, fake news is created and disseminated by state or non-state actors using social
media accounts and networks of bots designed to hijack feed algorithms of platforms such as Twitter or
Facebook (Prier, 2017, p. 54). In the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, Facebook estimated that up to
60 million bots were used to post political content. Some of the same bots were then used in an attempt
to influence the 2017 French election (Lazer et al., 2018, p. 1095). Such campaigns are best understood
348

as a form of information warfare, a comprehensive attempt to control and influence every facet of the
information supply chain, thereby influencing public opinion and behaviors. (Prier, 2017, p. 54). Often,
fake news is not directly created by actors that seek to manipulate but by journalists or content creators
whose content favors or aligns with the narratives of these actors (Doshi, 2020).
Nevertheless, while the term “fake news” is commonplace, there is no universal, measurable way to
quantify the fakeness or truthfulness of news. There are many fact-checking and media-bias detection
tools, but they cannot objectively detect and clarify the more subtle and nuanced aims of manipula-
tive actors that play a crucial role in news production. It can also be argued that the veracity of news
depends not only on the actors that seek to manipulate it, but also on the positionality of its consumers.
Therefore, one’s initial line of defense against misleading news lies not in the plethora of fact-checking
devices but more in one’s pre-existing dispositions and skills to think and act in response to misleading
information. This ability can be referred to as critical thinking, which can be more concretely expounded
as “reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 2011, p. 15).
Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China, is at the forefront of information warfare. It is wedged
between the geopolitical struggles of global and regional hegemonies such as the United States and China,
formally known as the People’s Republic of China. Compounding the matter are Taiwan’s own political
actors vying for influence and power. This struggle seeps into all aspects of life and practice, mainly
manifesting itself on social media, a battleground of information warfare. The Ministry of Education
of Taiwan is cognizant of these information campaigns, and efforts have been made to introduce media
literacy into all parts of its education system. According to the ministry, the government has tried to pro-
mote media literacy education since 2000 (MOE, 2002, p. 1), with one of its primary goals to cultivate its
“citizens” abilities for independent learning, critical thinking, and problem solving” (MOE, 2002, p. 2).
To combat fake news, TESOL teachers can integrate media-related literacies into higher education,
enabling students to detect power, examine, and challenge it. There are four main types of media litera-
cies: media, information, news, and digital literacies (Jones-Jang et al., 2021, p. 374). Media literacy
development can help learners become aware that the media has commercial, ideological, and political
motivations, opening the doorway for them to become informed civic participants. Training in informa-
tion literacy can raise this awareness further by enabling students to develop a framework for finding,
evaluating, and using information to act on the world. The development of news literacy is similar to
media literacy in that it strengthens civic engagement. However, it focuses on critically evaluating and
analyzing news by highlighting its conditions of production and influence. In addition to digital literacy,
the four media-related literacies provide students an arsenal of skills needed to combat misleading news,
leading the way to active civic participation and therefore change (Jones-Jang et al., 2021, pp. 374-377).
Nevertheless, while there have been efforts to resist information campaigns that seek to manipulate or
coerce, there are no definite guidelines to implementing media-related literacies and critical thinking in
higher education classrooms.
The author’s practice revolves primarily around creating online courses for intermediate to advanced
English learners for an e-learning company based in Taiwan. The e-learning company has roughly four
million registered users and one million active users. The largest demographic group is comprised of
users ages 25-34 at 28%, followed by the 18-24 and 35-44 age groups, each accounting for a fifth of the
349

users . Most of the fully online courses produced are tailored to university students, although there are no
restrictions to any course. The difficulty of the courses ranges from B1 (independent) to C2 (proficient)
on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) scale (Council of Europe,
n.d.) (See Appendix 1).
University students, the largest user group in the educational tech company, are at the forefront of
information campaigns as they are active users of social media. In information warfare, social media
is a battleground of multiple state and non-state actors vying for influence. To equip English language
learners in higher education with the skills they need to navigate ambiguity in news disseminated in
English and to resist manipulation, the author designed and launched an online course, News English
and Critical Thinking, to develop critical thinking and media-related literacies while learning English
through the news. The course, which uses the learning management system “Teachable” as a base, was
launched in July 2020, to 1,300 enrolled students.
The News English course consists of two parts: the main asynchronous course on Teachable, and a
social media ecosystem designed to augment the main course. Under the framework of Bloom’s Taxonomy,
language features and content knowledge from seven news categories (e.g., healthcare, technology, and
public policy) are continuously scaffolded and differentiated through Teachable. A social media ecosys-
tem (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube) was later co-constructed by the author and students. The content
is continuously generated, even though the main Teachable course officially ended in December 2020.
The aims of the main course are critical as they call into question how power influences news creation
and dissemination. To transform students from passive consumers of news to more active participants,
the author supplemented class discourse with multiple forms of engagement (e.g., polls, memes, short
answer questions) on social media.
Core Course Content on Teachable
The author’s main course is asynchronous and held on Teachable, an e-learning platform similar to Massive
Open Online Course (MOOC) platforms such as Coursera and edX. The core lessons are provided through
pre-recorded videos, and students can interact only by leaving comments and submitting assignments
(See Appendix 4). Programming skills are not required to upload and manage content on the platform,
but software knowledge is a must in content creation. For example, the author had to use a multitude
of software such as Final Cut Pro, Audacity, Photoshop, among other digital tools, to create the videos
needed. However, the number of tools used varies greatly depending on the course content and goals.
Quizlet, an embedded flashcard application, is first used for flip classroom activities. Before engaging
with any of the materials, students are asked to use the “Flashcard” and “Learn” functions on Quizlet
to become familiar with the themed-lexical chunks that appear (See Appendix 2). The students are then
provided with an interactive PDF handout with all the unit’s content (See Appendix 3). They must first
read a 350-500-word news article with content modeled after that found on major news publications
such as The NY Times and The Wall Street Journal. All phrases on Quizlet appear in the article and are
presented again with their definition to increase intake. After an initial understanding is reached through
reading, the class content is analyzed and evaluated in-depth in a pre-recorded video class (See Appendix
4). In the video, language features such as lexical chunks and grammar points that appear in pre-class
activities are explicitly explained to increase intake. All instruction is in English, but students can turn
on both English and Chinese captions.
350

Students then complete a listening exercise on the handout, which uses a slight variation of the con-
tent in the reading section. Students are asked to take notes on the audio recording and answer multiple
listening comprehension questions assessing understanding, purpose, and inference. After completing
these tasks, students can watch a video explaining how the teacher took notes. Listening comprehension
questions are also reviewed.
Following the reading and listening sections is the speaking section, in which students prepare oral
responses to questions aligned with the lower levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (i.e., remember, explain).
Key phrases, sentence starters, sentence builders, and discourse markers are made salient, and a model
answer is provided. Students then watch a video going over the thought process of constructing the re-
sponse after finishing the worksheet. The writing section follows the same format as the speaking, but
questions that involve higher cognition levels (i.e., analyze, evaluate, create) are given. After watching
the instructional video, students can submit their responses for feedback.
Throughout the first four sections of each unit (reading, listening, speaking, writing), theme-based
lexical chunks, sentence patterns, and content knowledge are recycled through diverse activities. Wrap-
ping them up is a video interview with a domain expert in each news category (e.g., a legislator for
public policy) that uses all of the language features taught in the previous sections. Questions in the
interview are designed to facilitate critical thinking and question power. The unit on public policy, for
example, features the author asking a legislator about the motivations behind policy decisions and the
problems they have caused. Additional questions are given at the end of each interview. The students
are responsible for exploring these answers with the teacher during the live Google Meet session at the
end of every unit. The live session is then recorded and uploaded onto the Teachable platform.
A Social Media Ecosystem
After delivering class content through the main platform, Teachable, the author noticed a lack of engage-
ment, as the class is primarily asynchronous save for the live Google Meet sessions. Leaving comments
on pre-recorded videos also did not align with the core tenet of critical praxis, which was to facilitate
change. To boost engagement and facilitate more critical discourse, the teacher first tried opening a
group for enrolled students on Facebook. On the platform, students were tasked with continuing the
class discussion.
To ensure the content could be consistently generated without much additional work, the author
recycled existing class content and paired it with additional images, videos, and hyperlinks through
Facebook’s multifunctional interface. The instructor initiated each post, which could take the form of
polls, yes-no answers, or extended conversations. Students could also share their own posts, which often
consisted of memes, short videos, or articles relevant to the discussion. These engagements allowed for
the co-construction of knowledge on critical issues such as news manipulation and enabled the teacher
to constantly gauge whether course content was relevant to students. For instance, the teacher could post
and initiate a critical discussion on how teachers should have more agency. However, a low engagement
on such a discussion, measured through likes, emojis, comments, and post reach, would indicate that
another topic should be chosen.
The author also used the Facebook group to host periodic live streams discussing course content
and answering questions. Typically, anywhere from 30 to approximately 100 students would show up
to each stream. The streams were recorded and then edited for others to view. If the livestreams were
well received, the teacher could edit and upload them onto the main course platform for future students.
351

Additionally, the Facebook group was also used as a learning management system and communication
board. Students were more likely to view information posted on a platform they visit frequently than on a
learning management system like Teachable. In Facebook groups, teachers can see how many individual
users viewed each post and check its engagement through emoticons and comments.
Despite the efforts made, the author wanted to boost engagement further as he noticed many of the
1,300 students were not responding to Facebook content. Many students used Instagram, so the author
contemplated recycling and posting some of the class content on Facebook onto the new platform.
However, due to the author’s unfamiliarity with Instagram and limited functions compared to Facebook,
he did not start using the platform. Instead, he first surveyed the students on what sort of class content
they would like to see on Instagram. Key vocabulary words and phrases used in oral and written produc-
tion were the most popular choices, so the author used the platform to deliver short one-minute videos
of these language features to help students review. With the help of student-interns, two videos were
posted each week to help students review and use the words and content learned. Instagram was used
mainly to post additional videos of key vocabulary words, collocations, and example sentences featured
in the course. Abridged news reports of varying comprehensibility and themes related to the academic
vocabulary taught were provided as extended reading and listening materials. They were organized
through hashtags (e.g., #health, #economics), which students could click to access news articles of the
same domain. The content generated on Instagram eventually accumulated and was sometimes posted
back on Facebook for more engagement.
Occasionally, the author would film YouTube videos relevant to the class or provide additional infor-
mation upon student requests. However, because the production of videos is labor-intensive and costly,
content is generated sporadically. A possible way to limit the work needed for YouTube is to record live
streams on Facebook and directly upload the videos onto YouTube. Students who are active users of
the platform would have more access to supplementary class materials. High-quality YouTube videos
filmed by the teacher could also be uploaded onto the original Teachable platform for future students.
In short, the key to managing such a seemingly labor-intensive system of engagement is the recycling
of content and co-construction of knowledge in diverse forms.
Table 1 displays the author’s social media ecosystem to provide supplementary content and increase
engagement with students (See Appendix 5 for a graphical representation of the ecosystem.). The author
did not consider an ecosystem when first setting up a Facebook group for students. Initially, the group
was set up to address the limitations of the e-learning platform. Only through the development of the
Facebook group did the author realize that another social media platform was needed to meet the needs
of those who were not active Facebook users.
Implications of the Social Media Ecosystem
Deeper student engagement in the Facebook group is somewhat limited. While most of the students
viewed the materials, they responded mostly with emojis (pictograms such as smileys used in electronic
messages), short comments, and questions, unless the posts were directly relevant to current events or
their interests. Livestream participation on Facebook was also sporadic, with most joining only streams
they found directly impactful on their academic studies, namely test preparation for language assessments,
such as the TOEFL and IELTS. However, students responded overwhelmingly to polls or questions with
simple multiple-choice answers. Engagement appears to be highest when the posted content is attention-
grabbing yet straightforward, with short messages and memes being the highest.
352

Table 1. A social media ecosystem
Target
Social Media Primary Mode of Content Creation
Primary Functions Critical Praxis Objectives Audience
Platforms Engagement Software
Age
•Provide critical and Word processor,
•Deliver of longer
authentic content •Develop Photoshop*,
textual content
critical thinking and media- BITLY link
•Conduct group
Mostly text-intensive related literacies management
discussions
materials, polls, •Foster participatory system, In-built
Facebook •Increase engagement 18-34+
discussions, live culture laptop or phone
(e.g., student-led
streams •Co-construct knowledge camera for
discussions)
in diverse forms (polls, streams, OBS
•Better gauge student
links, articles, videos, short (Open Broadcaster
needs and interests
answers, etc.) Software)
•Deliver short videos
Image-based (under 1 min) of class •Provide critical and
Final Cut Pro*,
Instagram materials and short content, key words and authentic content 13-24
Audacity, Canva
videos phrase •Better gauge student needs
•Boost engagement
•Provide occasional •Provide deeper analysis
Smart-phone with
Longer videos with class content-related of critical content
YouTube 16-24 camera, Final Cut
caption videos with captions (e.g., interviews, panel
Pro
•Boost engagement discussion, etc.)
*Photoshop can be substituted by MS paint, Apple Photos, Fotor, or free photo-editing software. Final Cut Pro can be replaced be the
more basic but free iMovie or Windows Movie Maker.
Images also do well in terms of surface-level engagement, such as “likes,” but videos often fared
poorly, receiving the least amount of viewership. Instagram engagement behavior to content was similar
to that of Facebook. However, students’ feedback indicated that they found short videos modeling the
use of key vocabulary and phrases more helpful than so-called critical news content without explanation.
There was also high viewership of content on Instagram, though it could be attributed to the fact that
the platform is entirely open to the public. YouTube enabled the author to provide a longer explanation
of class content, but the engagement was also the lowest.
Facebook engagement may have been shallow because students tend to use social media for personal
reasons, thus may not treat it as a formal learning tool. The shallow engagement could be compounded
by the fact that the author’s course and social media ecosystem offered little extrinsic motivation for
students to participate. The vocabulary and news content taught had little bearing on the students’ aca-
demic or work performance. Thus, students were less likely to respond unless prodded by the teacher to
do so. The lack of response may have also been caused by learner anxiety. Oral and written responses
present challenges for lower-level learners. While information is posted in Mandarin and English, more
extended responses pose a risk for learners due to peer pressure. The Facebook group was closed to the
public, but there were still around 1,300 students. Learner anxiety could have been higher as a result.
In short, the author still found the benefits of the ecosystem to outweigh the costs by a considerable
margin. Engagement was more surface-level than expected, but the diverse functions enabled scaffolded
and differentiated supplementary instruction. The viewership of supplementary social media content
was also high. In addition, the virtual spaces created by the diverse platforms also enabled the teacher
to forge a stronger bond with students, especially since the preexisting e-learning platform did not allow
for more personal and live engagement. The content generating and circulating process, while seemingly
353

overwhelming, was quite efficient once procedures were in place. Content could be easily organized and
reused through a hyperlink system, saving work in the long run.
DISCUSSION
Pragmatic Rationale for the Social Media Ecosystem
Due to the overwhelming amount of materials in the course, student engagement is needed over an extended
period. However, the course is asynchronous, and there was no live instruction. Other than accessing the
course content, students could only interact with the author and peers through emails and comments on
videos. With the overarching goal of critical praxis, the author used social media as a possible solution.
Social media was chosen as a platform for supplementary instruction and classroom because of its
wide accessibility. Internet access was not a limitation in this context because students who enrolled
in the fully online course were already all active Internet users. Additionally, the chosen social media
platforms were free and accessible to all. Even if students only used one social media site, multiple sites
were used to ensure more equitable access and interaction. To further ensure that all students could access
additional class content, all of the information was recompiled in a blog that did not require registration
of any sort to view.
Another practical rationale in choosing social media was that students were already familiar with
their use. Students did not have to exert as much effort in accessing class information and participating
in class discussions as opposed to using another platform, which might require them to use different
digital devices (e.g., from smartphones to laptops).
Lastly, the social media ecosystem is most compatible with an online course with open enrollment
because all information created and maintained can be reused for future students. The accumulation of
co-constructed content will transform the ecosystem into a database of valuable course content to which
both the teacher and students can refer. Students, for example, could find answers to previously asked
questions through a simple search rather than solely relying on the teacher. If the teacher were to refer
to any specific information, a hyperlink could be quickly sent to students. While creating such a system
might seem overwhelming at first, it is a step-by-step process. Teachers can begin with a single social
media platform that feels most compatible with their teaching, and gradually become familiar with other
platforms. Content creation and maintenance could also be done with student collaboration. Paid interns
or volunteers, for example, could be placed in charge of creating, editing, and disseminating content on
different platforms.
Regarding content generation on the ecosystem, teachers already have to create course content re-
gardless of whether they choose to develop the system. Existing materials are reused and presented in
different forms on each of these platforms to meet student needs. Much of the work is simply copying,
pasting, and editing, all of which can be made efficient with teacher-student collaboration. For example,
longer text from class readings can be added on Facebook with relevant links and images. The text
can be recorded using devices such as audacity or auto text-to-speech devices. Audio files can then be
paired with images to create short one-minute videos with Final Cut Pro, which can then be shared on
Instagram. Teachers can also record their classes without their students with mobile phones and upload
the recorded videos onto YouTube. Captions are auto-generated on YouTube, providing transcripts for
the students to review.
354

Instead of generating overwhelming work, the ecosystem needs to be made sustainable. The focus
should be on the recycling and differentiation of content rather than laborious content generation. Stu-
dent volunteers could be intrinsically motivated to help build a platform that all of their peers will use,
or even extrinsically motivated through coursework and extra credit. To reduce inequities, in the case
when students do not have access to digital devices, teachers can make all work collaborative. While
the ecosystem took the author approximately six months to create with the help of four student interns,
it now takes the author about four to five hours a week to maintain. Maintenance time is significantly
reduced once enough teacher-created content is generated for recycling.
In short, what may initially appear to be a Herculean task can be efficiently operated once procedures
are in place. There is also the added advantage that students who volunteer in material creation can
become more familiar with both multimedia devices and class content, using language for pragmatic
purposes. Such integration of class content with technology is needed more than ever in the tech-savvy
communities of today.
Pedagogic Concerns of the Course and the Social Media Ecosystem
The limitations of the author’s course design stem from two fronts: its theoretical conception and
practicality. Regarding its theoretical roots, there are ongoing efforts to update Bloom’s Taxonomy to
fit today’s diverse educational contexts. One current effort focuses on expanding the scope of critical
thinking beyond the vague categories of higher-level thinking initially proposed by Bloom. There are
also concerns with the lack of criteria for judging the outcome of critical thinking activities (Ennis, 1985,
p. 45). Another main point of contention is that the taxonomy categories appear to be hierarchical and
rigid, downplaying the interconnectedness of the critical thinking process and the importance of each
of its categories. Media-related literacies also require further exploration. For example, a study points
out that information literacy is significantly associated with fake news identification, while others, like
news literacy, do not reveal a clear association (Jones-Jang et al., 2021, p. 382). Attempts by the author
to address some of these concerns can be seen in the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy serving only as a general
framework, rather than a step-by-step guide, to facilitate critical thinking. Each of the concerns could
also be addressed through flexible and updated instruction. For example, the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
was used to provide a more dynamic conception of the categories of thinking, with more detailed verbs
and gerunds used to describe the once vague cognitive processes (Armstrong, 2016). Difficulties with
lesson planning and assessments of critical thinking skills were mitigated with clear objectives and
learning goals.
Another concern lies in social media’s inability to foster deeper discussions or even debates (Tess,
2013, p. A62). Students use social media mainly for socializing and are less willing to use them as formal
learning tools (Greenhow & Lewin, 2016, p. 8). There is also a significant disconnect between student
perception of social media as a learning or personal tool in the author’s course. In a study in which
student response was collected through a web-questionnaire and interviews, it was found that students
rarely used social media for educational services despite over 70% of them having a social media account.
Regarding the pedagogical use of social media, students responded that they tended to separate their
learning from their social life and they were also concerned about information overload (Tess, 2013, p.
A62). Such implications are reflected in the author’s case study in which students do engage learning on
social media, but do so in a surface-level manner. Key features of social media networks such as “likes”
and “dislikes” reward sensational and gregarious posting and behavior, as such content is more likely to
355

elicit a response. The simplification of issues into “like” and “dislike” dichotomies is also problematic.
The use of such platforms in education could threaten more profound educational dialogues that are cen-
tral to collaborative learning (Friesen & Lowe, 2012, pp. 192-193). For teachers, not much information
can be gleaned, for example, from “likes” or short comments. Moreover, the design of social media as
non-learning platforms also makes it challenging to integrate them with existing learning management
systems. There is also usually no institutional support for teachers to learn and manage social media for
educational purposes (Seaman & Tinti-Kane, 2013, p. 17).
While the above problems need to be addressed, the author’s opinion is that they stem not from social
media platforms themselves but from using them out of context. Social media, be it a single platform
or an ecosystem, ought to supplement, not replace, conventional instruction. Deep engagement can be
focused on in class, while learning in a stress-free environment can be facilitated on social media. Ad-
ditionally, even “likes” and short comments can be used to gauge a basic understanding of content. In
fact, students may be more likely to express happiness or frustration with content through emoticons in
a low-risk virtual environment. As for varying institutional support, a teacher must decide how to use
social media in a sustainable manner. A simple Facebook group that is used to post class announcements,
for example, is free to start and takes a minimal amount of time to maintain. A more sophisticated eco-
system might take a tremendous amount of time to create and maintain, although the long-term benefits
will outweigh the short-term costs.
Pragmatic Concerns of the Course and the Social Media Ecosystem
From a practical standpoint, a fully online course supplemented by social media platforms would appear
to be an arduous project to undertake. Teachers unfamiliar with digital technologies might already suffer
from the transition to hybrid or fully online classes. A course that utilizes a new learning management
system and newer social media platforms may be overwhelming, especially when attempting to undertake
content generation single-handedly. TESOL teachers might also find the integration of a social media
ecosystem incompatible with instruction. There is no definite guideline, for example, on how or even
when to use the system to supplement instruction.
There is also a matter of exclusion and exacerbating inequities. By holding the class entirely online,
the course tailors to a specific group of Internet users who are already familiar with digital technologies
and social media platforms. Media reports show that the Internet penetration rate is greater than 90% in
Taiwan, with over 95% of these users being active social media users (Huang & Chung, 2020). However,
specific demographics, such as indigenous groups, might have lower Internet access, leading to a digi-
tal divide. Digital inequality reflects the inequities resulting from race, class, geographic location, and
education (Masullo Chen, 2016, p. 119). Mandating that students use an online ecosystem designed to
develop digital literacy and skills may have the opposite effect on those without access. However, social
media, at least when compared to CALL instruction that requires laptop computers and broadband ac-
cess, mitigates some inequities resulting from accessibility (Masullo Chen, 2016, p. 121). Smartphones
are typically more affordable than computers and do not require a high-speed Internet connection.
The merits of social media in meeting critical praxis are also considerable. Social media offers people
without a voice in conventional media a technological solution (Masullo Chen, 2016, p. 122). A case
in point would be the political activism seen on social media in Egypt. The use of Facebook alone has
allowed previously non-political Egyptians to launch worker strikes, hold protests against government
corruption, and even remove authoritarian leaders from office (Ali, 2011, pp. 186-210). In the US, social
356

media has enabled activists to call attention to police brutality, give people of color a greater voice, and
launch social movements through hashtags (Masullo Chen, 2016, pp. 118-120). Similar examples can
be found in Taiwan, where minority indigenous groups use social media to strengthen local education
systems, actively participate in social movements, and reinforce indigenous identities (Sun, 2019).
Despite the merits of social media in achieving critical praxis, whether to create such an ecosystem
requires constant deliberation and depends heavily on the contexts of the teachers and learners. Accord-
ing to a report by Pearson Learning Solutions (Seaman & Tinti-Kane, 2013), social sciences faculty,
for example, are more likely to use social media for teaching purposes than their counterparts in natural
sciences or mathematics, although this difference has significantly narrowed year by year (p. 13). In
the case of the author, news content was taught in English, which transitions well on social media. The
mainly textual content can be quickly disseminated onto different media. However, this may not be the
case if class content requires live tutorials and hands-on experimentation.
Using a social media ecosystem with an online course also made sense, as the author was an online
content creator already adept in digital tools and multiple social media platforms. Studies have revealed
that faculty members teaching online courses are more likely to use social media for diverse purposes
than those who do not teach through online platforms (Seaman & Tinti-Kane, 2013, p. 16). These condi-
tions might not apply to teachers who lack experience in using digital tools and social media platforms.
As for definite guidelines on how to use such a system, each teacher must experiment and decide
what works best for them and their students. In the author’s case, the social media ecosystem was cre-
ated after students had already completed the main course, so the content was mainly used as a review.
However, the content could be continuously used for new students. Once completed, content in the
ecosystem could be integrated into flipped classroom activities, additional review, or extended learning
materials. New students could also continue to build on content generated by former students, allowing
the teacher to play a more supporting role.
For the author, Facebook was the platform of choice, as he was most familiar with its interface and
functions; it was also the platform most popular with his students. The platform’s versatility also makes
it prime for experimentation, as it could very well serve as the only social media teachers need to use
to support their instruction. Yet, the advantages of multiple platforms, each with unique features and
presentation, enable a more differentiated, scaffolded, and therefore more equitable teaching approach.
YouTube, for example, can be used to deliver classroom content through videos, while Instagram could
be used to post short class announcements, clarifications, and directions to additional learning materials.
Facebook, with its multitude of functions available, could be used to hold private group discussions,
send messages, and serve as a hub of student interaction outside the classroom (Schindler et al., 2017).
CONCLUSION
Emerging technologies are constantly explored for pedagogical uses, and social media has emerged in
the past decade as a promising community technology. The process has perhaps been hastened by the
COVID-19 pandemic-induced transition to hybrid or fully online learning, forcing students and teachers
to engage in virtual spaces outside the school’s established learning platform. For the author, a social
media ecosystem made pragmatic and pedagogical sense as a supplementary learning tool due to con-
textual factors. First, content creation was made possible through collaboration with students. Second,
inequity was reduced due to Taiwan’s high Internet and social media penetration rate. In the end, the
357

added engagement justified the time spent creating the system, and the additional class content created
could be used for future students and could be continuously built upon.
Pedagogically, social media platforms offered the author the chance for more differentiated, scaffolded
instruction, not only in terms of language learning, but also critical praxis. Students benefited from the
system in that their media, information, and digital literacies were developed through community-based
learning on social media. Post-class, students reflected that they were more able to engage in critical
discourse in English as key lexical chunks, sentence patterns, and the content was recycled throughout
the ecosystem.
Overall, the boost in critical content and thinking, co-constructed discourse and knowledge, and
media-related literacies developed through the system put the author one step closer to critical praxis.
In the specific exploration of his study, the social media ecosystem has helped students of the course
become more aware of the power dynamics involved in news creation and opened the doorway for them
to become more active and autonomous digital participants.
REFERENCES
Ali, A. H. (2011). The power of social media in developing nations: New tools for closing the global
digital divide and beyond. Harv. Hum. Rts. J., 24, 185.
Armstrong, P. (2016). Bloom’s taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved February
27, 2021, from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/
Arnold, J., Edwards, T., Hooley, N., & Williams, J. (2012). Conceptualising teacher education and research
as ‘critical praxis.’ Critical Studies in Education, 53(3), 281–295. doi:10.1080/17508487.2012.703140
Brookfield, S. (2004). The power of critical theory: Liberating adult learning and teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Council of Europe. (n.d.). Global scale - table 1 (CEFR 3.3): Common reference levels. Retrieved March
22, 2021, from https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/table-1-
cefr-3.3-common-reference-levels-global-scale
Dall’Alba, G., & Barnacle, R. (2015). Exploring knowing/being through discordant professional prac-
tice. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(13-14), 1452–1464. doi:10.1080/00131857.2014.947562
Doshi, R. (2020, January). China steps up its information war in Taiwan. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved
March, 21, 2021, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-01-09/china-steps-its-
information-war-taiwan
Edutopia. (2013, May 7). Henry Jenkins on Participatory Culture [Video File]. Retrieved March, 21,
2021, from www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gPm-c1wRsQ
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership,
43(2), 44–48.
Ennis, R. H. (2011). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective Part II. Inquiry (Upper Montclair,
N.J.), 26(1), 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
358

Fuchs, C. (2021a). What Is a Critical Introduction to Social Media? In Social Media: A Critical Intro-
duction. Sage.
Fuchs, C. (2021b). Social Media and Communication Power. In Social Media: A Critical Introduction.
Sage.
Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2016). Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of
formal and informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 6–30. doi:10.1080/17439884.2
015.1064954
Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media
ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54(3), 265–273. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.007
Huang, C. C., & Chung, J. (2020, April 23). Facebook tops social media sites in Taiwan. Taipei Times.
Retrieved March, 21, 2021, from www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2020/04/26/2003735327
Jones-Jang, S. M., Mortensen, T., & Liu, J. (2021). Does media literacy help identification of fake news?
Information literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. The American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 371–388.
doi:10.1177/0002764219869406
Kessler, G. (2013). Teaching ESL/EFL in a world of social media, mash‐ups, and hyper‐collaboration.
TESOL Journal, 4(4), 615–632. doi:10.1002/tesj.106
Kubota, R. (2016). Critical content-based instruction in the foreign language classroom. Content-based
foreign language teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy
skills, 192-212.
Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M.
J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A., Sunstein, C. R., Thorson,
E. A., Watts, D. J., & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096.
doi:10.1126cience.aao2998 PMID:29590025
Masullo Chen, G. (2016). Social media: From digital divide to empowerment. In The Routledge com-
panion to media and race. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.4324/9781315778228-11
Merchant, G. (2013). Critical media literacy. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied
Linguistics.
MOE (Ministry of Education) Taiwan. (2002). White paper on media literacy educational policy. Re-
trieved March, 21, 2021, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/ 2122416591771.pdf
Obar, J. A., & Wildman, S. S. (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge-an introduc-
tion to the special issue. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 745–750. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2015.07.014
Pessoa, R. R., & de Urzêda Freitas, M. T. (2012). Challenges in critical language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 46(4), 753–776.
Prier, J. (2017). Commanding the trend: Social media as information warfare. Strategic Studies Quar-
terly: SSQ, 11(4), 50–85.
359

Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and
student engagement: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology
in Higher Education, 14(1), 1–28. doi:10.118641239-017-0063-0
Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2013). Social media for teaching and learning. Pearson Learning Systems.
Sun, C. S. C. (2019). Indigenous media in transformation: Languages and other factors in Taiwan. The
Asia Dialogue. Retrieved March, 21, 2021, from https://theasiadialogue.com/2019/09/21/ indigenous-
media-in-transformation-languages-and-other-factors-in-taiwan/
Teachable. (n.d.). Get started with teachable. Retrieved March 23, 2021 from https://support.teachable.
com/hc/en-us/articles/219891027-Get-Started-with-Teachable
Tess, P. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual)–A literature
review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A60–A68. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.032
Waller, L., Wethers, K., & De Costa, P. I. (2017). A critical praxis: Narrowing the gap between identity,
theory, and practice. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 4–27. doi:10.1002/tesj.256
Wong. (2020). Smartphone market in Taiwan - Statistics & Facts. Statista. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from
https://www.statista.com/topics/6038/smartphone-market-in-taiwan/
360
APPENDIX
CEFR Global Scale: Common Reference Levels
“The CEFR organizes language proficiency in six levels, A1 to C2, which can be regrouped into three
broad levels: Basic User, Independent User, and Proficient User, and that can be further subdivided ac-
cording to the needs of the local context. The levels are defined through ‘can-do’ descriptors.” (Council
of Europe, n.d.)
Figure 1.
News English Quizlet Set
Quizlet is a free website that provides a set learning tools for students, including different study modes.
The follow images are from a unit in the author’s online course.
News English PDF Handout
The following are images of the author’s interactive handouts. Students can click on images and links to
quickly access audio and video files. Each section on the handout corresponds to a pre-recorded video
on the aforementioned Teachable platform.
361
Figure 2. Flashcard mode
Figure 3. Learn mode
Figure 4. Write mode
362
Figure 5. Spell mode
Figure 6. Test mode
Figure 7. Match mode
363
Figure 8. Live mode
Figure 9. Pre-reading/class activities
News English Course
The following are images of the author’s asynchronous main News English course. Students can watch
pre-recorded videos after they first complete pre-class activities and each section on the PDF handout.
The handout can be directly downloaded from the platform.
A TESOL Social Media Ecosystem
The proposed social media ecosystem used to disseminate critical content, boost engagement, and en-
courage student led discourse.
364
Figure 10. Reading section
Figure 11. Extended reading
365
Figure 12. Listening section
Figure 13. Speaking section
366
Figure 14. Writing section
Figure 15. Interview section
367
Figure 16. Critical discourse section
Figure 17. Reading class
368
Figure 18. Listening class
Figure 19. Speaking class
369
Figure 20. Writing class
Figure 21. Interview with domain expert
370
Figure 22. Interactive session: critical discourse
371
Figure 23.
372
373
Chapter 18
Fostering Active Learning
via Critical Pedagogies:
Applying Reflective Research
Nevin Durmaz
ABSTRACT
This chapter aims to provide a guideline for pre-service and in-service teachers to apply reflective re-
search in language classrooms to gain a multidimensional overview of language teaching strategies in
increasing active learning via critical pedagogies. A previously conducted reflective research will be used
throughout the chapter to reach the stated aim. Analyzing language teaching techniques and strategies
in an English for Academic Purposes classroom where all the students are originally from East Asia,
the sample reflective research illustrates the needs and expectations of East Asian students in language
learning through the research students, and also it aims to provide clues for TESOL educators to imple-
ment a similar study in classrooms employing critical pedagogies to develop language instruction.
INTRODUCTION
Participation and the strategies that the teachers employ to increase the engagement affect students’ learn-
ing. Examining the approaches and orientations used in language teaching, language instruction can be
improved by understanding the role of active learning. Bonwell and Eison (1991) state that active learning
should involve higher-order thinking tasks such as analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating to encourage
students to think about what they are doing. It urges teachers to engage in self-reflection delving into
appropriate, alternative and critical pedagogy methods to promote learner autonomy. Kumaravadivelu
(2003) claims that cultural dynamics of L2 classrooms develop with the comprehension of the individual
cultural identity in class, which is named as critical cultural consciousness. There is not a single culture
that represents all and with the help of critical consciousness, one can discover, transform and evolve to
better meet current challenges. Employing a critically reflective mind in the classroom will help ques-
tion dominant ideologies and power relations. Critical reflection strengthens cultural understanding in
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch018

Fostering Active Learning via Critical Pedagogies
the classroom as teachers appreciate and validate students’ cultural knowledge that is brought into the
classroom. It helps create a learning environment where students share their personal perspectives with
classmates and teacher as cultural informants, and eventually increases active participation and motiva-
tion as students use their own power and knowledge (Kumaravadivelu, 2003).
In multicultural environments where the students have varied racial, cultural and linguistic backgrounds,
language teaching strategies impact students’ self-confidence and academic success (Brown, 2007;
Flores & Rosa, 2015; Gee, 2015; Kumaravadivelu, 2003; McKay, 2002; Rosa, 2016; Rosa, 2019; Rosa
& Nelson, 2017). Teachers who employ critical pedagogies consider those students’ backgrounds and
previous language learning experiences. They adapt the curriculum, materials and classroom activities to
provide equitable education respecting the varied populations in the classroom. They create environments
in which each member of the classroom finds opportunities to bring funds of knowledge-historically ac-
cumulated information based in cultural practices and experiences-to the classroom eagerly (Moll et al.,
2005). Students can express themselves comfortably and actively take part in the learning process. This
is why, this chapter employs critical pedagogies to explore diverse and inclusive teaching strategies while
increasing international students’ engagement and participation considering their varied backgrounds.
The chapter gives insights by drawing a road map to conducting reflective, applicable research in
classrooms, encouraging curious and reflective TESOL teachers to keep up to date in the area and further
develop their language instruction. The sample reflective research introduced in the chapter helps to bring
theory into practice regarding a small group of international students’ language learning experiences in
an English for Academic Purposes classroom. Through detailed information and guidance, teachers can
conduct an adapted reflective research in classrooms and engage in self-reflection.
CONCEPT
The Definition of Critical Pedagogies
Various terms have been used to better align school culture with home culture in order to improve aca-
demic success of the students, reconceptualize teaching and adapt teaching strategies (Ladson-Billings,
1992; Osborne, 1996). Ladson-Billings (1995) offered a theory around the reformation of teacher educa-
tion at the intersection of culture and teaching, formulating the culturally relevant theory. Based on this
theory, besides academic success and cultural competence, content should be scaffolded to recognize,
understand and question social inequalities (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 476). This formulation prepared
a base for students of color to sustain their heritage, empowering them to critique dominant power
structures (Paris & Alim, 2014).
Inquiry into connecting learning principles with a thorough understanding of culture provided a base
for new concepts adding on culturally relevant terms, such as culturally responsive or culturally sustain-
ing (Ladson-Billings, 2014, p. 77). Culturally responsive teaching is characterized as using ethnically
diverse learners’ cultural awareness, experiences and performance types to make learning opportunities
more meaningful and efficient for them (Brown, 2007; Gay, 2010; Gay, 2013). The principle of respon-
sive teaching consists of recognizing and comprehending the significance of culture, language and race/
ethnicity in teaching and learning (Chu & Garcia, 2014, p. 219). Villegas and Lucas (2002) draw on six
objectives for culturally responsive teachers as “gaining sociocultural consciousness, developing an af-
firming attitude toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds, developing the commitment and
374

skills to act as agents of change, understanding the constructivist foundations of culturally responsive
teaching, learning about students and their communities, and cultivating culturally responsive teaching
practices” (p. 26).
Culturally sustaining pedagogy was first proposed by Paris (2012) as an alternative to the terms
of culturally relevant and responsive teaching arguments. Paris has explored if these terms devote ad-
equate attention to the languages, literacies and other cultural traditions of communities that have been
oppressed by systemic inequalities to assure that multiethnic and multilingual societies are valued and
maintained. Culturally sustaining pedagogy “seeks to perpetuate and foster -to sustain- linguistic, literate,
and cultural pluralism as part of the democratic project of schooling” (Paris, 2012) and it puts greater
emphasis on sustaining pluralism via education to social justice challenges, progressing in ways that
previous asset pedagogies did not (Paris & Alim, 2014). Culturally sustaining pedagogy views complex
cultural mastery as a necessary good, and sees learning as additive rather than subtractive, as staying
whole rather than fractured, and as cultivating strengths rather than recovering deficits as the result of
learning (Alim & Paris, 2017).
Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning Applications
Critical teaching focuses on power and students’ prior linguistic and social experiences in the language
learning process using culturally sustaining pedagogy, literacy practices (Crawford & Gross, 2019, p.
49), and translanguaging that improves bilinguals’ respective language repertoires (Garcia & Kleifgen,
2018, p. 80). According to Crawford and Gross (2019), teachers who are critically teaching a language
focus on three main points in their classrooms. Firstly, they are clearly aware that each and every one of
the students has sociocultural and linguistic backgrounds. Secondly, they know that there might be a gap
between dominant sociocultural and linguistic knowledge of themselves or the school and the students
who come from minority groups. Finally, equity opportunities can be achieved once the gap between the
students’ background knowledge, and teacher and/or schools’ is diminished (Crawford & Gross, 2019, p.
49). This focus helps define strategies and techniques that language teachers should use when teaching
ethnically and racially diverse students.
The stated critical pedagogies foster an understanding of students’ second language learning experi-
ences in the context of culture and funds of knowledge, that may ultimately lead to more effective teach-
ing strategies teachers can employ in active learning. Gonzalez (2005) claims that discussions based on
culture give way to the inquiry of discourses with the potential to construct, rather than simply reflect
our realities (p. 38). Being mindful about students’ cultural backgrounds and encouraging those students
to reflect on their sociocultural and linguistic experiences by bringing the household knowledge to daily
classroom practices, activities, discussions, team works and projects can help the students to enter into
the field with their own curiosity. This should be considered as a step to take part in active learning. Ad-
ditionally, a significant component of critical pedagogies draws on bridging the gap between the school
and home culture and turning less dominant culture view from a disadvantage to advantage by validating
students’ household knowledge. This situation urges teachers to improve skills as a researcher to gain
funds of knowledge by actively taking part in professional development. They should develop teaching
strategies that will gradually affect their classroom practices decreasing the gaps between the different
dynamics of the class (Gonzalez, 2005, p. 40). Teacher inquiry targets the concerns of teachers instead
of outside researchers and encourages them to take action in the design, data collection and data inter-
pretation around a question (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2014, p. 8). While discussing about the education
375

of reflective practitioners, Schön (1987) claims that our description of knowing-in-action is a perpetual
construction. Although facts, procedures, rules and theories are static, knowing-in-action is dynamic
such that “when we know how to catch a ball, we anticipate the ball’s coming”. However, catching a
ball is an ongoing process that requires awareness, appreciation and adjustment (Schön, 1987, p. 25).
In this manner, self-reflection, which is crucial in becoming a teacher-researcher, can be described as
being mindful to challenge, comprehend and work toward addressing the disparity between one’s vision
and real practice (Johns, 2013, p. 2).
Critical pedagogy theorists believe that the pedagogy cannot be constrained within the borders of
schools; rather, it is open to any practice criticizing how students learn, how knowledge is produced
and how subjects are structured (Gonzalez, 2005, p. 41). As a result, it is highly important to achieve a
diverse but inclusive learning environment by redefining the existing pedagogies to engage the students.
Increasing equitable opportunities while teaching/learning and leveraging background knowledge can
empower students to celebrate their own achievements in community. This leads to a greater autonomy
and increased participation of all students for more democratic talk distribution and authentic interaction
in class. Active participation and effective teaching strategies can change the source of the knowledge
from the teacher to the students giving more autonomy to the students.
EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE(S)
To engage in self-reflection and understand how critical pedagogies increase active learning, teachers can
conduct reflective research in the classroom. Analyzing classroom objectives and learning outcomes, and
observing students’ needs and expectations to develop language instruction should be the starting point
for reflective research. To decide on the research method, TESOL educators should first decide on the
target classroom/student(s), and the length and frequency of the observation. They can closely observe
one student, create a focus group or observe the whole class for a specific time period. Data collection
should be conducted during regularly occurring class practices and following regular class procedures.
The research procedures can include direct observation, document collection, field notes, semi-structured
informal interviews, and reflective memos of regularly occurring classroom activities. Target student(s)
can be observed directly while taking fieldwork notes during the observations.
This research can be developed in three steps. The initial step should start by getting background
information about the target student(s) that best sketches the student(s). Then, information about the
classroom should be gathered. Finally, information about the school’s instructional program should be
collected (See Appendix A).
Teachers can have interviews with the target student(s), the classroom teacher-in case the research
classroom is not theirs-, administrator(s) and/or parents, since having interviews with people that know
the target student(s) both academically and socially can provide richer ethnographic insight (See Ap-
pendix B). Also, it can be resourceful to discuss the student(s)’s strengths, areas to develop and overall
capabilities with the teacher.
In the second step, teachers should decide which theoretical concept/model best describes the learning
experiences of the target student(s). As a teacher-researcher, they should conduct a literature review of
that concept/model. Focusing on a theoretical concept/model can help the teachers narrow down their
focus on a specific area and keep regular fieldwork journals based on research. The following questions
can help teacher-researchers while searching for literature:
376

• What is my research question?

• What is the purpose of the articles I choose to read?
• What are some of my questions about these articles?
• What useful notes can I write down while reading the articles?
• How will I use this information through my research?
The final step should focus more on analyzing the collected data. Here, the teachers should review and
explore the data for patterns of participant sense-making cultural norms, values, and roles of language.
They then create initial grounded codes that capture patterns across data. Next, they review those codes
and combine into emergent themes about the immediate and local meaning of the role of conceptual focus
in language learning for the target student(s). Data saturation can be reached at the point when there is
not new information or themes related to the research question(s) observed in the data. The goal of data
analysis should be answering the research question(s) which is decided at the beginning of the research.
Each individual who takes part in this research, including the student(s), teacher(s), family members and/
or school administrator(s), should be informed about the research. The teacher who conducts reflective
research should receive participant consent from each of them.
Through reflective research, teachers will get an opportunity to observe the equitable and effective
teaching environment in their classrooms. Additional surveys can be also employed to understand the
students’ academic and linguistic knowledge. Crawford and Gross (2019) propose a learner profile survey
in their work to ensure access to equitable and effective language learning. This protocol gives insights
to TESOL teachers to gain knowledge about their students’ academic content and linguistic knowledge.
Table 1. Academic content knowledge (Crawford & Gross, 2019, p. 52)
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree
1. I hesitate to question my teachers because they have superior knowledge
2. I hesitate to disagree with teachers because they have authority in class
3. It is the responsibility of the teachers to transmit knowledge in class
4. I am reluctant to express my views or raise questions in class because of
my respect for teachers
5. I learn things that we learn in school at home first
6. If I don’t understand something at school, I have people in my family who
can help me
7. If I don’t understand something at school, my family will get me a tutor or
online support to help me
8. I learn best when I hear the information
9. I learn best when I see the information with writing, pictures, or subtitles
10. I learn best when I create something
11. I learn best when I move around and am not seated at my desk
Teachers can use such surveys in their classroom in various contexts. They can consider using part
or all of the surveys on different days by conducting them in class or assigning them to be done at home.
377

Table 2. Linguistic knowledge (Crawford & Gross, 2019, p. 53)
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree
1. In my family we don’t speak English at home
2. In my family we speak only English at home
3. In my family we speak ______ languages at home (add a number in the
blank)
4. In my family we joke around or play with the languages we speak in a way
that makes me think about the similarities and differences of the languages
5. If I speak another language some people may treat me differently
6. People in my family have been treated badly when speaking our home
language
7. If I see someone badly treated because of the language they speak, I say or
do something
8. I use both languages when reading, writing, or speaking in class
9. In class, I sometimes write my outline or first thoughts in one language
and then write my final draft in another language
10. I compare the grammar rules of the languages I know
11. At home, we listen to music, read books or magazines, and watch TV in
more than one language
12. I think in more than one language
13. I think all the languages I speak at home are important for my future
14. I use my first language knowledge to learn the second language
All the members of the classroom can be involved in the surveys or a focus group can be created. The
questions in the surveys should be scaffolded to be responsive and achievable based on the students’
age and language proficiency (Crawford & Gross, 2019, pp. 50-51). Through these surveys teachers can
tap into students’ prior academic and linguistic knowledge to better understand their background and
establish a good rapport with their students.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
A Guide to Conduct Reflective Research
The sample reflective research introduced in this section provides a guide for pre-service and in-service
TESOL teachers to promote active learning through reflective research and critical pedagogies. The
detailed instructions given for method and procedures, case and unit of analysis, community and school
context and instructional program, can assist teachers to better understand the process and facilitate the
implementation of each step in their own research.
Before conducting reflective research, teachers should reflect on how they feel about their project
using the following critical questions:
378

• What do I look forward to and fear in this research project?

• What expectations do I have about getting to know language learners?
• What anxieties do I have (if any) associated with working with these language learners?
• What do I anticipate while working with these language learners?
• What do I expect to learn from this project as a practicing or future language teacher?
• What do I hope to take away from this project?
• In what ways do I think this experience will be useful as a practicing or future educator?
The literature review for reflective research should provide the background and rationale for specific
research area (Galvan & Galvan, 2017, p. 13). As a researcher, teachers should consider the following
factors:
• Identifying a theoretical focus based on critical ideologies

• Reflecting on why this specific theoretical focus has been chosen
• Researching about this theoretical model/concept
• Preparing 5-10 well-formatted interview questions that explore the theoretical focus
With regard to this point, the sample reflective research explored literature focusing on students’ culture
and previous language learning experiences, narrowing down the topic with a relevant and appropriate
research thread. Since the reflective research classroom involved only East Asian students, literature
review has developed its gaze through East Asian students providing the rationale for specific research
questions and assumptions located in the research. Ample research has been conducted considering East
Asian students, such as challenges they face in the US in terms of pedagogical considerations, stress and
disengagement (Lin & Scherz, 2014; Rao, 2017; Lyken-Segosebe, 2017), teaching methods (McKay, 2002),
language anxiety and experiences (Cheng & Erben, 2012), learning, social and educational experiences
(Kumi-Yeboah & James, 2014; Perucci & Hu, 1995), involvement and satisfaction (Zhou & Cole, 2016)
and socio-cultural and psychological adjustment (Xiong & Zhou, 2018). However, the reflective research
is important in analyzing an English-only classroom in the light of culturally sustaining pedagogy and
addressing active learning of East Asian students in the university environment, as there is limited data
in the related area. Research questions have been put forth as follows:
• How do the teaching strategies support active learning in adult language learning?
• How can those strategies be developed through culturally sustaining pedagogy in higher education?
Methods and Procedures
As Galvan and Galvan (2017) state, the qualitative analysis method that analyzes the research data needs
to be organized thoroughly and consistently (p. 84). Thus, teachers need to spend ample time analyzing
their own research data. The sample reflective research is unit of analysis for 12 weeks delving into
strategies to foster active learning in higher education. It is based on one academic English skills, low
advanced class at a research university in California and observes students’ regular classroom interactions
and practices for two to three hours a week. The research project is derived from the class themes and
students’ engagement; interaction and participation are students’ regular classroom experience. Data is
collected through direct observations of normal classroom instruction, fieldwork notes of regular class-
379

room activities written during the direct observations, informal interviews with the reflective research
students and teachers, and didactic documents, including handouts, homework, policies. The principal
investigator is a non-participant observer, neither the instructor of record nor the instructor’s supervisor.
The participants in this research are not graded or evaluated in the research classroom. They are given
the opportunity to withdraw from the study any time. The research has not impacted students’ grades
and/or academic success; only the normal class activities and procedures are used for the participation.
Participants have not received extra credit for taking part in the research.
Community and School Context
In order to analyze research for inclusion and provide teachers with a better idea of who the participants
are, information based on demographics has been given in community and school context (Galvan &
Galvan, 2017, p. 83). The reflective research observations started in the university campus face-to-face.
However, starting at week nine of the 15-week semester, synchronous classes moved online using the
Zoom platform for class sessions. This change was mandated by the university and later by city and state
governments due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The fieldwork has taken place in a neighbor-
hood where a great deal of the population has a median household income of $18, 533 based on a local
newspaper. The area has diverse ethnic demographics including Latino (47.7%), white (25.5%), Asian
(16.1%) and black (7.0%) which aligns with the university’s overall diverse demographics. On the other
hand, the area has a young median age of 23. Nearly one third of the residents are born outside the US;
the most common ancestries are Mexican (29.3%) and Salvadoran (4.3%), whose median household in-
come is declared as $18, 533. Similarly, the university shares the common ground with its neighborhood
when it comes to its diverse population. Based on the institution’s website, the statistics show that with
20,500 undergraduate and 28,000 graduate and professionals, the school hosts 48,500 students in total
who are white/ Caucasian (29%), Asian (16.9%), Hispanic (14.6%) and Black/African American (14.6%).
In this regard, the program also hosts students coming from various countries. As it is set forth by the
academic coordinator of the program, China, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Japan are the four top countries
by enrollment. Additionally, the program consists of students from Chile, France, Indonesia, Jordan,
Kazakhstan, Korea (Republic), Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Taiwan, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and Ye-
men. The rich ethnic demographics of the neighborhood resemble the rich environment of the program.
The reflective research classroom has a great number of East Asian national students reflecting the
program’s international student population. There are 15 students in this classroom, consisting of four
females and 11 males. Except one student who is from South Korea, the rest of the class comes from
China. The students are generally in their early 20s. They study in the academic track of science, tech-
nology and health. Student majors include the areas of engineering, math, medicine pharmacy, public
health, science and technology.
Instructional Program
The sample reflective research has reviewed instructional program through the student handbook, program
website and informative questions that are directed to the classroom teacher and administrators. As of
Spring 2020, the number of students enrolled in the program has reached 380. As it is mentioned in the
student handbook, the department provides the Pre-master’s (PM), the Master’s Preparation (MP) and
Intensive (IEP), all English-only programs. Based on the information that has been received from the
380

academic director, all faculty working in these programs have master’s degrees or at least five years of
experience, and three to five of them have doctorate degrees. In order to support the students, the program
organizes conversation groups, drop-in tutorials and also one-on-one conversation partners with an extra
fee. IEP students study seven weeks in total and are required to take three different classes each week
for a total of 20 hours per week. The program is designed for international students to develop language
skills and gain cultural knowledge to meet academic, professional and personal needs.
PM and MP IEP programs, including the reflective research class, are specifically designed for in-
ternational students to improve language and academic skills prior to entering a graduate program. PM
program is split into two tracks; courses tailored to the reading and writing skills. While PM students
are admitted to the university on certain conditions, the students who study in MP are in the process of
applying to graduate schools. There are four levels in this program; foundation, low-advanced, advanced
and proficient. The students are placed into these levels based on their official IELTS/TOEFL scores.
However, the ones who do not have any of the stated test scores are required to take an in-house writing
exam and/or oral interview. The length of the term is 14 weeks, and the ages of the students range from
22 to 32.
The students in this reflective research classroom are located in a PM/MP mixed program. They
have an academic focus on developing abilities to problem solve, summarize and analyze data from
research and course content. They are also expected to develop strategies for self-directed learning and
self-editing to study and work independently. The tentative course schedule of this low-advanced class
includes three units in the 14-week semester. The first unit is about the history of scientific innovation,
including diagnostic, problem-based learning and online discussion board posting. The second unit is
about robotics, including an article summary and analysis paper, online discussion board posting, team
project proposal, reading circle and problem-based learning. The final unit is about natural disasters,
including an article summary and analysis paper, reading circle, online discussion board and problem-
based learning. As the classroom instructor states, the members of this class are expected to receive a “B”
grade (83-86%) or higher to pass, which shows academic readiness for graduate study. Otherwise, they
are required to retake all their level courses in the following semester. What’s more, they are required to
have a “B” average overall to meet the university’s admission requirement. As the classroom instructor
expresses, the students are not required to buy any textbooks in this specific class. The instructor states
that all the materials are prepared by the teacher and shared as hard copy in class, or soft copy through
an online platform, Blackboard. Besides these materials, the instructor also uses Google Docs as part
of the classroom practice for group works to give feedback or share the agenda and the reminders of the
day. As it is noted above, after the COVID-19 pandemic, synchronous classes have moved online and
the Zoom platform is used for regular class sessions.
Case and Unit of Analysis
While conducting reflective research, it is better to develop and rationalize a traceable narrative with
argumentation that urges teachers to establish justifications based on the topic (Galvan & Galvan, 2017,
p. 99). This argumentation process should be justified by providing reasons why specific people are stud-
ied. This will help develop an understanding of the research problem. Thus, any background information
reflecting their experiences and explanation of how the observed people relate to the research problem
will be useful in this process. Future/practicing teachers can consider the following questions at this stage:
381

• How does the program design influence the research students’ language learning?
• Do I think the program is a good fit? What can be improved for better?
• What practices do not align with the program?
• How do I or the classroom teacher utilize L1 in the classroom?
• How do the classroom cultural practices and the students’ home culture align or dis-align?
• What funds of knowledge do the research students bring into the classroom?
• What classroom practices promote social and emotional safety?
• What norms and routines do I have or do I observe in the classroom? Do the research students
adhere to these norms and routines?
The stated reflective research has observed the classroom students and teacher. The students in this
class are required to use critical thinking skills such as analyzing, applying, evaluating and creating to
effectively take part in problem-based learning, discussions, team projects or presentations in teamwork.
Although this is an English-only classroom and L1 use is banned strictly by the teacher, a tendency
in using L1 has been observed while exchanging ideas in pair/group works and asking clarification
questions about instructions when the teacher is not present. During the observations, it has been noted
that a significant proportion of these students have become more confident and independent when they
personally make connections with the topic. This way, they have started taking active roles in activities.
When these students are provided opportunities to personalize the topic, they like to mention their own
experiences, such as technology use in China, and bring prior knowledge to the class. Also, at times,
it is recognized that their participation and engagement in group works, discussions and team projects
depend on the group members that they are assigned to work with. The students who are not engaged are
observed to remain quiet during classroom activities and participate only if called upon by the teacher.
With this respect, the research focus has turned mainly on the students who are open to improvement
with sufficient and efficient scaffold through equitable opportunities in the classroom.
The Reflective Research Findings
This section presents the findings of the sample reflective research illustrating how critical reflection
through the implemented reflective research is activated to gain information about the international stu-
dents in one EAP classroom. It also provides insights about effective teaching for practicing and future
TESOL teachers. The sample research aims to increase awareness about research students’ cultural,
linguistic and academic background, which can aid reflective TESOL educators in gaining an inclusive
perspective to employ equitable scaffolding in the classroom.
The first claim of this reflective research analyzes the challenges that the students experience in lan-
guage learning in their home country and the US because of cultural differences in terms of interaction
and participation. Based on the fieldwork notes and informal student interviews, it is concluded that the
students’ engagement in the classroom activities was highly affected by their previous language learning
experiences and the classroom instructor’s familiarity with the home culture. In an informal interview
after class regarding the varied language learning cultures, a student named Rob mentioned that in Chi-
nese culture, staying silent is the art of communication and added: “We learn how to speak when we are
382

young and spend the rest of our life to learn how to shut our mouth because people believe that if you say
something wrong, you are going to mess up your whole thing.” Another student named Nick, touched
on insufficient English speaking practice in China which has put barriers on in expressing himself in a
foreign country and noted: “We almost have no time to speak in class because we take exams, answer
multiple choice questions and do our homework.” These students were observed to use L1 with their
group members in some activities to understand the instructions better. However, the teacher informed
them about taking their points off if they use L1 in activities. This attitude was perceived as a threat
causing the students to instantly become silent. During online education, once the researcher joined in
a Zoom breakout room to observe the students and a student named Andy warned his friends not to use
any Chinese joking that the researcher would spy on them reporting their L1 use to the teacher. McKay
(2002) builds a comparative literature on East Asian students’ culture of language learning and draws
on the respect of authority in language classrooms in East Asia, which is also noticed in the fieldwork
site. The classroom rules were set by the teacher in the research classroom. The general tendency of the
students was obeying the priorly set rules without questioning them and respecting the authority. The
classroom teacher was once asked some questions based on East Asian students’ culture in a random
chat to better understand the gap between her dominant sociocultural and linguistic knowledge and the
students’, where she claimed that she has been teaching Chinese students for 10 years. Although she has
received training both inside and outside the university, she has never received any training specifically
targeted at Chinese students. Culturally sustaining pedagogy, however, requires both pre-service and
in-service teachers to value and cultivate the practices of students in order to expand those students’
practice repertoires (Paris, 2012, p. 95). In this regard, getting trainings or professional development
services in the students’ mother language, fostering the cultural pluralism of East Asian students in
classroom activities and practices, and gaining familiarity with the language learning experiences of
students, should be considered as the democratic project of schooling in this classroom.
Another claim of this reflective research addresses students’ fear of making mistakes and being
hesitant to share ideas in classroom activities using informal interviews with students and fieldwork
notes. After an informal conversation with Charlie, a student in the classroom, it is detected that his fear
of giving wrong or irrelevant answers, and in return, being perceived as acting inappropriately hinders
him from eagerly sharing ideas in class. Once he shared in a random chat: “I think here in the US, you
do not get punishment after you say something wrong, but in China, you probably get because of the
education mode, both at school and home. If a kid says something wrong, the parents blame him or her
in an aggressive way. So, eventually s/he learns not to share his/her ideas… And naturally, when people
grow up, they probably do not want to share their opinions before someone else speaks out.” In this
classroom, it was often observed that the instructor would get whole class discussions while eliciting
the comprehension questions of both listening and reading activities. The students were assigned these
questions as homework previously or provided enough time to answer those questions during the class
time. However, while eliciting the answers, she mostly asked the students to share their answers without
nominating or putting them in pair/group works to check their answers before the whole class elicita-
tion. In such cases, it was observed that mostly a couple students would give the answer, and the teacher
would elaborate on their answers increasing the teacher talking time. In such whole class elicitations, it
was observed that a few students like Charlie rarely shared their ideas, which stemmed from their fear
of making mistakes. However, with the start of the Zoom online classrooms, it was closely observed
that those students would participate in activities more if they were assigned to a breakout room to ex-
change ideas with peers before a whole class elicitation. In such cases, individualizing instruction, and
383

using differentiation techniques and scaffolding, including peer-to-peer language support, help develop
collaboration among students. Therefore, teachers need to encourage their students to engage in the
classroom acting as mediator or facilitator (Crawford, 2020, pp. 36-37). It is noted that, in Zoom classes,
students like Charlie were scaffolded both in exchanging their answers before whole class discussions
and provided an option of using the chat bar typing their answers besides shouting out the answers. These
techniques helped them overcome their fear of making mistakes by being the subject of their learning.
These two findings urge practicing and future TESOL teachers to take action in observing their class-
room discourse analysis. Rymes (2010) offers the concept of communicative repertoire to acknowledge
and analyze interaction in classrooms, to become culturally relevant and establish pride in cultural and
linguistic differences. A communicative repertoire is various expressions of using language and literacy,
as well as other forms of communication such as gestures, dress or posture, to participate efficiently in
different communities (Rymes, 2010, p. 528). The following categories are proposed to review language
use in the classroom (Rymes, 2010, p. 540):
• Names/Nicknames: Different names used for students and teachers.

• Gestures: The characteristic gestures used by students and teachers.
• Turn taking habits: Overlapping speech frequency, long pauses.
• Ways of telling stories: The characteristic used by students and teacher.
• Languages in play: the languages employed in class.
• Pronunciation of certain words: Tendencies of pronunciations by different students in class.
Teachers can identify distinct classroom events and raise awareness about classroom rules and the
authority in class by video/audio recording regular classroom practices. Through the analysis of these
recordings, they can characterize the language use within those events and identify variations in the lan-
guage. They can also identify and support their students’ social context through background knowledge,
community and power in language learning, and aim to create a positive and friendly environment. By
developing an understanding of communicative repertoires, teachers can better guide their students and
observe students’ needs, tendencies and preferences in language learning. They can design/adapt class-
room materials to increase students’ motivation and show them that their preferences are recognized
and appreciated in language learning.
The last claim of the reflective research has delved into the active participation methods of this
classroom using a didactic document, informal interview and fieldwork observation. As it is stated in
the course syllabus, the goal of this course is to help students develop their ability to use English within
the context of academic assignments through problem-solving, research, discussion and teamwork. The
classroom teacher once mentioned in a random chat that problem-based assignments (PBL) have been a
favorite teaching strategy of hers. They help to develop critical thinking skills, participation and learner
autonomy while also contributing to the development of learning objectives in academic English skills
classes. She said: “It hits on so many things at once and is very student-driven”. In a classroom reflection
discussion, a student named Jackie said that she liked PBL assignments in this class as she mainly felt
challenged through these assignments: “In China, I sometimes don’t want to share my ideas as it is too
easy to share. I mean the knowledge itself is too easy. It doesn’t deserve to be shared”. Another student
named Phil claimed that he got enough time to collect data, and had the opportunity of working in col-
laboration and discussing in groups before having presentations: “In China, teachers don’t give students
so much time to discuss. They just give the information, and you take it. They follow the PowerPoint.
384

You take notes and prepare for exams. That’s it.” A student named Matthew continued this argument
saying that: “PBLs are kind of new for me. I learn new things apart from the unit and work in collabora-
tion with my group members, learn something new from them.” So, based on both the instructor and
students’ feedback, it can be claimed that PBL tasks make the students like Jackie, Phil and Matthew
feel more comfortable to share their ideas in class. Regarding students’ feedback and observations, these
PBL assignments can be improved in two ways. The students had three PBLs in the class. Compared to
the first PBL task, a decrease has been observed in Jackie’s engagement in the last PBL task. She did
not participate in group discussion, by mostly keeping quiet and working individually. In the first PBL,
she was working with two students with whom she shared more, asked questions with ease and received
assistance. So, her interaction in that group was high as she felt more comfortable exchanging ideas.
However, in the last PBL, she was paired with two other classmates with whom she did not have too
much interaction. Both of those students used to keep quiet in classroom activities and did not seem to
be engaged much. That’s why, this situation made her put less effort into group work. In all of the PBL
tasks, the students were assigned to the groups by the teacher, and they were not differentiated to decide
on group members based on their readiness or preparedness. What’s more, the students were given certain
research topics for each task. In the first PBL, they were asked to choose one of the following problems;
traffic, the prevalence of the theft around the university and pedestrian or bicyclist safety in downtown,
and research an innovative solution that could be proposed to the city mayor. In the second PBL, they
were asked to choose some ethical issues from the book Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implica-
tions of Robots and summarize them. Then the teacher described a problem considering one of those
ethical issues summarized in the group and asked the students to solve it doing research. In the last PBL,
the students were asked to do some research on a specific natural disaster that occurred in a certain city.
Each group was informed previously on which disaster and city they would work on. In a chat after class,
Jackie mentioned that this topic decision seemed as a restriction and furthered her statement by coming
up with a suggestion: “The teacher can make a survey at the beginning of the semester about what we
are interested in and pick one of them-or even go through every one of them discussing with us-while
designing PBL task topics”. Changing the grouping and topic selection procedure by giving autonomy
to the students to decide on their group members and topic, the students should be engaged to become
the expert of their topic, find their own research area and work with the peers based on their preferences
and readiness. A self-reflection through the “resisting, revitalizing and reimagining” lens of culturally
sustaining pedagogy can aid the classroom teacher in increasing these students’ intellectual capacities,
cultures and languages through scaffolding and differentiation techniques (Alim & Paris, 2017, pp. 12-
13). Centering the cultural, linguistic and literate pluralism into PBL tasks, this classroom can provide a
schooling aspect for racial justice and positive social transformation. Here are some reflection questions
that teacher-researchers should consider in such cases:
• Do I provide choices for my students on topic selection for the classroom tasks?
• Do I create a learning environment in which my students use varied materials and/or sources
based on their preferences/interests?
• Do I encourage my students to do the tasks based on their preferences/interests, such as working
individually or in pair/groups?
• Do I present options for students to decide on how to demonstrate what they have learned?
385

Teachers should use differentiation techniques to proactively respond to their students’ needs, back-
grounds and learning preferences. Self-reflection allows teachers to better identify the variables that
affect students’ performance in language-learning and meet diverse students’ expectations. Heacox
(2012) defines several examples of learner diversity, which are cognitive abilities, socioeconomic/fam-
ily factors, readiness, learning pace, gender/cultural/ethnic influences, and how students value learning
and confidence in learning (pp. 7-10). These factors can disrupt the language learning process if not
considered while teaching. Reflective teachers should differentiate the learning in the following ways:
Table 3. Differentiating the learning (Adapted from Borja, Soto and Sanchez, 2015)
Content: Diversify the ideas, topics, Product: Encourage students to

Process: Diversify the ways that students
concepts that students are supposed to learn demonstrate what they have learned as they
interact with, and make sense of the content
based on their readiness, interest and/or want based on their readiness, interests and/
based on their readiness and/or interests.
preferences. or preferences.
Use varied types of student groupings
Provide students choices about what topics Present options for students to choose from
such as individually, pairs, groups to assist
to study or explore. to demonstrate what they have learned.
students process content differently.
Enable students to approach the content Encourage students to choose their
Provide students different types of
differently through different types of presentations individually, in pairs or in
resources or materials.
resources and materials. groups.
Provide students different language Enable students to have different roles
Encourage students to apply or extend new
models and language samples of varying or levels of participation in a group final
knowledge in various ways.
complexity based on student proficiency. product.
Provide students choices about the form
that a learning product will take such as
role play, sketch, story, explanation, etc.
Teachers should also employ meaningful scaffolding to create a learning environment where students
receive assistance from others to accomplish tasks more successfully than achieving it alone (Walqui,
2008, p. 163). Through scaffolding, students are introduced to a shared understanding of how to work
in collaboration until incorporating new knowledge or skills into their own individual consciousness
(Mitchell, Myles & Marsden, 2013, p. 222). Use of dialogues to support higher level thinking, pair/
group work, modelling, bridging new content to prior knowledge, contextualizing language, building
students’ conceptual understanding and developing metacognition through learning strategies are some
common examples of scaffolding that reflective TESOL teachers can use in their classrooms (Mitchell,
Myles & Marsden, 2013; Ormrod, 2011; Walqui, 2008).
Expanding on Sample Reflective Research
In this reflective research, regular classroom interactions and practices are observed and the data col-
lection is reviewed through salient themes that arise from the data. This research is limited to one adult
language learning classroom at a university. However, it can be implemented in various ways. This
section provides insights on how to expand this specific research study across other TESOL contexts.
Here are some suggestions:
386

• Observing Whole Class vs. Only One Student in the Research Classroom: The sample reflective
research focuses on all of the students in the research classroom, which provides a broader view of
the topic. However, it can be adapted by only focusing on one student to get a closer view of the
effects of teaching/learning strategies on one learner. In this case, the researcher can expand his/
her view into a more detailed perspective, gathering background information based on the target
student and his/her interaction with the other classmates and the teacher. The student can be inter-
viewed periodically to gain a better evaluation. These interviews can also be carried out with the
student’s family, language teacher and/or school administrators, as focusing on one student could
make it easier to receive information about the student’s current situation and learning process.
• The Roles of the Interviews, Formal vs. Informal: In-depth interviews could give better and imme-
diate insights on participant perspectives and language learning experiences exploring the tenden-
cies in depth. Also, they help further the inquiries by asking follow-up questions on time and to
the point, and getting the opportunity of comparing observed situations to the spoken words of the
participant. However, these interviews need to be formal and require the participant’s consent. In
some situations, principal investigators can not get the chance of having formal interviews. In this
case, relevant feedback/reflection sessions of the classroom or asking quick questions after class
time or in break times should be helpful. These questions will be considered informal and can fail
to provide the sufficient and appropriate information that a researcher needs.
• Target Group, Adults vs. Children: The sample reflective research was conducted in higher edu-
cation with adult language learners. However, it can also be implemented with children. For the
participants aged under 18, the principal investigator will also need to receive consent forms from
the parents or legal guardians. On the other hand, reaching a family member who has interest,
time and opportunity to work closely about the participant’s language learning habits can support
the research in gaining information about any participant aged under 18. If a teacher-researcher
prefers to conduct interviews, the contact should be a family member, to make the necessary
arrangements.
• Considering Gender: In the research classroom, the number of the female students compared to
the male students was low, and since the study did not include formal interviews, the analysis of
the effect of culture on gender was limited. This research did not further on the gendered ideas of
culture in language learning. However, in a broader study, any challenges stemming from gender
assumptions and discrimination can be taken into consideration.
DISCUSSION
The findings of the sample reflective research have depicted that culturally sustaining pedagogy help
develop language instruction acknowledging previous language learning experiences and understanding
the gap stems from the differences between home country and target language. It leverages the idea of
schooling in pluralistic societies (Alim & Paris, 2017). The research demonstrated that knowing closely
about students’ backgrounds and encouraging them to bring their prior knowledge into the classroom
perpetuate and foster active learning. TESOL teachers gain new insights by getting professional de-
velopment trainings to familiarize with the home country cultures and practices, and embrace diverse
students. On the other hand, threatening the students regarding their grades or using any assessments
against them because of L1 use demotivate and decrease their participation. Thus, avoiding L1 threats
387

in language classrooms can better scaffold the language learners. Finally, teachers should employ scaf-
folding and differentiation techniques and encourage the students to bring various components from
their own cultures or home practices into the classroom, and appreciate them. This way, instead of being
the authority or the source of knowledge in the classroom, teachers can become facilitators shifting the
roles with the students and assist them to become autonomous in the learning process. This research
is limited to only one classroom and was conducted during a limited time. It is also constrained by the
researcher’s subjectivity. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalized to all adult language learners
in higher education contexts. With a higher involvement of participants, extended duration and diverse
data collection, this study can be developed.
REFERENCES
Alim, H. S., & Paris, D. (2017). What is culturally sustaining pedagogy and why does it matter? In H.
S. Alim & D. Paris (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies (pp. 1–21). Teachers College Press.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-
ERIC Higher Education Report, 1–6.
Borja, L. A., Soto, S. T., & Sanchez, T. X. (2015). Differentiating instruction for EFL learners. Interna-
tional Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(8), 30–36.
Brown, M. (2007). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms, and
Cheng, R., & Erben, A. (2012). Language anxiety: Experiences of Chinese graduate students at U.S. higher
institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(5), 477–497. doi:10.1177/1028315311421841
Chu, S., & Garcia, S. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching efficacy beliefs of in-service special educa-
tion teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 35(4), 218–232. doi:10.1177/0741932513520511
Crawford, J. (2020). Language theories and approaches to multilingual teaching and learning. Critical
multilingual pedagogy: A practical guide to linguistically & culturally sustaining teaching.
learners’ background knowledge. Language and Education, (Oct/Nov), 48–54.
Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2014). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: Learn-
ing to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry (3rd ed.). Corwin.
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity
in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. doi:10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149
Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and
behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315229386
Garcia, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2018). Language and bilingualism practices. In Educating emergent bi-
linguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English learners (pp. 70–88). Teachers College Press.
388

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers
College Press.
Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70. doi:10.1111/
curi.12002
Gee, J. P. (2015). Ideologies. In J. P. Gee (Ed.), Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse
(pp. 7–23). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315722511
Gonzalez, N. (2005). Beyond culture: The hybridity of funds of knowledge. In N. Gonzalez, L. C. Moll,
& C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and class-
rooms (pp. 29–46). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Heacox, D. (2012). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all
learners (2nd ed.). Free Spirit Publishing.
Johns, C. (2013). Becoming a reflective practitioner (4th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Raising cultural consciousness. In B. Kumaravadivelu (Ed.), Beyond Meth-
ods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching (pp. 267–285). Yale University Press.
Kumi–Yeboah, A., & James, W. (2014). Transformative learning experiences of international
graduate students from Asian countries. Journal of Transformative Education, 12(1), 25–53.
doi:10.1177/1541344614538120
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally relevant ap-
proach to literacy teaching. Theory into Practice, 31(4), 312–320. doi:10.1080/00405849209543558
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational
Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. doi:10.3102/00028312032003465
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational
Review, 84(1), 74–84. doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
Lin, S., & Scherz, S. D. (2014). Challenges facing Asian international graduate students in the US: Peda-
gogical considerations in higher education. Journal of International Students, 4(1), 16–33. doi:10.32674/
jis.v4i1.494
Lyken-Segosebe, D. E. (2017). Acculturative stress and disengagement: Learning from the adjustment
challenges faced by East Asian international graduate students. International Journal of Higher Educa-
tion, 6(6), 66–77. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v6n6p66
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches.
Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second Language Learning Theories (3rd ed.). Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203770795
389

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a
qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In N. Gonzalez, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.),
Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 71–87).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Educational psychology: Developing learners (7th ed.). Pearson.
Osborne, A. B. (1996). Practice into theory into practice: Culturally relevant pedagogy for students we
have marginalized and normalized. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 27(3), 285–314. doi:10.1525/
aeq.1996.27.3.04x0351m
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–137. doi:10.17763/
haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77
Perrucci, R., & Hu, H. (1995). Satisfaction with social and educational experiences among international
graduate students. Research in Higher Education, 36(4), 491–508. doi:10.1007/BF02207908
Rao, P. (2017). Learning challenges and preferred pedagogies of international students. International
Journal of Educational Management, 31(7), 1000–1016. doi:10.1108/IJEM-01-2016-0001
Rosa, J. (2019). Looking like a language, sounding like a race: Raciolinguistic ideologies and the learn-
ing of Latinidad. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190634728.001.0001
guage in Society, 46(5), 621–647. doi:10.1017/S0047404517000562
Rosa, J. D. (2016). Standardization, racialization, languagelessness: Raciolinguistic ideologies across
communicative contexts. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 26(2), 162–183. doi:10.1111/jola.12116
Rymes, B. (2010). Classroom discourse analysis: A focus on communicative repertoires. In N. Hornberger
& S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 528–546). Multilingual Matters.
doi:10.21832/9781847692849-021
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the
social sciences (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach.
State University of New York Press.
Walqui, A. (2008). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. Interna-
tional Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. doi:10.1080/13670050608668639
Xiong, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2018). Understanding East Asian graduate students’ socio-cultural and psycho-
logical adjustment in a U.S. midwestern university. Journal of International Students, 8(2), 769–794.
doi:10.32674/jis.v8i2.103
390

Zhou, J., & Cole, D. (2016). Comparing international and American students: Involvement in college
life and overall satisfaction. Higher Education, 73(5), 655–672. doi:10.100710734-016-9982-2
Active Learning: Engaging learners actively taking part in the learning process to participate and
interact meaningfully.
Critical Pedagogy: An educational philosophy which questions the power, social hierarchies, and
dominant ideologies.
Critical Reflection: Questioning assumptions, values, biases examining power relations and think-
ing beyond the dominant ideas.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Acknowledging and understanding the backgrounds of the students
of color.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: Creating meaningful learning opportunities in accordance with
learners’ cultural knowledge, prior experiences, and frames of references.
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Maintaining linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism through
education and encouraging students to question dominant power structures.
Funds of Knowledge: Historically and culturally developed knowledge that empower individuals
to function in a specific culture.
Problem-Based Learning: Conceptualizing, designing, and creating new ideas individually and/or
in a group to solve a problem.
391
APPENDIX
Table 4. Reflective Research Guide
Step 1: Gather information for the following factors:

1. Background information about the target student(s):
• Full name
• Age
• Level/grade
• Skills development
• Birthplace
• Country/city
• Strengths and areas to develop in the target language
• Family background/occupation/education/familiarity with target language
2. Classroom:
• Number of the students
• Levels
• Disciplinary issue records
• Ages
• Student nationalities/race/culture
• School drawing on the percentage of race, socio-economic situation of the students, learners with disabilities
• Community demographics including race, household income, educational background and ancestries
3. School’s instructional program:
• Course design
• Purpose of the program
• Academic emphasis
• Language standards
• Core content areas and thematic units
4. Additional relevant information based on instructional context such as:
• Testing frequency,
• Material use and design
• Technology
Step 2: Decide on theoretical concept/model and write a literature review of the concept/model.
Step 3: Data analysis
• Review data via cultural norms, values, and roles of language
• Design grounded codes that capture patterns
• Analyze and combine codes
392
Table 5. Interview Protocol (Adapted from Seidman, I., 2006)
Before an interview
• Receive an informed consent to lower the risks an interviewee faces when they agree to be interviewed
• Decide on the potential interviewees on the agreed topic
• Decide on how long the interview will take and how it will be conducted (e.g., Three separate interviews and 90 minutes each, over a
week or two)
• Inform the interviewee that the interview will be audio-taped
• Inform and identify the rights the interviewee has in the interview (e.g., voluntary participation, the right to withdraw from the study at
any time and the right to have privacy)
• Prepare an interview guide and follow it cautiously throughout the interview
• Prepare your questions to which you need answers and require data
During an interview
• Be present with preset questions and record the interview to refer back
• Ask your questions in an open and direct way, and follow up
• Keep quiet and listen actively smiling and comforting the interviewee
• Ask questions allowing the interviewee to reconstruct their experience and explore their meaning
• Avoid using leading questions such as “Your teacher forced you to work with those group members, didn’t he?”
• Use open-ended questions to enable the interviewee to decide on the direction while responding such as “What are some of the
classroom practices that make you feel more confident?”
• Be open to prompt some interviewees more than the others to reconstruct their experience
• Avoid manipulation, unnecessary interruption and imposing your own interests on the experiences of the interviewee
• Provide enough space to think, reflect and add on to what the interviewee says
Limiting your own interaction
• Avoid sharing your own experience unnecessarily in order not to misguide the interview or distract the interviewee
• Explore the answers, but do not probe to avoid making the interviewee defensive and changing the meaning making process
• Avoid reinforcing interviewee’s answers to decrease the risk of distorting how the interviewee responds
• Follow and trust your instincts while deciding on risky or difficult questions
• Allow silence and provide considerable amount of time to comfort the interviewee to reply
393
394
Chapter 19
Incorporating Socially-Relevant
Teaching Strategies in the
Online TESOL Classroom
Ziqi Li
ABSTRACT
Conducting online TESOL class is always both a challenge and opportunity for teachers to effectively
support English language learners. Specifically, this study explores socially relevant teaching strategies to
facilitate an engaging and equitable online classroom for educators with ELLs with diverse backgrounds.
This research contains online language teaching strategies in the context of multicultural environment.
Overall, three strategies are elaborated. One strategy is organizing whole-class discussion and various
activity based on learners’ cultural background. The second strategy is choosing and using socially rel-
evant teaching materials with online technology, including neutral and authentic materials and giving
learners timely prompts. The third strategy is counteracting inequitable relationships in society and in
class, managing student emotions to create supportive relationships among students and the teacher.
These strategies expand literature on how to conduct online program that are relevant and sustaining
for culturally and linguistically diverse adult language learners.
INTRODUCTION
Socially relevant teaching strategy falls under the broad umbrella of culturally sustaining pedagogy,
which advocates learner-centered instruction and critical analysis of students’ sociocultural, sociopo-
litical, and linguistic contexts (Paris & Alim, 2014). This chapter advocates applying socially relevant
teaching strategies in online TESOL classrooms to ensure that online students fully develop their English
language skills, critical thinking, and culture knowledge. The context of this strategy is the multicultural
or multilingual online classroom, with students coming from diverse sociocultural, racial, ethnical, and
linguistic backgrounds.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch019

Incorporating Socially-Relevant Teaching Strategies in the Online TESOL Classroom
Literature on culturally sustaining pedagogy includes socially relevant teaching strategies. However,
ensuring social relevance in online classes is an emerging area of focus among scholars and practitioners.
It is beneficial for educators to conduct online English language teaching to have the awareness of being
socially relevant and applying related strategies. Therefore, this chapter offers socially relevant teaching
strategies for the online English language class with examples of these strategies used in practice. This
chapter is organized around the following sections, present evidence-based practices, learning activities,
portraits of practice, discussion, and additional resources.
CONCEPT
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy and Multilingual Classrooms
Language learning is a process of social practice (Murrey, 2018), it involves broad influences of so-
ciocultural, sociopolitical, and sociolinguistic factors in a community or society context. Culturally
sustaining pedagogy (CSP) as well as socially relevant teaching strategies are getting more attention
from educators in bilingual and multilingual classrooms. CSP seeks to perpetuate and sustain linguistic,
literate and cultural pluralism through education to challenges of social justice and change. This peda-
gogy helps teachers, learners, and researchers incorporate social justice into their practice (Paris, 2014).
CSP calls for critical engagement of language learners about the impact of their words, and the range
of their knowledge and background that are along with learners (Paris, 2014). Developing cultural and
linguistic flexibility is central to CSP because multilingual and multicultural practice are closely related
to power and access (Alim, 2017).
Socially Relevant Teaching Strategy in Multicultural Classroom
Along the same line, socially relevant teaching strategy pays attention to the application of various teach-
ing instructions relating to diverse backgrounds of learners involved (Malebese, 2017). This strategy also
considers the learning needs for learners with different backgrounds, as well as their learning capacities
and learning styles (Armstrong, 2011). In addition, to ensure social relevance, the concepts of power
and relationships in the classroom are included, which requires adopting values of mutual respect and
care, working on different sociocultural factors and learners’ ideological diversity (Malebese, 2016).
In this learning environment, learners should feel equally valued, both of the educator and learners are
encouraged to come up with and solving real-life questions, discuss real-life situation (Mahlomaholo
2013), where reality is viewed as contextual and changeable (Lee, & Smagorinsky, 2000).
Andragogy and Related Online Teaching
Some features are unique for adult language learners. In 1973, Malcolm Knowles explored andragogy
and defined simply as the ‘art and science of helping adults learn’ (Knowles, 1980). In 1997, Mezirow
noted adults are usually goal-oriented in their language learning and their focus is on practical and short-
term objectives. As a result, adult learners usually require immediate value and relevance for their study
(Gary,2013). Besides, they come from varied learning backgrounds and expectation of teacher role also
vary. Therefore, using different tools and strategies is crucial for differentiation and scaffolding; student-
395

centered, problem-oriented are expected in an adult learning environment. As for in-person classrooms,
teachers can use a whiteboard where students come to the front and interact with the content or lead a
discussion; or teachers could build a community circle to support student communication (60-Second
Strategy: Community Circles, Edutopia). These activities are unique in a physical classroom, where
eye-contact and sense of belonging emerge, which increase learners’ engagement (Bauer, 2018). In
contrast, an online environment is more challenging to engage students, since teachers cannot apply
some tools used in the physical environment in online situation. There are some studies that show that
technology is beneficial for learners to engage and participate, especially in online classroom (Gary,
2013). For example, the use of discussion forum is flexible for learners to use, since students can reply
over the weekend. Another example is digital technologies increase confidence in problem-solving and
writing skills (Bauer, 2018). Some research shows that adult learners show less social anxiety and a great
willingness to take risks (Linda, 2010). Online teaching and the use of technology provide opportunities
for learners to develop discourse in English and increase willingness to communicate for some timid
student because of more available time for expression (McIntyre 1988).
Socially Relevant Teaching Strategy
Socially relevant teaching strategies are one constituent component under the broad umbrella of Cultur-
ally Sustaining Pedagogy, which is an equitable teaching practice that promotes interculturalism, and
critical consciousness in the classroom. Socially relevant teaching strategies critically consider several
social, political, historical, and economic conditions that influence learners’ lives, their linguistic and
cultural identity and their performances in the classroom (Kumaravaradivelu, 2003, p.266). Because of
the revolutionary demographic shift, educators are expected to act differently to this change; it is both
an opportunity for educators to find creative ways to facilitate students with culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds to ensure that they gain a high quality and equitable education (Brown, 2007, p.
58). Notice that ethnic groups contain different values or express similar values in various ways (Gay,
2002). The experiences learners bring to the classroom are not only shaped by class experience but also
by a broader and more profound social, economic and political environment which they are in cultural
background influences learners’ ability to comprehend context and gain language skills.
Equally important, English as a global language has multiple versions; within different countries where
English is not a native language, the purpose English serves depends on different cultural background
(Kumaravaradivelu, 2003, p.240). Language communication depends on cultural and political contexts
which shape meaning in certain speech event. Teachers recognize there are different ways of seeing
reality and these different opinions are influenced by locations and social orders (Brown, 2007, p.59).
Based on the argument above, teachers should take students’ various cultural backgrounds into consid-
eration while giving instructions, planning discussions, and organizing activities. Crafting whole-class
discussions and using various activities to facilitate discussions is important, “…to recognize the rich
linguistic and cultural heritage the learners bring with them and use them as resources to build bridges
between what is known and what is new” (Kumaravaradivelu, 2003, p.249).
These strategies also emphasize on equity-minded practices. Equity means that to have fair out-
comes, there must be different or unequal conditions in order to account for the unequal conditions in
which people find themselves (Bensimon, 2005). Teachers have equitable minds consider themselves
as co-constructors of new understandings with learners in order to facilitate students in social actions
that would generate cognitive change and actions against social injustice (Peterson, 2003). One aspect
396

teacher ought to consider is teaching materials provided in class, such as textbook, video, and visual aids,
should be socially relevant. “textbooks are not a neutral teaching medium, teaching materials represent
cultural values, beliefs and attitudes” (Kumaravaradivelu, 2003, p.256). Teaching materials, in order to
be socially relevant, should contains target culture materials, source culture materials, and international
target culture materials (Malebese, 2017).
This strategy stresses “the importance of the flexible, shared, crossing and evolving nature of language-
minority youth’s cultural and language practices” (Paris, 2017). Emphasizing on equitable actions as
well as building a critically reflective community, teachers center the dynamic practices and selves of
students and community of color in a critical, additive, expansive vision of schooling (Paris, 2017, p4).
Also, to ensure socially relevant, teachers ought to empower minority students to use their own repertoire
of practice and managing student emotions. To be more specific, by creating a flexible, equitable, and
anti-bias relationships among students and teachers, educators care about student emotional state and
performance in class.
The following section describes three main practices that ensure social relevance and emphasize on
critical practices before, during, and after class. First part addresses to critically organize whole-class
discussion and activities based on learners’ cultural background, which are also grounded in sociocultural
influences; related strategies in TESOL practices will be illustrated. Second part asserts that choice and
the use of socially relevant teaching strategies with online technology in the online language learning
environment; related strategies and tools will be elaborated as well. The third part demonstrates that to
counteract inequitable relationships in class and manage student emotions, the teacher critically centers
equity in the classroom practices in the social context.
Organize Whole-Class Discussion and Activities

Based on Learners’ Cultural Background
Run Online Community Circle before Class
Online community circle is an activity for both teachers and students to know each other, get ready tech-
nologically, mentally, and physically before the official class starts. It is also a time for students in the
class to build a sense of belonging and as a sense of safety. Community circle should be equitable and
relaxing. Traditionally, students and the teacher sit within a circle, share with each other about the issue
they feel challenge, the accomplishment they achieve, or simply talking about their routines in school and
family. When the situation is online or remote, it is hard to feel the face-to-face communication. However,
here are still some ways to help the teacher run online community circle. Suggestions are listed below.
This strategy promotes equity and social relevance not only because it respects each individual’s vari-
ous background but also gives the individual a chance to speak and listen. This strategy also promotes
cultural sustaining, because contents discussed in the circle are closely related with each student’s life.
Participants in the circle can learn, solve, develop, eliminate, or even work on these contents together.
This strategy is being critical in the language learning environment; because it aims to process student
thoughts and feelings, as a result, they can better handle their situations and be actively present in the
397

Table 1. Checklist for online community circle
Give time to set up online device

be patience and give students time to get ready for conversations and class
or get into online platform
Encourage students to open
Opening the camera benefits students to see each other and
camera
The purpose of online community circle aims to know about students, have conversations, and solve
No recording during online
problems before the class start. Privacy is key in this activity. Without recording, students feel safe,
community circle
and the video also should not be released anywhere else after the conversation.
It depends on the class willingness and the class habit. If students get used to be called by name,
Call students by name or
show a list to students and randomly call students’ names. If students prefer to speak voluntarily, also
voluntarily
list names when they raise their hands.
Encourage chat orally or in
Encourage students to comment on each other’s sharing. Students use chat box online or speak out.
writing.
If the online community circle sets in a bilingual or multilingual class, students are encouraging to
Use bilingually or multilingually use their primary language or second language. Students should feel comfortable with the language
they use.
Students and the teacher in the circle should show respect to speakers. In case the speaker is not
Respect the talking piece
comfortable or not willing to share in dept or personal privacy, there should be no compelling.
Speak with your heart and with
Students who share the information should trust the community and talk genuinely.
respect
Listen with your heart and with
Students who listen to other’s sharing should listen carefully and genuinely.
respect
Issue students talk about in online community circle should remain in the circle. They are not
Remain in the circle
supposed to talk or discuss outside the circle.
Honor confidentiality Privacy and confidentiality are keys in online community circle.
class. Also, this strategy provides a foundation for students to be mentally prepared for learning and
growing. Students can also take action while listen to others’ stories, concerns, or experience. To illus-
trate more, students can help each other inside or outside school by having more contacts, having group
time or peer time talking about issues going on in their lives. They can even hold event or participate
in social event. Community circle is a microsystem and the first step for students to take social action.
During Class Time or throughout Semester: Enact More Dynamic Assessments
There are some tools and online platforms to help teachers incorporate activities and discussions based
on learners’ cultural background and learning styles. The purpose of incorporating different activities in
the online class is to respect students’ different learning styles, learning capacity, and learning readiness.
Dynamic assessment is one of the prompt and effective ways for educators to evaluate students and
timely adjust teaching content and approaches. To be more specific, this type of assessment aims to
focus on individual learning differences and readiness, because it pays attention to learning capability,
learning preference, and corresponding learning reaction of each student. For example, if a student is
distracted and unmotivated in grammar class, and hasn’t been able to grasp ten verbs in past tense that
have been addressed for over a week. The teacher notices that the student is still confused about the
differences between the present tense and past tense of the verbs when doing filling in the blanks. This
learning feedback or learning process is an appearance for leaning outcomes, however, it may be caused
by various reasons. Students can be unmotivated or occupied with family issue, such as parent divorce,
immigration, or economic loss. Individual issue can also be the reason for an unmotivated response, such
398

Table 2. Dynamic Assessment
Incorporate online games:

Kahoot is a game-based learning platform, which can help teachers
to assess students in real time. Different online activities, games, and discussions benefit students
Padlet is an online digital canvas to create post and project that to participant in class.
students and teachers easily share. Teachers are able to assess students through online games,
WordWall is a platform that allows teachers to create word games. discussion and activities effectively and dynamically.
Quizlet is a learning platform that use activities and games,
especially flashcard to help you practice what you are learning.
Chat box is one of the functions Zoom has. Using private chat
Private chat on Zoom to talk with teachers is a good way for students to solve their
problems
By choosing share screen on Zoom, teachers can create a virtual
white board. It has the similar functions as black board or white
White Board on Zoom board in physical classroom. Teachers can share text, choose
highlight bottom, draw, erase content, delete, and save the content
for future reference.
Teacher’s office hour is necessary. Set a fixed time and same room
each week for consulting, academic advising, meeting, or simply
having conversations. Fixed time, same room, reservation address
or link are crucial for virtual one-on-one conversation; if one of the
Virtual one-on-one conversation during office hour
conditions is missing, it hinders a student’s willingness to make
a reservation or talk. Knowing each week there is a time when
students can talk with their teachers is fundamental for students’
learning and wellbeing.
Online journal is another way for students to track their academic,
personal, and professional development. Students write online
journal in a comparatively flexible way. The purpose for online
Online journal
journal is for students to keep reflections, ask questions for
teachers to comment or answer. Teachers are supposed to answer
questions and comment on students’ online journal.
Telling stories that are from different cultures benefit students to
think comprehensively and critically. Add gestures and visual aids
Storytelling with gestures and visual aids are necessary for students to make more sense of content and keep
them interested. Teachers can also change their own backgrounds
into the specific theme.
Author’s chair is a way for the class to share story, writing practice
or reading practice in the classroom. The primary purpose for
author’s chair is to receive feedback from other peers and teachers
Author’s chair about their academic writing, academic reading or other academic
experience. Sharing with different experience among students, they
absorb suggestions and advice. Author’s chair can also be planned
ahead and give students enough time to prepare.
as having a shallow foundation of past tense knowledge, encountering school bully, or feeling isolated
and unsupported in the online environment. Ongoing issues and events in the community or society,
such as a global pandemic, anti-racism protests, or political elections, can also affect an individual’s
engagement in class. Therefore, dynamic assessment requires teachers to take socially related concerns
into consideration when evaluating students and assessing their performance. Also, for some dynamic
assessments, such as online journey or author’s chair, these types of communication between students
and teachers are effective ways to know students’ family, individual concerns, and ongoing social influ-
ence that affect students; teachers are more prepared to assist students with their learning.
399

After-Class Discussion Activities
Celebrate Culture: Create Online Post or Crafts
Students come to class with various backgrounds, culture, and beliefs. In the online situation, it is hard
to create full-immersion culture environment. However, there are still some activities for the class to
conduct in order to help students create a sense of community and embrace different cultures, conventions,
and beliefs. In order to celebrate different cultures, students can create online posts or crafts. Teachers
and students choose different themes to share based on students’ home culture, learning objectives, and
international culture.
To begin with, teachers model elements included in the poster or crafts, show students key compo-
nents to make posters. Teachers are also supposed to train students on how to use online platform, such
as Canva, Padlet, or PowerPoint. If teachers are not going to train students by themselves, they have to
provide online videos or written instructions for students to follow. Notice that technology should not be
a challenge that students are facing, make sure they know what to do and how to do it before individual
work starts. Students collect information or characteristics around a target theme. For example, in terms
of food, students introduce their home food to the rest of the class by telling students’ home country, food,
features, stories, conventions or traditions about certain food. Students create online posters by using
Canva, Padlet, or PowerPoint, etc. As for crafts, teachers inform students ahead of time for the materials
the class is going to use for making crafts. Teachers can find videos to show the steps one-by-one. Notice
that teachers are not just showing videos, but also explain what students are going to do. Teachers can
also make slides to show steps for students in case they finish their crafts after class. The activity is more
than doing crafts or making a poster. The teacher supports students to make more sense of international
culture, respect each other’s culture, society traditions or conventions, honor home culture and belief.
This activity is critical in sociocultural and language learning domains. To illustrate more, the poster or
craft students make should be diverse in culture, rich in literacy, and inclusive in content. Students ought
to express their critical opinions and even take social actions over the heated-debated issue and topics.
For instance, breast cancer awareness, which is a topic of interest to many people, is a proper choice to
make a poster or collage. Students can talk about history and importance of breast cancer awareness; and
ways to take precautions against breast cancer. In the next section, socially relevant teaching materials
along with online technology will be discussed further.
Choose & Use SRT Materials with Online Technology
Being critical about the materials provided in class and using various online technologies are vital to be
socially relevant in the online teaching. For materials provided in class, the instructor should consider
three aspects of material, including target culture materials, source culture materials, and international
culture materials. To be more specific, the source culture materials refer to the culture resources of
learners and the teacher. If students are from different regions, countries and areas, the source culture
and related materials are multiple. Source culture can be diverse. Target culture materials refer to the
cultural resource belonging to English-speaking countries like North America, United Kingdom, and
Australia. International culture materials related to resources that do not belong to source culture or
target culture (Dian, Lenny, Nova, Annisa, Fikri, & Amirul, 2018). Materials the class included should
be diverse, anti-biased and enable students to develop critical thinking. To be more specific, materials
400

can be pictures, audio, news, short videos, short stories, or actual items, such as food, culture decora-
tion. As for reading materials that ensure social relevance, here provide a few websites for teachers to
refer to related articles, essays, short stories, critique. ReadWork, Teacher Tolerance, and Education for
Justice are three critical and related websites for teachers to choose materials from. These websites also
include questions related to articles. Materials teachers choose on these websites or platforms are not
only related to target language objectives or learning outcomes, but these materials should reflect and
foster social relevance to students’ learning process.
G-Suite
G suite refers to the google online platform and applications, including google doc, google drive, google
slide, and google classroom, etc. Teachers and students can share all the real-time discussion, written
assignment, and learning resources using google suite. Advantages google suite bring to the classroom
is obvious. First, students will have group work and discussion they can write and edit the same assign-
ment. It is also easy for them to refer to later. Time flexibility is also one advantage Google suite brings
to the class. Students can write assignments in class or out of class. Besides, students will choose whom
they want to share. The confidentiality is also important in the classroom. G-suite is one of the online
learning platforms that benefits for both teachers and students to promote critical practices. To be more
specific, considering limitation and variation of time and space students have when they study online,
it is hard to coordinate working on one project simultaneously among a large group of students. G-suite
provides a choice that works remotely in space and flexibly in time for students and teachers, which is
an important support for online learning, considering unpredictable and turbulent factors in the social
environment. The online platform takes individual confidentiality into consideration, which respects
moral values and social convention in society.
Email
Email is a basic yet essential tool for teachers and students to communicate effectively and promptly.
There is a bunch of information email can include and convey. First, teachers use email to provide con-
cise instruction that is not included in class time, for example, how to use online technology for class
interaction and assignment, how to make poster or slides for class discussion and presentation, etc. This
information is necessary for students’ learning process and class coordination; and using email can save
a lot of class time, because students can learn these instructions by themselves outside the classroom.
Second, teachers should use email to remind students assignment date, class time, grade, and agenda.
Students have a lot of things to deal with during remote learning. Inevitably, they forget essential dates
for class, assignment, or semester agendas. Third, email is also a good place for teachers to provide feed-
back, schedule meeting, and provide online chat reservation. Fourth, email can also include additional
support materials, including online resources, school extracurricular activity or event.
As one of the most frequently communicating tools, email promotes interactions among students
and faculties that ensure social relevance and critically improve academic and social connections. To
illustrate more, contents in email need to be neutral and sociocultural grounded; for example, how to
address student name is an aspect that teachers ought to be circumspect about, if the student’s name
teachers refer to is inappropriate, which could offend some students from different culture, and further
leads to ethnic issue. Also, the content in the email needs to include materials for different culture, social
401

groups, and students at different academic level; for example, include American indigenous culture and
also include Asian American culture information, etc. Another example is to provide extracurricular
books that target to different levels of reading capacities of students, such as Oxford English reading
series. The next section will discuss tools and strategies to counteract inequitable relationships in class
and manage student emotions.
Counteracting Inequitable Relationships in Class

and Manage Student Emotions
Intake Survey
Counteracting inequitable relationship in society and in class and managing student emotion are crucial
for ensuring social relevance, especially in the online class. Social influences include cultural, political,
racial, religious, economic, and regional aspects, which strongly affect learner’s learning performance
and wellbeing. Intake survey is one of the effective ways for teachers to know about your students. In
the intake survey, teachers include questions that are concerning students’ learning challenges, expected
learning outcomes, learning objective, and expectation for teachers, etc. Intake surveys give teachers a
chance to get to know about students’ basic information, learning objective, learning strength, learning
difficulties. Teachers adjust and revise lesson plans, teaching instructions, and teaching strategies based
on students’ intake surveys. What’s more, the result of intake survey gives teachers a holistic view of the
class and each one of students as individual. The result of the survey provides a more precise and more
detailed way for teachers to know students and their expectation for teachers. It is an important way to
know about students’ culture background, learning background, and individual learning expectation.
Intake survey takes student background into consideration and benefits the teacher to revise teaching
content and approaches. To be more specific, through intake survey, the teacher not only knows about
student’s learning preference and learning objective, but also knows student’s background, such as coun-
try, primary language, and previous language learning experience. Therefore, taking social elements
into consideration, the teacher makes more personalized and targeted content for different students in a
critical and comprehensive way. The next section talks about diagnostic assessment that ensure social
relevance in language learning and benefits teachers to be more critical in practices.
Diagnostic Assessment
The second suggestion for teachers to conduct is providing diagnostic assessment without telling student
result. To begin with, diagnostic assessment is a good way to assess students’ English reading skill,
writing skill, listening skill, and speaking skill; this type of assessment also reflects students’ language
proficiency regarding aspects of grammar, vocabulary, logic, and other competence. Teachers will know
students’ learning challenges, learning strengths, and learning focus holistically and individually. Second,
the result of diagnostic assessment should not be open to the class. The purpose of this assessment is
not to rank students’ grade publicly or make students compete. If so, it will higher students’ affective
filter, discourage those who have lower scores than others. This assessment is for teachers to know each
student and change lesson plans and teaching focus accordingly.
Diagnostic assessment is one way for teachers to know about students’ academic strength and things to
improve; this assessment also requires teachers to be critical. To be more specific, for the results, teach-
402

ers should not show them to students. The purpose of diagnostic assessment is to help teachers improve
lesson plans, adjust learning objectives, and help each student more effectively. Also, when designing
this type of assessment, teachers ought to be critical in content and format. The results affect teachers in
positive way, which means teachers should not make assumptions about each student’s academic per-
formance and academic readiness, and discourage students whose score are lower than other students.
This assessment should positively help the class, instead of stratifying the class into different levels.
Student-Led Discussion
Student-led discussion is also an effective way for teachers to shift teacher-domain class to student-
centered classroom. Notice that in the online environment, it is easy that teachers lecture for the entire
class; however, as a result, students lose interest, feel unanticipated, and not engaging. Giving students
the opportunity to act as a teacher’s role, providing information that they can teach for the rest of the
class, teachers sustain the equitable relationship with students. To be more specific, teachers give students
more chance to domain the class, and help them establish a sense of responsibility in class, which will
encourage them to participate in class more actively, and increase student autonomy. There are certainly
a few ways for the class to conduct student-led discussion. First is phrasal verb, where teachers provide a
few target phrasal verbs, students choose one or two phrasal verbs, provide definition and related example
of the target verbs. Students can also provide pictures, short stories or comment on assigned verbs. The
second way is reading comprehension led by student. This is more challenging and higher-demanding for
students. Students are supposed to provide answers for reading comprehension. Show slides to discuss
the main topic, show key concepts in reading materials, and add personal comments, etc. The third way
is through student presentations. The forms of presentation vary based on different groups and class.
Students can present individually, as a group, or choose one presenter for the group.
Student-led discussion benefits class to be more dynamic, helps students to be more engaged, and
benefits teachers creating student-centered class. In the online learning environment, students can easily
feel discouraged, unmotivated, and isolated. Student-led discussion helps students to be more active and
engaged in the class. Students feel they actively participate in the classroom and related activities, which
benefits them to memorize and comprehend learning content effectively, since they need to familiarize
with content and know well about presentation beforehand. This type of activity helps teachers to evaluate
and facilitate online classroom, and shifts teacher-centered class into interaction-oriented class. This type
of activity not only benefits the communication among students and improves motivation for participa-
tion; but also help to counteract inequitable relationships between teachers and students in the classroom.
Suggestions for Schools and Programs
There are suggestions for school and program to facilitate teachers conducting socially relevant class.
First, programs provide online webinars talking about social justice, sociocultural event, and socially
related heated debate in society. These events should be anti-biased, diverse and critical. Teachers en-
courage students to join these discussions, or even participate as speakers. Second, schools and programs
invite guest speakers with different backgrounds to talk about their academic experience, professional
development, and personal experience to help students with their language, academic, cultural, and
professional development. Wide range of guest speakers with diverse racial and ethnical background
403

benefit school to promote equitable atmosphere. Students are also willing to take part if speakers relate
to their culture, society, and life.
The third suggestion is to provide opportunity and platform as virtual walk-in conversation concern-
ing emotion and mental health. These types of conversation should be confidential, with well-trained
therapist or physiological teacher, and give students easy access to make reservation and enter virtual
conversation room. To be more specific, confidentiality is the most basic issue to consider. Create a
space or opportunity that students can talk about their concerns relating to family, career, financial,
academic, and other personal issues; they can also talk about severe experience or mental crisis during
time of online learning. physiological teachers and therapist should provide direct help by giving con-
crete suggestions, providing students a bunch of information that they can turn to help, and talking with
their problems or concerns. Notice that these types of conversation are not only their academic teachers’
responsibility, but it is specialist or therapist’s responsibility. Teachers are not omnipotent, but schools
and programs should provide social and emotional support for students and teachers. Also, schools and
programs should also provide training for teachers to deal with student ’ different demands and concerns.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Pre-service and in-service TESOL educators benefit from dynamic and critically selected engagement
with socially relevant teaching strategies and tools throughout their teaching practices and professional
development. Tools and strategies provide above are common, timesaving, yet benefit educators to as-
sess teaching outcomes, class preparation and follow-up, and student performance; benefits educators
to critically incorporate, facilitate, and sustain a creative, multicultural, and equitable class within the
community, society and beyond. To be more specific, teachers can choose one strategy in the first part,
such as running online community circles in the classroom; choose one tool in the second part, such as
email to update, inform, and connect with students; meanwhile, choose one strategy in the third part,
such as intake survey to know about students with various backgrounds. These strategies and tools are
different in form, operating, and style; however, they all serve for one ultimate purpose in the TESOL
practice, which is to benefit educators and programs incorporate and foster critical thinking and actions
in the linguistic, socially relevant, and sociocultural context.
POTRAITS OF PRACTICE
Descriptions and strategies in the last section are the approaches I observed and used in an adult university-
level English for Academic Purposes program. In this Intensive English Program, which was designed
for international students or students who learned English as a second language. The primary purpose
was to help international students improved English language skills and learned cultural knowledge
while studying to meet their academic, professional or personal needs. There were 7 levels for students
of English language learning: 1-beginning, 2-low intermediate, 3-intermediate, 4-high-intermediate,
5-low-advanced, 6-advanced, 7-proficient. Specifically, this English intensive program was at level 5.
As for the placement: students took an in-house writing exam and oral interview during orientation.
As for language domain, it contained reading, writing, listening and speaking. They spoke at least five
different languages, Korean, Mandarin, Arabic, Spanish, and Japanese. English language educators can
404

apply strategies and approaches listed above in their actual teaching context to ensure social relevance
and equity. As for the affective domain, students had different purposes for joining this program. They
took this program based on different motivations. Some students attended for academic reasons, for
example, English academic reading and writing; some were for specific subjects, for example, travel
business English.
In the online community circle, there is a list of things teachers can do to run the circle effectively
and creatively. Topics include ‘what is your favorite moment in school or in class’; ‘what are things can
make you happy’; ‘what is one challenge in your life you think it is hard to deal with’; ‘what is one of
your habits’, etc. Teachers can share first, to set a tone for the class to begin the circle. The next step is to
call students by name or encourage them to share voluntarily. Students who share their stories should be
genuine and trust other students and the teacher in the classroom. Students who listen to stories should
be genuine as well. Respect each other’s challenges, accomplishment, or concerns. What being talked
about and mentioned in the circle should remain in the circle. Students and teachers are supposed to honor
confidentiality. When they take social actions or hold social events, they also need to be anonymous
or voluntarily refer to names. Being critical and inclusive of the topics and content being talked in the
classroom; teachers can facilitate the community circle by introducing the topic, leading the group, and
keeping orders. Both students and teachers can take actions within class or outside classroom, activities
such as holding theme seminar, taking part in online social discussion or workshop.
Dynamic assessment: incorporate online games. Including online games is a good way for teachers to
dynamically assess student’s language knowledge and prior knowledge. Teachers can use online games
at the beginning of class to grab students’ attention, give students opportunity and time to get prepared
for class. online games can also be used in the process of a class. The feedback from the game can guide
teachers to adjust and revise pre-designed lesson plans. Finally, online games can also be used at the
end of the class. The results of the game can serve as a wrap-up for the class meanwhile, provide both
teachers and students information for next class or after-class reflection. Using game-based instruction
and activity provides the class a relaxing, interesting, and engaging environment. Students can lower
their affective filter, they perform better, because the result is not decisive. The form of the game is
interesting and eye-catching. Here is a concrete example of how Kahoot is incorporated into an online
class. Teachers register a Kahoot account, pre-set a list of brief questions and answers; questions and
answers can be multiple choices, true-false, or matching questions. Teachers set time for students to
respond. Make sure students know how to get in the website, how to respond to the questions. After the
game, teachers are supposed to answer students’ questions. Give an award for those who win the game.
Adjust lesson plan for the following language content in class based on the game results. Another ex-
ample of dynamic assessment is the author’s chair. Students join in the author’s chair to get suggestion
and feedback from the teachers and their peers. Student who act as author are supposed to show his or
her written assignment or oral assignment in the class or in a group. In order to give feedback to the
author, the rest of the group members are supposed to take notes, give positive suggestions and practical
advice. Author’ chair is a good way for students to learn from each other, and to take responsibility to
give suggestions to improve. These bunch of ways are effective strategies for teachers to better evaluate
student learning performance and learning outcomes. Teachers can choose more than one strategy to
incorporate in class and meet students’ different needs. Online language learning games are simple and
neat, yet helps teachers to assess students timely and dynamically.
As for celebrating culture after class, students make online poster and craft to show in the class. There
are plenty of themes and forms students can do regarding culture poster, for example, the class is talking
405

about food in different cultures. Students can introduce their own food by showing picture, the procedures
of cooking food, some ingredient, the culture, meaning or tradition this food represents. Students can use
Canva or PowerPoint to make. Before students make the poster, teachers should model and give students
a sample of what a poster should be look like, what are some key components of a poster should be
included. Next, topics can be based on a week’s theme, ongoing event, or other socially relevant topics.
Notice that topics should be anti-biased, diverse, related to target learning objectives and students’ life.
For example, topics could include food, festivals, family traditions, and other cultural practices.
With the EAP classes at a university in Los Angeles, the source culture refers to California culture,
Asian culture, and South America culture. The target culture refers to English-speaking counties, such
as United Kingdom and North America. The international culture materials in this case refer to some
European countries where English is not domain or official language. The purpose of showing materials
is to foster and develop students’ critical thinking and cognitive skills. Teachers have the responsibility
to educate students to be a more responsible and more critical citizens beyond using correct target lan-
guage. Therefore, the materials teachers provide should be followed with discussions, asking questions,
encouraging conversations, and even having debate. For example, in my observational class, the teacher
showed news about pandemic, and asked students if they want to get vaccinated, the pros and cons of
vaccination. The teacher also discussed Woman Right within a week, and ask students questions about
gender equity, feminism, and equal work right, etc. Here is the description of the questions: ‘Open Ended
Question—Tell Me What You Think. Questions below are open-ended, students are supposed to choose
one or more questions, state your opinion first. Whether you agree with it or not, and give at least two
examples or comments explaining your statement. Question 1: are you willing to get vaccinated for
COVID-19? Why or why not? Question 2: Should drinking in public be allowed? Question 3: should
the drinking age be lower in the United States? Question 4: What is your opinion about gender equity?’
Notice that there is no strict right or wrong answer regarding open-ended questions. Students in this
practice are respected for what they demonstrate, as long as it is reasonable.
Online technology such as Google Suite, includes google doc, google slides, google drive, and google
classroom. These online platforms provide access for students and teachers to have class, upload as-
signment, hold discussion, conduct group work, and give grades and feedback. Technology issue is one
of the biggest challenges in the online learning, training of platforms and online applications should be
concise, relevant, and easy to follow. There are a few ways for teachers to get students well-prepared
for online technology use. First, teachers can provide online videos from educational channel, such as
Youtube, LinkedIn Learning course, and Khan academy. students watch videos and procedures to learn
how to operate certain technology outside classroom before or during the semester as asynchronous
activity. Notice that teachers are supposed to provide concrete and specific online video for students to
watch. Also, the time of video should not be too long, within half an hour is maximin. If the video is
too long, students will follow, if it is too short, certain procedures can be omitted. Second, teachers can
make videos by themselves. These videos can be within ten minutes, teachers record screen, voice, and
include certain steps for students to follow. Third, teachers can make slides or written instructions to show
steps of how to use online technology. Also, technology issue is the basic issue students encounter in
the online environment. It is inevitable and constant. Therefore, schools, programs, and teachers should
also provide technician or technology support during the entire semester, not only at the beginning of the
semester, but to support along the way. If the technology issue cannot be solved properly and promptly,
it interferes with student learning performance, learning willingness, and learning experience. Teachers
406

are not supposed to grade students lower or give negative impact on student assignment and group work
because of the reason of technology problems.
Email contact is easy yet fundamental in the learning process. Email content mentioned in the previ-
ous paragraphs are different approaches for teachers to follow. There are, however, a few things teach-
ers need to keep in mind. First, the time to respond to students should not take too long, it is proper to
respond students within a week. In the online situation, students can encounter emergency problem,
such as technology issue, group work issue, individual assignment issue, family, or other social-related
issue. If the time for teachers to respond to email take more than one week, most of the issue cannot be
solved timely, which will have a negative impact towards students’ learning process and learning readi-
ness. Second, the content of email should be concise and well-organized; for example, if the content
includes online learning materials, group work materials, and online technology use instructions, it
should be separated and list well. Third, the tones of email should be professional and friendly. To be
more specific, teachers should not use words that are discouraging, passive, or informal. Kindly remind
students what they need to do, provide resources that are relevant to student language learning, culture
comprehension, and professional development.
In terms of intake survey, there are a few things teachers need to keep in mind. First, questions in
intake survey should be short and direct; for example, ‘what do you think is your strength in English
language learning, listening skill, reading skill, writing skill, or speaking skill?’ ‘what do you think is
your challenge in English language learning’ ‘How many years are you staying in U.S.’ ‘What is your
primary language’, ‘what is your expectation for the teacher?’, ‘how many years have you been learning
English?’, etc. These questions are easy and direct for students to follow. Second, the result of intake
survey should be confidential to teachers only. The purpose of intake survey is to help teachers know
better about students, their learning challenges, culture background, learning expectation, and their
expectation for teachers.
Diagnostic assessment includes listening assessments. These assessments can take the form of can be
brief conversations, long conversations, lectures, news, or articles. It also includes reading assessment,
which can be short articles, news, stories, and science articles, etc. This diagnostic assessment should
also include writing assessment, which refers to write essay, argument, narrative, or critique about certain
topic. Speaking skills can be separated from other skill assessments. Notice that the core of this assessment
is to let teachers know better about students, the result should be only available for teachers. Teachers
are supposed to revise, adjust, or even change lesson plan based on the result of diagnostic assessment.
In terms of student-led discussion, there is a list of things teachers and students can do to better
incorporate student-led discussion effectively. First, teachers and students can decide topics and forms
together. For example, students can make slides to show notes for reading comprehension, students can
also work in a group or on their own. Besides, there are different student-led discussions, such as debate
over a heated issue, presentation of phrasal verbs, questions and answer over language learning issue,
even their personal experience regarding English language learning. Second, the language students use
during discussion within their own group can be their primary language. To be more specific, students
can use Mandarin, Japanese, or Korean if they come from east Asia; if students feel more comfortable
and more confident to use primary language during discussion session, there is no reason to negatively
interfere students to use English. In other words, English is encouraged to use not mandatory. Third,
student-led discussion should be followed by their peer comments and teacher feedback. Teachers give
feedback about student performance, their preparation, their cooperation, and their content. Use positive
words to show appreciation to students who present the discussion, give suggestions on how to improve
407

for next step. Fourth, time management is also important in student-led discussions. Set a time for every
student who is going to present before class begins, give students equal time to present and show their
preparation and outcomes.
Finally, suggestions for programs and schools. First, provide online webinars talking about social
justice, culture diversity. online webinar should be anti-biased, diverse and closely related to student
academic, personal, cultural, and professional environment and development. To be more specific,
online webinars contain issue and topic such as social justice and culture diversity; for example, ‘how
to cook Chinese food in five easy ways’, ‘what do you think girls to learn technology’, or ‘what is your
opinion about learning new languages’, etc. Second, invite guest speakers with different backgrounds.
These backgrounds include age, social, racial, cultural, regional differences. Invite wide-range of guest
speakers to hold speech and discussion talking about academic development, culture knowledge and
understanding, personal experience, and other professional development. These kinds of webinars or
speech help students with their English language learning, critical thinking, and their further professional
development. As for virtual walk-in conversation concerning emotion and mental health. Schools and
programs are supposed to pay close attention to student emotional and mental health, because if students
feel nervous, distracted, and distressful, they cannot concentrate on study and other academic performance.
Students will learn and perform well if they are in a relaxing, encouraging, and positive environment.
DISCUSSION
Applying socially relevant teaching strategy in class and promoting sociocultural learning in English
language development is emerging and become increasingly close to student English language learn-
ing. There are, however, a few challenges for teachers and students to conduct strategies and practices
mentioned above. First, the use of online technology, problems are internet stability, technology acces-
sibility, and technology acceptance. To be more specific, during remote learning, students encounter
internet problem all the time, it is better for teachers to record class for student further reference in
case students cannot get in the room on time or get out of virtual room during class. Notice that not all
students have access to technology, some students cannot afford technology or device to support them
with online learning. teachers and school can provide paper-based materials for core content, provide
on-site computer or device to help students with technology access issue. As for technology acceptance,
learning, acquiring, and operating online platform and application take time. Teachers should plan ahead
for students to have enough time to learn online technology, it can take a week, a mouth, even a quarter,
which depends on student technology competence and how much time they get trained.
Second, for programs and schools to provide psychological teacher or therapist to help students with
emotional and mental health problem demand school with financial support. Inviting guest speakers
and holding speeches online also demand school and program financial support. These programs and
schools should have plenty of financial support and plan budget ahead of time; for the reason that hold-
ing events online acquires the cost of online technology support, the cost of inviting guest speakers, and
the cost of inviting coordinator and specialist, etc. Third, social justice and socially relevant topics can
be sensitive for students. Students are from diverse cultural, social, and racial backgrounds, their belief,
tradition, ideology, learning style are totally different. The requirement for teachers to choose topics
that are anti-bias, dynamic, and equitable is high. Therefore, schools and program should also support
teachers by providing professional trainings concerning sociocultural topics.
408

REFERENCES
Armstrong, S. (2011). Encouraging conversations about culture: Supporting culturally responsive family
dispute resolution. Journal of Family Studies, 17(3), 233–248. doi:10.5172/jfs.2011.17.3.233
Bauer, R. (2018). Adult literacy and socio-cultural learning at Pina Pina Jarrinjaku (Yuendumu learning
centre). Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 58(1), 125–145.
Bensimon, E., & Kezar, A. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131), 99–111. doi:10.1002/he.190
Berling, J. A. (1999). Student-centred collaborative learning as a “liberating” model of learning and
teaching. Journal of Women and Religion, 17, 43–55.
Borja, L., Soto, S., & Sanchez, T. (2015). Differentiating Instruction for EFL Learners. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(8).
Brown, M. (2007). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms, and
Charis, C. (2012). Managing the Multicultural Environment. Winner of the “Excellence through Diver-
sity” Award. http://www.chariscorp.com/mime.asp
CircleL. (2021). Equity in Education. https://www.learningcirclesoftware.com/resources/equity-in-
education/
Colorado. (2021). https://www.colorincolorado.org/glossary/affective-filter#:~:text=The%20affective%20
filter%20is%20a,hinder%20and%20obstruct%20language%20learning
Dian, R., Lenny, M., Nova, L., Pitaloka, A. A., Fikri, Y., & Amirul, M. (2018). Research on Educational
Media: Balancing between Local and Target Language Cultures in English Electronic Textbooks. The
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2).
Gary, M. (2013). Innovations in learning technologies for English Language Teaching. In Innovations
in learning technologies for English Language Teaching. The British Council.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2),
106–116. doi:10.1177/0022487102053002003
Greene, M. (1993). Diversity and inclusion: Towards a curriculum for human beings. Teachers College
Record, 95(2), 211–221.
Kahoot. (2020). https://kahoot.com
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy (Rev. and
Updated.). Association Press.
Kumar, R., Zusho, A., & Bondie, R. (2018). Weaving Cultural Relevance and Achievement Motivation
into Inclusive Classroom Cultures. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 78–96. doi:10.1080/00461520.20
18.1432361
409

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Raising cultural Consciousness. In Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for

Language Teaching (pp. 267–275). Yale University Press.
Malebese, M. (2017). A socially inclusive teaching strategy for transforming the teaching of English
first additional language. Perspectives in Education, 35(2), 16–29. doi:10.18820/2519593X/pie.v35i2.2
Martínez, P. (2021). Culturally responsive and sustaining education. NYU Metro Center. https://stein-
hardt.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/2020-05/01222020_CRE.pdf
McKay, S. (2002). Ch. 5 Teaching methods and English as an international language. In Teaching Eng-
lish as international language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformation Theory out of Context. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 60–62.
doi:10.1177/074171369704800105
Murray, D. (2018). The world of English language teaching: Creating equity or inequity? Language
Teaching Research: LTR, 24(1), 60–70. doi:10.1177/1362168818777529
Nkoane, M., Ambrosio, J., & Mahlomaholo, S. (2013). Sustainable learning environments and social jus-
tice: Editorial comment. TD. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 9(3), v–xiii.
Otto, S. E. (2017). From Past to Present: A Hundred Years of Technology for L2 Learning. The Handbook
of Technology and Second Language Teaching and Learning, 10-25. doi:10.1002/9781118914069.ch2
Padlet. (2020). https://padlet.com/dashboard
Paris, D., & Alim, H. (2014). What Are We Seeking to Sustain Through Culturally Sustaining
Pedagogy? A Loving Critique Forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. doi:10.17763/
haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in
a changing world. Teachers College Press.
Peterson, P., & West, M. (2003). No child left behind? the politics and practice of school accountability.
Brookings Institution Press.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Phillipson, R., Mohanty, A., & Panda, M. (2009). Social justice through multilin-
gual education. In Social justice through multilingual education (1st ed., Vol. 7). Multilingual Matters.
doi:10.21832/9781847691910
Szecsy, E. (2008). Technology in language teaching and learning. In J. M. González (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of bilingual education (Vol. 1, pp. 822–825). SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412963985.n313
Thomas, D. P. (2016). Critical pedagogy and Socially Responsible Investing (SRI): Questioning our
post-secondary institutions’ investment strategies. Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 4–21. doi:10.3167/
latiss.2016.090302
410

ADDITIONAL READING
Canva. (2021). https://www.canva.com/q/pro/?v=2

Kahoot. (2021). https://kahoot.com/
Learning for Justice. (2021) https://www.learningforjustice.org/
Padlet. (2021). https://padlet.com/
SuiteG. (2021). https://workspace.google.com/
TESOL International Association. (2021). Invite Speaker Sessions. https://www.tesol.org/convention-2021/
convention-highlights/invited-speakers
The Bell Foundation. (2021). Language, Education and Social Justice International Strategies for Systems
Change in Multilingual Schools. https://www.bell-foundation.org.uk/eal-programme/research/language-
education-and-social-justice-international-strategies-for-systems-change-in-multilingual-schools/
Zoom. (2021). https://zoom.us/
Affective Filter: A metaphor that describes a learner’s attitudes that affect the relative success of
second language acquisition. Negative feelings, such as lack of motivation, lack of self-confidence and
learning anxiety, act as filters that hinder and obstruct language learning (Colorado, 2021).
Andragogy: The art and science of helping adults’ learning (Knowles, 1980).
Culturally Sustaining Education: An education philosophy that calls for deliberately embedding
students’ cultures into the very processes, inputs, and outputs of school (Pamela, 2021).
Equity in Education: Reforming practices, policies, and procedures at the school and district lev-
els to support academic fairness and inclusion and ensure that every child has the resources, teachers,
interventions, and supports they need to be successful (Learning Circle, 2021).
Multicultural Environment: The environment contains diversity in terms of ethnicity, gender,
religious, social belonging, etc. (Chair, 2012).
Social Emotion: Any emotion that depends on one’s appraisal or consideration of another person’s
thoughts, feelings, or actions (American Psychological Association, 2020).
Socially Relevant Education: Curriculum and teaching strategies connect learning to the needs of
students as members of families, communities, and society, helping students to understand their situat-
edness (Greene, 1993).
411
412
Chapter 20
Teacher Research as a
Form of Critical Praxis:
A Path to Professional Development
Pinar Sali
Bursa Uludag University, Turkey
Ebru A. Damar
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4295-078X
Bursa Uludag University, Turkey
ABSTRACT
The aim of this chapter is to provide TESOL practitioners, undergraduate, and graduate students in lan-
guage teacher training programs with both a conceptual framework of teacher research (TR) as a form of
critical praxis and a practical guide on how to implement it in language education settings. Subsequent
to the description of what TR consists of and how it relates—or it does not—to other forms of research
endeavors undertaken by TESOL teachers, the chapter continues with an outline of the procedures and
practices to be implemented in TR and concludes with some key recommendations as to the promotion
and dissemination of it for a full and effective exploitation of its transformative power.
INTRODUCTION
‘Critical Praxis’ (CP hereafter), which can be defined as the amalgamation of theory and practice and
reflection and action (McLaren et al., 2010), has its roots in the ‘critical theory’ (CT). CT is character-
ized by its strong criticism of ‘traditional theory’ (TT) which strictly divides between theory and practice
and between the ‘researcher’ and the ‘researched’ to ensure and exercise objectivity. While TT is the
gatekeeper of the status quo and attempts to bring explanations about the world as it is, CT is aimed
at questioning and transforming existing conditions through reflection and action. Horkheimer (1982)
argues that only this act of reflection and action could liberate human beings from the oppressing condi-
tions surrounding them.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch020

Teacher Research as a Form of Critical Praxis
Freire (2000) calls for the need of a CP in education. According to him, it is imperative for educators
to be cognizant of the fact that we are subjects of our lives. Action and reflection, as he maintains, are
the nexus of this sort of awareness to bring about social change. In a similar vein, Arnold et al. (2012)
postulate that CP emerges when “self-reflective consciousness” and “emancipatory action” are brought
together and “seeks to move beyond the constraints of formal teaching, knowledge and curriculum and
instead encourages communities, teachers and students to work together in producing new understandings
and practices for the public good” (p.281). One of the paths to the enactment of such self-reflection and
reflective action is teacher research (TR) which has great potential to nurture teacher growth, to bridge
the divide between theory and practice and to bring about transformative change.
Educational research has been often criticized for its being not generalizable, having results indepen-
dent from contexts, providing insufficient solutions for teachers’ problems, and lack of enough support
for teachers to develop CP. Accordingly, the need for teacher research in which teachers can deal with
their own problems in their unique contexts becomes inevitable. In this way, as Nguyen (2020) states,
they have the chance of finding first-hand solutions to their contextual problems, strengthening their
teaching performance and maximizing students’ learning with the opportunities they create through
research results. To promote teacher-oriented research, academy-based researchers, teacher trainers and
other relevant parties who are aware of the complicated nature of classrooms would provide support for
teachers on ‘what’ and ‘how’ issues through either several resources or active engagement during the
research processes.
There seems to be a consensus on the fact that “teaching is not a purely technical activity where
the end goal is re-determined and achieved by applying precise methods” (Anwaruddin, 2019, p. 10).
Therefore, teachers, either by themselves or by a third party, are urged to question the quality of their
teaching, since the performance of any teaching methods varies in different contexts where individual
differences are also at play. This questioning never ends, and teachers find themselves in continuous
and ever-growing reflective practices. Farrell (2018) states that teachers with a reflective perspective
not only look back on their previous performances in the classroom but also look at motivation, actions,
experiences, emotions with a conscious mind to increase their level of understanding of the strengths
and weaknesses of the classroom reality. Put differently, teachers as questioners start this long journey
named ‘teacher inquiry’ or ‘teacher research’ (TR) in many diverse forms and with a wide range of
purposes to increase their level of professional expertise. During this journey, they need some guidance
regarding the processes and perspectives required for a research project.
The aim of this chapter is thus to provide both a conceptual framework of teacher research and a
practical guide on how to implement it in diverse settings in the field of English language teaching. In
the pages that follow, the undergraduate and graduate students in language teacher training programs,
novice and/or experienced in-service teachers, more specifically TESOL practitioners, or any educational
specialists who are interested in teacher/action research are targeted. In order to provide them with a better
position to engage in research and also to improve and fine-tune their practices as teacher-researchers,
the chapter is organized to answer the following questions:
• What is teacher research (TR) and what is in common with other forms of research (action re-
search (AR), reflective practice (RP), exploratory practice (EP), and so on)?
• When is teacher research needed? Identification of a research topic/questions/hypotheses?
• What methods are employed in TR? How are they chosen and justified?
• What are the main data collection tools?
413

• How can a practitioner report the findings? What contributions and/or implications TR makes for
practice?
• What are the ethical considerations related to TR?
• How can teacher researchers disseminate their research results?
Before deep delving into the answers to these key questions above, it is worth mentioning that there
are different forms of teacher research reflecting different underlying conceptualizations in terms of their
goals (Borg, 2013). In this chapter, teacher research (TR) is used as a superordinate term in such a way
that will encompass various research forms (i.e. AR, RP, EP) in which TESOL teachers can engage in
their own instructional contexts.
Background
A considerable amount of literature has been published on teacher research (Borg, 2009, Cochran-Smith,
2012) or teacher inquiry (Stremmel, 2007) named as classroom research (Medgyes, 2017), action research
(Dikilitaş & Griffith, 2017, Schutz & Hoffman, 2017, Stringer, 2007), exploratory practice and lesson
study (Lankshear & Knobel, 2004). In different forms and with different purposes, teacher research
(TR) is eventually conducted by teachers themselves, either individually or collaboratively in order to
understand instructional dynamics in context and through the viewpoint of those who are in contact
with each other on daily basis (Miller & Shinas, 2019, Nguyen, 2020). Although the terms preferred
for teacher inquiry vary, most of them can be used interchangeably to exemplify teachers’ systematic
exploration of their own practice.
Drawing on an extensive range of literature, one can encounter the differently classified forms of
research in which teachers engage in their school contexts. One classification is that researchers adopt
reflective practice (RP) as the cover term for all the research types that need a reflective perspective such
as action research (AR), exploratory practice (EP), and lesson study (LS) (Dikilitaş and Griffith, 2017).
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999), on the other hand, propose another label in which teacher research is
used as an umbrella term for reflective practice, exploratory practice, and action research. In the current
chapter, the labelling of Cochran-Smith and Lytle is adopted, and the research forms under TR term are
described in the following sections.
Reflective Practice
The notion of reflective practice (RP) is first based on John Dewey’s educational conceptualization that
sees learning as a reflection on a continuum of experiences and dates back to the 1930s. The insights by
Dewey show that reflective thinking is inevitably followed by systematic description and questioning of
classroom practices. This, then, creates new questions that should be answered by the implementation of
research. Teachers’ thinking over what and how they teach to shape their future practices is naturally a
result of reflectivity. In RP, this reflectivity is seen as an ever-ending process and a tool to foster teaching
and students’ learning, respectively. At this point RP is interconnected with the practices in AR where
teacher researchers should keep in mind all the contextual details of their research focus: students, col-
leagues and administrative staff. Dikilitaş and Griffith (2017) also emphasize that reflection is a kind of
catalyst for determination of research issues in both AR and RP. Teachers’ reflection in RP is enhanced
with students’ and other teachers’ perspectives providing insights from multiple sources. They make a
414

comparison of EP, AR and RP and summarize their interconnectedness as that “the exploration through
discussion” which is an initial stage in EP can be the main stage of research in AR and it can be con-
ducted through a “research experience” as it is in RP. (p.32).
The stage of ‘exploration through discussion in EP’ is consolidated with more focused and closer
examination of a specific practice in one’s own teaching. The emerging or identified weaknesses or points
to improve at this stage can better inform the problematized issue to be investigated in AR, which can
follow exploratory and RP research experience.
RP is further seen as the exploration, analyzing and verbalizing the problems in professional settings
with more awareness of the reality rather than trial and error approach. Teaching practices are fostered
through continuous reflection for better experiences (Bright, 1996; Raelin, 2002). This sustainability of
RP can be enabled through some steps which are shown in Figure 1:
Figure 1. Reflective practice cycle
As it is seen in Figure 1, the RP cycle is inspired by Kolb’s experiential learning. In RP, any experi-
ences in the form of problems or puzzles in the classroom trigger the reflective process that is pursued
by a description of the issue. The subjective reactions and feelings on the issue are evaluated to de-
termine the pros and cons of the experience. At this point, RP is performed in the form of an analysis
through discussions with all parties in the relevant school/educational context. After common thoughts
and similar experiences are shared, both general and specific conclusions are drawn. The last step is in
fact a preliminary step for future action plans as a result of what is learned through reflection during
this research experience.
To this end, systematicity in reflection boosted by multiple perspectives is a form of professional
development activity in RP much the same as other teacher research approaches like EP and AR. Through
reflection and synthesizing for future practices, teachers can render informed and conscious decisions.
Thus, they become more autonomous by tracking their own professional development.
Exploratory Practice
During the past 30 years, exploratory practice (EP) has been used as a means for professional develop-
ment in many fields from education to law, medicine to engineering. It is mostly realized mostly through
collaboration with all individuals in the given context. The problems that are the focus of EP are gen-
erally issues not soluble without negotiating with others. When educational contexts are considered,
EP utilizes classroom activities instead of traditional research procedures. The ultimate goal of teacher
415

inquiry here is just to understand before considering the possible solutions. The other stance of EP is to
work in collaboration for mutual development. Allwright (2005) defines the inquiry in EP as a puzzle,
not a problem or issue as it is in other forms of teacher-based research. Allwright and Hanks (2009) refer
to this “puzzling” as a reflection on just “why” questions instead of taking research actions for better
“solutions” (p.176). The answers to these questions seem enough for EP to get a better understanding of
the puzzle itself. What is more about EP is that it proposes a framework for language learners and teach-
ers. The primary principle of this research framework is the “quality of life” to raise both learners’ and
teachers’ awareness into teaching and learning (Dikilitaş and Griffith, 2017, p. 25). The quality-of- life
principle is put forward more effectively than the success which is made visible by scores and grades.
It does not prioritize the quantity, that is, scores, grades, numbers in a school context but the quality
for individuals in educational contexts. The reflection concept, which is at the core in most forms of
TR, is firstly provided in EP through reflective dialogues with other members of the contexts ranging
from learners to parents. The second way of reflective practice in EP is through observation of focused
classrooms and analysis on informal/formal documents by all the relevant members: teachers, students,
parents, and administrators. Helping learners to identify their own puzzle is also possible in EP both to
make them understand it better and to foster their own learning.
Consequently, EP makes it possible to integrate classroom activities and exercises as the basic sup-
port elements to research processes. It, therefore, saves time and provides valuable data from its natural
context. They, moreover, help teachers and learners to be confident and autonomous enough in solving
their puzzles in their actual environment. Allwright and Hanks (2009) entitled these classroom practices
as “potentially exploitable pedagogic activities” or “PEPAs” (p.157). These activities are also seen as
the core of the EP research that they are intentionally developed to focus on the puzzle, that is to say,
the problem to be searched in classroom contexts. Some examples of PEPAs utilized in EPs can be seen
in Table 1. Accordingly, it is clearly seen that regular classroom activities can act as natural sources of
data in EP research processes.
Table 1. PEPA examples for exploratory practice (EP)
Data from activity and

Verbal data Written data Data from task
Exercise
Pair work Diaries Tests Games
Group work Self-evaluation Projects Tests
Roleplay Suggestion box Problem box Field trips True and false exercises
Consultancy Dialogue journal Vlogs Jigsaw reading
Discussion writing Blogging Sentence completion
Interviews Learner-to-learner Self-recording Gap-filling sentences
Storytelling correspondence Videotaping Reading texts about
Brainstorming Story completion Drawing the puzzle
Self-evaluation Writing critical incidents Peer feedback
Taken from Allwright and Hanks (2009)
Action Research
As the name suggests, action research requires an active investigation and a researcher who is the active
participant of the context where the problem/issue is to be investigated. The action research is conducted
416

to answer the question, to solve the puzzle, to fix the problem, or to resolve the issue where the active
participant recognizes it as it is. (Dikilitaş & Griffith, 2017, Norton, 2008). The term AR dates back to
the 1940s and it has been defined in several ways so far. The definitions focus on two main aspects of
AR such as a question that needs to be answered and a teacher as an active investigator/explorer of their
own contexts (Burns, 2010). AR is also seen as one of the critical strategies for professional development
through which teachers can improve their instructional skills. Besides, AR allows teachers to increase
their awareness and autonomy professionally. The development of autonomy and awareness is likely
provided when teachers decide the issue to be studied, the ways of AR plan and the interpretation of
the results of AR.
CP may be construed as a natural outcome of most forms of TR, and it starts with a “burning question”
in AR, as Burns (2010) identifies. The question here is something that teachers have been dissatisfied
with, strongly want to gain deeper insights on and make a difference as a consequence. With a bottom-up
approach, AR deals with the contextual critical aspects in educational settings including both teaching
and learning as a whole. The four phases of AR are planning, acting, observing and reflecting (see Figure
2). The first three phases are also conducted in a reflective manner, and this cycle of AR unremittingly
allows teachers to monitor their practices.
Figure 2. Action research cycle
Each of the four phases of AR includes a set of guidelines. In the first phase, action plan, it is crucial
to identify the problem/puzzle/issue to be investigated. Focusing on the issue, specifying it and develop-
ing research questions are the initial steps to be taken. It is followed by a step where action researchers
determine how to collect reliable and valid data. During this phase, one of the important issues is to
review the ethical considerations. A broad revision of the relevant literature is rather initiated in this
phase. In implementing the plan phase, the plans set in the first phase are enacted and data collection
forms a large part of it. Burns (1999, 2010) gives various examples of data collection in AR from dif-
ferent settings in her books and the list ranges from classroom activities, observation, brief notes, audio
and video recordings of teachers and learners to interviews, questionnaires, surveys, diaries and any class
documents. The third phase is the data analysis phase, and an action researcher here needs to interpret
the data gathered through several tools. At this stage both qualitative and quantitative analysis can be
employed by teachers. As the AR functions in a reflective cycle, practitioners can turn to the first phase
and revisit the issue when needed. The final phase of AR, in fact, is not actually the last step and can
be revisited repeatedly. The actions in this phase help teachers to gain insights about their teaching and
improve their practices. Since it is an iterative and dynamic process, it informs teacher researchers that
417

AR is an ongoing process where they can refine and foster their professional skills whenever needed
(Norton, 2008).
As RP and EP, AR is also different from the academic and more formal research types. While the
former focuses on specific issues which are contextualized and generally self-informed, the focus of the
latter is on more generalizable findings and it addresses others in the wider community. The reflection
quality of AR is observed as the recommendation to the others in academic research. In line with RP,
EP and AR, in the following sections, a thorough overview of teacher research (TR) is given. As men-
tioned previously, TR is used as an umbrella term for the various research forms in which educational
practitioners can engage in their own contexts.
WHAT IS TEACHER RESEARCH: AN OVERVIEW
Several definitions of the concept of TR by different authors highlight different facets of it. Cochran-
Smith and Lytle (1999) focus on the quality of TR as its being “systematic, intentional, and self-critical”
(p.22). Among these, TR is repeatedly pronounced as a systematic inquiry to improve both teachers’
own understanding and practices in their contexts and to develop critically (Bailey, 2001, Borg, 2011).
Borg (2013) remarks on the compensatory nature of TR, as it provides a ground for the contextualized
issues that academic researchers may not investigate yet. The reflective cycle, one of the basic qualities
of TR, is also accepted as a means for teachers to consider, reconsider, act on and revisit many issues
hidden in their own practices. The collaborative disposition of teacher research practices is another
beneficial side that is underlined, as the implementation and interpretation of the research processes is
not that much of an easy task alone.
TR can start with a single question which teachers seek answers to deepen their understanding of
what is really going on in their own contexts. In the second step of the TR cycle, data collection and
analysis are done to find answers to the questions posed by teacher-researchers in the first step. After
the data analysis process, the answers found are interpreted on a pedagogical basis and new insights are
accordingly developed. As TR is cyclical, dynamic and spiral, not a linear process, the steps here can be
interminably revisited until effective pedagogic decisions are made to reflect on the area investigated
(Borg, 2015, Burns, 1999, 2010, Dikilitaş & Griffiths, 2017). During the TR cycle, reflection can be
supported by several actions: reviewing related research literature, interacting with academics, collabo-
rating with colleagues, etc. Borg (2013, 2015) advises asking insightful questions after data collection
and analysis to take informed and inspiring actions. This is the step where CP may fulfil its objectives,
paving the way for further reflective evaluation and thus possibility of transformative change. Table 2
shows how similar most of the stages of RP, EP, AR, and TR are.
HOW TO CONDUCT TEACHER RESEARCH: PROCEDURES
TR, as one of the paths to CP, is an endeavor that will encourage practitioners to develop a new set of
re-conceptualizations and critical understandings of their own pedagogical philosophies and practices.
All those understandings and re-conceptualizations could be conceived as a sort of awakening in that
they allow teachers to successfully act upon and remove the constraints surrounding both themselves
and their learners, thereby transforming their pedagogical landscapes.
418

Table 2. Stages of reflective practice (RP), exploratory practice (EP), action research (AP) and teacher
research (TR)
Forms of research Stages of research

Reflective
Experience Describe Analyze Conclusion Make future action plans
Practice
Exploratory Practice Identify your puzzle Design PEPAs Data collection Data analysis Develop understanding
Action Research Plan Act Observe Reflect
Teacher Research Ask questions Data collection Data analysis Make sense Take action
The route to this awakening consists of a number of methodological procedures that need to be me-
ticulously followed and enacted by teachers. In what follows, these methodological procedures will be
outlined so as to help TESOL practitioners (and any practitioner) map out their own research endeavors.
Following a brief account into the identification of a research topic and research questions, an outline
of key research methods will be presented. This will be followed by considerations in relation to the
research setting and selection of participants. After a look into issues pertaining to data collection and
analysis, the chapter will continue with information about the report and discussion of research findings.
Other key issues such as research ethics and integrity and dissemination of research findings will also
be briefly touched upon.
Identifying Your Research Topic and Questions/Hypotheses
The identification of a research topic-and related research questions- is one of the most daunting tasks
in conducting research. For successful completion of a research study, these initial choices are of sig-
nificance, because they lay the foundations for other key decisions that researchers are to make in their
studies (Morgan, 2017).
Irrespective of the type of research (academic or classroom), teacher researchers first need to care-
fully consider and prepare all the essential groundwork for their inquiries. That teacher researcher
may naturally be surrounded by a wealth of classroom issues or questions to start with and scrutinize.
However, this does not imply that the teacher’s task would be easier. Preparing all that groundwork is
a prerequisite. A key question then remains to be answered: How should the teacher researcher prepare
this groundwork before anything else?
The first step for teacher researchers to take will be to list down the topics of interest and reflect
carefully on them one by one (This list should definitely not be an exhaustive one). In this course of
reflection, these are the key questions that the teacher researcher can ask him/herself: What has attracted
my attention to these topics/Why do I prefer them? This question-and the answers to it-is critical. If the
topic is one that teacher researchers will not maintain a prolonged interest in, this may raise questions
about the quality of their research. A teacher’s own classroom experiences is one alternative source for
deciding a research topic and specifying related questions. It is not uncommon for teachers to be sur-
rounded by a myriad of challenges and problems in the classroom. Teacher researchers may thus focus
on one of these problems in their contexts and act upon it. Through a careful analysis of their priorities,
they may first opt for classroom issues that require urgent attention and action. A search of the related
419

literature would also provide researchers with answers about if similar topics have already been the focus
of similar research and, if so, how they have been dealt with.
The next step will be to narrow down the focus of the research topic to make it more tangible and
researchable. To exemplify, such a topic as ‘The effect of corrective feedback in language acquisition’
would be impossible to investigate because of the breadth and depth of it. A narrowed down version
of this topic can be ‘The effect of (a certain type of feedback) on the acquisition of (a certain type of
a structure)’. The examples can be substantiated. ‘Stress in the classroom’ would be a broad topic to
explore, but ‘The sources of my students’ stress in the classroom is easier to delve into.
After all the groundwork is laid, the following step in the research journey would be to formulate the
hypotheses or research questions. Similar to the identification of a research topic, this step lies at the
very heart of the path to successful scientific inquiry. The difference between a research question and a
hypothesis is worth mentioning at the outset. A research question attempts to inquire what the research
itself seeks answers to. ‘What are the sources of/reasons for my students’ stress in English classes?’ is
illustrative of a research question. Depending on what the researcher aims to inquire, there may be more
than one research question to be posed in a specific study.
Alternatively, hypotheses may guide the teacher researchers in their research and are typical of quan-
titative studies, especially of experimental ones. A hypothesis can be defined as “a specific, clear, and
testable proposition or predictive statement about the possible outcome of a scientific research study based
on a particular property of a population, such as presumed differences between groups on a particular
variable or relationships between variables” (Lavrakas, 2008, p.731). An example of a hypothesis may
be ‘The use of communicative games reduces learner stress in my classes’. For a clearer understanding
of what a hypothesis and a research question is, several other examples extracted from research studies
are included in Table 3.
Some examples of research questions are provided above in this part of the chapter. Nevertheless,
further information should be in place about how to write good research questions. First and foremost,
a good research question needs to be specific, clear, concise and narrow. While ‘Do visual aids have an
effect on student learning?’ is too broad and almost impossible to answer in a specific inquiry, ‘Does
the use of captioned videos have an effect on the students’ retention of L2 (second language) words?’ or
‘What problems do EFL learners report about learning L2 grammar?’ are more clearly stated questions
and narrow enough to be answered thoroughly. This brings about ‘feasibility’ as another major concern
for good research questions. The teacher researchers should be realistic about constraints on time and
resources and specify their questions accordingly. Not asking more than one question at a time is a
further rule of thumb in writing research questions. If teachers intend to gain an understanding about
how their learners’ gender and previous learning experiences influence their motivation levels, they had
better frame two separate questions for each of these factors. Being researchable is another indispensable
feature of a well-written research question. A research question should be answered by using primary
(quantitative and/or qualitative data) and/or secondary sources (all relevant scholarly work about the
topic under investigation). If there is not any chance to get access to the required information through
these sources, it would be necessary to reconsider the research question(s) to make them more tangible
and so researchable.
420

Table 3. Examples of research questions and hypotheses
I. Studies (with research questions)

Purpose Research questions
1. What are the teacher trainees’
attributions for their failure?
2. Do teacher trainees have
internal (ability + effort) or
Gürsoy, E., & Korkmaz, Ş. Ç. (2015). to identify ELT (English Language Teaching) trainees’ external (task difficulty + luck)
Teacher trainers as action researchers: attributions for their failure, their locus of control and attributions for their failure?
Scrutinizing the reasons for student their achievement goals in a teacher education course in 3. Do teacher trainees have
failure. a large state Turkish university internal or external locus of
control?
4. Do teacher trainees carry
learning or performance
achievement goals?
Banegas, D. L. (2018). Towards 1. What do EFL teachers in
Understanding EFL Teachers’ to unearth English as a foreign language teachers’ (EFL) Argentina think of research?
Conceptions of Research: Findings from conceptions of research in Argentina 2. How do they engage in and
Argentina. with research?
II. Studies (with hypotheses)
Purpose Hypotheses
1. Gender predicts ESL learners’
Ismail, S. A. M. M., Karim, A., &
to examine whether gender, reading comprehension.
Mohamed, A. R. (2018). The Role of
socioeconomic status (SES), and ethnicity are predictors 2. SES predicts ESL learners’
Gender,Socioeconomic Status, and
of ESL (English as a second language) learners’ reading reading comprehension.
Ethnicity in Predicting ESL Learners’
comprehension 3. Ethnicity predicts ESL
Reading Comprehension.
learners’ reading comprehension.
1. Vocabulary pre-teaching
is more effective than pre-
to investigate the effects of the two pre-reading questioning.
Mihara, K. (2011). Effects of pre- strategies ‘vocabulary pre-teaching’ and ‘comprehension 2. Students with lower English
reading strategies on EFL/ESL reading question presentation’ on EFL/ESL learners’ reading proficiency are able to
comprehension. comprehension and the relationship between their outperform higher-level students
proficiency and reading comprehension on reading comprehension tests
if they carry out a more effective
pre-reading strategy.
RESEARCH METHODS: KEY ISSUES AND POSSIBILITIES
There exists a variety of research methods for researchers to choose from, each with its own weaknesses
and strengths. It would, however, be impossible to mention all these methods within a book chapter. That
said, for the purposes of a more concrete understanding, this section will provide an overview of the
main research methods without delving into their philosophical backgrounds. It will first set off with a
mention of quantitative methods and continue with a focus upon qualitative and mixed methods research.
This, nevertheless, should not be taken as that quantitative methods are superior to the other types of
research methods and that the authors present them in a ranking order. All research methods have a value
in themselves and help researchers in their attempts of journeying into the very heart of the unknown.
The rationale for such a narrative is then concerned more with how research methods have emerged and
evolved. A look into the history of research approaches, for instance, indicates that qualitative approaches
421

to research have gained ground as a response to the limitations of quantitative approaches (Dörnyei,
2007). In narrating research methods here, this will therefore be the point of reference.
Quantitative Research
Quantitative research takes an objective stance to the phenomena under scrutiny and describes data in
numbers through statistical procedures (i.e. means, ranks, frequencies, percentages). It also allows for
hypothesis-testing and helps the researcher see possible relationships between variables. The study below,
conducted by Zhao and Liao (2021), is an example of quantitative research:
...by using a metacognitive writing strategies questionnaire as a post-test, the present study examined
the type and effect of metacognitive writing strategy use among about 200 EFL students immediately
after completing the writing assessment on a university placement test. Factor analysis of empirical
data revealed five main types of strategies used by EFL writers when composing under a timed testing
setting. However, correlation and regression analyses pointed to the limited and mixed effect of such
strategy use on writing assessment performance...
Quantitative research methods largely fall into three subcategories: Experimental, quasi-experimental
and non-experimental (Muijs, 2011). In experimental research, participants are randomly assigned to
either control (comparison) and treatment (experimental) groups. Whereas control groups are provided
with standard, mainstream forms of instruction, treatment groups are offered an alternative type of it (i.e.
treatment/intervention) to decide whether it would cause any change in learning outcomes. To observe
the effects of this intervention, pre- and post-tests are administered to participants (see Table 4). Quasi-
experimental research is a good choice where participants cannot be randomly assigned to control and
treatment groups. In educational contexts, setting up pure forms of experimental research may be a dif-
ficult task because of already established classes, which makes random sampling very difficult (Dikilitaş
and Griffiths, 2017). This would pose a greater challenge for TESOL teachers who intend to conduct
research in their instructional settings, which is why non-experimental inquiries would be better options
for them. Non-experimental research, on the other hand, involves the use of surveys with a large sample
of respondents and may take such forms as online surveys, online polls, pen-and-paper questionnaires.
Table 4. An overview of procedures in experimental research
1. Pre-test 2. Treatment 3. Post-test

Experimental (treatment) group Ö Ö Ö
Control (comparison) group Ö X Ö
Taken from Muijs (2011)
As with all types of research methods, quantitative research has its own advantages and disadvan-
tages. One strength of quantitative research methods lies in the precision, accuracy and standardization
of the procedures they employ. This paves the way for another advantage then. Rigorous and standard-
ized procedures make the replication and comparison of research studies possible (Burns, 1999), which
422

is a precursor for reliability in research. Further, quantitative research is conducted on larger groups of
participants and thus allows for the generalizability of findings to larger settings and situations.
Despite all its aforementioned strengths, quantitative research is not without its limitations. One of the
limitations is concerned with its neglect of ‘the insider perspectives’. To put this another way, quantitative
research may fail to successfully reflect the inherently subjective accounts and idiosyncratic experiences
of participants. Another weakness is that they do not provide an in-depth and enriched understanding of
the complex and interacting factors and relationships pertaining to the different aspects of the phenom-
ena. To illustrate, in a quantitative research study, teacher researchers can obtain information about what
stresses their students in the classroom and how many of them feel stressful, but not about all complex
sets of factors triggering all that stress. This is why qualitative research has become increasingly popular
as an alternative type of inquiry. The following section will throw light on the key features and main
strengths and weaknesses of this type of research.
Qualitative Research
Qualitative research has witnessed a surge in interest in scientific inquiry, as quantitative methods take
a rather mechanical and reductionist approach by describing and making sense of human perception
and experience through numbers. However, human perceptions and experiences are far too complex,
and for a profound understanding of all these complex phenomena, there is a need to go beyond just
means, frequencies and percentages. Qualitative research then comes to the rescue and helps delve
deeper into the hidden aspects of meaning, motivations, perception and behavior- and the complex and
organic relationships among all these. In this type of research, qualitative data is gathered for a thorough
description of events, perceptions, experiences from the eyes of the participants by means of observa-
tions, interviews, open-ended questionnaires, journals, just to mention a few (these data collection tools
will be elaborated later in the following sections). Below is a typical example of a qualitative research
study by Herrera (2018):
...The present study is in pursuit of understanding ESL teachers’ pedagogical experiences in an urban
high school…and provides an overview of the instructional realities that ESL educators face in today’s
classrooms through interviews and observations. Findings indicate that there exists a relationship be-
tween self-perception and instructional performance in the ESL classroom.
There are different types of qualitative research such as case study, narrative research, phenomenology,
grounded theory and ethnography. In case studies, as the name suggests itself, the focus is upon individual
cases. The individual case to be explored may be an individual (a teacher/learner) , a small group (of
teachers/learners), an institution or a program. In this type of qualitative research, the researcher gathers
in-depth information about the case in question through a longitudinal focus and via the use of multiple
means of data collection. Like case studies, narrative research seeks to profoundly understand participants’
ways of thinking by having them narrate their experiences (i.e. life stories). Teachers, for instance, may
ask their learners to narrate their previous language learning experiences. In phenomenology, a specific
phenomenon or event is put into focus and described and interpreted through the lenses of participants’
lived experiences. The study by Campbell (2012) is a good example of phenomenological research.
In her study, she focused on the phenomenon ‘project-based learning environment’ and attempted to
capture the essence of a group of ESL learners’ lived experiences with it. As another type of qualitative
423

research, grounded theory takes a bottom-up approach to data analysis. What characterizes this type of
qualitative inquiry is that it does not set off with predetermined themes while analyzing data. As data
is gathered, it is sought for emerging themes and meanings through an iterative constant comparison
(Strauss and Corbin, 1998). In ethnographic inquiry, the researcher attempts to gain deeper insights into
a specific culture through participant observations and detailed interviews in order to bring to light the
meanings participants attach to the culture that they are part of. Here, culture is not used in its general
anthropological sense. A classroom or a school culture may be the focus of ethnographic research. In
their ethnographic study, for example, Zhang et al. (2018) focused deeply on the professional culture of
a group of high school EFL teachers in China by means of extensive field observations and interviews.
Qualitative research has its own unique strengths and weaknesses. The main strength of this type
of research is its explanatory and exploratory power thanks to the thick description of events, percep-
tions, actions, experiences and underlying motivations for all those. Qualitative research also allows
for a longitudinal focus on research phenomena and thus prolonged engagement in the research set-
ting. Flexibility in research design can be mentioned as another advantage. Thus, TESOL teachers can
greatly benefit from this type of research to deep dive into what numbers alone (means, frequencies,
etc.) cannot unveil like their learners’ thoughts, feelings, experiences and the driving forces behind all
these. Also, the flexible nature of qualitative research allows TESOL teachers to consider and reconsider
their research designs, research questions and data collection tools throughout their inquiries. Despite
the strengths and advantages of this type of inquiry, there are certain limitations of it that are worth
mentioning. Collecting, analyzing and interpreting qualitative data may be a troublesome and lengthy
process. There are also issues relating to generalizability because of small sample sizes and idiosyncratic
nature of participant experiences.
Mixed Methods Research
Mixed methods research takes a pragmatic stance to research issues under investigation. This pragmatism
is characterized by the mixture and use of both quantitative and qualitative methodologies that would
best suit the purposes of that specific research study. The main rationale for doing so is to overcome the
limitations of using a single research design by combining research methods to achieve ‘triangulation’
and thus to gain an enriched understanding about the research issues under scrutiny. As key features of
mixed methods research, Creswell and Creswell (2018) point to the collection of both qualitative and
quantitative data and the use of rigorous methods in data collection, analysis and interpretation. They
also maintain that mixed methods research can be drawn on to compare and contrast different types of
information flowing from qualitative and quantitative data and to shed more light on quantitative find-
ings through the use of qualitative tools of data collection and analysis. Below is an example of this type
of research by Ye (2021).
Drawing on self-determination theory, the present study aims to examine the differences of higher-
achieving, average-achieving and lower-achieving junior secondary students’ motivation in China.
Data were collected via ‘The Language Learning Orientation Scale questionnaire’ and administered to
773 students, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 students...The findings revealed
notable differences and similarities in motivation among the three-group students. The low-level students
demonstrated the highest level of amotivation and were least intrinsically motivated to learn English.
424

The study also indicated that all students showed a similar level of extrinsic motivation. In light of these
findings, it seems to be crucial for English teachers to foster students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation...
There are three major types of mixed methods research: the convergent design, the explanatory se-
quential design and exploratory sequential design. The convergent mixed methods design consists of a
single phase in which both qualitative and quantitative data are gathered and analyzed apart. The find-
ings gleaning from each data type are compared to see if they are in support of each other. Unlike the
convergent design, there are two phases involved in the explanatory sequential design. In the first phase,
quantitative data are collected and analyzed. This information is then built upon to plan and expand
on the second qualitative phase of the study. In the exploratory sequential design, these two phases are
reversed. After collecting qualitative data and analyzing it, the researcher may draw on all the findings
to design a questionnaire/survey to administer to a larger sample and to collect quantitative data.
Mixed methods research may come with its certain challenges. The justification for the use of
multiple means of data collection and analysis, the integration, report and interpretation of findings
coming from different sources of information and the involvement of multiple researchers in the study
may pose particular challenges for the researcher (Kajamaa, Mattick and de la Croix, 2020). However,
with a careful planning of each research procedure and through consideration of ethical issues, mixed
methods research will be of great value in illuminating our understanding about the different facets of
the research problem(s) via a triangulation of data collection and analysis techniques.
Table 5. A summary of research designs
Key features Research designs

in terms of... Quantitative Qualitative Mixed methods
to explore and interpret subjective to investigate research phenomena by
to test hypotheses and examine
experiences from the insider’s integrating both qualitative and quantitative
Aim(s) the relationship among
perspectives and meanings attached data collection and data analysis techniques
variables
to those experiences for purposes of triangulation
Case study
Experimental, Convergent
Types of Narrative research
Quasi-experimental Non- Explanatory sequential
inquiry Phenomenology
experimental Exploratory sequential
Grounded theory Ethnography
Observations
Data
Questionnaires Interviews Both qualitative and quantitative data
collection
Checklists Open-ended questionnaires collection tools
tools
Learning journals/diaries
Descriptive and inferential Both qualitative and quantitative data analysis
Analysis Content analysis
statistics techniques
Research Context and Participants
In its simplest, the research context is the specific location where the research endeavor takes place. It
may be a particular classroom, school, program or institution. Teacher researchers’ choices as to the
research setting is contingent on the purposes of their research and the questions posed in it. Irrespective
of the methodological orientations adopted, the research context should be thickly described. That is, it
425

should be described in detail to help the audience better understand and interpret all variables at play, the
ways they interact with each other and the results obtained. Such a thick description also contributes to
the believability and thus credibility of the research, which is established when the participants’ views
are correctly described and interpreted by the researcher.
While describing the research context, there are key aspects of it to be mentioned, and this descrip-
tion should provide answers to these key questions:
1. Where? (is the research context): The audience needs to be informed about both the geographical
and sociological location of the research context (Dikilitaş and Griffiths, 2017). As to the geo-
graphical location of the context of research, there should be mention of where the classroom(s),
school or program is: What is, for instance, the name of the city and country where that research is
taking place? The sociological location and geographical location are strongly tied to each other.
This is why information needs to be also provided about the socioeconomic variables surrounding
the research context: Is the school, for example, in a big city or a small town? Or in an urban or
a rural area? What are the socioeconomic conditions typical of that research context? Besides all
these, there needs to be mention of the type of school in which the research is undertaken: Is it a
private or state primary, secondary or high school? Is it a tertiary level school?
2. Who? (are the stakeholders): The stakeholders in an instructional setting are learners, teachers, school
administrators and even learner parents. They are then inevitably the key figures in the research
context. The teacher researcher needs to provide the audience with answers to these additional key
questions while describing the research context: How are teachers assigned to their teaching posts?
How are teachers and learners supported by the school administration and the education system-if
they are? What is the status of teachers economically and socially? Are parents supportive of their
children’s learning?
3. What? (are the physical conditions and instructional procedures): Further information to be provided
about the research context is concerned with the physical conditions of the school and the class-
rooms. What is the availability of instructional materials to teachers and learners? The availability
of technological equipment? Are classes large or not? The instructional procedures are worthy of
note as well: What is the nature of the curriculum? What approaches and methodologies are adopted
by teachers? What course books are used and how? What are evaluation practices?
Participants are one of the key aspects of the research context. The main setting of inquiry for teacher
researchers would most likely be their own classrooms, so their learners would naturally be the infor-
mants. Depending on the purposes of research, teachers, school administrators and learner parents may
be the target groups of participants in a teacher researcher’s inquiry. Whoever the participants are, the
researchers need to build and maintain trust with them. To achieve this, they can give them informa-
tion about the research itself and the purposes of it. This may help the researchers obtain more reliable
information from the participants, as they would probably be feeling more motivated to take part in the
research undertaking. Moreover, the participants and what they bring with themselves to the research
context should be described in detail. For example, if the participants are language learners, their ages,
proficiency levels, previous learning and language learning experiences, socioeconomic backgrounds
are key information to be mentioned.
426

Data Collection: Tools and Analysis
Our choices about data collection and analysis depend on the purposes of the research, specific ques-
tions to be answered and research approaches adopted. Making these choices appropriately contributes
to the reliability and validity of research and thus the overall quality of it (Reliability is concerned with
the extent to which a measuring procedure can yield the same results on repeated times. Validity is the
extent to which an instrument can measure what it purports to measure. For more information on each,
please see ‘Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches’ by Creswell and
Creswell). Since the target audience in this chapter are TESOL practitioners who aim to conduct their
own research in their classrooms, only data collection tools and methods that are of direct relevance to
these potential teacher researchers’ immediate needs will be put into focus.
Collecting and Analyzing Qualitative Data
In this section of the paper, again the focus will be on qualitative data collection tools and methods of
analysis that are of direct relevance to a TESOL practitioner’s research needs. Observations, open-ended
questionnaires, interviews and learning journals are then the tools to be elaborated on here.
Observations allow for a rich and vivid description of classroom happenings, learner and teacher
behaviors in their natural contexts. For systematic observation work, it is advisable to use checklists,
rubrics and to take field notes so as to fully capture all key and unique details in relation to the observed
event or behavior. Also, in classroom observations, the researcher effects need to be eliminated (because
being observed may cause a change in learner behaviors, which may risk the authenticity of data). A
prolonged engagement in the research context and discard of the observational data collected in the first
few weeks of the research will outweigh the risks associated with the researcher effect. One final and
important note about observations is the need to obtain all institutional permissions and consent forms
from learners and learner parents.
Observational data alone would not provide an in-depth understanding of the participants’ feelings
and perceptions and the underlying motivations in all these. This is why interviews are required. There
are three main types of interviews. One of them is structured interviews which start off with predeter-
mined questions. The researcher cannot deviate from these questions and ask further ones. As the most
flexible form, unstructured interviews are spontaneous and conducted without a pre-planned protocol
to follow. Semi structured interviews are somewhere between these two types of interviews. They offer
both structure and flexibility to the researcher who has not only predetermined questions at hand but
also freedom to ask additional questions when needed. Interviews can be conducted either face-to-face,
online, by telephone or in groups and can be audio- or video-recorded to be transcribed later. It is also
recommended that the language of the interviews be the participants’ and teacher researcher’s native
language (if they share the same first language, of course). A further key point to carefully consider is
the wording and content of questions. The teacher researcher needs to avoid closed, leading, ambiguous,
double-barreled and biased questions. For example, such questions would not be good ones to ask in re-
search interviews: ‘Don’t you think communicative games are fun?’, ‘Wouldn’t you agree that a language
teacher should be motivated?’, ‘Is anxiety harmful for successful language learning?’ or ‘You liked all
these activities, didn’t you?’ On the other hand, such questions as ‘Should your errors be immediately
corrected by the teacher? Why? Why not?’ or ‘Who should correct your errors in the classroom? Why?’
are illustrative of good interview questions in terms of their wordings and content.
427

Open-ended questionnaires function in similar ways to interviews and produce a diverse set of
open-ended and in-depth answers from participants when compared to close-ended questionnaires (like
checklists or Likert type scales). They can be administered online or offline. One certain advantage of
open-ended questionnaires is that they are time-saving, as the researcher would not need to transcribe the
data. Also, as with interviews, questions in open-ended questionnaires need to be clear, unambiguous,
non-directive and unbiased. The confidentiality and anonymity of participant identities and responses
is a further key guideline that the teacher researcher needs to bear in mind.
Journals (or diaries) are unobtrusive ways to delve into learners’ understandings, feelings and ex-
periences which may otherwise be difficult to access (Gibson, 1995). A TESOL practitioner can then
make use of journals to unveil learners’ learning experiences and complex set of factors inherent in them
through an emic perspective. The journals-online or offline-can be kept by the learners on a daily or
weekly basis (or at regular intervals). Like in interviews, caution needs to be exercised while collecting
data via learning journals. The questions/prompts given to the learner must be non-leading and clear.
Also, too much guidance must be avoided not to distort the authenticity of data (Walliman, 2017).
As postulated by Creswell (2015), qualitative data are dense, which makes it difficult for a researcher
to work through and make sense of them. All this dense data can be analyzed by hand coding or using
such software programs as Atlas.ti or QSR NVivo. The most typical method for the analysis of qualitative
data is content analysis in which dense qualitative data is reduced to categories of meaning and themes by
means of coding. Challenges of qualitative data analysis can be mitigated by following certain key steps.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) recommend five main steps for the analysis of qualitative data. First,
data needs to be organized and prepared for the analysis. This step involves transcribing and scanning
the data for some preliminary understanding and taking field notes. Then comes reading all the data for
more in-depth understanding and noting down the emerging meanings. This step is followed by coding
the data which involves ‘taking text data or pictures gathered during data collection, segmenting sentences
(or paragraphs) or images into categories, and labeling those categories with a term, often based in the
actual language of the participant...’ (p.269). Generating the description and themes is the next step in
which settings and people are described and larger categories/themes are created. These themes are sort
of major findings in qualitative research studies and may be used as sub- headings in reporting them. As
the last step, the descriptions and themes are represented through narratives, and the findings are reported.
Collecting and Analyzing Quantitative Data
A typical tool to gather quantitative data are questionnaires which can be utilized in survey type of
research to quantitatively describe participant perceptions or relationships among variables. Question-
naires can be designed in the form of Likert scales or checklists. In Likert scales, respondents are asked
to state their perceptions, attitudes and preferences on a five-point (or seven) scale about a set of state-
ments. In checklists, participants tick the statements or situations that they think best represent their
views, attitudes and perceptions.
Questionnaires can be administered online and offline. Online questionnaires have certain advantages
for practical reasons. They cost less and allow the researcher to get access to a wider group of participants.
They also provide participants with some flexibility. A respondent can fill in an online questionnaire
by using technological devices whenever possible. Regardless of whether the questionnaire is online or
offline, the rule of thumb is to keep participants’ identities confidential and anonymous.
428

Considering their aims and research questions, the teacher researchers may construct their own
questionnaire or adapt a previously designed one to their research contexts. Alternatively, they may opt
for a pre-designed questionnaire developed by other researchers and use it in its original form without
making any modifications. Those types of pre-designed questionnaires would be a good option especially
for novice researchers at the beginning of their research journeys, as their validity and reliability are
ensured statistically. The researchers need to exercise caution while using pre-existing questionnaires,
though. They may not be appropriate to their specific research context, which is why certain modifica-
tions need to be made.
One more note to make about questionnaires is piloting. Before administering a questionnaire, it is
essential that the researcher pilot-tests it with a group of participants that would not take part in the actual
study. Piloting is a valuable procedure in that it enhances the validity and reliability of research. More
specifically, it gives the researcher an opportunity to see if the questionnaire items are clear enough for
the participants and how long it will take them to answer them. In light of all feedback from the partici-
pants and procedure itself, the questionnaire is revised and finalized.
Quantitative data can be analyzed by means of descriptive and/or inferential statistics. As the name
suggests itself, descriptive statistics helps the researcher describe data-sum up and report them-in the
form of means, medians, modes, percentages and frequencies. If there is a single variable in the study,
this type of analysis will be an appropriate analysis method to utilize. In studies which are in pursuit
of understanding differences or relationships between variables, inferential statistics will be the option.
Correlational analysis, regression analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-tests are examples of
inferential statistics. T-tests are used to see if there is a significant difference between the means of two
groups (e.g. difference between the mean scores of a pre-test and post-test in a classroom). Correlation
analysis is a statistical method employed to study the degree of a relationship between two variables (e.g.
corrective feedback type and learner motivation). Regression analysis aims to predict the relationships
between a dependent variable and one/ more independent variables. ANOVA helps determine whether
three or more groups show significant differences from each other. (for further and detailed informa-
tion about all these and other statistical methods of analysis, please see ‘A Guide to Doing Statistics in
Second Language Research Using SPSS and R’ by Jenifer Larson-Hall and ‘Quantitative Methods for
Second Language Research: A Problem-Solving Approach’ by Carsten Roever and Aek Phakiti). In the
study below, both descriptive and inferential statistics are used:
...this study attempts to examine the correlations between ESL teachers’ MI preferences and their use of
MI‐oriented teaching strategies in ESL classrooms. The participants of the study were 67 ESL teachers
in a midwestern U.S. state. Data were collected via the Intelligence Index and the MI‐oriented Teaching
Strategies Index. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations were used to analyze the data. Results
indicated that linguistic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal teaching strategies are used by ESL teachers
more frequently. A weak or no significant relationship was found between ESL teachers’ self‐perceived
MIs and their use of MI‐oriented teaching strategies...
To analyze quantitative data, such tools and platforms as Excel, Google Forms, SPPS (Statistical
Package for Social Sciences) can be used. SPSS and Excel are similar to each other in terms of their
procedures, but SPSS will surely be more beneficial for data manipulation and more complex forms of
data analysis.
429

REPORTING AND DISCUSSING YOUR FINDINGS
When reporting TR, it is better for teacher researchers to make sure the interpretation of the data is reli-
able, the amount of data is enough to answer the research questions, the representation of individuals,
phases of TR and other relevant aspects in the context are well defined, and ethical issues are taken into
account over all these phenomena (Lankshear and Knobel, 2004). In academic research, reporting is
addressed to other academics in the relevant field. This may be in the form of a thesis, a final research
paper, an oral presentation, an article in an academic journal and so on. Teacher researchers, on the
other hand, are not often concerned in these formal disseminations. Their way of making their reports
public is mostly through oral and written presentations to professionals, colleagues, students and par-
ents, most of whom are in similar educational settings. Although it is given in detail with examples in
the dissemination section below, the more formal publishing alternatives of TR reports may be listed
as posters at conferences, professional newsletter, articles or chapters in edited books. Therefore, while
reporting a TR, one of the other criteria teacher researchers should keep in mind is the appropriate mode,
(i.e. formal or less formal); occasion (i.e. presentation at school or an international academic event) and
audience (i.e. students, colleagues or academics). Before the reporting phase, teacher researchers also
need to decide whether they will present the process as a whole or only a specific facet of it. The way
and the mode that is chosen by teacher researchers should ensure that their audience can understand the
situation better and get insights for future practices. It can be conveyed only when reporting TR is seen
more than a storytelling or an informal talk event in which a series of observations is just mentioned.
The primary objective is to inform the target audience about the puzzle/issue/problem/question and how
they can relate it to actual practices. Thus, reporting requires a clear, concise and coherent presentation
of the TR process and this clarity can be ensured only when a regular scheme is kept from the very be-
ginning to the end of the whole process. Teacher researchers track their plan and reflect on it when and
where necessary. In some TR studies, it is observed that teacher researchers may inform the audience
about what is going on in the study before the final phase to get constructive feedback from the others.
The multiple perspectives they get during this reporting in the middle of the process can help them to
progress satisfactorily in other phases.
Regardless of mode, settings and audience, it is important to check the way teacher researchers report
the results of their research, as this task of reporting needs to denote a research quality and in other words
to reflect the “researchness” as Lankshear and Knobel (2004, p.372) stated in their books. The reflection
of this researchness depends on how clear your reporting is and the necessary aspects you covered in
it. To this end, written or oral, teacher researchers are required to mention the following aspects in their
report (Lankshear and Knobel, p.373):
• . How the study was designed to address a research question.

• . How and why the data drawn on in the present report were collected and what makes these data
pertinent to the question.
• . How and why these data were analyzed the way they have been.
• . What ideas and perspectives have guided us in handling the aspects being dealt with in
• the current reporting activity or artefact.
• . How we have interpreted the results from the analysis that are the subject of the present
• report and why we have confidence that this interpretation is worth taking seriously.
430

Accordingly, teacher researchers cover the relevant literature and consider the previous research, and
in light of these, they discuss the meaning and benefits of their findings. In sum, they need to be aware
of what is to be learned from their research report. When they discuss the research results, they make a
type of reflection as well. Reflecting on the data through discussion, teacher researchers can first inform
their audience on how and whether the question of the research has been responded to and what insights
have been gained for future practices. On this point, Dikilitaş and Griffith (2017) suggest that compar-
ing and contrasting what teachers get from the research focus in all phases of TR and the findings with
relevant studies will help teachers and the target audience to take advantage of it. Discussing the impact
of this experience on their learning and new perspectives developed by TR experience leads them to
reflect on the other areas that can be mentioned by researchers. Last but not least, they can present how
they feel and think about teaching and learning during the research process, and this can be completed
with a profound reflection on their experiences as researchers.
DISSEMINATING AND INCREASING THE IMPACT OF YOUR RESEARCH
Thoroughly thinking, dissemination is a kind of planned process in which you should consider your tar-
get audience and contexts (Wilson, Petticrew, Calnan, & Natareth, 2010). Although without publishing,
just writing up the research results provides teachers with the opportunity to revisit and review what is
done during the process and to reconsider their interpretation of results to ensure reliability. McLean
and Mohr (1999) suggest writing up TR helps teachers with the identification and articulation of what
they recognize during the research process, the improvement of practice and clarification of background
knowledge on the issue and the development of collaboration with colleagues and academics.
Generally, presenting the research results is thought to be one of the regular steps of research, and it
can be seen as a reflection stage in TR. At this stage, teachers can have the chance of receiving feedback
from the third parties to refine and clarify their future action plans. Either by writing or presenting the
research depends on the strategy of teacher researchers and the conditions and context in which research
is conducted.
When TR is considered, teacher researchers can conduct research just to be self-informed and
sometimes they may be willing to share what they discover with their colleagues, educators or even
learners. TR can be publicized in various ways such as interactive posters at schools, or online seminars
and conferences, in-service training meetings, face to face negotiations and additionally as conference
presentations and articles in journals. Although it may not be a priority of TR to be published, verbal or
written distribution of research results is prominently constructive for both teachers’ own professional
development and future practices of all who make use of these results. A suggested list of the ways for
disseminating TR is as follows:
• Posters (at school notice boards or conferences)

• Teachers own blogs
• Professional development websites (e.g. Edutopia)
• Academic websites (i.e. Academia, ResearchGate, Google Scholar)
• Broadcasting and videos through social media (i.e. YouTube), and vlogs
• Webinars done individually or in collaboration with colleagues
• Oral presentation at a conference or faculty meetings.
431

• MA and PhD Thesis

• An article in a newsletter, magazine, or journal
• A chapter in an edited book
From less formal to more formal, the list above provides possibilities for teachers who are not in-
terested in publishing their research in an academic setting as well as teachers who are eager to extend
their research outcomes to different contexts. Moreover, the process of dissemination requires mindful
planning of informational exchanges with your audience through observation and/or negotiation. It is
very important to know that TR results can be beneficial when your research report helps and encourages
teachers to foster their future practices. This can be conceived as one of the key aspects of TR, as a form
of CP. What TESOL teachers have obtained in their research may be the beginning of a new journey
for the other teachers, inspiring them to take action to critically reflect on their existing conditions and
to transform them for the betterment of their classrooms, schools and eventually society at the macro
level. This is why TESOL teachers need to be encouraged to deliver their research findings to a wider
audience of teachers, which may, in turn, pave the way for CP. In the related literature, the benefits of
publishing TR have been mentioned in two main categories: teachers’ self-development as a profes-
sional and becoming a professional member of a wider community. The former, as it is mentioned in
several parts of this chapter, is of significance in that teachers contextualize their own practices through
professional reading (Crookes, 1993, Burton and Mickan, 1993, Allwright and Hanks, 2009). The latter-
becoming a part of a wider research community- may help teachers to develop CP through reciprocal
nature of sharing research and feedback by the peers (Freeman ,1996; McDonough and McDonough
(1997), to encourage other teachers to join in research debates (Allwright and Hanks, 2009), to inform
academic researchers what is going on in actual educational settings (Bailey, Curtis and Nunan, 2001)
and consequently provide data for curriculum developers, policy makers to act on (Barkhuizen, 2009).
CONCLUSION
Providing a concise overview of TR both at the conceptual and practical level, this chapter is intended for
undergraduate and graduate students in teacher training programs, novice and/or experienced in-service,
more specifically EFL/ESL, teachers or any educational specialists who are interested in teacher research.
The chapter started with an account into what TR is and how it relates to other forms of research. Fol-
lowing this background information, it proceeded with key issues pertaining to the implementation of
TR with specific reference to the identification of research topics and research questions, key research
methods, considerations in relation to the research setting and selection of participants, data collection
and analysis, the report and discussion of research findings. Other key information such as research
ethics and integrity and dissemination of research findings concluded the chapter.
TR, as stated by Kincheloe (1991), is “a path for empowerment”. Through TR, a TESOL practitioner-
any practitioner in fact, can offer explanations about the oppressing circumstances surrounding them-
selves, their learners and instructional contexts and devise strategies about how to respond to them by
involving in a reflective evaluation and critique of all the existing conditions. This reflective and critical
stance may empower TESOL practitioners to challenge the status quo and transform their instructional
terrain at not only pedagogical but also societal levels. In this respect, reflective assessment and criti-
432

cism brought with TR is emancipatory, and their impact has the potential to outreach the confines of
the language classroom and to initiate social change.
The chapter at times uses the metaphor ‘journey’ to refer to TESOL teachers’ research experiences.
Like a journey, these research experiences may have considerable potential for exploration, discovery,
situational consciousness, enlightenment and novelty. It is then hoped that this chapter will help the
intended audience who may seek guidance and assistance in planning their journeys of research, which
will open up a myriad of possibilities for professional growth, quality instruction and more fruitful and
equitable learning opportunities.
REFERENCES
Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner. doi:10.1057/9780230233690
Anwaruddin, S. M. (2019). Knowledge mobilization in TESOL: Connecting research and practice. Brill.
doi:10.1163/9789004392472
Arnold, J., Edwards, T., Hooley, N., & Williams, J. (2012). Conceptualising teacher education and research
as ‘critical praxis’. Critical Studies in Education, 53(3), 281–295. doi:10.1080/17508487.2012.703140
Bailey, K. (2001). Action research, teacher research, and classroom research in language learning. In M.
Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 489–498). Heinle
& Heinle.
Bailey, K., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development. Heinle & Heinle.
Banegas, D. L. (2018). Towards Understanding EFL Teachers’ Conceptions of Research: Findings from
Argentina. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 20(1), 57–72. doi:10.15446/profile.
v20n1.61881
Barkhuizen, G. (2009). Topics, aims and constructs in English teacher research: A Chinese case study.
TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 113–125. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00231.x
Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 358–388.
doi:10.1093/applin/amp007
Borg, S. (2011). Doing action research in English language teaching. A guide for practitioners [Review
of the book Doing action research in English language teaching. A guide for practitioners by A, Burns].
ELT Journal, 65(4), 485–487. doi:10.1093/elt/ccr052
Borg, S. (2013). Teacher research in language teaching: A critical analysis. Cambridge University
Press., doi:10.1093/elt/ccv009
Borg, S. (Ed.). (2015). Professional development for English language teachers: Perspectives from higher
education in Turkey. British Council.
Bright, B. (1996). Reflecting on ‘reflective practice’. Studies in the Education of Adults, 28(2), 162–184.
doi:10.1080/02660830.1996.11730638
433

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge University
Press.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. Routledge.
Burton, J., & Mickan, P. (1993). Teachers’ classroom research. In J. Edge & K. Richards (Eds.), Teachers
develop teachers research (pp. 113–121). Heinemann.
Campbell, S. A. (2012). The Phenomenological Study of ESL Students in a Project-based Learning Envi-
ronment. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences: Annual Review, 6(11), 139–152.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2012). A tale of two teachers: Learning to teach over time. Kappa Delta Pi Record,
48(3), 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2012.707501
Creswell, J. (2015). 30 essential skills for the qualitative researcher. Sage (Atlanta, Ga.).
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Crookes, G. (1993). Action research for second language teachers: Going beyond teacher research. Ap-
plied Linguistics, 14(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.130
Dikilitaş, K., & Griffiths, C. (2017). Developing language teacher autonomy through action research.
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50739-2
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2018). Operationalizing reflective practice in second language teacher education. Journal
of Second Language Teacher Education, 1(1), 1–20.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniv. ed.). Continuum.
Gibson, V. (1995). An analysis of the use of diaries as a data collection method. Nurse Researcher, 3(1),
66–73. doi:10.7748/nr.3.1.66.s8
Gürsoy, E., & Korkmaz, Ş. Ç. (2015). Teacher trainers as action researchers: Scrutinizing the reasons
for student failure. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 11(2), 83–98.
Herrera, L. J. P. (2018). ESOL urban high school teachers’ perceptions of their instructional strengths
and challenges: A qualitative case study. Dialogues: An Interdisciplinary Journal of English Language
Teaching and Research, 2(1), 1-21. doi:10.30617/dialogues.2.1.2
Horkheimer, M. (1982). The Social Function of Philosophy (1939). Critical Theory: Selected Essays.
Continuum.
Ismail, S. A. M. M., Karim, A., & Mohamed, A. R. (2018). The Role of Gender, Socioeconomic Status,
and Ethnicity in Predicting ESL Learners’ Reading Comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34(6),
457–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1462745
Kajamaa, A., Mattick, K., & de la Croix, A. (2020). How to do mixed‐methods research. The Clinical
Teacher, 17(3), 267–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13145
434

Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. The

Falmer Press.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). A handbook for teacher research. McGraw-Hill Education.
Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R.
Routledge.
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage.
Luo, M. N., & Huang, M. (2019). ESL teachers’ multiple intelligences and teaching strategies: Is there
a linkage? TESOL Journal, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.379
MacLean, M. S., & Mohr, M. M. (1999). Teacher-researchers at work. National Writing Project, Uni-
versity of California.
McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for language teachers. Hodder Arnold.
Medgyes, P. (2017). The (ir) relevance of academic research for the language teacher. English Language
Teaching Journal, 71(4), 491 - 498. doi:10.1093/elt/ccx034
Mihara, K. (2011). Effects of pre-reading strategies on EFL/ESL reading comprehension. TESL Canada
Journal, 28(2), 51–73.
Miller, M. S., & Shinas, V. H. (2019). Inquiring about inquiry: A research journey. Journal of Practi-
tioner Research, 4(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5038/2379-9951.4.1.1093
Morgan, D. L. (2017). Research design and research methods. Integrating qualitative and quantitative
methods: A pragmatic approach. Sage. doi:10.4135/9781544304533
Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS (2nd ed.). Sage. https://dx.doi.
org/10.4135/9781849209014.
Nguyen, T. T. L. (2020). Teacher-research: Agency of Practical Knowledge and Professional Develop-
ment. Journal of Language and Education, 6(2), 181–189.
Norton, L. S. (2009). Action research in teaching and learning: a practical guide to conducting peda-
gogical research in universities. Routledge.
Raelin, J. A. (2002). I don’t have time to think! versus the art of reflective practice. Reflections: The
SoL Journal, 4(1), 66–79.
Roever, C., & Phakiti, A. (2017). Quantitative methods for second language research: A problem-solving
approach. Routledge.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded Theory procedures and
techniques (2nd ed.). Sage. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/basics-of-qualitative-research/book235578
Stremmel, A. J. (2007). The value of teacher research: Nurturing professional and personal growth
through inquiry. Voices of Practitioners, 2(3), 1–9.
Walliman, N. (2017). Research methods: The basics. Routledge.
435

Wilson, P. M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W., & Natareth, I. (2010). Disseminating research findings:
What should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implementation
Science; IS, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-91
Ye, X. (2021). EFL Learning motivation differences of Chinese junior secondary school students: A
mixed-methods study. Education, 49(2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2019.1711143
Zhang, H., Yuan, R., & Wang, Q. (2018). Toward an understanding of EFL teacher culture: An ethno-
graphic study in China. Teachers and Teaching, 24(4), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.20
17.1391773
Zhao, C. G., & Liao, L. (2021). Metacognitive strategy use in L2 writing assessment. System, 98, 102472.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102472
ADDITIONAL READING
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2017). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R (2nd
ed.). Routledge., doi:10.4324/9781315775661
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook.
Sage (Atlanta, Ga.).
Morgan, D. L. (2018). Living within blurry boundaries: The value of distinguishing between qualitative and
quantitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 268–279. doi:10.1177/1558689816686433
Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 427–431.
doi:10.1177/1362168820941288
Phakiti, A., De Costa, P., Plonsky, L., & Starfield, S. (Eds.). (2018). The Palgrave handbook of applied
linguistics research methodology. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1
Roever, C., & Phakiti, A. (2017). Quantitative methods for second language research: A problem-solving
approach. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203067659
Waller, L., Wethers, K., & De Costa, P. I. (2017). A critical praxis: Narrowing the gap between identity,
theory, and practice. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 4–27. doi:10.1002/tesj.256
Wilson, E. (2009). School-based research. A guide for education Students. Sage (Atlanta, Ga.).
Action Research: A process in which teachers investigate problems in their classrooms and take
action to solve them and thus to contribute to quality learning and teaching.
436

Critical Praxis: A way of reflective evaluation of thought with action and theory with practice. It
consists of multiple forms in education and social change such as self-reflection, reflective action, and
collaborative reflective practice.
Exploratory Practice: A type of research conducted by teachers in cooperation with their learners
to explore classroom issues and triggered by a puzzle instead of a problem.
Mixed-Methods Research: A type of research which investigates research phenomena by integrating
both qualitative and quantitative data collection and data analysis techniques for purposes of triangulation.
Qualitative Research: A type of research which is in pursuit of exploring and interpreting subjective
experiences from the insider’s perspectives and meanings attached to those experiences.
Quantitative Research: A type of research which attempts to test hypotheses and examine the rela-
tionship among variables through numerical data.
Reflective Practice: A process of systematic description and questioning of classroom practices by
teachers.
Teacher Research: A type of research which is a systematic inquiry initiated by teachers’ own
questions, with an intention to obtain insights into teaching and learning with a reflective perspective.
437
438
Chapter 21
Taking an (Inter)cultural View
of Students with Disabilities
to Promote Inclusive Practices
Within the TESOL Field
Davey Young
Sophia University, Japan
ABSTRACT
Considering the TESOL field’s global presence, much more can be done to prepare TESOL practitioners
to teach inclusively, particularly with regard for students with disabilities, and in line with international
policy. This chapter begins by conceptualizing disability and inclusive education before providing an
overview of concerns related to TESOL teacher training for inclusive practices. Complicating cogni-
tive and affective factors commonly experienced by students with specific learning difficulties (SpLDs)
are briefly outlined. The author then advocates for adopting a social justice definition of culture to be
adopted within the field and provides three sets of discussion/reflection questions to help TESOL practi-
tioners connect their understanding of existing models of cultural competence and language acquisition
with an understanding of how students with disabilities may experience language learning. The chapter
concludes by contemplating some impending challenges and potential solutions for securing inclusive
education as a human right within and across the field.
INTRODUCTION
Disability and Inclusive Education
How we choose to talk about disability reflects how we relate to and position students with different
abilities in our classrooms, schools, and societies. If the field of TESOL is to secure inclusive education
as a human right, it must first and foremost make careful and conscious decisions about the language
it uses to talk about and around disability. In this chapter, the term disability itself will be used as it is
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch021

Taking an (Inter)cultural View of Students with Disabilities to Promote Inclusive Practices Within the TESOL Field
evoked in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) held in
2006. This document does not explicitly define disability, instead noting that it is an evolving concept
that “results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental
barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others” (United
Nations, n.d.a, p. 1).
The CRPD, which was ratified by 181 countries with 163 as signatories, was a watershed moment
in setting a universal standard for inclusive education; in the CRPD, inclusive education is expressed
as a basic human right for all people (Hunt, 2019). This standard was further solidified on the global
stage with the adoption of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015. SDG4
is to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for
all” (United Nations, n.d.b).
Inclusive education now exists as an international concept with an exceptionally broad remit, but this
present understanding was reached only after the occurrence of localized developments in special edu-
cation and disability rights movements in individual contexts and countries (Hunt, 2019). In the United
Kingdom, for instance, inclusive education emerged in the 1980s as an alternative to special education
(Kozleski & Yu, 2018). In the United States, Shogren and Wehmeyer (2014) describe the development
of inclusive education in three generations, beginning with the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act enacted in 1975. The first generation focused on where students with disabilities learn, for example,
by posing the question as to whether students with disabilities learn better in segregated or integrated
classrooms. The second generation focused on how students with disabilities learn, and ushered in new
educational frameworks such as differentiated instruction and individual education plans. The third
generation focused on what students learn, for instance curricular content. However, a more detailed
reading of Shogren and Wehmeyer’s taxonomy reveals this wave had as much if not more concern for
an expanded consideration of how students learn, or more pointedly, how teachers should teach students
with disabilities. The third generation also saw more conscious connections to a worldwide community
of practice, as well as ushered in the use of individualized support over label-specific support. These
developments heightened concerns for how to conceptualize and discuss disability in educational contexts
around the globe. Still, depending on where and how teachers receive training, they may learn different
sets of principles that may all be referred to inclusive practice. Therefore, in the present chapter, the
pluralized inclusive practices will be used to refer to any principles and/or procedures that allow teach-
ers to respond to individual difference(s) between learners, but that circumvent possible marginalization
resulting from students being treated differently than each other (Florian & Beaton, 2018).
The definitions provided thus far all accord with the interactionist model of disability, a social model
which holds that “students’ ability to function in an environment is an interaction of the environment,
the person, and the person’s impairment” (Evans et al., 2017, p. 77). This dynamic view empowers
practitioners to design learning environments that are more accommodating to an array of individuals
and impairments. It is important to note that the term disability is often associated with medical models
of disability, which frame impairments as defects that can be treated or cured (Evans et al., 2017). This
view encourages labeling and confining impairments to specific diagnoses. In reality, many learning
disabilities overlap and lack clear distinction from a cognitive perspective (Kormos, 2017). Therefore,
this chapter will use the term specific learning difficulty (SpLD) to refer to impairments that have a
more direct relationship with learning and processing information. SpLDs include dyslexia, dyspraxia,
dysgraphia, ASD, ADHD, and social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties. This term also accords with
the interactionist model of disability.
439

The benefits of inclusive education for students and society are well documented. Students with dis-
abilities, for instance, make greater academic gains in inclusive classes, and students with and without
disabilities are exposed to new ideas and become culturally competent when interacting with people from
the other group; students with disabilities gain social-emotional skills and others needed to be indepen-
dent later in life, while teachers gain more knowledge and skills; inclusive skills also raise expectations
for all students (Hunt, 2019). Benefits extend far beyond the classroom when inclusive education is
implemented at a large scale. Poverty, the cost of education, and social exclusion are all reduced, welfare
systems are less burdened, and GDP rises (Hunt, 2019).
Disability and English Language Education
It is estimated that over one billion people worldwide experience disability in some form (World Health
Organization, 2019), and yet people with disabilities are frequently denied educational opportunities or
face significant barriers in receiving education around the world (UN News, 2016). Considering that
estimates of English language learners worldwide run as high as 1.5 billion (Noack & Gamio, 2015), as
well as the prevalence of English language coursework aimed at language proficiency in various contexts
around the world, it is not unreasonable to assume that the total number of students with disabilities
encountering barriers within English language instruction is both substantial and increasing.
Unfortunately, many if not most English language teachers lack training in special education or
inclusive practices, and sizable percentages of such teachers in a variety of teaching contexts have
reported feeling unprepared to teach inclusively (Hale & Ono, 2019; Nijakowska et al., 2018; Sowell
& Sugisaki, 2020; Smith, 2006; Zhalelkanova, 2019). In a small-scale survey of 23 EFL teachers who
received teacher training at one university in the United States, only three respondents reported receiving
learning disability training in a semester long course; the remaining 20 reported receiving training in
half-day to week-long courses, or else no training at all, and a majority of those that did receive training
still reported a lack of confidence in their ability to teach students with learning disabilities (Sowell &
Sugisaki, 2020). Similarly, Smith (2006) found that of 194 ELTs who worked and received training in
the UK, 80.8% reported that they did not feel competent teaching students with a wide variety of needs
after completing their teaching certificates; all 15 teacher trainers involved in the same body of research
reported an insufficient amount of attention to preparing teachers to teach SWDs in their certification
courses (Smith, 2008).
Stapleton and Shao (2018) surveyed 241 MA TESOL programs worldwide and categorized 3,877
courses within those programs into 15 knowledge fields. The knowledge field of specific learner groups,
which included special education, had a .10 frequency rate among compulsory courses, and a .19 fre-
quency rate among elective courses. Because this category of specific learner groups contained other
groups, for example adult learners or young learners, the number of courses on teaching students with
disabilities specifically was certainly even lower. It is of course possible, however, that some training in
inclusive practices was included in other coursework and not captured in this study. Regardless, there is an
undeniable and urgent need to better prepare English language teachers to teach students with disabilities.
There is a small, growing body of research that provides some indication of teachers’ needs related to
inclusive practices for students with disabilities. A survey administered to 852 EFL teachers in Cyprus,
Greece, Germany, and Hungary found that 51% of respondents expressed a need for training in assessing
students with SpLDs; no other training need had a higher percentage in the survey (Vogt, 2015). Sow-
ell and Sugisaki’s (2020) survey found that the “most desired types of training indicated were specific
440

learning strategies and workshops” (2020, p. 129). Smith (2006) similarly found that many ELTs wanted
practical, in-service training for students with learning difficulties.
CONCEPT
Language Learning and Specific Learning Difficulties
There are a variety of overlapping cognitive and affective factors of language learning that contribute
to the barriers faced by students with SpLDs. Compared to their abled peers, for instance, “language
learners with SpLDs show significant differences in their working memory and phonological short-term
memory capacity,” both of which are “important predictors of success in language learning” (Kormos,
2017, p. 47). Depending on the exact nature of the SpLD and other factors in the learner profile, students
with SpLDs may have difficulty processing input (written and/or spoken), automatization and creation
of long-term memory, and producing output (Kormos, 2017). In some cases, students may encounter
barriers related to a SpLD in their L2, but not in their L1. For instance, young learners with dyslexia
have an easier time learning to read a language with a more transparent orthography (one in which the
phoneme to grapheme correspondence is closer to one-to-one) compared with a relatively opaque or-
thography, like English, in which a single grapheme can have multiple phonemes (Everatt & Elbeheri,
2008; McDougall et al., 2010).
Anxiety can influence learning and performance across cognitive domains, but can do so with
particular acuity in L2 learning due to the feelings of uncertainly and threats to self-esteem and self-
concept that language learning can evoke (Kormos, 2017). Foreign language anxiety (FLA) is type of
situation-specific anxiety that has been found to correlate with poor attainment of speaking, writing, and
grammatical understanding in a foreign language; additionally, “it has been demonstrated that students
with SpLDs tend to demonstrate higher levels of FLA than their peers with no SpLDs” (Kormos, 2017,
p. 77). This has been found to be true at almost all stages of L2 learning, leading to a “vicious circle
for these students, as they might already face challenges due to their potentially lower working memory
and phonological short-term memory capacity that can hinder the processing of new L2 knowledge”
(Kormos, 2017, p. 79). This can turn into a spiral, negatively affecting a student’s motivation to learn
the language. A particularly troubling aspect of the motivational construct is that of the self-concept,
as if a student with a SpLD experiences heightened FLA, poor language acquisition, and demotivation,
that student may ultimately experience a lower sense of self-worth beyond their experience of language
learning (Kormos, 2017).
Finally, the overlap of characteristics of SpLDs suggests they often co-occur, meaning a student with
one SpLD is very likely to have at least one other (Smith, 2018). As an unknown number of SpLDs
go undetected into adulthood (Smith, 2018), it is more inclusive to assume their presence in any given
classroom and design lessons and activities accordingly.
Linking Theory and Practice with a(n) (Inter)

cultural View of Students with Disabilities
Various approaches to cultural considerations of inclusive education in teacher training frame culture
in terms of racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, or national identity. Examples include Gay’s (2018) concep-
441

tion of culturally responsive teaching, Hue’s (2017) notion of cultural responsiveness and multicultural
competency, and Barza’s (2017) idea of Cultural Competence Training. While these pedagogical foci
should in no way be diminished, they can be widened to include other cultural groupings to inform
the teaching of students with those identities. Torres and Rao (2019), for instance, blend insights from
culturally responsive teaching with Universal Design for Learning (UDL), a set of inclusive teaching
principles that help provide learners with multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and
expression (CAST, 2018).
Writing from the perspective of social justice education, Sensoy and DiAngelo (2017) posit that
culture “refers to the characteristics of everyday life of a group of people located in a given time and
place,” (p. 36), and from this perspective groups can be demarcated by race, nationality, class, gender,
sexuality, religion, and ability. Therefore, if English language teachers take a social justice approach to
education, then their understanding of cultural groups will necessarily include students with disabilities.
This should theoretically enhance such teachers’ sensitivity to how students with disabilities engage with
their learning environment, as well as improve their efficacy when teaching such students. Because the
ultimate aim of social justice education is to enable people to identify and challenge structural inequali-
ties (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017), teachers trained in this mode should be able to recognize and remove
inequalities in their own teaching practices to create more inclusive learning environments. Such train-
ing, however, requires an increased sensitivity to how students with disabilities in general, and SpLDs
in particular, may experience language learning.
There is some research to indicate that in-service English language teachers can be trained to more
inclusively teach students with disabilities. Scott and Edwards (2012), for instance, found that a col-
laboration between teachers and program administration, coupled with faculty development focused on
inclusive practice, correlated with an increase in mean grades and retention of students with disclosed
disabilities in two tertiary ESL contexts in the United States. In the field of general education, numerous
studies from around the world have shown that both pre- and in-service teachers’ knowledge about and
attitudes towards inclusion of students with disabilities affect their ability to teach inclusively (Boyle
et al., 2020; Forlin, 2013; Forlin et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2008), and there is no reason to doubt that
such findings are generalizable to language teaching. That being said, the TESOL field would benefit
greatly from more specific research inquiries along similar lines.
In addition to practical training in inclusive practices, English language teacher trainers should be
concerned about how they can increase teachers’ knowledge about and positive attitudes towards inclu-
sion. This is because by gaining knowledge about the specific barriers that students with SpLDs may
face in language learning, and by improving attitudes towards inclusivity and persons with disabilities
in general, TESOL practitioners should theoretically be able to improve their efficacy implementing
specific learning strategies that respond to individual differences without marginalizing students.
In keeping with a social justice approach to education, existing models of cultural competence can
be used to frame people with disabilities as members of a cultural group to promote positive attitudes
towards members of such groups. In addition, the presence of both cognitive and affective domains within
the three models provided below can help bridge the divide between culturally-oriented pedagogies and
other teaching pedagogies commonly included in English language teacher training, as the cognitive
442

and affective factors that complicate language learning for students with SpLDs can be situated within
language teachers’ existing understanding of (inter)cultural competence. Similarly, situating the cognitive
and affective factors of learning a language for students with SpLDs within existing models of second
language acquisition can help TESOL practitioners achieve a better understanding of the barriers to
language learning that such students may face.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
While referring to the pertinent models, discuss or reflect on the accompanying sets of questions. Please
note that a greater familiarity with these individual models will enrich the quality of discussion and re-
flection, and to that end teachers are encouraged to acquire and familiarize themselves with the original
sources of these models.
Figure 1. Process model of intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2006)
1. Look closely at Deardorff’s (2006) Process Model of Intercultural Competence (Figure 1) and dis-
cuss or reflect on the following questions. As you listen to others, remember to remain respectful,
withhold judgment, tolerate ambiguity, and try to relate to their position. If you are reflecting on
these questions alone, resist judging yourself and try to observe, analyze, and interpret your initial
thoughts and reactions with respect to your own ability.
a. How would you characterize your attitudes towards persons with disabilities in general, and
with SpLDs specifically?
443

b. Considering your own (dis)ability, how knowledgeable do you consider yourself about dis-
abilities in general? About SpLDs specifically?
c. Considering your own (dis)ability, how might a person with a disability in general, or a SpLD
specifically, use and/or learn a language similar to or differently from you?
d. Think back to a time when you taught a student with a disability. Did you communicate with
or behave towards that student differently than you did with the abled students in the class?
Did the student have difficulty or appear to feel unwelcome in the classroom? If so, what
could you have done differently to create a more inclusive learning environment for them?
Figure 2. Strategic self-regulation model of language learning (Oxford, 2017)
2. Look closely at Oxford’s (2017) Strategic Self-Regulation Model of Language Learning (Figure
2) and discuss or reflect on the following questions:
a. How might a student with a SpLD employ metastrategies for general management and control?
b. How might a student with a SpLD employ the listed cognitive strategies? Affective strategies?
Sociocultural-interactive strategies?
c. How could you help a student with a SpLD develop their metastrategies for general manage-
ment and control?
d. How could you help a student with a SpLD develop the listed cognitive strategies? Affective
strategies? Sociocultural-interactive strategies?
e. Think back to a time when you taught a student with a SpLD. How would you characterize
their use of the metastrategies and strategies described in Oxford’s model? What could you
have done differently to improve this use?
444

f. Think back to the last lesson that you taught. Imagine that a student you assumed to be abled
in fact had a SpLD. How does this change your view of the lesson’s inclusivity with regard
to this model?
Figure 3. Heuristic model of variables influencing WTC (MacIntyre et al., 1998)
3. Look closely at MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) Heuristic Model of Variables Influencing WTC (Figure
3) and discuss or reflect on the following questions:
a. How might a student with a SpLD experience the affective-cognitive context (Layer V)?
b. How might this experience impact the dependent factors in the model (Layers I-IV)?
c. MacIntyre et al. (1998) list five factors that influence the social situation in Layer V: “the
participants, the setting, the purpose, the topic, and the channel of communication” (p. 553).
To what extent can the teacher control these factors in order to reduce anxiety for students?
d. Think back to a time when you taught a student with a SpLD. How would you characterize
their L2 use and willingness to communicate? With consideration for other parts of the model,
what could you have done differently to improve their L2 use and willingness to communicate?
e. Think back to the last lesson that you taught. Imagine that a student you assumed to be abled
in fact had a SpLD. How does this change your view of the lesson’s inclusivity with regard
to this model?
Reflecting on these models and answering each of the accompanying questions will not automati-
cally prepare teachers to teach the wide diversity of students with disabilities they are sure to encounter
over the course of their careers. However, they can help teachers view students with more empathy and
reflect on their approach to teaching to create more barrier-free learning environments. As such, it may
prove worthwhile to return to these learning activities more than once. It is important to keep in mind
that students are unique and complex individuals with multiple identities; people with disabilities are
not defined by their disability alone, if at all, and no two people with disabilities experience barriers to
learning or social participation in the same way. Above all else, we must see all of our students as equally
deserving and entitled to the highest quality language education available to them.
445

The learning activities provided above can be used in a variety of ways by pre- and in-service teachers
and teacher trainers. With regard to pre-service TESOL teacher training, the activities above could be
included in coursework that may already include the models upon which the activities are based, for
instance in courses on sociolinguistics or second language acquisition.
In-service teachers can also use these activities for reflective practice. Reflective practice as a means of
gaining insight into and improving the efficacy of inclusive practice has been advocated before (Higbee,
2009; Kuruvilla, 2017; Torres & Rao, 2019), and “reflecting on your teaching practice” tops UNESCO’s
(2013) checklist for inclusive practice for teachers in higher education institutes. Reflective practice for
teacher training and development is most often traced back to John Dewey, who in 1933 championed the
idea that teachers should consciously consider their beliefs, experience, and actions as teachers in order
to break their own routines in service of helping learners progress (Farrell, 2018; Mann & Walsh, 2017).
This conception of reflective practice is in keeping with the learning activities provided above, as they
invite practitioners to examine their attitudes towards persons with disabilities, reflect on experience
teaching such students, and consider possible actions to improve their experience of learning. In-service
teachers can therefore discuss these questions with colleagues or critical friend groups for ongoing
professional development, or as part of their own reflective practice or an action research cycle (Burns,
2010) or UDL Design Cycle (Rao & Meo, 2016) to better serve a specific student or group of students.
These applications for pre- and in-service teachers are not limited by learning context, as the core tenet
of inclusive education is education for all. Additionally, teachers and teacher trainers should not assume
that the three models on which the learning activities above are based are the only such models that can
be used to deepen one’s understanding of students with disabilities and the challenges that they can face
in language learning. Additional models can be used in similar fashion, though unique accompanying
sets of questions for discussion or reflection would need to be drafted for any given model.
DISCUSSION
In order to secure inclusive education as a human right within the field of TESOL, the training paradigms
for both pre- and in-service teachers must evolve to incorporate training in inclusive practices, as well
as foster an awareness of and positive regard for students with disabilities. Without the latter, there is no
guarantee that the former will be regularly and universally implemented. Safeguarding inclusive educa-
tion as a human right within the field of TESOL is an ambitious goal, and challenges persist.
First and foremost, the field would benefit from reaching a general consensus on what constitutes
inclusion, and what language should be used when talking about inclusion and disability. This can be
achieved through ongoing discourse between practitioners in established and visible spaces like aca-
demic journals and conferences, as well as through clear and consistent signaling of official positions
on inclusion and disability from professional organizations like TESOL International and its affiliates.
Consequently, both thought leaders in the field and institutional leaders should be proactive in working
towards reaching such a consensus. Given the TESOL field’s international reach, its understanding of
inclusion and disability should follow international policy guidance and adopt the views of inclusive
education and disability as they are framed in the CRPD and SDG4. This means regarding inclusive
education as a human right for all people and taking an interactionist view of disability.
446

The TESOL field’s international reach, however, brings up a related set of challenges. Specifically,
if the field is to reach a common understanding of what constitutes inclusion with regard to persons
with disabilities, it must also make serious efforts to reconcile how it has the potential to minoritize
other groups. A critical discussion on inclusion within the field of TESOL must also address complex
and pressing issues related to, for instance, native-speakerism, racism, and neo-colonialism in English
language education worldwide. These efforts would almost certainly encounter some conceptual conflict
at local levels, as what constitutes inclusion and exclusion differs from society to society (Hunt, 2019).
Still, the work must be done.
To complicate matters even further, the CRPD’s General Comment 4 (Committee on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, 2016) provides a list of complicating factors in securing education as a human
right. These are:
1. the failure to understand or implement the human rights model of disability, in which barriers within
the community and society, rather than personal impairents (sic), exclude persons with disabilities;
2. persistent discrimination against persons with disabilities, compounded by the isolation of those
still living in long-term residential institutions, and low expectations about those in mainstream
settings, allowing prejudices and fear to escalate and remain unchallenged;
3. lack of knowledge about the nature and advantages of inclusive and quality education, and diversity,
including regarding competitiveness, in learning for all; lack of outreach to all parents and lack of
appropriate responses to support requirements, leading to misplaced fears, and stereotypes, that
inclusion will cause a deterioration in the quality of education, or otherwise impact negatively on
others;
4. lack of disaggregated data and research, necessary for accountability and program development,
impeding the development of effective policies and interventions to promote inclusive and quality
education;
5. lack of political will, technical knowledge, and capacity in implementing the right to inclusive
education including insufficient education of all teaching staff;
6. inappropriate and inadequate funding mechanisms to provide incentives and reasonable accom-
modations for inclusion of students with disabilities, inter-ministerial coordination, support and
sustainability;
7. lack of legal remedies and mechanisms to claim redress for violations. (p. 2)
As daunting as the task may seem, the TESOL field—including its many teachers, teacher trainers,
and organization leaders—have an ethical obligation to work towards securing inclusive English language
education as a human right for all. Institutions like TESOL International and MA TESOL programs
should make clear and visible commitments to securing this right, beginning with how inclusion and
disability are defined and framed by those institutions. Organizations like TESOL International and
its affiliates can then engage in both aware-raising among members, as well as advocate at the policy
level to local and national governments. For their part, researchers can collect and analyze data to help
develop both policies and practice aimed at safeguarding more inclusive instruction for students with
disabilities, including but not limited to SpLDs.
Additionally, MA TESOL and similar pre-service teacher training programs and certification courses
should include training in inclusive practices as a matter of course. This can be achieved by offering spe-
cific courses on inclusive pedagogies, and/or by incorporating such training into existing coursework. For
447

instance, coursework on teaching methods/issues had a 1.68 and 1.06 frequency rate among compulsory
and elective courses respectively in Stapleton and Shao’s (2018) survey of 241 MA TESOL programs.
As many principles of communicative language teaching overlap with principles of inclusive practice
(Smith, 2018), teacher trainers can connect inclusive practice to this more familiar approach to teaching.
Staple and Shao (2018) also found that courses on teaching society, culture, or sociolinguistics had a 0.54
and 1.03 frequency rate among compulsory and elective courses respectively, while knowledge field of
SLA theories had a 0.83 and .38 frequency rate among compulsory and elective courses respectively.
There is ample space, therefore, for the learning activities describe above, as well as further and more
detailed training in inclusive education and practices, to be included in extant MA TESOL coursework.
Finally, it is important to remember that the teacher’s attitude towards inclusivity is a major factor
in creating inclusive learning environments for students (Boyle et al., 2020). Reconceptualizing cul-
ture within existing paradigms of teacher training to regard neurodiverse students from a social justice
perspective should, in theory, help to demystify inclusive practices for English language teachers and
teacher trainers, improve their attitudes towards inclusivity, and increase efficacy with regard to teaching
inclusively. However, such a reframing of inclusive education in the world of English language teaching
would require buy-in from teacher trainers (Smith, 2008), and for real, systemic change to occur, the
field will need to reach “a critical mass of empowered inclusive teachers” (Hunt, 2019, p. 125). Over
time, inclusive practices will hopefully reach a mainstream, ubiquitous status within the TESOL field,
but such a goal cannot be achieved without conscious and consistent effort on multiple fronts.
REFERENCES
Barza, L. (2017). Empowering culturally foreign teachers by fostering cultural competence. In I. A.

Amzat & N. Padilla-Valdez (Eds.), Teacher professional knowledge and development for reflective and
inclusive practices (pp. 126–134). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315397702-11
Boyle, C., Anderson, J., & Allen, K.-A. (2020). The importance of teacher attitudes to inclusive educa-
tion. In C. Boyle, J. Anderson, A. Page & S. Mavropoulou (Eds.), Inclusive education: Global issues &
controversies (pp. 127-146). Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004431171_008
CAST. (2018). The UDL Guidelines. CAST. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2016). General comment No. 4. https://www.
ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/crpd/pages/gc.aspx
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student
outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266.
doi:10.1177/1028315306287002
Evans, N., Broido, E. M., Brown, K. R., & Wilke, A. K. (2017). Disability in higher education: A social
justice approach. Jossey-Bass.
448

Everatt, J., & Elbeheri, G. (2008). Dyslexia in different orthographies: Variability in transparency. In G.
Reid, A. Fawcett, F. Manis, & L. Siegel (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of dyslexia (pp. 427–438). SAGE.
doi:10.4135/9780857020987.n22
Farrell, T. S. C. (2018). Research on reflective practice in TESOL. Routledge.
Florian, L., & Beaton, M. (2018). Inclusive pedagogy in action: Getting it right for every child. Interna-
tional Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(8), 870–884. doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1412513
Forlin, C. (2013). Issues of inclusive education in the 21st century. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
6, 67–81. doi:10.15027/35243
Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2011). The sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about
inclusive education revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service teachers’ perceptions about
inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21(3), 50-65. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ949538
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers Col-
lege Press.
Hue, M. (2017). Promoting cultural responsiveness and multicultural competency through the classroom
experience of teachers in Hong Kong schools. In I. A. Amzat & N. Padilla-Valdez (Eds.), Teacher pro-
fessional knowledge and development for reflective and inclusive practices (pp. 179–191). Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315397702-16
Hunt, P. F. (2019). Inclusive education as global development policy. In M. J. Schuelka, C. J. Johnstone,
G. Thomas, & A. J. Artiles (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of inclusion and diversity in education (pp.
116–129). SAGE., http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526470430.n12.
Johnstone, G. T., & Artiles, A. J. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of inclusion and diversity in education
(pp. 116–129). SAGE.
Kormos, J. (2017). The second language learning processes of students with specific learning difficul-
ties. Routledge.
Kormos, J., & Smith, A. M. (2012). Teaching languages to students with specific learning differences.
Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847696212
KozleskiE. B.YuI. (2018). Inclusive education. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0162
Kuruvilla, E. (2017). Reflective teacher preparation in the context of inclusive classroom. In I. A. Amzat
& N. Padilla-Valdez (Eds.), Teacher professional knowledge and development for reflective and inclusive
practices (pp. 25–35). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315397702-3
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to com-
municate in an L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal,
82(4), 545–562. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x
Mann, S., & Walsh, C. (2017). Reflective practice in English language teaching. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315733395
449

McDougall, S., Brunswick, N., & de Mornay Davies, P. (2010). Reading and dyslexia in different or-
thographies: An introduction and overview. In N. Brunswick, S. McDougall, & P. de Mornay Davies
(Eds.), Reading and dyslexia in different orthographies (pp. 3-21). Psychology Press.
News, U. N. (2016, September 1). Inclusive education vital for all, including persons with disabilities –
UN rights experts. https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/09/537952-inclusive-education-vital-all-including-
persons-disabilities-un-rights-experts
Nijakowska, J., Tsagari, D., & Spanoudis, G. (2018). English as a foreign language teacher training
needs and perceived preparedness to include dyslexic learners: The case of Greece, Cyprus, and Poland.
Dyslexia (Chichester, England), 24(4), 357–379. doi:10.1002/dys.1598 PMID:30302865
Noack, R., & Gamio, L. (2015, April 23). The world’s languages, in 7 maps and charts. Washington
Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/23/the-worlds- languages-in-7-
maps-and-charts/
Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context.
Routledge.
Rao, K., & Meo, G. J. (2016). Using universal design for learning to design standards-based lessons.
SAGE Open, 6(4), 1–12. doi:10.1177/2158244016680688
Scott, S. S., & Edwards, W. (2012). Project LINC: Supporting lecturers and adjunct instructors in foreign
language classrooms. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(3), 253–258. https://eric.
ed.gov/?id=EJ994290
Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts on social
justice education. Teachers College Press.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers’ attitudes and
concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society,
23(7), 773–785. doi:10.1080/09687590802469271
Shogren, K. A., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2014). Using the core concepts framework to understand three
generations of inclusive practices. Inclusion, 2(3), 237–247. doi:10.1352/2326-6988-2.3.237
Smith, A. M. (2006). Inclusion in English language teacher training and education [PhD Thesis, Lan-
caster University]. http://www.eltwell.co.uk/docs/Inclusion-In-English-Language-Teacher-Training-
and-Education.pdf
Smith, A. M. (2008). Inclusive education within TEFL certificate courses. In J. Kormos & E.
H. Kontra (Eds.), Language learners with special needs (pp. 214–233). Multilingual Matters.
doi:10.21832/9781847690913-011
Smith, A. M. (2018). Inclusive practices for English language teachers. Oxford University Press.
Sowell, J., & Sugisaki, L. (2020). An exploration of EFL teachers’ experience with learning disabil-
ity training. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 13(1), 114–134.
doi:10.5294/laclil.2020.13.1.7
450

Stapleton, P., & Shao, Q. (2018). A worldwide survey of MATESOL programs in 2014: Patterns and
perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 22(1), 10–28. doi:10.1177/1362168816659681
Torres, C., & Rao, K. (2019). UDL for language learners. CAST Professional Publishing.
UNESCO. (2013). Inclusive practice: Equality and diversity for academics. https://en.unesco.org/inclusive-
policylab/system/files/teams/discussion/2018/2/e-and-d-for-academics-factsheet-inclusive-practice.pdf
United Nations. (n.d.a). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol.
https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf
United Nations. (n.d.b). Goal 4. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4
Vogt, K. (2015). Teachers’ assessment literary enhancement: Needs analysis report. https://taleproject.
eu/pluginfile.php/2127/mod_page/content/2/TALE%20Needs%20analysis%20report.pdf
World Health Organization. (2019). Disability. https://www.who.int/disabilities/en/
Zhalelkanova, A. (2019). Pre-service EFL teachers’ views on inclusive education ELT: A comparative
study of Kazakh and Turkish contexts [Master’s Thesis, Pamukkale University]. http://acikerisim.pau.edu.
tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11499/26994/Aizat%20Zhalelkanova.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
ADDITIONAL READING
Kormos, J. (2017). The second language learning processes of students with specific learning difficul-
ties. Routledge.
Kormos, J., & Smith, A. M. (2012). Teaching languages to students with specific learning differences.
Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847696212
Culture (Social Justice Perspective): The common characteristics of any given group of people in
a specific time and place.
Disability: An evolving construct centered on the interplay between people with impairments and
the environmental and attitudinal barriers that impede their ability to participate fully in society.
Inclusive Education: A mode of education that includes all students.
Inclusive Practices: Any teaching principles or pedagogies that respond to individual differences
between learners without marginalizing any of those learners.
Interactionist Model of Disability: A model of disability that views disability as an interaction
between environmental and attitudinal barriers, a person, and the person’s impairment(s).
Medical Models of Disability: Any model of disability that views impairments as defects to be
treated and/or cured.
451

Social Justice Education: A mode of education that prepares people to recognize and confront
systemic inequalities.
Specific Learning Difficulty: A difficulty that a person may have with a particular facet of learning
or processing information.
452
453
Chapter 22
Making Educator Professional
Development More
Accessible and Inclusive
With Mobile Teacher:
A Global Community of Practice
Founded in Appreciative Inquiry
Katherine Guevara
ABSTRACT
This chapter describes how curious and reflective TESOL educators can engage in ongoing apprecia-
tive inquiry by participating in a unique global community of practice facilitated through an app called
Mobile Teacher that also works offline. With the aim of recognizing and sharing the expertise of non-
native English speaker TESOL educators who are primarily BIPOC and women working in the majority
world, teachers are encouraged to watch short videos of colleagues’ effective teaching practices, try out
the practices with their students, and in turn share videos describing or demonstrating their own proven
techniques. Through a case study of using Mobile Teacher with teachers in Ecuador, the author provides
a self and group reflection guide based on the 4D appreciative inquiry framework to establish a defini-
tion and examples of effective teaching practice, and a video script template to complete in preparation
for recording and sharing an effective teaching practice.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on the inquiry aspect of critical practice in TESOL as it relates to supporting curi-
ous and reflective TESOL educators to engage in ongoing inquiry to ensure their instruction is evidence
based and culturally sustaining. In this case, teachers are curious about how colleagues worldwide teach
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch022

Making Educator Professional Development More Accessible and Inclusive With Mobile Teacher
effectively and, through Mobile Teacher’s community of practice or COP (see Terms and Definitions)
rooted in social constructivism and reinforcing their own identities (Wenger, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978), they
access and watch videos of their colleagues’ teaching tips and techniques, then replicate them with their
own students. Teachers in the Mobile Teacher COP work in the majority world (see Terms and Defini-
tions) and primarily are individuals who identify as BIPOC (see Terms and Definitions) and as non-native
English speaker teachers. Following critical language pedagogy (Freire, 1967, 2004; Godley & Reaser,
2018), the Mobile Teacher app provides them with a unique platform that works offline without Internet
to better democratize access to more inclusive, representative, and localized professional development
content via their own phones. Additionally, educators are reflective because they create evidence-based
working definitions (see Key Terms and Definitions) of what it means for a teaching practice to be ef-
fective and use an appreciative inquiry approach (Moore, 2020) that aligns to Kumaravadivelu’s (2012)
KARDS model for language teacher education for a global society to identify their own localized,
culturally sustaining effective practices to share via Mobile Teacher. The author who created Mobile
Teacher presents field research with English teachers in Ecuador, and provides a resulting protocol for
how TESOL educators can use Mobile Teacher as a COP with the aim to engage in continuous cycles
of reflection, appreciative inquiry, and analysis in order to enhance the impact of their own instruction
on student learning. The TESOL educator is invited to participate in a self and group guided reflection
exercise (see Table 1), follow a template for scripting their own teaching tip video (see Table 2), and post
a video to Mobile Teacher’s community. Finally, five implications on TESOL praxis of scaling Mobile
Teacher are presented for pre- and in-service teachers, rapid training for volunteer organizations, other
subjects, and use outside the majority world.
CONCEPT
Mobile Teacher provides a global COP of passionate educators where all teachers can share and leverage
best teaching practices to provide quality education to learners without barriers. They do this by submit-
ting short video teaching tips and techniques to the Mobile Teacher app, watching videos submitted by
colleagues, and implementing those ideas in their own classrooms with their students. They watch, teach,
and share. Mobile Teacher’s mission stems from a vision for the future, picturing an inspirational, ideal
world: A world where all students benefit from a quality education. This vision is rooted in its three
core values, highlighting the strength of teachers globally, the importance of contextualization, and the
belief in the possibility of never letting technological barriers limit opportunity.
To this end, Mobile Teacher believes (1) Teachers know best: they can provide context-specific, local
best practices and should be recognized for this expertise, (2) Access is a fundamental right: available
existing technology can be leveraged to overcome the digital divide and democratize opportunity; (3)
There is power in community: learning from each other highlights the importance and values of sharing
as one world. To accomplish this, Mobile Teacher uniquely provides a community platform of teachers,
curated teacher-generated video tutorials tailored to local context, and offline accessibility. In fact, Mobile
Teacher is the only app that works without Internet for teachers in the majority world to share videos of
their effective teaching practices (see Terms and Definitions). For participating majority world teachers
who are primarily BIPOC, women, and non-native English speakers, Mobile Teacher provides an op-
portunity to see someone who looks like them, teaching in a context like their own, and recognize that
expertise. For example, if an educator teaches Quechua and English to a bilingual class of 100 students
454

without electricity, Mobile Teacher believes that is expertise that should be valued, shared, and emulated
by other teacher colleagues who can learn from it (Mobile Teacher, n.d.).
Both traditional and non-traditional conceptual frameworks underpin Mobile Teacher. To start, it
comes as no surprise that critical language pedagogy and social constructivism as applied to language
teacher education for a global society most directly relate. Critical language pedagogy or CLP (Freire,
1967, 2004; Godley & Reaser, 2018) creates the foundation of the social justice aspect of Mobile Teacher
which strives to reflect the voices, work, needs, interests, and expertise of teachers who are from, and
who are teaching students from, historically marginalized groups such as BIPOC teachers from majority-
world countries. Furthermore, the videos they make for Mobile Teacher are context-appropriate because
they relate to their students’ lives as expressed in terms of their own reality, as well as their value of
handmade learning materials, and environmental and indigenous culture conservation which can be seen,
for example, in the topics of videos posted by teachers in Ecuador (see Portrait of Practice).
Many of the principles for critical language pedagogy based on Freire’s work (Crawford, 1978;
Crawford-Lange, 1981, 1982), are present in Mobile Teacher. Namely, the content is derived from the
life situation of the learners who may also produce their own learning materials; planning begins with
organizing generative themes and then subject matter that relates to them (see Tables 1 and 2); teach-
ers participate as learners and contribute their ideas, experiences, opinions, and perceptions, and the
teacher’s function is one of posing problems (i.e., for Mobile Teacher, teachers identify the need for the
effective practice and what makes the shared practice effective for addressing the self-declared need).
Additionally, educators using Mobile Teacher are also carrying out aspects of Kumaravadivelu’s
(2012) model for language teacher education for a global society and doing so in a way that emphasizes
social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) because teachers as learners in this case are working in a special
kind of group called a community of practice (COP) to co-construct knowledge about effective teaching
practices that also are rooted in their very identity (Wenger, 1998). In particular, Mobile Teacher’s par-
ticipating educators practice skills from the five modules of the KARDS method of Knowing, Analyz-
ing, Recognizing, Doing, and Seeing (Kumaravadivelu, 2012). Mobile Teacher users can build a viable
professional, personal, and procedural knowledge base as they watch and then implement video teaching
tips of effective practices contributed by global colleagues and may also create and contribute their own
videos of personal practices to the Mobile Teacher community knowledge base. They analyze learner
needs, motivation, and autonomy (see Table 1) when they analyze what creates the need for certain
teaching practices and what makes a teaching practice effective for their learners and for learning. They
recognize their own identities, beliefs and values such as when they form their own context-specific
working definitions of effective teaching practice (see Table 1) as in the example of Ecuadorian teachers
in the Galápagos Islands who incorporate sustainability as a necessary element of an effective teaching
practice (see Evidence-Based Practices). They practice teaching, theorizing, and dialogizing through
community of practice activities and by implementing teaching ideas they see in others’ videos (see
Tables 1 and 2). Overall, the social constructivist aspect of Mobile Teacher can help them see their own
teaching acts from learner, teacher, and observer perspectives because they learn from other colleagues’
videos, teach others by submitting videos of their own practices for others to emulate, and observe both
their own practices to identify effectiveness and select which ones to share, as well as observe other
colleagues’ teaching when watching their videos.
Perhaps more surprisingly, the conceptual framework for Mobile Teacher also comes less-traditionally
from outside TESOL from the field of organizational change, and is known as the Appreciative Inquiry
Model--a strengths-based approach to bring about positive change, in this case, a positive change in teach-
455

ing to effect a positive change in learning (Denhardt, 2020). Based in positive psychology, appreciative
inquiry “focuses on what’s working rather than what’s not working and leads to people co-designing
their future” (Moore, 2020). Therefore, teachers focus on what works, on their effective teaching prac-
tices and what makes them effective, and how to co-design with other colleagues their future teaching
in order to do more of what works well.
Just like organizations, teacher professional development or training traditionally seems to approach
change and growth from a problem-solving, critique, or deficit perspective to fix something wrong.
Instead, an affirmative approach assumes the positive, emphasizes strengths, and is aligned to an abun-
dance mindset. What’s more, value is placed on collective understanding of what defines or makes up
the best and how to work towards that desired vision. Though appreciative inquiry has been used for
teacher training (Buchanan, 2014; Tian & Louw, n.d.) and training in other professions such as nursing
(Modic, 2015), it still represents a relatively new paradigm shift in teacher professional development just
as it did in the 1980s when Cooperidder and Srivastva first introduced it to organizational management.
“Inquiry, in itself, is about generating and inspiring new ideas, visions, and stories that can potentially
lead to action” (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999 as cited in Moore, 2020). Mobile Teacher facilitates ac-
cess to inspiring new teaching ideas, visions, and stories from TESOL educators that can potentially
lead their colleagues to action by way of changing their teaching practices and becoming inspired to in
turn share their own most effective practices.
An appreciative inquiry approach proves to be so desperately needed in TESOL because it runs con-
trary to what typically occurs when majority world, non-native English speaker teachers who are mostly
BIPOC attend teacher professional development. Teachers, including TESOL educators, in the major-
ity world need and want teacher training. However, professional development is typically inaccessible
or inappropriate to their local contexts; hard truth be told, traditionally, there has existed a significant
bias in the unidirectional flow of so-called expertise with mostly white, native-English speaker TESOL
educators traveling internationally to provide workshops in which they essentially tell local educators,
who are predominately BIPOC, women, and non-native English speaker TESOL educators how to teach
or how they are teaching wrong. While well intentioned, many of these colonialist approaches have also
served to exploit and erase entire cultures and their contributions. On the contrary, appreciative inquiry
“is about using inquiry to create positive, optimistic visions of the future to inspire and awaken ‘the best
in people’ (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999; Kessler, 2013 as cited in Moore, 2020) as a holistic approach
addressing change in teaching at a cultural level not from a top-down fixing perspective.
Enter Mobile Teacher, the only app that works without Internet so teachers in the majority world can
finally see someone that looks like them, teaching in a context like theirs, and recognize that expertise.
Teachers submit short videos of their effective teaching practices and/or watch videos submitted by other
teachers to get good teaching tips and ideas. Mobile Teacher works like a regular app for those with
Internet. Otherwise, teachers can still watch videos offline or download videos to their phone to watch
and share later. After watching self-selected, pertinent videos, teachers can test out the recommended
practices in action in their own classes with their own students.
Mobile Teacher grew out of the author’s doctoral research in global digital equity to democratize ac-
cess to teacher professional development using offline mobile phones to scale English teacher training
456

(Guevara, 2015). It has both Android and iOS app versions freely available in Google Play and the App
Store with about 100 downloads and 20 video submissions from teachers around the world. As recipi-
ent of two small grants from the U.S. Department of State, Mobile Teacher performed user testing (see
Key Terms and Definitions) with 88 English teachers in Ecuador, produced a short documentary about
the experience, and incorporated their feedback to optimize the app features. As founder and CEO, the
author participated in the Rossier EdVentures and Blackstone Launchpad Techstars accelerator programs
that coach EdTech startups and went back to school to learn about social entrepreneurship and measur-
ing social impact. To incentivize teachers to submit video content, Mobile Teacher runs prize award
contests seeking effective teaching practices on a theme. For example, Mobile Teacher partnered with
Little Justice Leaders, a monthly subscription box of K-6 lesson materials on social and environmental
justice topics who will provide the prize and themes for upcoming contests (i.e., submit videos showing
tips for teaching women’s history and environmental sustainability).
Teachers can use Mobile Teacher as a tool to increase critical awareness and expand teacher voices.
The main phases of Mobile Teacher’s development are outlined below with special attention paid to
describing Phase 4 in most detail in order to contextualize and share the Learning Activity and Portrait
of Practice. Including information on the development of the tool serves the dual purpose of providing
transparency on its strengths and weaknesses in order to engage the community in an exchange of criti-
cal feedback, as well as potentially support the journey of other TESOL educators interested in similar
EdTech entrepreneurship efforts. After reviewing this section, readers will be able to complete the same
tasks experienced by English teachers in Ecuador: establish a working definition of effective teaching
practice (see Table 1), identify examples of effective teaching practices (see Table 1), script and record
a short video of an effective English teaching practice on a topic of their choice right from their own
phones (see Table 2), download and use the Mobile Teacher app to participate in a global community
of practice with international educators.
Mobile Teacher Phases of Development
Phase 1: Doctoral research on emerging best practices in using offline mobile phones to train English
teachers in majority world countries (Guevara, 2015). It wasn’t until big names like Google, Android,
and UNESCO started paying attention to this target audience of people without Internet, including
majority world English teachers, who are essentially offline learners, that Mobile Teacher gained
traction. These companies began to see the profit potential of what they used to deem the so-called
“bottom billion” and now refer to as the “next billion users”
Phase 2: Prototyping an offline app following guidelines set by Google, Android, and UNESCO for
designing for the “next billion users” that the author summarized into a digital scorecard enumer-
ating 176 design considerations; the higher a product scores, the better suited it is for the unique
needs of an offline target audience in the majority world (Android Developers, n.d.; Google, n.d.;
Google Design, n.d.; Vosloo, 2018)
Phase 3: Alpha (see Key Terms and Definitions) launch and contest-incentivized user testing of an
Android app marketed through the author’s U.S. Peace Corps, English Language Fellow Program,
and TESOL networks to reach teachers in the majority world
Phase 4: Beta (see Key Terms and Definitions) launch and field testing with 88 English teachers in 4
provinces in Ecuador sponsored by the English Language Specialist Program in 2019
457

Phase 5: Scaling up by incorporating teacher feedback to optimize app features and functions, create an
iOS version, acquire sponsor partners to offer prizes for monthly incentivized contests to encourage
video submissions, expand the board, and pitch to angel investors
Phase 6: Measure impact, which is notoriously challenging, perhaps using the IRIS standard for education
metrics (IRIS, n.d.) and via survey responses on self-reported improvements to teaching/learning,
number of new/revised lessons, number of students reached, and number of teacher development
hours completed
What follows highlights an in-depth description of the Phase 4 testing with English teachers in Ecuador
and includes the same community of practice activities they completed in order to establish a working
definition and provide examples of effective teaching practice (see Table 1 under Learning Activity) and
script and record their own short video tips describing or showing one of their own effective teaching
practices (see Table 2). The provided activities can be used by TESOL educators when forming and
collaborating in their own communities whether or not they decide to record videos or submit them to
Mobile Teacher.
The workshop began with participants contributing their own expertise in small groups prompted
by questions on a provided worksheet similar to that found in Table 1. Participants came to a shared
definition of “effective teaching practice” with characteristics unique to their local needs and priorities.
Participants selected their most effective teaching practice according to the requirements of the shared
definition and recorded a demonstration or explanation of that effective teaching practice. Prep time and
a script template were provided to practice what they would say before recording their short videos with
a partner using their own phones. After recording, teachers were encouraged to show each other their
videos and receive feedback. Participants learned about how to submit their videos to Mobile Teacher
if they wished.
Learning Activity
The learning activity in Table 1 affords the reader an opportunity to perform a similar self and group
reflection on effective teaching practices to that accomplished by the 88 English teachers in Ecuador.
Note that the exercise follows the 4D model of appreciative inquiry: Discover, Dream, Design, Destiny
(Moore, 2020) and that, rather interestingly, this model can be roughly mapped onto Kumaravadivelu’s
(2012) KARDS model as follows: Discover/Knowing, Dream/Analyzing, Recognizing/Design, Destiny/
Doing & Seeing. Part 1 is a pair interview through the lens of discovery to find the best of what is and
uncover existing strengths. Part 2 expands the educators’ circle to form a larger group of colleagues
who come to a working definition of effective teaching practice; in other words, they dream up or co-
construct a vision from multiple perspectives and opinions; note the emphasis on social constructivism
(Vygotsky, 1978). Part 3 invites the group to select a single most effective practice best aligned to their
definition, which means they design or reach a shared value and which may become the focus of the
video tip they record, which means they create a destiny by innovating or taking action to turn their vi-
sion into a commitment.
For those motivated to record a short video tip of their own that describes or demonstrates an effec-
tive teaching practice, Table 2 provides a structure for scripting a video before recording. All 88 teach-
ers in Ecuador used the same template to script and practice their videos before recording in pairs. The
template purposefully serves to limit the amount of written text on the right side in order to ensure the
458

Table 1. Self and group reflection on effective teaching practices
Part 1: Sharing Personal Teaching Practices

Instructions: Interview a colleague using the questions below. Record their answers in the open space to the right. Switch roles and repeat
the process so each colleague has the opportunity to both ask and answer.
Questions Answer Space for Notes
What is your favorite teaching practice?
Why does it work well with your students?
What is your most effective teaching practice?
Why does it work well with your students?
Are your favorite and your most effective teaching practice the
same or different?
Why might that be?
Part 2: Establishing a Collective Working Definition of Effective Teaching Practice
Instructions: Colleagues paired during Part 1 should now form larger groups with one or two more pairs. These larger groups of 4-6
colleagues answer the questions together and record answers in the open space to the right. It is recommended each group member write
their own notes, but groups may elect one colleague as the notetaker if they prefer.
What do the specific examples of effective teaching practices
shared above seem to have in common? (Answering this requires
each group member share their examples from Part 1)
Generalizing from what all the examples seemed to have in
common, what makes any teaching practice “effective” overall?
(Answering this is like creating your group’s working definition of
effective teaching practice)
Part 3: Highlighting Exemplars of Effective Practice
Instructions: Working in the same groups as in Part 2, answer the questions together and record answers in the open space to the right.
Of all the great examples of effective teaching practices shared
above, which one seems to be the most effective according to your
working definition?
Which specific criteria from your working definition does this
most effective example fulfill?
video remains short (less than three minutes recommended). After filling out the information prompted
in the boxes on the right, review the script several times until comfortable saying it without reading. It
can be helpful not to memorize every word, but instead recall the sections or questions on the left side
as a memory aid.
After scripting the video and practicing without reading, use a phone to record the video. It is helpful
to do this in pairs. After recording, pairs provide feedback on each other’s videos by answering three
guiding questions:
1. What was most effective about the video?

2. What could make the video even better?
3. After watching the video, would another teacher be able to do this with their own students?
459

Table 2. Template for creating a script to record a short video about an effective teaching practice to
share on mobile teacher
Video Segment Words to Say on Camera

Introduction Hello, I’m...
Who are you? I’m a teacher from…
Activity Name
What effective teaching practice are you Today I will explain/show (name of the activity or tip).
sharing?
Topic and Level
This is for teaching (subject/topic) to (level of students).
What subject/topic and student level is it for?
Materials
You will need…
What materials do you need?
First…
Steps
Second…
How do you do it?
Third...
Closing
How can you encourage other teachers to try Thanks! I hope you try this with your students.
this with their students?
When the recording is complete, participate in Mobile Teacher’s COP by submitting the video to
Mobile Teacher. Steps for contributing to Mobile Teacher’s COP by either watching videos from other
teachers or by uploading a video to share with colleagues worldwide are described below.
Step 1: Download the free Mobile Teacher app for Android in the Google Play store or for iOS in the
App Store.
Step 2: To watch videos submitted by teachers around the world, open the app and tap Watch Videos.
Because Mobile Teacher works offline, it is possible to watch videos immediately in the app and/
or download videos to watch later all without Internet connectivity. To contribute a video, open
the app and tap Submit Video. Those wishing to submit a video will be prompted to create a free
account. Select the video recording file to be submitted. (Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for additional
assistance preparing to submit a video).
Step 3: After watching a video, implement the learned technique or tip in class with students making
adjustments where necessary. Share the technique or tip with colleagues by sending the video
directly from the app and conversing with colleagues about the experience using it.
Step 4: After submitting a video, wait for a confirmation it has been reviewed and added to the app.
Share the video submission with colleagues directly from the app to promote use of the technique
or tip and encourage those who use it to check back in with feedback on their experience using it.
Step 5: Repeat steps 3 and 4 as often as preferred.
Examples of Mobile Teacher’s use as a tool and its effectiveness can be best understood by describing
how Ecuadorian teachers implemented it during the workshop and what the results were. This case study
460

based on fieldwork with teachers in Ecuador came about because in celebration of its 50th anniversary,
the U.S. State Department’s English Language Fellow (EL Programs, n.d.) program offered a Go Back,
Give Back contest for former Fellows to submit two-week projects to facilitate in their original coun-
tries of service. This State Department program, administered by Georgetown University, sends highly
qualified U.S. TESOL educators to on paid teaching assignments at universities and other academic
institutions around the world to promote English language learning and mutual understanding through
cultural exchange. As one of only 13 contest winners selected to implement their fieldwork project, the
author returned to Ecuador where her original 2008-09 Fellow assignment had focused on the produc-
tion of an educational television show that aired on 8 channels to more than a million people providing
access to English via the series and accompanying textbook she wrote (Aprendamos, 2012); this is
relevant to mention only because with the show airing in reruns for a decade, teachers the author had
never met already knew of her through the show and this may have helped establish rapport and trust
faster for using Mobile Teacher.
Project goals were to exchange, support, and promote effective teaching practices using the Mobile
Teacher Android app, intending to reach teachers without stable Internet, particularly those in the most
marginalized areas of Ecuador including Afro-Ecuadorian teachers, teachers in the Amazon, and those
teaching in indigenous languages such as Quechua. The author facilitated the same 90-minute workshop
6 times at 4 sites with 88 participants who were teachers of any level of English from any type of insti-
tution (public, private, school, university, center, organization, program, etc.); the majority were public
university teachers. Using the effective appreciative inquiry approach (Moore, 2020) the author started
with asking and sharing what already works well and what Ecuadorian teachers do well as a positive
gateway to change-making with greater buy-in, and more appropriate localization. Teacher participants
reflected on what makes a teaching practice “effective” and shared their own effective practices. By
the end of each workshop, teacher participants were able to 1) collectively define “effective” teaching
practice 2) identify specific local examples of effective teaching practices 3) record a video demonstra-
tion or explanation of one of their own effective teaching practices.
One workshop objective in particular resulted in a broadly applicable yet highly localized definition
of “effective practice”. While there proved to be extensive agreement on general characteristics of what
makes a teaching practice effective, such as contextualization, personalization, learning objectives, forma-
tive and summarize assessment, active learning, motivation/engagement, feedback, and incorporation of
the practice of four skills (reading, writing, speaking, listening), each workshop group also contributed
aspects unique and relevant to their specific regions. Interestingly, the Ecuadorian regional priorities
expressed for effective teaching prove similar to those currently prioritized at many U.S. institutions,
namely: anti-racist pedagogy; trauma-informed teaching; diversity, equity, inclusion, and access; and
sustainability.
For example, in Azogues outside of Cuenca, Ecuador teachers focused on the meaning of inclusion
as it refers to large, mixed-level classes and that for a practice to be effective it must address the needs of
learners at all levels. Teachers there mentioned they can also specialize in bilingual education support-
ing the inclusion and preservation of the indigenous Quechua language. Their videos focused on topics
reflective of the importance of communal culture such as having student pairs write and respond to letters
to authors of texts they read, and round robin speaking practice. In Manabí province, teachers mentioned
an effective practice is one that incorporates active learning, including physicality, in accessible ways so
students with mobility challenges can also participate. Their videos reflected a wide-ranging focus due to
the multiple levels taught, from the popularity of singing songs and dancing to learn English vocabulary
461

to environmentalism to explaining the flipped classroom to fellow educators. Also, they felt it important
to document in video that school leaders have constructed an educational path in the school’s garden
with various learning stations focused on the teaching of Andean cultural celebrations and traditional
medicinal plants. Additionally, the same school leaders have incorporated trauma-informed teaching
into their emotional intelligence workshops, particularly needed after a devastating earthquake in the
region. In the Galápagos Islands, teachers emphasized sustainability as a paramount feature that makes
a teaching practice effective; essentially, a successful activity is green both in context (the lesson topic)
and delivery (mindful use of resources like paper handouts). In their videos, teachers focused on how
handmade low or no-cost classroom materials can be created using recycled materials such as repurposing
plastic bottles filled with pebbles into dynamic noise-maker shakers that serve multiple purposes such
as signaling when it is time to change role play roles or groups, as a passable talking stick, to count the
beat of syllables, to encourage trash pickup, and more. It was in the Galápagos that the author noticed
a difference in the school and town murals as well; didactic mural art on San Cristobal island not only
featured people of various skin colors, ages, and physical abilities but also cultural constructs related to
life in a national park, unique marine ecosystem, and world heritage site that people and animals should
be given equal status.
Regarding benefit to participants, per Mobile Teacher’s mission, every teacher participant recorded
a short video of one of their personal, local, effective teaching practices to share with the world. This
means that they helped democratize access to professional development via use of the Mobile Teacher
app (available for those who do not have stable Internet), localized expertise with user-created solutions
for effective classroom practices and, by submitting their videos or watching videos submitted by other
colleagues, will continue to encourage a global community of practice in which majority world teach-
ers connect, share, and recognize their expertise. The author also received an EL Mini Grant to bring
a professional videographer to document her project work in Ecuador and serve as a reference when
capturing teacher-user feedback in order to implement their suggestions in subsequent iterations and
updates of the Mobile Teacher app. A sample of anonymized recorded feedback from the documentary
video is included below.
Teacher Participant 1: This was my first time making video, like sharing an English practice, some-
thing I have done in my class, and I felt a little bit nervous at the very beginning, but then, once I started
to film the video I felt really confident. I think it’s very important for us to share our English teaching
practices with the world, and if you’re interested in sharing videos with us, uh, please share videos so
you can help us to contribute to our teaching community.
Teacher Participant 2: I find it fantastic. The first time I recorded a video I was like really stressed
and thinking how is it going to work but after trying it well I think it’s a really useful tool. You know
one of the best things that joins teachers [is] cooperation and if we’re able to share strategies with other
teachers from around the world I think that we are already working a lot. So I enjoying watching videos
from other teachers and I hope they will enjoy mine as well.
Teacher Participant 3: You see sometimes we need to try new strategies that are going to help our
students to accomplish their objectives.
Teacher Participant 4: It doesn’t matter what age you are going to be teaching, it could be pre-school,
elementary school, high school, every single idea you have is welcome.
Teacher Participant 5: By sharing the different points of view that other teachers have, well that
makes our education improve in different ways because we put new points-of-view and strategies into
practice and reach the student more.
462

DISCUSSION
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, UNESCO called progress on reaching the 2030 deadline for Sustain-
able Development Goal 4: Quality Education (United Nations, n.d.) a crisis in part due to a global
teacher shortage of needing 69 million new teachers, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, who will also
need to be trained, and having 263 million children and youth out of school (UNESCO, 2019). During
the pandemic, 1.5 billion students were out of school globally, with the same teacher shortage, and the
revelation of existing inequities the digital divide presents when teachers and learners throughout most
of the world do not have the privilege of just going online to continue education (Strauss, 2020; Guevara,
2020). Because Mobile Teacher’s COP is uniquely founded in appreciative inquiry, this positive approach
could inspire more candidates so desperately needed to enter the teaching profession and Mobile Teacher
could be used to have teachers help train each other.
Regarding implications on TESOL praxis specifically, Mobile Teacher shows potential for use in five
domains. First, Mobile Teacher can be used for both TESOL educator pre-service and in-service teacher
training. Aside from assigning pre-service teachers to watch videos of senior teachers on Mobile Teacher,
pre-service teachers can also submit videos such as offering tips about performing class observations
and working with host or co-teachers or submitting their final capstone or practicum video to Mobile
Teacher. In-service teachers can use Mobile Teacher to get fresh ideas, to analyze videos together in their
own local communities of practice, or even to promote friendly competition of posting the most or most
popular tips. Mobile Teacher can also be used for rapid training provided to volunteers in organizations
such as the U.S. Peace Corps when volunteers receive short-term yet intensive crash courses in TESOL
once in-country; videos would be specific enough to sort by host country and local Peace Corps trainers
could post their own videos showing country-specific effective practices (U.S. Peace Corps, n.d.). For
other traditional and non-traditional subjects less related to TESOL but still in English, Mobile Teacher
can host videos for teaching virtually anything such as health skills from midwifery to CPR.
Finally, and of much interest, the future for Mobile Teacher goes local as well as global. Mobile
Teacher can be used by TESOL educators outside the majority world, in so-called developed countries.
Underestimated international educators, who are primarily non-native English speakers, BIPOC, and
women in majority world countries, excel at finding creative solutions to historically under-resourced
schools, overcrowding, hungry students, etc. Under-resourced educators in so-called developed coun-
tries, like teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD, n.d.), have realized how much
they have in common with international colleagues especially since the COVID-19 pandemic has only
revealed existing inequities like U.S. students’ lack of Internet/devices to continue learning. Wouldn’t
it be great to be matched with an international colleague coach for whom such challenges are nothing
new? The majority world TESOL educator turned Mobile Teacher coach could provide timesaving,
cost-effective, equitable, engaging strategies to keep quality learning going and provide solutions for
overcoming common constraints like teaching without textbooks/supplies, multilingual teaching, teach-
ing excluded topics like indigenous history, teaching hungry students, etc. Also, TESOL educators from
rural Appalachia to those working in prisons see its potential for use in their own offline environments
in the United States. At last, a bidirectional, reciprocal direction flow of shared, valued expertise.
As TESOL educators continuously strive to be evermore curious and reflective, may they find their
supportive community grounded in appreciative inquiry. For educators who may not have a local COP
of their own, or wish to expand their local one, the TESOL International organization itself offers two
types of COPs educators can connect with or start up themselves today: Interest Section or Professional
463

Learning Network (PLN). Educators can use Mobile Teacher resources (see Tables 1 and 2) for these
COP activities and even have submission of videos to Mobile Teacher as a goal. For example, the TE-
SOL Interest Sections are “rooted in and contribute to current practice and research in specific areas
of English language teaching and learning” which lend themselves to creating Mobile Teacher videos
on those specific topics, while TESOL PLNs are “informal, discussion groups that typically emerge in
response to specific and timely issues” that form and dissolve as needed and could also be used as an
organizing catalyst for contributing Mobile Teacher videos on topics that respond to timely issues. In
keeping with Mobile Teacher’s own mission, at the time of writing, there exists one Interest Section for
non-native English speaker teachers and two PLNs, one broad as a diversity collaborative and another
specifically for black English language teaching professionals and friends (TESOL, n.d.). Specific to
U.S. citizens, TESOL educators may become a U.S. Peace Corps Volunteer (U.S. Peace Corps, n.d.)
specializing in English teaching or English teacher training, and/or become an English Language Fellow/
Specialist (U.S. Department of State, n.d.); both of these government programs have their own strong
versions of COPs. As for Mobile Teacher, its mission continues by advocating for appreciative inquiry
to particularly recognize and share the expertise of non-native English speakers who are BIPOC and
women TESOL educators working in the majority world to provide quality education to learners without
barriers. Join it. Grow it. Watch. Teach. Share.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was in part supported by the U.S. Department of State and Georgetown University’s English
Language Fellow Program and the U.S. Embassy in Ecuador.
REFERENCES
Aprendamos. (2012, October 4). ‎Hello! - Introducción al Idioma Inglés: Hello! Curso Introductorio al
Idioma Ingles on Apple Podcasts. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hello-curso-introductorio-al-
idioma-ingles/id1102580399?i=1000254680295
Buchanan, P. L. (2014). Appreciative Inquiry: A Path to Change in Education. Electronic Theses, Proj-
ects, and Dissertations. 125. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/125
Crawford, L. M. (1978). Paulo Freire’s philosophy: derivation of curricular principles and their ap-
plication to second language curriculum design (PhD dissertation). University of Minnesota.
Crawford-Lange, L. M. (1981). Redirecting foreign language curricula: Paulo Freire’s contribution.
Foreign Language Annals, 14(4), 257–273. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1981.tb01644.x
Crawford-Lange, L. M. (1982). Curricular alternatives for second language learning. In T. V. Higgs (Ed.),
Curriculum competence, and the foreign language teacher (pp. 81-113). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Co.
Denhardt, R. B. (2020). Managing human behavior in public and nonprofit organizations. CQ Press.
Design, G. (n.d.). UX for the Next Billion Users. https://design.google/library/ux-next-billion-users/
464

Developers, A. (n.d.). Build for billions: Android Developers. https://developer.android.com/topic/billions/

Freire, P. (1974). Education: the practice of freedom. Originally published in 1967 as Educaçåo ecomo
práctica de liberdade. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of indignation. Paradigm Publishers.
Godley, A. J., & Reaser, J. (2018). Critical Language Pedagogy. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang US.
https://www.peterlang.com/view/title/67692
Google. (n.d.). The Building for Billions Playbook (for developers), A Companion Guide to The Secrets
to App Success on Google Play. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=cJEjDAAAQBAJ&hl=en&
pg=GBS.PP1
Guevara, K. (2020). Consultancy to Provide Recommendations of the Education in Emergencies (EiE)
Interventions to Support the Most Vulnerable Communities for Continuous Learning in Latin America
and the Caribbean. UNICEF LACRO (internal report).
Guevara, K. C. (2015). Emerging best practices for using offline mobile phones to train English teachers
in developing countries (Dissertation).
IRIS. (n.d.). Welcome to IRIS+ System | the generally accepted system for impact investors to measure,
manage, and optimize their impact. https://iris.thegiin.org/#:~:text=IRIS%2B%20is%20the%20gener-
ally%20accepted,%2C%20managing%2C%20and%20optimizing%20impact.&text=Impact%20inves-
tors%20seek%20to%20maximize,decisions%20alongside%20risk%20and%20return
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society: A modular model for knowing,
analyzing, recognizing, doing, and seeing. Routledge/Taylor and Francis. doi:10.4324/9780203832530
LAUSD. (n.d.). Los Angeles Unified School District / Homepage. https://achieve.lausd.net/domain/4
Modic, M. B. (n.d.). Incorporating Appreciative Inquiry Into Your Teaching Tool Kit. Journal for Nurses
in Professional Development, 31(5), 303 - 304. https://www.nursingcenter.com/journalarticle?Article_
ID=3206513&Journal_ID=54029&Issue_ID=3206238
Moore, C. (2020, September 1). What is Appreciative Inquiry? A Brief History & Real Life Examples.
https://positivepsychology.com/appreciative-inquiry/
Programs, E. L. (n.d.). Fellows 50th Anniversary. English Language Programs. https://elprograms.org/
about/50th-anniversary/
Strauss, V. (2020, March 27). 1.5 Billion children around globe affected by school closure. What countries
are doing to keep kids learning during pandemic. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.
com/education/2020/03/26/nearly-14-billion-children-around-globe-are-out-school-heres-what-countries-
are-doing-keep-kids-learning-during-pandemic/
Teacher, M. (n.d.). Mobile Teacher - Watch. Teach. Share. http://mobileteacher.org/
TESOL. (n.d.). TESOL Communities of Practice. TESOL International Association. https://www.tesol.
org/connect/communities-of-practice
465

Tian, W., & Louw, S. (n.d.). Appreciative Advising and Reflection In Feedback On Teaching Practice In
Pre-Service Teacher Training. The Appreciative Inquiry Commons. https://appreciativeinquiry.champlain.
edu/educational-material/appreciative-advising-and-reflection-in-feedback-on-teaching-practice-in-pre-
service-teacher-training/
UNESCO. (2019, October 31). What teacher shortage? It’s not just the scale but the nature of the
challenge. World Education Blog. https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/what-teacher-
shortage-its-not-just-the-scale-but-the-nature-of-the-challenge/
United Nations. (n.d.). Goal 4 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations. https://
sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4
U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). English Language Fellow Program. U.S. Department of State. https://
exchanges.state.gov/us/program/english-language-fellow-program
U.S. Peace Corps. (n.d.). Work for the World. Make the Most of Your World. https://www.peacecorps.gov/
Vosloo, S. (2018). Designing inclusive digital solutions and developing digital skills: Guidelines. https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265537
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Alpha: An initial state of a product or software development representing the first time it is usable
in an exploratory testing phase often only internally without external users yet.
Beta: A later state of product or software development representing the incorporation of feedback
gained from the Alpha phase to refine and further develop it for field testing with real users.
BIPOC: An acronym common in the United States used to refer to Black, Indigenous, People of
Color and when it is not possible to be more specific; this term centers the fact that these groups expe-
rience historic violence, cultural erasure, systemic racism, oppression, and discrimination worldwide.
Community of Practice (COP): A formal or informal learning community where those with vary-
ing teaching experience engage with each other because they are interested in sharing and developing
expertise, and this relates to their very identity.
Effective Teaching Practice: Any teaching technique that an educator knows from experience works
well with students because a goal related to learning is achieved; what makes a practice effective may
differ by local context, culture, and standards.
Majority World: A more accurate and positive term used to describe what is more commonly referred
to as the developing world, developing countries, emerging markets/economies, low and middle-income
countries, the global south, the base of the pyramid, the next billion, etc when the exact names of the
countries themselves cannot be used; the majority of the world’s population lives in developing countries.
User Testing: Common in product and software development when real people called users are asked
to use or test the product or software so their feedback and experience can be observed and recorded
466

about how they perform tasks under real conditions; developers use this data to then update and iterate
the product or software.
Working Definition: A self or group-expressed explanation or description that represents a shared
understanding of a key term or concept to be used and may differ from an official definition.
467
468
Chapter 23
I Am Woke:
Unmasking Race, Gender, and Power
From Within a TESOL Affiliate
Nancy Kwang Johnson

ABSTRACT
This praxis-based chapter explores advocacy in the English language teaching (ELT) field. The chapter
introduces a new conceptualization of advocacy, the Critical Advocacy Framework, informed by Freire’s
critical consciousness (conscientização), Fanon’s race (Black) consciousness, and Crenshaw’s inter-
sectionality paradigms. For critical advocacy praxis, this chapter integrates the “iron triangle” model
from the American politics and public policy fields to highlight patron-client relationships between
multilingual learners (MLs) advocates and stakeholders. This chapter highlights how the racially mixed
author, a trained political scientist and newcomer to the ELT field, leveraged her Blackness, experiential
and organizational knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) in a Machiavellian sense, to promote diversity,
equity, and inclusion (DEI) throughout a TESOL state affiliate. The chapter provides evidence-based
practices and learning activities for MATESOL program administrators, pre-service, and in-service
English teachers.
I can’t breathe man. Please! Please, let me stand. Please, man I can’t breathe. —George Floyd, Tran-
script of Exhibit 2, 2020, p. 14
INTRODUCTION
The spectacle of George Floyd, a Black male adult, begging for his life while being pinned under the
knee of a white male police officer, Derek Chauvin, for 9 minutes and 29 seconds, resembled a modern-
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8093-6.ch023

I Am Woke
day lynching in broad daylight. This 21st century lynching, however, was distinctive from its 19th and
20th century counterparts in two respects. First, the black and white still images on lynching postcards
(Wood, 2018) of agentless, lifeless, Black males paled in comparison to the audiovisual narrative of and
by Floyd – a living and breathing lynching victim without agency. Second, the death of Floyd – a Black
male born on US soil – sparked outcry not only from other members of the African diaspora, but also
from non-Black populations all over the world. His death ultimately sparked an international, multiracial
social justice movement and demonstratively signified that the global village had hit its tipping point.
From the perspective of a political scientist and nascent TESOL member (2021), this chapter explores
the author’s reflections on her participation in and service to Language Teacher Associations (LTAs),
one of TESOL International Association’s large state affiliates (2018 to present), its partner organiza-
tion (2020) and a local chapter (2020). The theoretical underpinnings of this chapter draw heavily upon
Fanon’s (2008) colonizer-colonized and master-slave paradigms to contextualize and delineate how the
author – a descendant of a formerly colonized population – leveraged her Blackness (Fanon, 2008) to
challenge white power and privilege throughout the LTAs.
In the 50-year history of the TESOL state affiliate, the author was the first non-voting board mem-
ber to advocate for the creation of two Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) posts. With respect to the
partner organization and its 14-year existence, the author was the first voting board member to write
a DEI grant – a teacher training initiative – for five language educators representing K-12, university/
college, community college, adult education and intensive English program (IEP) contexts. Regarding
long-term DEI strategic planning, the author created and leveraged the pipeline of DEI grant recipients
committed to social justice as a means of upholding the advocacy goal in the TESOL state affiliate’s
mission statement.
This research introduces the Critical Advocacy Framework – an advocacy framework informed by
critical consciousness (Freire, 1974), postcolonial theory (Fanon, 2008) and intersectionality (Crenshaw,
1989) paradigms that focus on oppressor-oppressed, colonizer-colonized structures and intersectionality,
respectively. This chapter also integrates the “iron triangle” (Adams, 1981) model from the American
politics field to highlight the patron-client relationship between advocates of Multilingual Learners
(MLs) and stakeholders who ultimately determine the fate of MLs within and beyond the English lan-
guage classroom.
This chapter highlights how the author leveraged her Blackness (Fanon, 2008), experiential and orga-
nizational knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs), in a Machiavellian sense, to promote social transfor-
mation throughout the LTAs in the aftermath of Floyd’s death. The chapter was written for newcomers,
like the author, to the English Language Teaching (ELT) field and the TESOL International Association,
MATESOL education program administrators, professors, students and leaders within LTAs themselves
who might find the author’s reflected experiences, learning activities, and portraits of practice to be of use.
CONCEPT
Advocacy for English language learners (ELLs), as suggested by Standards for Initiation TESOL Pre-
K-12 Teacher Preparation Programs (2010, 2019), is increasingly becoming a requisite skill set for
pre-service teachers. An excerpt from TESOL (2019) Standard 5 states that “candidates demonstrate
professionalism and leadership by collaborating with other educators, knowing policies and legislation
and the rights of ELLs, advocating for ELLs and their families” (p. 11). Linville (2016) asserts that ELLs
469

I Am Woke
and their parents are more “vulnerable in the education system because they may lack the linguistic
ability, cultural knowledge, or political capital needed for advocacy” (p. 100). Consequently, teachers
advocate for ELLs until ELLs have the means and the savoir faire (or know-how) to do so themselves
(Linville, 2016).
Within the ELT field, there are various types of advocacies, namely scaffolded (Fenner, 2013), non-
transformative (De Oliveira & Athanases, 2007), transformative (De Oliveira & Athanases, 2007), tran-
sitive (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020), strategic (Cloud etal., 2000), instructional and political (Linville,
2020). Advocacy entails “gaining support of influential people or groups who have the resources, power,
or authority essential” to bring about change (Cloud etal., 2000, p. 185). To Fenner (2013), scaffolded
advocacy means “knowing about each of my EL students’ and families’ backgrounds to be able to know
which appropriate action I need to take on each person’s behalf” (p. 8). From the advocacy perspective,
it is incumbent upon ELT professionals to assess a language learner’s background knowledge and have
socio-cultural knowledge of the learner’s family and community (Crawford & Gross, 2019).
ELs in need of scaffolded advocacy (Fenner, 2013) tend to have low English language proficiency
(ELP) levels, low socioeconomic status and attend underperforming schools, as exemplified by low EL
achievement and completion rates. Scaffold advocates also provide support for ELs who might have
endured trauma and students with interrupted formal education (SIFE). Custodio and O’Loughlin (2017)
assert that SIFEs are the neediest of ELs as a result of their limited first language (L1) literacy, gaps in
academic knowledge, and major social and emotional needs (see Chapter 2 by Johnson and Saito). Ac-
cording to Fenner (2013), English language educators advocate for their students in spheres of influence
– the sites of advocacy actions – at the school (in their classroom or grade), district, state or federal levels.
While non-transformative advocacy (De Oliveira & Athanases, 2007) entails noticing, voicing the
injustice, and seeking a resolution without challenging the status quo (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020;
Linville, 2014), transformative advocacy (De Oliveira & Athanases, 2007) shares non-transformative
advocacy traits (noticing, voicing, and problem-solving), and begins where non-transformative advocacy
ends. Case in point, transformative advocacy not only challenges institutional practices that perpetuate
injustice, but also seeks anti-bias alternatives to frameworks that promote discriminatory practices (De
Oliveira & Athanases, 2007). Athanases and De Oliveira (2008) noted that effective advocates possessed
the following competencies: (a) the ability to assess challenges to equitable education, (b) conviction to
advocate, (c) organizational and political literacy, and (d) an awareness of the benefits of collaborative
advocacy.
In contrast to the aforementioned advocacy models, the transitive advocacy paradigm involves mul-
tiple change agents and third parties such as the parents of ELLs (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020). Based
on the Transitive Property of Equality (if A=B and B=C, then A=C) in mathematics, A would represent
English language educators who advocate for MLs (Linville & Whiting, 2019). Following this logic,
B and C would represent other stakeholders – including A – who would advocate for MLs. Retrospec-
tively, A engaged in the “transference of advocacy actions” to B (Linville & Whiting, 2019, p. 24). And
B transferred these actions to C. A’s ability to build an advocacy network underscores the fact that A’s
relationship-building skill set is a requisite advocacy competency.
Strategic advocacy, like its transitive counterpart, involves a network of multiple stakeholders with one
important difference. As suggested by its appellation, advocates are not only strategic about “identifying
stakeholders, their potential issues, and why they may be resistant to change,” but also assign “different
advocacy actions to each stakeholder as is most appropriate” (Linville & Whiting, 2019, p. 5). Fielder
(2000), in accord with this theory, argues that advocates need to be “opportunistic” and have a “concise
470

I Am Woke
and compelling message when advocating, taking into account others’ perspectives, building trust, and
never burning bridges” (p. 196).
A review of advocacy literature highlights that the advocacy domain – within the classroom or beyond
the classroom – is a recurring theme (Linville & Whiting, 2019; Haneda & Alexander, 2015; Dubetz
& De Jong, 2011). For instructional advocacy, TESOL professionals advocate to improve the lives of
their students within their classrooms (Linville, 2020). Regarding political advocacy, English language
educators focus on immigration and bilingual legislation that would have a direct and positive impact on
improving the lives of MLs and their families beyond the classroom (Linville, 2020; Hesson & Toncelli,
2019). Haneda and Alexander (2015) further categorize the non-transformative/transformative dichotomy
by differentiating between non-transformative/transformative advocacy within the classroom, and non-
transformative/transformative advocacy beyond the classroom.
The Critical Advocacy Framework
For MLs, the intersectionality of language, race and socioeconomic status cannot be overstated. MLs are
more prone to triple segregation as they are more inclined to attend schools where there is economic,
racial and linguistic segregation (Orfield, 2001). With respect to advocacy on behalf of MLs, the author
proposes a new conceptualization of advocacy, the Critical Advocacy Framework. At its core, this frame-
work draws heavily upon Freire’s (1974) conceptualization of power, privilege and critical consciousness
and Fanon’s (2008) theories about race, language and cultural assimilation – a colonial phenomenon.
Both Freire (1974) and Fanon (2008) address the dehumanizing and oppressive impact of colonialism
on formerly colonized populations. The Critical Advocacy Framework also integrates Crenshaw’s (1989)
concept of intersectionality and Adams’s (1981) “iron triangle” concept from American politics and
public policy fields. While the former foregrounds the identity politics of MLs, the latter sheds light
on the need to cultivate relationship-building skills as an advocacy competency for pre-service and in-
service English language educators.
The Critical Advocacy Framework: Freire’s Critical

Consciousness (Conscientização)
Oppression is an omnipresent theme in Freire’s (1974) Education for Critical Consciousness. Freire
(1974) notes that “throughout history men have attempted to overcome the factors which make them
accommodate or adjust, in a struggle – constantly threatened by oppression – to attain their full human-
ity” (p. 4). Figure 1 presents the various types of oppression Freire (1974) addressed, namely historical,
political, cultural, social and economic. In Freire’s paradigm (1974), the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy
emerges when dominant social groups exert power and privilege over less dominant groups. For Freire
(1974), the root causes of oppression are societal forces, institutions and structures that perpetuate the
oppressor-oppressed divide.
For advocacy studies, Freire’s (1974) conceptualization of critical consciousness (conscientização)
is paramount, and “represents the development of the awakening of critical awareness” (p. 15). This
awakening, asserts Freire (1974), begins when individuals become critically self-aware of their power
and privilege vis-à-vis their respective historical, political, cultural, social and economic contexts. The
“transitivity of consciousness” process (or transference of consciousness to another individual) is set
in motion once individuals “amplify their power to perceive and respond to suggestions and questions
471

I Am Woke
Figure 1. Freire’s Critical Consciousness (conscientização)
arising in their context” (Freire, 1974, p. 14). Transitivity continues as individuals interact with other
individuals beyond their immediate context. Freire (1974) argues that “if the people were to become
critical, enter reality, increase their capacity to make choices (and therefore their capacity to reject the
prescriptions of others), the threat to privilege would increase as well” (p. 16). Freire’s (1974) critical
consciousness paradigm challenges societal and institutional frameworks that exacerbate the dynamic
between the oppressor and the oppressed.
The Critical Advocacy Framework: Fanon’s Race (Black) Consciousness
The critical advocacy model also draws upon Fanon’s (2008) colonizer-colonized framework. Figure 2
presents the recurring themes in Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks (2008), namely colonialism, linguistic
assimilation, cultural assimilation, cultural amnesia, and revolution. Like Freire (1974), Fanon (2008)
addresses oppression with particular regard for race (Black) consciousness and colonial racism. Fanon
(2008) argues that “all colonized people – in other words, people in whom an inferiority complex has
taken root, whose local cultural originality has been committed to the grave – position themselves in
relation to the civilizing language: i.e., the metropolitan culture (p. 2).” For Fanon (2008), the more
472

I Am Woke
colonized populations assimilated French cultural values, the whiter they became. In Fanon’s (2008)
paradigm, linguistic and cultural assimilation (Johnson, 2005) leads to cultural amnesia – a condition in
which an individual is estranged from their pre-colonial culture.
Figure 2. Fanon’s Race (Black) Consciousness
The Critical Advocacy Framework: Crenshaw’s Intersectionality
The critical advocacy model also integrates Crenshaw’s (1989) concept of intersectionality for a couple
of reasons. The demographics of MLs suggest that an individual may experience more than one type of
social injustice (Crenshaw, 1989; Johnson, 1993; West, 2021). In “Demarginalizing the Intersection of
Race and Sex,” Crenshaw (1989) argues that “focus on the most privileged group members marginal-
izes those who are multiply-burdened” (p. 3). Figure 3 highlights the different ways that MLs may be
multiply-burdened: sex, undocumented, genetic information, religion, national origin, creed, color, dis-
ability, age, and race. The manner in which an individual experiences injustice differs and is predicated
“on who they are” (West, 2021, p. 5). Crenshaw’s (1989) intersectionality paradigm, like Fanon’s (2008)
473

I Am Woke
and Freire’s (1974) models, critically examines power and privilege at the macro-levels (institutions)
and micro-levels (individuals).
Figure 3. Crenshaw’s Intersectionality
The Critical Advocacy Framework: Theory
Figure 4 illustrates the theoretical framework for the critical advocacy model. For ML advocates, Freire’s
(1974) critical consciousness (conscientização) paradigm focuses on oppression at a macro-level (in-
stitutional) and a micro-level (individual). The awakening of critical consciousness theme suggests that
TESOL professionals will engage in self-reflection about their positionality vis-à-vis historical, political,
cultural, social and economic oppression. The ML advocates’ abilities to transfer critical consciousness
to other stakeholders and enter into a dialogue with members of the global community (Freire, 1974)
is largely contingent on their “power of reflection” (p. 13). Fanon’s (2008) race (Black) consciousness
framework, like Freire’s (1974) paradigm, addresses oppression with particular regard for the intertwined
dynamic between race, language, and assimilation (Johnson, 2005). In this regard, Fanon’s (2008) model
474

I Am Woke
complements heritage language learner scholarship (Moore & Nash, 2020). Crenshaw’s (1989) inter-
sectionality paradigm enables ML advocates to not only consider the multiple identity configurations
for MLs, but also seeks measures to mitigate triple segregation for MLs (Orfield, 2001). In this regard,
Crenshaw’s (1989) model sheds light on the everyday realities of MLs.
Figure 4. Critical Advocacy Framework - Theory
The Critical Advocacy Framework: Praxis
To engage in the praxis of critical advocacy, this chapter introduces Adam’s (1981) “iron triangle” concept
from the American politics and public policy fields. An iron triangle represents a political relationship
between three stakeholders: (1) Congress, (2) the federal bureaucracy, and (3) interest groups (Adams,
1981). The patron-client relationship between stakeholders is a dyad with three defining features: (1)
the relationship between the stakeholders is asymmetrical in power and status, (2) the relationship is
reciprocal and (3) the relationship is exclusively devoted to a special interest (Kaufman, 1974).
Figure 5 highlights the stakeholders in an iron triangle (Adams, 1981). Congress, at the apex of the
triangle, not only provides policy support to the interest group, but also provides budgetary and politi-
cal support to the federal bureaucracy. The interest group lobbies the bureaucracy and holds Congress
475

I Am Woke
accountable by providing electoral support for its members. And the bureaucracy is held accountable to
Congress and regulates the interest group. The rigor of the regulation depends on the dynamics of the
patron-client relationship. Hence, relationship-building is a requisite advocacy competency.
Figure 5. Critical Advocacy Framework – Praxis
Critical Advocacy Framework Competencies
Formulating and implementing public policies that have an impact on the lives of MLs – within and
beyond the classroom – is the singular goal of the Critical Advocacy Framework. As a result, critical
advocates will want to transfer critical consciousness (Freire, 1974) to stakeholders who have the ca-
pability to not only influence policy formulation, but also the power to implement public policies. To
achieve this goal, the critical advocate would need to possess the competencies presented in Figure 6:
• Relationship-Building – ability to cultivate relations with absolute strangers, prospective allies,

powerful influencers, and iron triangle (Adams, 1981) stakeholders
• Political and Socio-Emotional Intelligence – political literacy (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002;
Athanases & De Oliveira, 2008) and social-emotional intuition or ability to “read” and “see” the
actions and behaviors of political actors (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002)
• Organizational Behavior Knowledge – knowledge of agency behavior
• Political Savviness – knowledge of when and how to deploy advocacy strategies
• Lobbyist Persona – tenacity of a lobbyist
476

I Am Woke
• Negotiation-Mediation – ability to persuade and resolve conflict

• Cultural Arbitration – ability to communicate across cultures.
Figure 6. Critical Advocacy Framework Competencies
Table 1. Critical Advocacy Framework Competencies and KSAs
Critical Advocacy Framework Competency Critical Advocacy Framework KSA

Relationship-Building Ability to cultivate relations
Political and Socio-Emotional Intelligence Ability to read and see contexts and people
Organizational Behavior Knowledge Knowledge of an organization
Political Savviness Strategic sensibility
Lobbyist Persona Tenacity
Negotiation-Mediation Ability to persuade and problem-solve
Cultural Arbitration Ability to communicate across cultures
477

I Am Woke
Throughout the “Learning Activities” section, the author will deploy the iron triangle (Adams,1981)
framework and provide exercises to cultivate the Critical Advocacy Framework competencies in Table 1.
Professional Development
How can pre-service and in-service language educators cultivate critical advocacy competencies within
their communities of practice (Wenger et. al, 2002)? Wenger et. al (2002) define communities of practice
as “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen
their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (p. 4). In this chapter,
communities of practice represent the LTAs as sites where ELT professionals develop their advocacy
skills. This section provides four protocols: (1) a self-assessment for implicit bias, (2) the Professional
Advocacy Scale (Linville, 2016), (3) survey questions (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020) and (4) an oral
interview (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020).
Becoming Self-Aware: Hidden Bias
Within a critical advocacy framework, being aware of one’s positionality vis-à-vis power and privi-
lege is germane. The implicit bias assessment in this section was created by international researchers
from Project Implicit (n.d.), a not-for-profit organization founded by Tony Greenwald (University of
Washington), Dr. Mahzarin Banaji (Harvard University) and Dr. Brian Nosek (University of Virginia).
Implicit association tests predict an individual’s subconscious (hidden) bias. In Blindspot, Banaji and
Greenwald (2016) define hidden biases as “bits of knowledge about social groups” that are “stored in
our brains because we encounter them so frequently in our cultural environments” (p. xii). Once these
biases are stored, they “can influence our behavior towards members of particular social groups” (Banaji
& Greenwald, 2016, p. xii). Banaji and Greenwald’s findings (2016) highlight two themes: (1) racial
preferences are predictors of discriminatory behavior and (2) implicit bias may be a cause of Black
disadvantage (MacDonald, 2017).
Why should TESOL professionals assess their implicit biases? According to Standards for Initial
TESOL Pre-K-12 Teacher Preparation Programs, Standard 2e, pre-service candidates should be able to
“identify and describe the impact of his/her identity, role, cultural understandings, and personal biases
and conscious knowledge of U.S. culture on his/her interpretation of the educational strengths and needs
of individual ELLs and ELLs in general” (TESOL, 2019, p. 8). The 2010 Standards for Initial TESOL
Pre-K-12 Teacher Preparation Programs, Standard 2b stated that teachers should “develop a classroom
climate that purposefully addresses bias, stereotyping, and oppression” (TESOL, 2010, p. 40).
These TESOL standards collectively illustrate why it is important that pre-service language educators
(Harrison & McIlwain, 2020) are fully aware of their implicit biases (Jolls & Sunstein, 2006) - prior to
designing curriculum and assessments (Min, 2021) for minoritized communities (see Chapter 4 by Min).
If educators are aware of their hidden biases, then the likelihood of designing anti-bias curriculum and
creating viable alternatives for culturally-biased standardized tests will be greater (Kyung & Zabelina,
2015). The following implicit bias assessment enables educators to gain insight into their hidden biases.
Implicit Bias Assessment (Allot about an hour for this assessment.)
478

I Am Woke
1. For this segment, click on the URL: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

2. Login to learn about implicit associations.
3. Take at least three implicit bias tests.
4. Review your responses.
Adopting a Professional Advocacy Identity
According to Linville (2016), there are five domains of advocacy actions: (1) the ELL’s classroom, (2)
the spaces in which ELT educators and their General Education (GE) counterparts engage in relationship-
building, (3) the school and the arena in which community relations would be developed, (4) institu-
tions and (5) professional organizations. For instructional advocacy, ELT educators forge relationships
with their GE counterparts by drafting alternate courses (De Oliveira & Athanases, 2007) within the
first three domains. Standard 5b (TESOL, 2019) explicitly states that candidates “apply knowledge of
school, district, and governmental policies and legislation that impact ELLs’ educational rights in order
to advocate for ELLs” (p. 11). The advocacy prescribed by TESOL in Standard 5b (2019) would take
place in the third and fourth domains.
In “ESOL Teachers as Advocates: An Important Role?” Linville (2016) posed two research questions:
“1. What advocacy actions do pre-service teachers identify as an important part of the ESOL teacher
role? 2. To what extent are there differences in pre-service ESOL teachers’ ratings of the importance of
advocacy actions based on their a. individual characteristics, b. professional preparation, c. experiences
in the classroom, or d. knowledge of the Standards?” (p. 105). The survey participants were comprised
of 50 students in graduate TESOL programs at two universities (a small private and a mid-sized uni-
versity) in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States (U.S). The programs were housed in linguistic
and education departments. The following survey instrument, “Professional Advocacy Scale” (Linville,
2016), assesses one’s advocacy actions within and beyond their classrooms.
For the Professional Advocacy Scale Item (Linville, 2016, pp. 112-113), you will respond to each
question using the following responses: (a) not important, (b) somewhat unimportant (c) somewhat
important, (d) important, and (e) very important.
An ESOL teacher should…
1. Use an anti-bias curriculum and materials that promote an inclusive classroom.

2. Advocate for ELLs’ access to educational resources.
3. Understand the importance of advocating for ELLs’ access to educational resources and appropriate
instruction.
4. Help school administrators work effectively with ELLs.
5. Model for colleagues techniques and attitudes needed to work effectively with ELLs.
6. Talk with other colleagues about the importance of ELLs having equal access to educational
resources.
7. Help colleagues select and adapt or customize resources for use by ELLs.
8. Be familiar with community language education and other resources available to ELLs and their
families.
9. Provide ELLs and their families with information, support, and assistance in accessing community
language education and other resources.
10. Keep current with media reports about the education of ELLs.
479

I Am Woke
11. Provide instruction and professional growth activities for colleagues in skills for working with
ELLs.
12. Develop a classroom climate that purposefully addresses bias, stereotyping, and oppression. 13.
Help policymakers understand the curricula and instructional approaches that best meet the needs
of ELLs in their community.
13. Engage with community members and policymakers with respect to issues affecting ELLs.
14. Take a leadership role with community members and policymakers with respect to issues affecting
ELLs.
What did Linville’s (2016) research findings reveal about advocacy within the ELT field? Questions
#1-3 and #12 were salient predictors for instructional advocacy. The questions pertaining to political
advocacy, namely interacting with policy makers and community members, garnered the lowest scores.
The trends were positive when advocacy entailed talking to fellow colleagues and administrators to
improve ELL instruction, and negative when advocacy actions took place beyond the ELL classroom.
Linville (2016) concluded that: (1) teacher educators should prepare pre-service ELTs for instructional
(class and school-based) advocacy, and (2) ELTs might engage in instructional advocacy at the beginning
of their careers and transition into political advocacy or activism at the local, state, or national levels
once they have job security.
Recruiting Allies and Stakeholders
Despite the call to action for teacher education programs, there is still some ambiguity about the advocacy
roles of English language educators (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020). In “ESOL teachers’ experiences in
their role as advocate: Making the case for transitive advocacy,” Harrison and McIlwain (2020) posed
the following question: “What experiences do ESOL teachers have in their role as advocate for English
learners?” (p. 1). Like Linville (2016), Harrison and McIlwain (2020) examined how ESOL teachers
understood and perceived their advocacy actions on behalf of ELs with one important difference. Har-
rison and McIlwain (2020) addressed the advocacy environment and accounted for factors that facilitated
or hindered advocacy work. Table 2 highlights advocacy actions by ESOL teachers within and beyond
school parameters.
Harrison and McIlwain (2020) introduced their transitive advocacy paradigm in response to the
non-transformative-transformative (De Oliveira & Athanases, 2007) dichotomy. The transitive model
encompasses additional change agents and foregrounds the collaborative nature of advocacy. For their
research design, Harrison and McIlwain (2020) used a mixed-methods approach: (1) a survey of 144
ESOL teachers in the southeastern states, and (2) a semi-structured interview probing the advocacy ac-
tions and experiences of ten (of the 144 participants). For this section, you will complete the “Survey
Questions” instrument (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020) by responding to the questions in the drop-down
menu. Then, you should allot some time to respond to the “Oral Interview” questions (Harrison &
McIlwain, 2020, pp. 17-18). If you write one to two paragraphs for each interview question, then your
responses may serve as a preliminary draft of your advocacy plan in the “Learning Activities” section.
480

I Am Woke
Table 2. Actions of Advocacy by ESOL Teachers (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020, p. 8)
Within school context Outside of school context

Liaise with other teachers Invite local community members and organizations into the school
Speak on students’ behalf Make home visits, meet with parents
Create ESOL parent night Share information with advisory boards and committees
Provide staff development for teachers Attend meetings with families
Ensure proper materials provided to students Discuss issues at the district level
Ensure proper classroom placement for students Request resources from the district level
Advocate for comprehensible input Attend extracurricular events of students
Encourage hands-on activities Interpret at districtwide meetings
Participate in school-based team Serve on state TESOL board, attend conferences
Bring parents into school via culture celebrations Collect educational material donations
Provide translation and interpreting Promote cultural understanding and practice
Discuss strategies with teachers Conduct advisory and planning meetings
Offer modeling and coaching Speak up at district meetings
Speak up at state level to
Help teachers understand emotional and educational needs
state department of education
Collect information formally and informally
Survey Questions (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020, pp. 17-18)

1. How many years have you been a teacher? (drop‐down: 1–5 years, 6–15 years, 16–30 years)
2. How many years have you been an ESOL teacher? (drop‐down: 1–5 years, 6–15 years, 16–30
years)
3. Are you currently a full‐ or part‐time ESOL teacher? (drop‐down: full‐time, part‐time, other)
4. What type of ESOL program do you work in? (may select more than one: pull out, push in,
co‐ teaching, resource room, bilingual/dual language immersion, sheltered instruction, other
____)
5. What grade levels do you currently serve? (may select more than one: PK–2, 3–5, 6–8, 9–12,
adult)
6. How many schools do you currently serve? (open‐ended)
7. What is your school zip code? (open‐ended)
8. How would you define the term advocate? (open‐ended)
9. To what degree do you consider yourself an advocate for English learners? (thermometer icon
resulting in a scale of 10–0, 10 being the highest degree, 0 being the lowest degree)
10. When you think about being an advocate for English learners, how do you feel? (face icon
with variable expressions indicating happiness to unhappiness resulting in a scale of 5–1, 5
being the highest degree of pleasure or satisfaction, 1 being the lowest degree of pleasure or
satisfaction)
11. Rate your sense of effectiveness at advocating for English learners (report card icon with
scores ranging from A+ to F resulting in a scale of 13-1, 13 being an A+, 1 being an F)
481

I Am Woke
12. Consider your voice as an advocate. In your opinion how well is it heard or received? (traffic
light icon with red, yellow, and green lights where green = people are happy to have your
voice and want you to continue, yellow = you perceive resistance to your voice and ideas,
red = people are explicitly and vocally resistant to your voice and ideas, resulting in a scale
of 3 to 1, 3 being green, 2 being yellow, 1 being red)
13. In which arenas do you advocate or have you advocated for English learners? (may select more
than one: in my own classroom, in other teachers’ classrooms, in my school, in my school
system, at the local level, at the state level, at the national level, other ______)
14. Please describe your advocacy efforts for English learners in your own classroom and/or
school. (open‐ended)
15. Please describe your advocacy efforts for English learners outside of your own classroom
and/or school. (open‐ended)
16. What motivates you to advocate for English learners? (open‐ended)
17. In what ways have your efforts to advocate been encouraged or supported? (open‐ended)
18. What barriers or challenges do you experience in your attempts to advocate? (open ended)
Oral Interview Questions (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020, pp. 17-18)
1. Tell me about your experiences teaching ELLs.
2. Can you think of a time when you went to bat for one of your ELLs?
3. What do you consider to be the main supports in your efforts to advocate for ELLs?
4. What do you consider to be the main barriers in your efforts to advocate for ELLs?
5. What are some of the things you’ve done over the years for ELLs in your classes?
6. Have you ever taken your support for ELLs beyond the classroom?
a. Describe your advocacy actions at the school level.
b. Describe your advocacy actions in the community.
c. Describe your advocacy actions at the regional or state level.
d. Describe your advocacy actions at the national level.
7. What motivates you to advocate for ELLs?
8. What, if any, differences are there between how you think about advocating for ELLs and
how you think about advocating for native speakers?
What did Harrison and McIlwain’s (2020) research findings reveal about advocacy? Using Bronfen-
brenner’s (1979) ecological model and terminology, Harrison and McIlwain (2020) classified the ESOL
teacher and domains of advocacy as follows: (a) ESOL teacher (individual), (b) classroom (microsystem),
(c) school (mesosystem), (d) community (exosystem), and (e) local/regional/national (macrosystem).
Harrison and McIlwain’s findings (2020) illustrated that the ESOL teacher was at the epicenter of the
advocacy model and served as a mediator. The survey participants’ responses to the open-ended “Sur-
vey Questions,” namely Questions #6-8, and Questions 14-18 (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020, pp. 17-18),
specifically referred to “parents, guidance counselors, administrators, parent involvement coordinators,
community members, and district personnel” as advocacy network members (p.12).
The responses to the semi-structured interviews indicated that ESOL teachers engaged in one-to-
one advocacy with their ELs and third-party advocacy whereby the ESOL teacher collaborated with
family members, faculty, registrars, administrators, community members and leaders (Harrison & Mc-
Ilwain, 2020). Regarding barriers to advocacy work at the school (the mesosystem) and the community
(exosystem) levels, Harrison and McIlwain (2020) recommended a school-wide, culturally-responsive
482

I Am Woke
Table 3. Advocacy Concentration Track
Short-Term Curriculum Design – Phase I Long-Term Curriculum Design – Phase II

Civil Rights Law and
Critical Advocacy for Multilingual Learners
International Human Rights Law
(CAML)
(CRL-IHRL)
Public Policy (PP) Strategic Communication (SC)
Organizational Behavior (OB) and Practicum Negotiation and Mediation (NM)
teaching campaign and intercultural communication intertwining teacher-parent-community interactions,

respectively. Harrison and McIlwain (2020) noted that there is a paucity of research about advocacy
competencies, the personal attributes of effective advocates, and knowledge about “how to do advocacy
at the various levels and within our spheres of influence” (p. 15).
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Experiential Knowledge – Critical Advocacy Competencies
The author is no stranger to the political arena. The author’s first job after college was as a U.S. Senate
staffer for a senior-ranking member of Congress. As a federal caseworker, the author navigated the iron
triangle (Adams, 1981) framework – or web of federal agencies and congressional committees – on
behalf of the U.S. senator’s constituency. If a constituent had casework with one of the federal agencies,
such as the Department of Education or Department of Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS),
then the author advocated for the constituent.
After serving as a U.S. Senate staffer, the author worked alongside corporate attorneys as a paralegal
at the largest law firm in the U.S. At the firm, the author learned the art of persuasion and assisted at-
torneys with their patron-client relations. After working at the firm, the author pursued her Master’s in
Public Administration and focused on education policy regarding the adverse impact of tracking (Kozol,
2012) and standardized testing (Gould, 1996; Min, 2021) on minoritized communities.
Decades later, the author founded a Master’s in International Affairs program in the western Balkans
as an international higher education administrator for the largest comprehensive system of universities,
colleges, and community colleges in the U.S. The author navigated an inter-continental iron triangle
(Adams, 1981) comprised of the country’s Ministry of Education (the triangle apex), the Middle States
Commission on Higher Education (the agency), and the western Balkans school leadership team (the
interest group). As the program’s executive director, the author created 54 courses for undergraduates,
graduate students, and executives, and christened the program on television with the prime minister – the
most powerful and influential stakeholder at the apex of the iron triangle (Adams, 1981). The executive
education program, with course offerings in English, was the first of its kind in the western Balkans
country.
Drawing upon experiential knowledge, the author foregrounds her experience navigating iron triangles
(Adams, 1981) within political, legal and higher education frameworks in the U.S. and the western Bal-
kans. This section was expressly written for MATESOL program administrators and faculty, TESOL
483

I Am Woke
pre-service candidates, and in-service educators. This section has an Advocacy concentration track pro-
posal for MATESOL program administrators, and a two-day lesson plan for English language educators.
Advocacy Concentration Track – MATESOL Program Strategic Planning
Table 3 presents courses for an Advocacy concentration track for MATESOL programs. For the short
term (Phase I), MATESOL program administrators might add the courses listed under the left column
or cross-list these courses with pre-existing curriculum in public policy, law, business, industrial labor
relations, and communication programs, institutes, and schools on the administrators’ campuses. Another
strategy entails recruiting Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from the various fields as guest lecturers for
at least one-third of a semester. The Critical Advocacy for Multilingual Learners (CAML) course would
contextualize the Critical Advocacy Framework vis-à-vis the other types of advocacies. The Public Policy
(PP) course would address the formulation and implementation of public policies that impact MLs’ lives
within and beyond the classroom.
The Organizational Behavior (OB) course would be linked to the practicum. Pre-service candidates
would conduct ethnographic research (Conteh, 2017) at their fieldwork site. Candidates would have at
least 15 hours of access to a superintendent, a state senator, a state or federal lobbyist, or a U.S. Con-
gressperson and 15 hours in an English language classroom. Why? There is no replacement for hands-on
iron triangle (Adams, 1981) navigation. English language educators need to experience the advocacy
process as active participants (see Chapter 11 by Trombino and Moore).
For the long term (Phase II), MATESOL curriculum might include the courses listed under the right
column – in addition to the courses under the left column. The Civil Rights Law and International Hu-
man Rights Law (CRL-IHRL) course juxtaposes civil rights to international human rights legislation.
Since CRL and IHRL are two different genres of law, program administrators might recruit CRL and
IHRL scholars from the law school on their campuses for the first and second segments, respectively.
With regard to outsourcing, SMEs may be invited to teach as guest lecturers or adjunct faculty for each
segment.
The Strategic Communication (SC) course focuses on having pre-service candidates cultivate skills
to craft their advocacy message and platform for a variety of political audiences. The Negotiation and
Mediation (NM) course equips candidates with the requisite skills to negotiate and mediate relations with
iron triangle (Adams, 1981) stakeholders. Variations of the prescribed MATESOL curriculum would
enable pre-service candidates to cultivate critical advocacy competencies: namely, relationship-building,
political socio-emotional intelligence, organizational behavior knowledge, political savviness, lobbyist
persona, negotiation-mediation, and cultural arbitration.
Advocacy Lesson Plan
The learning activities in Table 4 are advocacy-focused assignments (Linville & Whiting, 2019) in accord
with TESOL Standards 4c, 5a and 5b (2019). For pre-service educators, this module would be a two-day
segment of a semester-long class focusing on the various types of advocacies (see Chapter 1 by Gross
and Crawford). The course could be adapted as a two-day (16-hour) advocacy certificate workshop for
in-service English language educators.
On Day One, Teacher Trainees (TRs) would view a film, “Immersion” (Levien et al., 2009) and discuss
advocacy-themed clips. Then, the Teacher (T) would model a mock interview with the principal in the
484

I Am Woke
Table 4. Critical Advocacy Framework Protocol

Teacher: Date: December 6-8, 2022
Period/Time:
Grade Level: Trainees (TRs) Language Level(s):
Two Days - 2 1/2 hours
Format:
Materials Needed: Laptop/iPad/Tablet/Computer ✅ Face-to-Face Instruction
# of students: 24
LCD Projector ✅ Online Instruction
✅ Hybrid Instruction
TESOL Standards (2019):
Standard 4c - Assessment and Evaluation
● Candidates demonstrate knowledge of state-approved administrative considerations, accessibility features, and accommodations appropriate to ELLs for standardized assessments.
Standard 5a Professionalism and Leadership
● Candidates demonstrate knowledge of effective collaboration strategies in order to plan ways to serve as a resource for ELL instruction, support educators and school staff, and advocate for ELLs.
Standard 5b Professionalism and Leadership
● Candidates apply knowledge of a school, district, and governmental policies and legislation that impact ELLs’ educational rights in order to advocate for ELLs.
Advocacy Typology
❏ Scaffolded
❏ Non-transformative
❏ Transformative
❏ Transitive
❏ Strategic
❏ Instructional
❏ Political
✅ Critical
Course Objectives:
Trainees will be able to:
● Demonstrate knowledge of state-approved accommodations for MLs taking standardized tests
● Advocate for MLs by building relations with educators and school staff
● Advocate for MLs by building relations with members of the iron triangle
Key Vocabulary: Scaffolded, non-transformative, transformative, transitive, strategic, instructional, political, critical, implicit bias, communities of practice, domain, iron triangle
Lesson Plan Theme: Advocating for MLs - Standardized Testing
Lesson Plan Steps: Day One
Asynchronous Assignment - Trainees (TRs) will review the types of advocacies: scaffolded, non-transformative, transformative, transitive, strategic, instructional, political, critical, implicit bias,
communities of practice, domain and iron triangle - using the Quizlet platform. The TRs will also watch a Flipgrid video by the Teacher (T). The video will delineate the objectives of the Advocacy
module.
(1)Synchronous Class Session
(1) (1a) The T will introduce the Advocacy module and will show the short film, “Immersion,” twice https://youtu.be/I6Y0HAjLKYI T
(1b) First viewing – TRs watch the film as casual observers.
(1c) Second viewing – TRs will watch and discuss the following advocacy-themed clips:
• Moises advocating on his own behalf (04:20-04:56)
• The trauma Moises might have experienced while migrating from Mexico to the U.S. (08:54-09:12)
• Ms. Peterson’s advocating efforts (05:19-05:48, 08:27-08:47)
• Principal Rosa’s response to Ms. Peterson’s advocacy efforts (05:19-05:48)
(2) The T will ask TRs the following prompts:
Professional Identity
Why is this film relevant for TESOL and ELT professionals?
Type of Advocacy
[Complete the “type of advocacy” section for each character.]
What type of advocate was Ms. Peterson? Principal Rosa? Moises?
How would you work with Moises’s family?
If you could rewrite the ending of the film, what story would you tell?
If you could interview Principal Rosa, what would you ask him?
(3) Role-play in groups (if face-to-face or in breakout rooms if online)
Each TR will role-play their assigned character: Moises, Ms. Peterson or Principal Rosa.
For each role, the TR will think of their character’s needs and respond to the following prompts. What are my needs? Are they being met?
(4) The TRs will return to the main classroom and will participate in the discussion and continue to play the part of their assigned role.
Advocacy Questions
What type of advocate was Moises?
What type of advocate was Ms. Peterson?
What type of advocate was Principal Rosa?
Pedagogical Considerations
How would you rate Ms. Peterson as an ELT? Describe her pedagogy.
What sort of alternate assessment would you design for Moises?
(5) The TRs return to their breakout rooms (if on Zoom) and brainstorm about ways to create an Advocacy Plan for Moises.
(6) The T delivers and models the District Iron Triangle Briefing. T explains how she would: (a) navigate the iron triangle, (b) build relations with the stakeholders, and (c) rehearse advocacy “elevator”
speeches (30 seconds, 60 seconds, and 90 seconds).
Homework:
• Complete the Advocacy Competency Map
• Finalize Group Advocacy Plan
• Prepare State Iron Triangle Briefing (individual presentation)
• Create a 3-slide power point presentation (about your future advocacy role)
Day Two
(1) TRs deliver their Group Advocacy Plans.
(1) (2) TRs individually deliver their State Iron Triangle briefings.
(2) (3) TRs complete the Critical Consciousness Protocol.
(4) TRs deliver presentations on advocacy roles in their communities of practice.
Critical Advocacy Framework Competencies
✅ Relationship-building
✅ Political and socio-emotional intelligence
✅ Organizational behavior knowledge
✅ Political savviness
✅ Lobbyist persona
✅ Negotiation-mediation
✅ Cultural arbitration
Trainee Reflection:
Day One: How would you advocate for Moises?
Day Two: How will I promote critical advocacy in my communities of practice?
485

I Am Woke
Figure 7. Critical Advocacy District Iron Triangle
Table 5. Advocacy Competency Map
Occupations and Lived Experiences KSAs Advocacy Competency
film (Principal Rosa) and pose the following prompts. Why did Moises take an exam in English without
any accommodations? Is there another way to measure Moises’s performance that not only accommo-
dates his needs, but also recognizes his human and linguistic rights as an ML? In the context of the 5%
English proficiency rate, can the District English Language Advisory Committee (DELAC) revise the
needs assessment for your school? For the second half of Day One, TRs would complete an Advocacy
Competency Mapping exercise, and attend the T’s District Iron Triangle briefing. For Day Two, the TRs
would deliver their advocacy plans, as a group, and their State Iron Triangle briefings as individuals.
Lastly, the TRs would complete the Critical Consciousness Protocol by Chan and Coney (2020).
Figure 7 illustrates the stakeholders in a district setting. The T would deliver a lecture delineating the
organizational chart of the district board and the duties of each board member. The T would emphasize
that formulating and implementing public policies that have an impact on the lives of MLs – within and
486

I Am Woke
Figure 8. Critical Advocacy State Iron Triangle
beyond the classroom – is the singular goal of the Critical Advocacy Framework. The T would ask:
Which policies mandate and sanction English immersion at the district level? What is at stake for each
iron triangle member? How do you envision the patron-client relation between the interest group and the
principal? How will you lobby the district board, and the DELAC? How will you get Moises’s family
involved in the advocacy process?
Table 5 highlights a worksheet for TRs to complete as a homework brainstorming assignment to
prepare their group advocacy plans. TRs would record their occupations and lived experiences in the
left column. For the middle column, TRs would list their KSAs. For the right column, TRs would reflect
on how their occupations, lived experiences, and KSAs might inform their advocacy competencies.
Figure 8 illustrates the stakeholders in a state setting. The T would deliver a lecture on the state leg-
islature organizational chart, state committees pertinent to MLs (like the state education committee), the
duties of each state senator, the state senators’ voting records, and the electoral cycle for each senator.
The T would ask TRs: How will you track and monitor the policy that mandates English immersion
in the state? Which state policies mandate accommodations for MLs? What is at stake for each actor?
Critical Consciousness Protocol
For the last segment, the TRs would complete the Critical Consciousness Protocol (Chan & Coney,
2020). In “Moving TESOL forward: Increasing educators’ critical consciousness through a racial lens,”
Chan and Coney (2020) propose steering TESOL away from multiculturalism forms – that ignore power
and privilege and conflate equality and equity – towards Freire’s (1974) critical consciousness paradigm
487

I Am Woke
(Kubota & Lin, 2006). Chan and Coney (2020) examined DEI for professional development as a means
of cultivating “a culture of social justice, where TESOL educators recognize the ongoing reflexive
practice necessary to increase their critical consciousness” (p. 2). Given the need for inclusivity at the
school level, Chan and Coney (2020) used the Glasgow Group’s (2017) DEI tool below.
Critical Consciousness Protocol (Chan & Coney, 2020, pp. 3-5)

Level 1: Negative Action
◦◦ Does focusing on DEI break unity in my professional community by advantaging some over
others?
◦◦ Do I feel DEI threatens traditions of the TESOL profession?
Level 2: Non-Action
◦◦ Is the TESOL field inherently diverse and inclusive?
◦◦ Do I agree that race shouldn’t matter if I strive to treat everyone the same?
Level 3: Re-Action
◦◦ Am I quick to respond to a racial incident even when I have limited knowledge about it and/
or because I do not want to be labeled racist?
◦◦ Do I instinctively defer to a Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) when a racial inci-
dent occurs and/or opt for short-term over long-term solutions?
Level 4: Symbolic Action
◦◦ Is it important for me to be seen as a TESOL professional who supports DEI?
◦◦ How many pedagogical approaches or theories from non-White practitioners and scholars
can I name?
Level 5: Pro-Action
◦◦ Do I ask what more I can do to make DEI a part of my ethos?
◦◦ How do I center BIPOC in my practice?
Level 6: Forward Action
◦◦ Do I consider sustainability and accountability of my DEI professional development, includ-
ing reflecting on and accepting the changing nature of DEI?
◦◦ Do I interpret disagreements about DEI as opportunities to educate all sides, including my-
self, about equity?
A level-by-level analysis of affirmative responses on the Critical Consciousness Protocol (Chan &
Coney, 2020, pp. 3-5) is in order. For Level #1, the respondent conflates equality with equity. For Level
#2, the respondent has a liberal multiculturalism and non-transformative advocacy mindset. For example,
“inequities are not challenged” (Chan & Coney, 2020, p. 3). Hence, the Non-Action moniker. Level #3
is indicative of the respondent’s hidden bias.
Regarding Level #4, it is noteworthy that an affirmation and a “but not sure/very few” response
demonstrate that “DEI is valued, but educators still engage in more liberal rather than critical multicul-
turalism” (Chan & Coney, 2020, p. 4). For Level 5, a response like “yes, and working on it” suggests
that “educators acknowledge that voices of dissent hold one and all accountable to true inclusivity and
equity” (Chan & Coney, 2020, p. 4). For Level 6, a “yes, but it is challenging” response means that
educators do not see diversity as a liability.
488

I Am Woke
Why did Floyd’s death consume the hearts, souls, and psyche of his fellow global citizens? For the
author, the granddaughter of an African American sharecropper who fled the Jim Crow South, the
answer was obvious. The image of Chauvin towering over Floyd symbolized white supremacy. The
American-born author comes from a multiracial (Korean and African American with Native American
ancestry), multilingual (Korean and English) and military household. Growing up on military bases
where multiculturalism abounds, the author speaks English and Korean (as mother tongues), French,
and basic Albanian and Wolof. The author, a trained political scientist with a PhD in Government, has
lived in Albania, Canada, France, Kosovo, Senegal, Serbia, South Africa, and South Korea. She has
taught African Diaspora, and African Politics courses, in English, in Albania and the U.S. And she has
taught International Relations, in French, in Canada.
What impact did the Floyd tragedy and the Black Lives Movement have on the author’s professional
TESOL identity? As a Black, Korean and Cherokee TESOL professional with multiple leadership roles
in a TESOL state affiliate, its partner organization and a local chapter, the nascent social climate had a
profound effect on her identity. On one level, the chain of events following Floyd’s death engendered a
reflective process in which the author critically examined the agency-structure framework of TESOL
affiliates, organizations and chapters. On another level, the author reflected upon the most effective
way to become an advocate for social justice – an agent of social change – from within the respective
frameworks.
With respect to the three communities of practice (Wenger et. al, 2002) that the author regularly
navigates as a board member, the social zeitgeist had direct impact on her level of advocacy within
two of the communities of practice – the TESOL state affiliate and its sister organization. For the TE-
SOL affiliate, the author’s professional identity transitioned from a non-transformative (De Oliveira &
Athanases, 2007) to a critical advocacy role – in which the author addressed injustice by challenging
culturally hegemonic organizations that perpetuated an injustice. For example, the author acquired an
additional role – by TESOL state affiliate presidential appointment – that solely focused on DEI within
a month of Floyd’s death.
For the partner organization, the author’s title and responsibilities not only transitioned from sponsor-
ships to community partnerships director within five months, but also evolved into a more self-imposed
critical advocacy role. Collectively speaking, both roles – one with DEI in the title and the other with-
out DEI in the title – enabled the author to become a de jure and de facto agent of social change in the
TESOL state affiliate and its partner organization, respectively.
As a non-voting member of the TESOL state affiliate board, the author’s new title was symbolic in
nature. In July 2020, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a directive that at-
tempted to expel international students pursuing their studies in the U.S. As a former U.S. Senate staffer,
the author presumed that her new role would enable her to draw upon her experiential knowledge by
drafting a written response to the appropriate members of the U.S. Congress. However, this was not the
case. The prospect of having the author advocate, on behalf of the LTA, was never seriously considered
by the LTA leadership. The author’s iron triangle (Adams, 1981) expertise was inconsequential. She got
the DEI role because she was Black. I am woke.
Figure 9 illustrates the stakeholders in a federal setting. My awakening was prompted by the fact that
I grew up navigating the federal iron triangle (Adams, 1981). As a federal caseworker, I had liaised with
ICE’s predecessor, the INS, and had advocated for constituents who were multiply-burdened by the U.S.
489

I Am Woke
Figure 9. Critical Advocacy Congress Iron Triangle
Congress iron triangle (Adams, 1981) framework. Moreover, I had assisted constituents who had endured
INS raids. Table 6 highlights my occupations, lived experiences, KSAs, and advocacy competencies.
Unmasking Race, Gender, and Power from within a TESOL Affiliate
In Black Skin, White Masks, Fanon (2008) used the metaphor of the mask to represent the culture and
civilization of the white, European colonizer. Between Floyd’s death and my newfound post-colonial
reality, I emerged from my cultural amnesia (Fanon, 2008). Shedding my white (colonial) mask and
Table 6. Author’s Advocacy Competency Map
Occupations and Lived

Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities Advocacy Competencies
Experiences
Relationship-Building
U.S. Senate Staffer Knowledge of Iron Triangle Organizational Behavior Knowledge
Lobbyist Persona
Corporate Paralegal Client Advocacy Negotiation-Mediation
Founding Executive Director of Interaction with Ministries and Political and Socio-Emotional Intelligence
a Master’s Program Foreign Dignitaries Political Savviness
Global Residencies Intercultural Communication Cultural arbitration
490

I Am Woke
Figure 10. Critical advocacy LTA iron triangle
leveraging my Blackness (Fanon, 2008), I created two DEI positions that were neither on the organiza-
tional chart, nor had existed in fifty years of the TESOL state affiliate. I am woke.
Figure 10 illustrates the stakeholders in my community of practice (Wenger et al., 2002). As a member
of an oppressed group who is multiply-burdened as a Black, Korean, Cherokee female, I lobbied the
LTA leadership from the unenviable intersection of race, gender, and (no) power, as suggested by my
non-voting status (Crenshaw, 1989; Johnson, 1993). As the sole Black board member, the process of
navigating the LTA iron triangle (Adams, 1981) and deploying the Critical Advocacy Framework was
truly empowering. Having advocated for others in the political, legal, and higher education arenas for
decades, I never had to advocate for myself. As a result of my self-advocacy crusade, I will assume one
of the DEI positions that I created. This begs the following question. Is my new DEI role symptomatic
of reactionary tokenism (Chan & Coney, 2020) or inclusive leadership?
DISCUSSION
Reflecting on my advocacy odyssey in a TESOL state affiliate and its partner organization, I narrate to
transform. In a Machiavellian sense, my non-voting board member status was instrumental in a num-
ber of ways. First, this status endowed me with access to white power and privilege as the sole Black
board member. Not having a vote compelled me to study the voting behavior of my fellow colleagues
in the same manner as a political whip. Second, I critically examined and compared the organizational
491

I Am Woke
behavior of the TESOL state affiliate to its partner organization. As a result, I was able to leverage my
voting power in the partner institution to create political and monetary support for DEI initiatives in both
communities of practice (Wenger et al., 2002). By writing a grant, I strategically recruited a pipeline of
DEI practitioners as a means of sustaining DEI in both LTAs.
Throughout this chapter, I unveiled a new conceptualization of advocacy – the Critical Advocacy
Framework – and introduced critical advocacy competencies: namely, relationship-building, political
socio-emotional intelligence, organizational behavior knowledge, political savviness, lobbyist persona,
negotiation-mediation, and cultural arbitration. Theoretically informed by Freire’s (1974) critical
consciousness (conscientização), Fanon’s race (Black) consciousness (2008), and Crenshaw’s (1989)
intersectionality paradigms, the Critical Advocacy Framework recalibrates advocacy paradigms by plac-
ing MLs at its epicenter. Its primary focus entails formulating and implementing public policies that
inevitably govern the lives and destinies of MLs – within and beyond the classroom.
Using Adam’s (1981) iron triangle concept, effective critical advocacy is contingent upon cultivat-
ing the seven competencies as individuals and as members of an advocacy team. With the emergence of
advocacy themes in TESOL standards (2010, 2019), professional development – intertwining advocacy
with standards – is in high demand. Regarding MATESOL curriculum and teacher preparation, the
Advocacy concentration track was designed as a guide for program administrators and faculty. In the
absence of advocacy-informed professional development and MATESOL curriculum, in-service teachers
will undoubtedly hone their advocacy skills – just as I did – from within their communities of practice.
As suggested by my autoethnography, the critical advocacy process is ultimately a personal and self-
reflective journey. I am woke. In the age of critical consciousness (Freire, 1974), we must all stay woke.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to acknowledge Dr. Robert A. Filback, Chair of the Master of Arts in Teaching
English to Speakers of Other Languages (MAT-TESOL) program and Professor of Clinical Education
at the University of Southern California (USC), for his undying assistance and support throughout the
author’s MAT-TESOL studies at USC (2020-2021). The author is most grateful to Dr. Filback for field-
ing a life-altering phone call with her in December 2019.
The author acknowledges Dr. Jenifer Crawford, Professor of Clinical Education at USC, for her mentor-
ship which commenced long before the author’s MAT-TESOL start date (in the fall of 2020). The author
is especially grateful to Dr. Crawford for leading the author back to her post-colonial research roots.
The author expresses her deep gratitude to Elizabeth Burrill for creating all of the infographics in
this book chapter and enabling her to share her autoethnography with other visual learners in a “show
and tell” format.
REFERENCES
Adams, G. (1981). The iron triangle. Transaction Publishers.

Athanases, S., & De Oliveira, L. (2008). Advocacy for equity in classrooms and beyond: New teachers’
challenges and responses. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 64–104.
492

I Am Woke
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2016). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. Bantam.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
Harvard University Press.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for enriched
education. Heinle & Heinle.
Conteh, J. (Ed.). (2017). Researching education for social justice in multilingual settings: Ethnographic
principles in qualitative research. Bloomsbury Publishing.
learners’ background knowledge. Language, 48.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex. U. Chi. Legal F, 139.
Custodio, B., & O’Loughlin, J. B. (2017). Students with interrupted formal education: Bridging where
they are and what they need. Corwin Press. doi:10.4135/9781506359694
De Oliveira, L. C., & Athanases, S. Z. (2007). Graduates’ reports of advocating for English language
learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(3), 202–215. doi:10.1177/0022487107299978
Dubetz, N. E., & De Jong, E. J. (2011). Teacher advocacy in bilingual programs. Bilingual Research
Journal, 34(3), 248–262. doi:10.1080/15235882.2011.623603
Fenner, D. S. (2013). Advocating for English learners. Corwin Press.
Fiedler, C. R. (2000). Making a difference: Advocacy competencies for special education professionals.
Allyn and Bacon.
Glasgow Group. (2017). https://www.theglasgowgroup.org
Gould, S. J., & Gold, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. W.W. Norton & Company.
Gross, E., & Crawford, J. (2021). Integrating language skills, practices, and content in TESOL lesson
planning. In J. Crawford & R. Filback (Eds.), TESOL Guide for Critical Praxis in Teaching, Inquiry,
and Advocacy. IGI Global.
Haneda, M., & Alexander, M. (2015). ESL teacher advocacy beyond the classroom. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 49, 149–158. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.009
Harrison, J., & McIlwain, M. J. (2020). ESOL teachers’ experiences in their role as advocate: Making
the case for transitive advocacy. TESOL Journal, 11(1), e00464. doi:10.1002/tesj.464
493

I Am Woke
Hesson, S., & Toncelli, R. (2019). Making the path by walking together: A collaborative approach
to advocacy. In Advocacy in English language teaching and learning (pp. 147–157). Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781351036665-12
Johnson, N. K. (1993). Black skin, black masks: A case of mistaken identity. American Political Science
Association.
Johnson, N. K. (2005). Senegalese ‘into Frenchmen’? The French technology of nationalism in Sénégal.
In Language, ethnic identity, and the state. Routledge.
Jolls, C., & Sunstein, C. R. (2006). The law of implicit bias. California Law Review, 94(4), 969.
doi:10.2307/20439057
Kaufman, R. R. (1974). The patron-client concept and macro-politics: Prospects and problems. Com-
parative Studies in Society and History, 16(3), 284–308. doi:10.1017/S0010417500012457
Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002). The micropolitics of teacher induction. A narrative-biographical
study on teacher socialisation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 105–120. doi:10.1016/S0742-
051X(01)00053-1
Kozol, J. (2012). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. Crown.
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (2006). Race and TESOL: Introduction to concepts and theories. TESOL Quarterly,
40(3), 471–493. doi:10.2307/40264540
Kyung Hee, K., & Zabelina, D. (2015). Cultural bias in assessment: Can creativity assessment help?
The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 6(2), 129–148.
Levien, R. (Director, Writer, Producer), Fox, K. (Producer), & Levien, Z.P. (Producer). (2009). Immer-
sion [Film]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Y0HAjLKYI
Linville, H. A. (2014). A mixed methods investigation of ESOL teacher advocacy: “It’s not going in and
just teaching English.” University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
Linville, H. A. (2016). ESOL teachers as advocates: An important role? TESOL Journal, 7(1), 98–131.
doi:10.1002/tesj.193
Linville, H. A. (2020). A closer look at ESOL teacher advocacy: What we do and why. TESOL Journal,
11(3), e00508. doi:10.1002/tesj.508
Linville, H. A., & Whiting, J. (Eds.). (2019). Advocacy in English language teaching and learning.
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351036665
MacDonald, H. (2017, October 9). The false “science” of implicit bias. Wall Street Journal. https://www.
wsj.com/articles/the-false-science-of-implicit-bias-1507590908
Min, E. (2021). Equity-minded classroom-based assessment practices. In J. Crawford & R. Filback (Eds.),
TESOL guide for critical praxis in teaching, inquiry, and advocacy. IGI Global.
Moore, E., & Nash, A. (2020). Heritage language education. The Cambridge Introduction to Applied
Linguistics, 56.
494

I Am Woke
Orfield, G. (2001). Schools more separate: Consequences of a decade of resegregation. Academic Press.
Project Implicit. Take a test. (n.d.). https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
TESOL International Association. (2010). Standards for initial TESOL pre-K-12 teacher preparation
programs. TESOL.
TESOL International Association. (2019). Standards for initial TESOL pre-K-12 teacher preparation
programs. TESOL.
Transcript of Exhibit 2 at 14, State v. Lane, (Hennepin Cnty. Minn., July 7, 2020) (27-CR-20-12951)
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to
managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.
West, G. B. (2021). “Is this a safe space?”: Examining an emotionally charged eruption in critical lan-
guage pedagogy. Education Sciences, 11(4), 186. doi:10.3390/educsci11040186
Wood, L. A. (2018). The spectacle of lynching: Rituals of white supremacy in the Jim Crow South.
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 77(3-4), 757–788. doi:10.1111/ajes.12249
Advocate: An individual who represents another individual who does not have the skill set to rep-
resent themselves in a political-legal arena.
Autoethnography: An autobiographical narrative in which the author draws upon their lived experi-
ences.
Colonizer-Colonized Dichotomy: The culturally hegemonic relationship between colonizers and
colonized populations.
Communities of Practice: A community with shared professional interests.
Critical Advocacy: Advocacy that seeks measures to transform societal forces that perpetuate op-
pression.
Critical Consciousness: Being aware of the oppressive impact of macro-level (institutional) inequi-
ties on the micro-level (individual).
Implicit Bias: Having an unconscious bias towards a social group.
Iron Triangle: A political relationship between Congress, bureaucracy, and an interest group.
Machiavellian: A character trait of someone who is politically savvy and seeks ways to gain power.
Stakeholder: Someone who has a vested interest or stake in a cause.
495
Compilation of References
Abednia, A. (2012). Teachers’ professional identity: Contributions of a critical EFL teacher education course in Iran.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 706–717. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.005
Acquah, E. C., & Commins, N. L. (2015). Critical reflection as a key component in promoting preservice teachers’
awareness of cultural diversity. Reflective Practice, 16(6), 790–805. doi:10.1080/14623943.2015.1095729
Adams, G. (1981). The iron triangle. Transaction Publishers.
Alder, N. I. (2002). Interpretations in the meaning of care. Urban Education, 37(2), 241–266. doi:10.1177/0042085902372005
Alderson, C., Brunfaut, T., & Harding, L. (2017). Bridging assessment and learning: A view from second and foreign
language assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3), 379–387. doi:10.1080/096959
4X.2017.1331201
Ali, A. H. (2011). The power of social media in developing nations: New tools for closing the global digital divide and
beyond. Harv. Hum. Rts. J., 24, 185.
Alim, H. S., & Paris, D. (2017). What is culturally sustaining pedagogy and why does it matter? In H. S. Alim & D.
Paris (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 1-17). Teach-
ers College Press.
Alim, H. S. (2004). You know my steez: An ethnographic and sociolinguistic study of styleshifting in a Black American
speech community. Duke University Press.
Alim, H. S. (2016). Introducing raciolinguistics: Racing language and languaging race in hyperracial times. In H. S.
Alim, J. R. Rickford, & A. F. Ball (Eds.), Raciolinguistics: How language shapes our ideas about race (pp. 1–50). Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190625696.003.0001
Alim, H. S. (2016). Who’s afraid of the transracial subject? In H. S. Alim, J. R. Rickford, & A. F. Ball (Eds.), Racio-
linguistics: How Language Shapes our Ideas about Race (pp. 33–50). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:o
so/9780190625696.003.0002
Alim, H. S., & Paris, D. (2017). What is culturally sustaining pedagogy and why does it matter? In H. S. Alim & D.
Paris (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies (pp. 1–21). Teachers College Press.
Alim, H. S., & Smitherman, G. (2012). Articulate while Black: Barack Obama, language, and race in the U.S. Oxford
University Press.
Alim, H., Paris, D., & Wong, S. (2020). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A critical framework for centering communities.
In N. Nasir, C. Lee, R. Pea, & M. de Royston (Eds.), Handbook of the Cultural Foundations of Learning (pp. 261–276).
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203774977-18

Alim, S. (2010). Critical language awareness. In N. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language
Education (pp. 205–232). Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847692849-010
Allen, A., Scott, L. M., & Lewis, C. W. (2013). Racial microaggressions and African American and Hispanic students in
urban schools: A call for culturally affirming education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 117–129.
Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner. doi:10.1057/9780230233690
Almagro, L., Méndez, N., de Toledo, G. A., & Muñoz-Pogossian, B. (2020, April 7). Guía Práctica de Respuestas In-
clusivas y con Enfoque de Derechos ante el COVID-19 en las Américas - World. ReliefWeb. https://reliefweb.int/report/
world/gu-pr-ctica-de-respuestas-inclusivas-y-con-enfoque-de-derechos-ante-el-covid-19-en-las
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven
research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (3rd ed.). Retrieved
from https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012
American Federation of Teachers. (2016). Immigrant and Refugee Children: A Guide for Educators and School Support
Staff. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/im_uac-educators-guide_2016.pdf
Amstutz, L. S., & Mullet, J. H. (2005). The little book of restorative discipline for schools: Teaching responsibility,
creating caring climates. Good Books.
Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Qualitative Research Methods, 35(4), 373–395.

doi:10.1177/0891241605280449
Andrews, S. J. (1997). Metalinguistic awareness and teacher explanation. Language Awareness, 6(2&3), 147–161. doi
:10.1080/09658416.1997.9959924
Andrews, S. J. (2003). Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge base of the L2 teacher. Language
Awareness, 12(2), 81–95. doi:10.1080/09658410308667068
Anwaruddin, S. M. (2019). Knowledge mobilization in TESOL: Connecting research and practice. Brill.
doi:10.1163/9789004392472
Anya, U. (2016). Racialized identities in second language learning: Speaking blackness in Brazil. Taylor & Francis.
doi:10.4324/9781315682280
Aprendamos. (2012, October 4). ‎Hello! - Introducción al Idioma Inglés: Hello! Curso Introductorio al Idi-
oma Ingles on Apple Podcasts. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hello-curso-introductorio-al-idioma-ingles/
id1102580399?i=1000254680295
Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces. The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from
social justice educators, 135-150.
Armstrong, P. (2016). Bloom’s taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved February 27, 2021, from
https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/
Armstrong, S. (2011). Encouraging conversations about culture: Supporting culturally responsive family dispute resolu-
tion. Journal of Family Studies, 17(3), 233–248. doi:10.5172/jfs.2011.17.3.233
Arnet-Clark, I., Schmid, S. F., & Ritter, G. (2019). Young World 2 Pupil’s Book. Klett.
Arnold, J., Edwards, T., Hooley, N., & Williams, J. (2012). Conceptualising teacher education and research as ‘critical
praxis.’ Critical Studies in Education, 53(3), 281–295. doi:10.1080/17508487.2012.703140
Asher, J. (1960). Total physical response. Total Physical Response.
Athanases, S., & De Oliveira, L. (2008). Advocacy for equity in classrooms and beyond: New teachers’ challenges and
responses. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 64–104.
Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students with diverse backgrounds. Journal
of Literacy Research, 40(30), 297–319. doi:10.1080/10862969809548000
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
Bagley, C., & Castro-Salazar, R. (2012). Critical arts-based research in education: Performing undocumented historias.
British Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 239–260. doi:10.1080/01411926.2010.538667
Baïdak, N., Balcon, M.-P., & Motiejunaite, A. (2017). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. Eurydice
Report. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission.
Bailey, K. (2001). Action research, teacher research, and classroom research in language learning. In M. Celce-Murcia
(Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 489–498). Heinle & Heinle.
Bailey, K., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development. Heinle & Heinle.
Bain, J. D., Ballantyne, R., Mills, C., & Lester, N. C. (2002). Reflecting on practice: Student teachers’ perspectives.
Post Pressed.
Baker-Bell, A. (2019). Dismantling anti-black linguistic racism in English language arts classrooms: Toward an anti-racist
black language pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 59(1), 8–21. doi:10.1080/00405841.2019.1665415
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Multilingual Matters.
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2016). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. Bantam.
Banegas, D. L. (2018). Towards Understanding EFL Teachers’ Conceptions of Research: Findings from Argentina.
Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 20(1), 57–72. doi:10.15446/profile.v20n1.61881
Banks, C. A. M., & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural education. Theory
into Practice, 34(3), 152–158. doi:10.1080/00405849509543674
Barkhuizen, G. (2009). Topics, aims and constructs in English teacher research: A Chinese case study. TESOL Quarterly,
43(1), 113–125. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00231.x
Barros, S. R. (2011). Terms of engagement: Reframing Freirean-based assessment in institutional education. Rangsit
Journal of Arts and Sciences, 1, 79–87.
Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the university. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 4–23. doi:10.37514/JBW-J.1986.5.1.02
Barza, L. (2017). Empowering culturally foreign teachers by fostering cultural competence. In I. A. Amzat & N. Padilla-
Valdez (Eds.), Teacher professional knowledge and development for reflective and inclusive practices (pp. 126–134).
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315397702-11
Bassot, B. (2013). The Reflective Journal. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Bassot, B. (2016). The reflective practice guide: An interdisciplinary approach to critical reflection. Routledge.
Bauer, R. (2018). Adult literacy and socio-cultural learning at Pina Pina Jarrinjaku (Yuendumu learning centre). Aus-
tralian Journal of Adult Learning, 58(1), 125–145.
Bawarshi, A., & Pelkowski, S. (1999). Postcolonialism and the idea of a writing center. Writing Center Journal, 19(2),
41–58.
Bell, L. A. (2016). Theoretical Foundations for Social Justice Education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, D. J. Goodman, &
K. Y. Joshi (Eds.), Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice (pp. 3–26). Routledge.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 171–217.
doi:10.3102/00346543071002171
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., & Witham, K. (2016). Five principles for enacting equity by design. Association of
American Colleges & Universities. https://www.aacu.org/diversitydemocracy/2016/winter/bensimon
Bensimon, E. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning perspective. New
Directions for Higher Education, 131(131), 99–111. doi:10.1002/he.190
Berling, J. A. (1999). Student-centred collaborative learning as a “liberating” model of learning and teaching. Journal
of Women and Religion, 17, 43–55.
Berry, R. (1997). Teachers’ awareness of learners’ knowledge: The case of metalinguistic terminology. Language Aware-
ness, 6(2&3), 136–146. doi:10.1080/09658416.1997.9959923
Best, K. (2011). Transformation through research-based reflection: A self-study of written feedback practice. TESOL
Journal, 2(4), 492–509. doi:10.5054/tj.2010.271901
Binks, E., Smith, D. L., Smith, L. J., & Joshi, M. (2009). Tell me your story: A reflection strategy for preservice teachers.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(4), 141–156.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report, 1–6.
Boquet, E. H. (1999). Our little secret: A history of writing centers, pre-to-post open admissions. College Composition
and Communication, 50(3), 463–482. doi:10.2307/358861
Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 358–388. doi:10.1093/
applin/amp007
Borg, S. (2011). Doing action research in English language teaching. A guide for practitioners [Review of the book Do-
ing action research in English language teaching. A guide for practitioners by A, Burns]. ELT Journal, 65(4), 485–487.
doi:10.1093/elt/ccr052
Borg, S. (2013). Teacher research in language teaching: A critical analysis. Cambridge University Press., doi:10.1093/
elt/ccv009
Borg, S. (Ed.). (2015). Professional development for English language teachers: Perspectives from higher education in
Turkey. British Council.
Borja, L., Soto, S., & Sanchez, T. (2015). Differentiating Instruction for EFL Learners. International Journal of Humani-
ties and Social Science, 5(8).
Borja, L., Soto, S., & Sanchez, T. (2015). Differentiating instruction for EFL learners. International Journal of Humani-
ties and Social Science, 5(8), 30–36.
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive
Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0748 PMID:11487292
Boroditsky, L., & Edge, J. (1988). Applying linguistics in English language teacher training for speakers of other lan-
guages. ELT Journal, 42(1), 9–13. doi:10.1093/elt/42.1.9
Borton, T. (1970). Reach, touch, and teach: Student concerns and process education. McGraw-Hill.
Bourdieu & Wacquant. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1996). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1965). Les Héritiers: Les Étudient et la Culture. Les Éditions des Minuit.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (Vol. 4). Sage.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (2009). Les héritiers - Les étudiants et la culture - Un renouveau de la sociologie de
l’éducation. Ellipses.
Bourke, B. (2014). Positionality: Reflecting on the Research Process. Qualitative Report, 19(33), 1–9. doi:10.46743/2160-
3715/2014.1026
Boyle, C., Anderson, J., & Allen, K.-A. (2020). The importance of teacher attitudes to inclusive education. In C. Boyle,
J. Anderson, A. Page & S. Mavropoulou (Eds.), Inclusive education: Global issues & controversies (pp. 127-146). Brill.
doi:10.1163/9789004431171_008
Bright, B. (1996). Reflecting on ‘reflective practice’. Studies in the Education of Adults, 28(2), 162–184. doi:10.1080/
02660830.1996.11730638
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University
Press.
Brookfield, S. (2004). The power of critical theory: Liberating adult learning and teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. (2009). The concept of critical reflection: Promises and contradictions. European Journal of Social Work,
12(3), 293–304. doi:10.1080/13691450902945215
Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and
acting. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Brookfield, S. D. (1988). Organizing concepts and practices in adult education in the United States. In S. D. Brookfield
(Ed.), Training educators of adults. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Brooks, M. D. (2017). “She doesn’t have the basic understanding of a language”: Using spelling research to challenge deficit
conceptualizations of adolescent bilinguals. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(3), 342–370. doi:10.1177/1086296X17714016
Brown, C. S. (2011). Anti‐Bias Education. Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2018). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (3rd ed.). Pearson
Education.
Brown, M. R. (2007). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms, and schools. Interven-
tion in School and Clinic, 43(1), 57–62. doi:10.1177/10534512070430010801
Bruffee, K. (1978). The Brooklyn plan: Attaining intellectual growth through peer-group tutoring. Liberal Education,
64(4), 447–468.
Bruffee, K. (1984). Peer tutoring and the conversation of mankind. In C. Murphy & J. Law (Eds.), Landmark essays on
writing centers (pp. 87–98). Hermagoras Press.
Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121–139. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199902)36:2<121::AID-
TEA2>3.0.CO;2-U
Buchanan, P. L. (2014). Appreciative Inquiry: A Path to Change in Education. Electronic Theses, Projects, and Disserta-
tions. 125. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/125
Burdeliski, M., & Howard, K. (2020). Language Socialization in Classrooms: Culture, Interaction, and Language De-
velopment. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316946237
Burke, P. J., & Lumb, M. (2018). Research and evaluation equity and widening participation: Praxis-based frameworks.
In P. J. Burke, A. Hayton, & J. Stevenson (Eds.), Evaluating equity and widening participation in higher education.
Institute of Education Press.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Burton, J., & Mickan, P. (1993). Teachers’ classroom research. In J. Edge & K. Richards (Eds.), Teachers develop teach-
ers research (pp. 113–121). Heinemann.
Byrd, K. L., & MacDonald, G. (2005). Defining college readiness from the inside out: First-generation college student
perspectives. Community College Review, 33(1), 22–37. doi:10.1177/009155210503300102
Cadiero-Kaplan, K. (2004). The literacy curriculum & bilingual education. Peter Lang.
Callahan, R., Wilkinson, L., & Mueller, C. (2010). Academic achievement and course taking among language minor-
ity youth in U.S. schools: Effects of ESL placement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(1), 84–117.
doi:10.3102/0162373709359805 PMID:25431506
Campbell, C., & Baikie, G. (2013). Teaching critically reflective analysis in the context of a social justice course. Reflec-
tive Practice, 14(4), 452–464. doi:10.1080/14623943.2013.806299
Campbell, S. A. (2012). The Phenomenological Study of ESL Students in a Project-based Learning Environment. The
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences: Annual Review, 6(11), 139–152.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006a). After disinvention: Possibilities for communication, community, and competence. In
S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 233–239). Multilingual Matters.
doi:10.21832/9781853599255-012
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006b). Toward a writing pedagogy of shutting between languages: Learning from multilingual
writers. College English, 68(6), 589–604. doi:10.2307/25472177
Canagarajah, A. S. (2017). Translingual practices and neoliberal policies. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41243-6

Canagarajah, S. (2012). Teacher development in a global profession: An autoethnography. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2),
258–279. doi:10.1002/tesq.18
Cantrell, S. C., Correll, P., Malo-Juvera, V., & Ivanyuk, L. (2014). Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol
(CRIOP) Professional Development: Year 2. Collaborative Center for Literacy Development.
Carter, Y. G. (2011). Sociopolitical Consciousness and Multiple Perspectives: Empowering students to read the world.
In R. Powell & E. C. Rightmyer (Eds.), Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing the gap (pp.
CASEL. (2021). SEL is…. https://casel.org/what-is-sel/
CAST. (2018). The UDL Guidelines. CAST. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. UDL. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
Castillo, J. (2014). Tolerance in schools for Latino students: Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline. Harvard Journal
of Hispanic Policy, 26, 43–58.
Caven, M. (2020). Why we need an anti-racist approach to social and emotional learning. Education Development
Center. https://www.edc.org/blog/why-we-need-anti-racist-approach-social-and-emotional-learning
Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). (2014). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.). Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Centeno‐Cortés, B., & Jiménez Jiménez, A. F. (2004). Problem‐solving tasks in a foreign language: The importance
of the L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 7–35. doi:10.1111/j.1473-
4192.2004.00052.x
CEPAL. (2020, August). La educación en tiempos de la pandemia de COVID-19. Comisión Económica para América
Latina y el Caribe. https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/45904-la-educacion-tiempos-la-pandemia-covid-19
Chambers Cangrell, S., & Wheeler, T. (2011). Pedagagy/Instruction: Beyond “Best Practices.”. In R. Powell & E. C.
Rightmyer (Eds.), Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing the gap (pp. 152–189). Routledge.
Chan, E. L., & Coney, L. (2020). Moving TESOL forward: Increasing educators’ critical consciousness through a racial
lens. TESOL Journal, 11(4), e550. doi:10.1002/tesj.550
Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Left Coast Press.
Chant, R. H., Heafner, T. L., & Bennett, K. R. (2004). Connecting personal theorizing and action research in preservice
teacher development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(3), 25–42.
Charis, C. (2012). Managing the Multicultural Environment. Winner of the “Excellence through Diversity” Award.
http://www.chariscorp.com/mime.asp
Chastain, K. (1976). Developing second-language skills: Theory to practice (2nd ed.). Rand McNally.
Chatterjee, D., & Corral, J. (2017). How to write well-defined learning objectives. The Journal of Education in Periop-
erative Medicine: JEPM, 19(4). PMID:29766034
Chavez, A. F., & Longerbeam, S. D. (2016). Teaching across cultural strengths: A guide to balancing integrated and
individuated cultural frameworks in college teaching. Stylus Publishing.
Chen, C. E. (2006). The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language
Learning & Technology, 10(2), 35–55.
Cheng, R., & Erben, A. (2012). Language anxiety: Experiences of Chinese graduate students at U.S. higher institutions.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(5), 477–497. doi:10.1177/1028315311421841
Chiariello, E. (2016). Social justice standards: The teaching tolerance anti-bias framework. Southern Poverty Law Center.
Children in U.S. immigrant families. (2018). https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/children-

immigrant-families
Chun, C. W., & Morgan, B. (2019). Critical research in English language teaching. Second handbook of English language
teaching, 1091-1110.
Chun, C. W. (2015). Power and meaning making in an EAP classroom: Engaging with the everyday (Vol. 19). Multi-
lingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783092956
Chun, C. W., & Morgan, B. (2019). Critical Research in English Language Teaching. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second Handbook
of English Language Teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-
58542-0_56-1
Chu, S., & Garcia, S. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching efficacy beliefs of in-service special education teachers.
Remedial and Special Education, 35(4), 218–232. doi:10.1177/0741932513520511
CircleL. (2021). Equity in Education. https://www.learningcirclesoftware.com/resources/equity-in-education/
Cirocki, A., Tennekoon, S., & Pena Calvo, A. (2014). Research and reflective practice in the ESL classroom: Voices
from Sri Lanka. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 24–44. doi:10.14221/ajte.2014v39n4.2
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for enriched education. Heinle
& Heinle.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2012). A tale of two teachers: Learning to teach over time. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(3), 108–122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2012.707501
Colorado. (2021). https://www.colorincolorado.org/glossary/affective-filter#:~:text=The%20affective%20filter%20is%20

a,hinder%20and%20obstruct%20language%20learning
Colyar, J., & Stich, A. E. (2011). Discourse of remediation: Low-income students and academic identities. The American
Behavioral Scientist, 55(2), 121–141. doi:10.1177/0002764210381870
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2016). General comment No. 4. https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbod-
ies/crpd/pages/gc.aspx
Condon, F., & Olson, B. (2016). Building a house for linguistic diversity: Writing centers, English language teaching
and learning, and social justice. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.), Tutoring second language writers (pp. 25–52). Utah
State University Press. doi:10.7330/9781607324140.c002
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1999). Narrative inquiry. In J. P. Keeves & G. Lakomski (Eds.), Issues in Educa-
tional Research (pp. 132–140). Elsevier Science.
Conteh, J. (2018). Researching Education for Social Justice in Multilingual Settings: Ethnographic Principles in Quali-
tative Research. Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Conteh, J. (Ed.). (2017). Researching education for social justice in multilingual settings: Ethnographic principles in
qualitative research. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Cook, V. J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402–423.
doi:10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402
Cooper, C. W. (2003). The Detrimental Impact of Teacher Bias: Lessons Learned from the Standpoint of African Ameri-
can Mothers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(2), 101–116.
Copland, F., & Creese, A. (2015). Linguistic ethnography. In Linguistic ethnography (pp. 12–28). SAGE Publications
Ltd. https://www-doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.4135/9781473910607
Corcoran, L. (2017). Languaging 101. Journal of Basic Writing, 36(2), 54–77. doi:10.37514/JBW-J.2017.36.2.04
Corson, D. (1999). Language Policy in Schools: A Resource for Teachers and Administrators. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and
the language classroom (pp. 169–206). Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe. (n.d.). Global scale - table 1 (CEFR 3.3): Common reference levels. Retrieved March 22, 2021, from
https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/table-1-cefr-3.3-common-reference-
levels-global-scale
Cox, A. (2011). Curriculum and planned experiences: Bridging the classroom with students’ worlds. In R. Powell & E.
C. Rightmyer (Eds.), Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing the gap (pp. 119–151). Routledge.
Crawford, J. (2020). Language theories and approaches to multilingual teaching and learning. Critical multilingual
pedagogy: A practical guide to linguistically & culturally sustaining teaching.
Crawford, L. M. (1978). Paulo Freire’s philosophy: derivation of curricular principles and their application to second
language curriculum design (PhD dissertation). University of Minnesota.
Crawford, J., & Gross, E. (2019). Equitable and Effective Identification and Assessment of Language Learners’ Back-
ground Knowledge. Language and Education, (October/November), 48–54.
Crawford, J., & Gross, E. (2019). Equitable and effective identification and assessment of language learners’ background
knowledge. Language and Education, 14(4), 48–54.
Crawford, J., & Gross, E. (2019). Equitable and effective identification and assessment of language learners’ background
knowledge. Language, 48.
Crawford-Lange, L. M. (1982). Curricular alternatives for second language learning. In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum
competence, and the foreign language teacher (pp. 81-113). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Co.
Crawford-Lange, L. M. (1981). Redirecting foreign language curricula: Paulo Freire’s contribution. Foreign Language
Annals, 14(4), 257–273. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1981.tb01644.x
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex. U. Chi. Legal F, 139.
Crenshaw, K. (1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color.
Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241. doi:10.2307/1229039
Creswell, J. (2015). 30 essential skills for the qualitative researcher. Sage (Atlanta, Ga.).
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(5th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.
Sage (Atlanta, Ga.).
Crookes, G. (1993). Action research for second language teachers: Going beyond teacher research. Applied Linguistics,
14(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/14.2.130
Crookes, G., & Lehner, A. (1998). Aspects of process in an ESL critical pedagogy teacher education course. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(2), 319–328. doi:10.2307/3587586
Cruz-Ferreira, M. (2010). Multilinguals are. Battlebridge Publications.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.
Cumming, A., Tarone, E., Cohen, A. D., Connor, U., Spada, N., Hornberger, N. H., Pennycook, A., & Auerbach, E.
(1994). Alternatives in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive, and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4),
673–703. doi:10.2307/3587555
Cummins, J. (2017). Teaching for transfer in multilingual school contexts. In O. Garcia, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual
and multilingual education. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed., pp. 103–115). Springer., doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-02258-1_8
Custodio, B., & O’Loughlin, J. B. (2017). Students with interrupted formal education: Bridging where they are and what
they need. Corwin Press. doi:10.4135/9781506359694
Dall’Alba, G., & Barnacle, R. (2015). Exploring knowing/being through discordant professional practice. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 47(13-14), 1452–1464. doi:10.1080/00131857.2014.947562
Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2014). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and
teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry (3rd ed.). Corwin.
Dantley, M. E. (2003). Critical spirituality: Enhancing transformative leadership through critical theory and African American
prophetic spirituality. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(1), 3–17. doi:10.1080/1360312022000069987
De Oliveira, L. C., & Athanases, S. Z. (2007). Graduates’ reports of advocating for English language learners. Journal
of Teacher Education, 58(3), 202–215. doi:10.1177/0022487107299978
De Sousa Santos, B. (2015). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315634876
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internation-
alization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266. doi:10.1177/1028315306287002
Deaton, C. (2012). Examining the use of a reflection framework to guide teachers’ video analysis of their science teach-
ing practice. The Electronic Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 1–21.
D-EDK/Deutschschweizer Erziehungsdirektoren-Konferenz. (2015). Lehrplan 21. D-EDK.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational
Review, 53(3), 280–298. doi:10.17763/haer.58.3.c43481778r528qw4
Deng, L., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2011). Towards a framework for educational affordances of blogs. Computers & Education,
56(2), 441–451. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.005
Denhardt, R. B. (2020). Managing human behavior in public and nonprofit organizations. CQ Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive biography. Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412984584
Denzin, N. K. (2014). Interpretive Autoethnography. SAGE Publications. doi:10.4135/9781506374697

Derman-Sparks, L. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for empowering young children. National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Design, G. (n.d.). UX for the Next Billion Users. https://design.google/library/ux-next-billion-users/
Developers, A. (n.d.). Build for billions: Android Developers. https://developer.android.com/topic/billions/
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D.C. Heath & Co. doi:10.1037/10903-000
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of the reflective thinking to the educative process. D.C.
Heath & Co.
Dewey, J. (1998). The essential Dewey: Pragmatism, education, democracy (Vol. 1). Indiana University Press.
Di Stefano, M., & Camicia, S. P. (2018). Transnational civic education and emergent bilinguals in a dual language set-
ting. Education Sciences, 8(3), 128. doi:10.3390/educsci8030128
Dian, R., Lenny, M., Nova, L., Pitaloka, A. A., Fikri, Y., & Amirul, M. (2018). Research on Educational Media: Bal-
ancing between Local and Target Language Cultures in English Electronic Textbooks. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 17(2).
Diemer, M. A., Rapa, L. J., Park, C. J., & Perry, J. C. (2017). Development and validation of the Critical Consciousness
Scale. Youth & Society, 49(4), 461–483. doi:10.1177/0044118X14538289
Dikilitaş, K., & Griffiths, C. (2017). Developing language teacher autonomy through action research. Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50739-2
Dinkelman, T. (2000). An inquiry into the development of critical reflection in secondary student teachers. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 16(2), 195–222. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00055-4
Doherty, R., & Hilberg, R. (2007). Standards for effective pedagogy, classroom organization, English proficiency, and
student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 24–35. doi:10.3200/JOER.101.1.24-35
Doherty, R., Hilberg, R., Epaloose, G., & Tharp, R. (2002). Standards Performance Continuum: Development and validation
of a measure of effective pedagogy. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(2), 78–89. doi:10.1080/00220670209598795
Dome, N., Prado-Olmos, P., Ulanoff, S. H., Garcia Ramos, R. G., Vega-Casteneda, L., & Quiocho, A. M. L. (2005). “I
don’t like not knowing how the world works”: Examining preservice teachers’ narrative reflections. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 32(2), 63–83.
Donahue, C. (2018). Writing, English, and a translingual model for composition. In R. Malenczyk, S. Miller-Cochran,
E. Wardle, & K. B. Yancey (Eds.), Composition, rhetoric, and disciplinarity (pp. 206–224). Utah State University Press.
doi:10.7330/9781607326953.c010
Donth-Schäffer, C., Erdmann, S., Hundertmark, G., Körnich, A., Landwehr, A., & Röhlin, K. (2016). Word Trainer 3:
Mein Anoki-Übungsheft. Klett.
Dörneyi, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Longman.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Doshi, R. (2020, January). China steps up its information war in Taiwan. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved March, 21, 2021,
from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-01-09/china-steps-its-information-war-taiwan
Dubetz, N. E., & De Jong, E. J. (2011). Teacher advocacy in bilingual programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3),
248–262. doi:10.1080/15235882.2011.623603
Duff, P. A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. Erlbaum.
Duff, P. A. (2009). Language socialization in a Candadian secondary school: Talking about current events (Take 1). In
R. Barnard & M. Torres-Guzman (Eds.), Creating Classroom Communities of Learning. Briston: Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language Socialization. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language
education. Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847692849-018
Duff, P., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural identities and practices in postsecondary EFL
classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 451–486. doi:10.2307/3587834
Duncan-Andrade, J. M., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to
practice in urban schools. Peter Lang Publishing. doi:10.3726/b12771
Duncan, M. (2004). Autoethnography: Critical appreciation of an emerging art. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 3(4), 28–39. doi:10.1177/160940690400300403
Duranti, A. (2009). The Relevance of Husserl’s Theory to Language Socialization. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,
19(2), 205–226. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1395.2009.01031.x
ECW. (2020). Multi-Year-Resilience Programme (MYRP) Country Office (CO) Needs Analysis. UNICEF (Internal
document).
ECW. (n.d.). Education Cannot Wait. https://www.educationcannotwait.org/
Edutopia. (2013, May 7). Henry Jenkins on Participatory Culture [Video File]. Retrieved March, 21, 2021, from www.
youtube.com/watch?v=1gPm-c1wRsQ
Eisenbach, B. B. (2016). A conversation of care: Unpacking and engaging pre-service teacher ideologies. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(6), 223–227. doi:10.1080/00098655.2016.1215720
Eisenhart, M. (2001). Educational ethnography past, present and future: Ideas to think with. Educational Researcher,
30(8), 16–27. doi:10.3102/0013189X030008016
Eisner, E. W. (2004). What does it mean to say a school is doing well. The Curriculum Studies Reader, 2, 297–305.
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum Qualitative Social Research,
12(1). http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/scholarly-journals/autoethnogra-
phy-overview/docview/870465772/se-2?accountid=14749
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733–768). Sage.
Eneza Education. (n.d.). Eneza Education. https://enezaeducation.com/
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.
Ennis, R. H. (2011). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective Part II. Inquiry (Upper Montclair, N.J.), 26(1), 4–18.
doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
Estrada, P., & Imhoff, B. (1999). Patterns of instructional activity: Excellence, inclusion, fairness, and harmony in
six first grade classrooms (Technical Report No. 3). Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Center for Research on
Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Estrada, P. (2005). The courage to grow: A researcher and teacher linking professional development with small-group
reading instructional and reading achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(1), 320–364.
Etscheidt, S., Curran, C. M., & Sawyer, C. M. (2012). Promoting reflection in teacher preparation programs: A multilevel
model. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(1), 7–26. doi:10.1177/0888406411420887
Evans, N., Broido, E. M., Brown, K. R., & Wilke, A. K. (2017). Disability in higher education: A social justice ap-
proach. Jossey-Bass.
Everatt, J., & Elbeheri, G. (2008). Dyslexia in different orthographies: Variability in transparency. In G. Reid, A. Fawcett,
F. Manis, & L. Siegel (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of dyslexia (pp. 427–438). SAGE. doi:10.4135/9780857020987.n22
Fairclough, N. (1992). Critical language awareness. Longman.
Farrell, T. (2018). Research on reflective practice in TESOL. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Farrell, T. (2016). Anniversary article: The practices of encouraging TESOL teachers to engage in reflective practice: An ap-
praisal of recent research contributions. Language Teaching Research: LTR, 20(2), 223–247. doi:10.1177/1362168815617335
Farrell, T. S. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for TESOL Profession-
als. Routledge.
Farrell, T. S. (2018). Operationalizing reflective practice in second language teacher education. Journal of Second
Language Teacher Education, 1(1), 1–20.
Farrell, T. S. (2021). Promoting teacher reflection in schools: Becoming centers of inquiry. Research in Language and
Education, 1(1), 59–68.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for TESOL profes-
sionals. Routledge.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2018). Research on reflective practice in TESOL. Routledge.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2019). Reflective practice in ELT. Equinox.
Farrell, T. S., & Macapinlac, M. (2021). Professional development through reflective practice: A framework for TESOL
teachers. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1–25. doi:10.37213/cjal.2021.28999
Fenner, D. S. (2013). Advocating for English learners. Corwin Press.
Fiedler, C. R. (2000). Making a difference: Advocacy competencies for special education professionals. Allyn and Bacon.
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education.
Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. doi:10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149
Flores, S. M., & Drake, T. A. (2014). Does English language learner (ELL) identification predict college remediation
designation? A comparison by race and ethnicity, and ELL waiver status. The Review of Higher Education, 38(1), 1–36.
doi:10.1353/rhe.2014.0041
Florian, L., & Beaton, M. (2018). Inclusive pedagogy in action: Getting it right for every child. International Journal
of Inclusive Education, 22(8), 870–884. doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1412513
Flynn, J. E. (2012). Critical pedagogy with the oppressed and the oppressors: Middle school students discuss racism and
White privilege. Middle Grades Research Journal, 7(2), 95–110.
Fook, J. (2007). Reflective practice and critical reflection. In J. Lishman (Ed.), Handbook for practice learning in social
work and social care, second edition: Knowledge and theory (pp. 440-454). Jessica Kingsley.
Fook, J. (2015). Reflective practice and critical reflection. In J. Lishman (Ed.), Handbook for practice learning in social
work and social care: Knowledge and theory (pp. 440–454). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Ford, D. (2020). Social emotional learning for Black students is ineffective when it is culture blind. https://diverseeduca-
tion.com/article/166341/
Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2011). The sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive educa-
tion revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service teachers’ perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education
International, 21(3), 50-65. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ949538
Forlin, C. (2013). Issues of inclusive education in the 21st century. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 67–81.
doi:10.15027/35243
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. National Council of Teachers of English.
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the World: Cultural Issues in Academic Writing. National Council of Teachers of English.
Fraser, N. (1997). A rejoinder to Iris Young. New Left Review, 126–130.
Frayer, D., Frederick, W. C., & Klausmeier, H. J. (1969). A schema for testing the level of cognitive mastery. Wisconsin
Center for Education Research.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge base of language teacher education. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417. doi:10.2307/3588114
Freire, P. (1974). Education: the practice of freedom. Originally published in 1967 as Educaçåo ecomo práctica de
liberdade. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniv. ed.). Continuum.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Continuum.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Education.
Freire, P. (1989). The Politics of Education. In P. Murphy & B. Moon (Eds.), Developments in learning and assessment
(pp. 48–54). Hodder & Stoughton.
Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving “Pedagogy of the oppressed”. Continuum.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics democracy and civic courage. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of indignation. Paradigm Publishers.
Freud, S. (1905). Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewußten. Retrieved June 6, 2021 from https://www.projekt-
gutenberg.org/freud/witz/witz.html
Friedman, D. A. (2020). Negotiating epistemic authority and co-constructing difference: Socializing “Nonnative speaker”
Teachers in a US graduate program in TESOL. In M. J. Burdelski & K. M. Howard (Eds.), Language Socialization in
Classrooms (pp. 158–178). doi:10.1017/9781316946237.010
Fuchs, C. (2021a). What Is a Critical Introduction to Social Media? In Social Media: A Critical Introduction. Sage.
Fuchs, C. (2021b). Social Media and Communication Power. In Social Media: A Critical Introduction. Sage.
Galanti, G.-A. (2004). Caring for patients from different cultures. University of Pennsylvania.
Gallano, H. R. (2020, June 17). El derecho a la educación en tiempos de crisis: Alternativas para la continuidad edu-
cativa - Sistematización de estrategias y respuestas públicas en América Latina y el Caribe ante el cierre de escuelas
por la pandemia del covid-19. https://reliefweb.int/report/venezuela-bolivarian-republic/el-derecho-la-educaci-n-en-
tiempos-de-crisis-alternativas-para
Gallego, M. A. (2001). Is experience the best teacher? The potential of coupling classroom and community-based field
experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 312–325. doi:10.1177/0022487101052004005
Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social and behavioral sci-
ences (7th ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315229386
Gambino, C. P. (2016). American Community Survey Redesign of Language-Spoken-at-Home Data. Retrieved September
10, 2020, from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2018/demo/SEHSD-WP2018-31.pdf
García, O., & Wei, L. (2015). Translanguaging, bilingualism, and bilingual education. The handbook of bilingual and
multilingual education, 223, 240.
García, O. (2015). Critical multilingual language awareness and teacher education. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S. May
(Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism. Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1–17). Springer.,
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02325-0_30-1
García, O., Johnson, S., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for
learning. Caslon.
Garcia, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs and practices for English learn-
ers (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Garcia, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English
learners. Teachers College Press.
Garcia, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2018). Language and bilingualism practices. In Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies,
programs, and practices for English learners (pp. 70–88). Teachers College Press.
Garcia, O., Lin, M. Y., & May, S. (2017). Bilingual and multilingual. Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-02258-1
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
doi:10.1057/9781137385765
Gardner, A. D. (2003). The Chinese in Wyoming: Life in the core and peripheral communities. South Dakota History,
33(4), 380–390.
Gardner, H. (1983). The theory of multiple intelligences. Heinemann.
Gary, M. (2013). Innovations in learning technologies for English Language Teaching. In Innovations in learning tech-
nologies for English Language Teaching. The British Council.
Garza, R. (2009). Latino and white high school students’ perceptions of caring behaviors: Are we culturally responsive
to our students? Urban Education, 44(3), 297–321. doi:10.1177/0042085908318714
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching. Teachers College Press.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116.
doi:10.1177/0022487102053002003
Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70. doi:10.1111/curi.12002
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in pre-service teacher
education. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 181–187. doi:10.120715430421tip4203_3
Gee, J. P. (2015). Discourse, small-d, Big D. https://academic.jamespaulgee.com/pdfs/Big%20D,%20Small%20d.pdf
Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse
analysis in education (pp. 19–50). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203005675-6
Gee, J. P. (2015). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315722511
Gee, J. P. (2017). Introducing discourse analysis: From grammar to society. Routledge.
Gelfuso, A., & Dennis, D. (2014). Getting reflection off the page: The challenges of developing support structures for
pre–service teacher reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.10.012
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Heinemann.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit.
Gibson, V. (1995). An analysis of the use of diaries as a data collection method. Nurse Researcher, 3(1), 66–73.
doi:10.7748/nr.3.1.66.s8
Gilyard, K. (2000). Literacy, identity, imagination, flight. College Composition and Communication, 52(2), 260–272.
doi:10.2307/358496
Giroux, H. A. (2010). Rethinking education as the practice of freedom: Paulo Freire and the promise of critical pedagogy.
Policy Futures in Education, 8(6), 715–721. doi:10.2304/pfie.2010.8.6.715
Giroux, H., & Purpel, D. (1983). The Hidden Curriculum and Moral Education. McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
GLAD Project. (n.d.). https://ntcprojectglad.com/
Glasgow Group. (2017). https://www.theglasgowgroup.org
Glodjo, T. (2017). Deconstructing social class identity and teacher privilege in the second language classroom. TESOL
Journal, 8(2), 342–366. doi:10.1002/tesj.273
Godley, A. J., & Reaser, J. (2018). Critical Language Pedagogy. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang US. https://www.peter-
lang.com/view/title/67692
Gonzalez, N. (2005). Beyond culture: The hybridity of funds of knowledge. In N. Gonzalez, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti
(Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 29–46). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Google. (n.d.). The Building for Billions Playbook (for developers), A Companion Guide to The Secrets to App Success
on Google Play. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=cJEjDAAAQBAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP1
Gorski, P., & Dalton, K. (2020). Striving for Critical Reflection in Multicultural and Social Justice Teacher Education: Introduc-
ing a Typology of Reflection Approaches. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(3), 357–368. doi:10.1177/0022487119883545
Gould, S. J., & Gold, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. W.W. Norton & Company.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next (Vol. 62). British Council.
Graff, H. J. (1991). The literacy myth: Cultural integration and social structure in the nineteenth century. Routledge.
Graff, H. J. (2017). Literacy myths, legacies, and lessons: New studies on literacy. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203787090
Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (2010). Turning on learning: Five approaches for multicultural teaching plans for race,
class, gender and disability. Wiley.
Gravel, E. (n.d.). All Kinds of Families. Retrieved June 6, 2021 from http://elisegravel.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/
Families.jpg
Greene, M. (1993). Diversity and inclusion: Towards a curriculum for human beings. Teachers College Record, 95(2),
211–221.
Greenfield, L. (2011). The “standard English” fairy tale: A rhetorical analysis of racist pedagogies and commonplace
assumptions about language diversity. In L. Greenfield & K. Rowan (Eds.), Writing centers and the new racism: A call
for sustainable dialogue and change (pp. 33–60). Utah State University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt4cgk6s.6
Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2016). Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal
learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 6–30. doi:10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954
Griffin, I. H. (2018). Power and privilege in adult ESL classrooms. Second Language Teaching and Learning: Diversity
and Advocacy, 71.
Griffin, M. L. (2003). Using critical incidents to promote and assess reflective thinking in preservice teachers. Reflective
Practice, 4(2), 207–220. doi:10.1080/14623940308274
Grimm, N. (1996). The regulatory role of the writing center: Coming to terms with a loss of innocence. Writing Center
Journal, 17(1), 5–29.
Grimm, N. (1999). Good intentions. Heinemann.
Gross, E., & Crawford, J. (2021). Instructional Models for Equitable and Effective Multilingual Instruction in California.
The CATESOL Journal.
Gross, E., & Crawford, J. (2021). Integrating language skills, practices, and content in TESOL lesson planning. In J.
Crawford & R. Filback (Eds.), TESOL Guide for Critical Praxis in Teaching, Inquiry, and Advocacy. IGI Global.
Gross, E., & Crawford, J. (2021). Protocols and Tools for Equitable Dual Language Bilingual Teaching. IGI Global.
Gross, E., & Crawford, J. (2021). Protocols for Equitable Dual Language Bilingual Teaching. IGI Global.
Guevara, K. (2020). Consultancy to Provide Recommendations of the Education in Emergencies (EiE) Interventions
to Support the Most Vulnerable Communities for Continuous Learning in Latin America and the Caribbean. UNICEF
LACRO (internal report).
Guevara, K. C. (2015). Emerging best practices for using offline mobile phones to train English teachers in developing
countries (Dissertation).
Gun, B. (2010). Quality self-reflection through reflection training. ELT Journal, 65(2), 126–135. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq040
Gürsoy, E., & Korkmaz, Ş. Ç. (2015). Teacher trainers as action researchers: Scrutinizing the reasons for student failure.
Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 11(2), 83–98.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano‐López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language prac-
tices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286–303. doi:10.1080/10749039909524733
Gutierrez, K., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture, difference, and learning for students
from non-dominate communities. Review of Research in Education, 33(1), 212–245. doi:10.3102/0091732X08328267
Hackman, H. W. (2005). Five essential components for social justice education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38(2),
103–109. doi:10.1080/10665680590935034
Hagevik, R., Aydeniz, M., & Rowell, C. G. (2012). Using action research in middle level teacher education to evaluate
and deepen reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 675–684. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.006
Hall, J. (2014). Language background and the college writing course. Journal of Writing Assessment, 7(1).
Hamlin, K. D. (2010). Beginning the journey: Supporting reflection in early field experience. Reflective Practice: Inter-
national and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 5(2), 167–179. doi:10.1080/14623940410001690956
Handal, N. (2021). Others are us. Poetry Magazine. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/155502/

others-are-us
Haneda, M., & Alexander, M. (2015). ESL teacher advocacy beyond the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education,
49, 149–158. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.009
Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Busi-
ness Horizons, 54(3), 265–273. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.007
Harrison, J., & McIlwain, M. J. (2020). ESOL teachers’ experiences in their role as advocate: Making the case for transi-
tive advocacy. TESOL Journal, 11(1), e00464. doi:10.1002/tesj.464
Hastings, C., Jacob, L., & Norton, B. (2016). Social justice in English language teaching. TESOL Press.
Heacox, D. (2012). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all learners (2nd ed.).
Free Spirit Publishing.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge University
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511841057
Heller, M. (2011). Paths to post-nationalism: A critical ethnography of language and identity. Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746866.001.0001
Hellman, A., Harris, K., & Wilbur, A. (2019). The 6 principles for exemplary teaching of English learners: Adult educa-
tion and workforce development. IDEO. https://www.ideo.com/post/design-kit
Henning, J., Stone, J., & Kelly, J. (2008). Eight pre and post tests. In Using Action Research to Improve Instruction: An
Interactive Guide for Teachers (pp. 128-135). doi:10.4324/9780203887295
Hercula, S. (2021). Social Justice as the Hidden Curriculum: Making “Small” Pedagogical Changes to Promote Equity.
Babylonia Journal of Language Education, 1, 18–23.
Herrera, L. J. P. (2018). ESOL urban high school teachers’ perceptions of their instructional strengths and challenges:
A qualitative case study. Dialogues: An Interdisciplinary Journal of English Language Teaching and Research, 2(1),
1-21. doi:10.30617/dialogues.2.1.2
Hesson, S., & Toncelli, R. (2019). Making the path by walking together: A collaborative approach to advocacy. In Ad-
vocacy in English language teaching and learning (pp. 147–157). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351036665-12
Hollie, S. (2011). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning: Classroom practices for student suc-
cess. Shell Education.
Hollie, S. (2018). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning: classroom practices for student suc-
cess (2nd ed.). Shell Education.
Holloway, S. D. (2010). Women and family in contemporary Japan. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511761317
Horkheimer, M. (1982). The Social Function of Philosophy (1939). Critical Theory: Selected Essays. Continuum.
Horner, B., Lu, M., Jones Royster, J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Opinion: Language difference in writing: Toward a trans-
lingual approach. College English, 73(3), 303–321.
Howard, E. R., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., Rogers, D., Olague, N., Medina, J., Kennedy, D., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D.
(2018). Guiding principles for dual language education (3rd ed.). Center for Applied Linguistics.
Howard, T. C. (2010). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice,
42(3), 195–202. doi:10.120715430421tip4203_5
Howell, J. S. (2011). What influences students’ need for remediation in college? Evidence from California. The Journal
of Higher Education, 82(3), 292–318.
Huang, C. C., & Chung, J. (2020, April 23). Facebook tops social media sites in Taiwan. Taipei Times. Retrieved March,
21, 2021, from www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2020/04/26/2003735327
Hue, M. (2017). Promoting cultural responsiveness and multicultural competency through the classroom experience of
teachers in Hong Kong schools. In I. A. Amzat & N. Padilla-Valdez (Eds.), Teacher professional knowledge and develop-
ment for reflective and inclusive practices (pp. 179–191). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315397702-16
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for Language Teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. http//www.statisticshowto.
com/kuder-richardson/
Hughes, A. (2002). Validity. In Testing for Language Teachers (pp. 26–35). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511732980.005
Hughes, C. C. (1992). “Ethnography”: What’s in a Word—Process? Product? Promise? Qualitative Health Research,
2(4), 439–450. doi:10.1177/104973239200200405
Hult, F. M. (2017). More than a lingua franca: Functions of English in a globalised educational language policy. Lan-
guage, Culture and Curriculum, 30(3), 265–282. doi:10.1080/07908318.2017.1321008
Hunt, E., & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review,
98(3), 377–389. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.3.377
Hunt, P. F. (2019). Inclusive education as global development policy. In M. J. Schuelka, C. J. Johnstone, G. Thomas, &
A. J. Artiles (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of inclusion and diversity in education (pp. 116–129). SAGE., http://dx.doi.
org/10.4135/9781526470430.n12.
Husserl, E. (1989). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy. In Studies in the
Phenomenology of Constitution. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2233-4
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101.
doi:10.1017/S0261444806003399
INEE. (2010, December 3). INEE Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery. https://inee.
org/resources/inee-minimum-standards
Inoue, A. B. (2016). Afterword: Narratives that determine writers and social justice writing center work. Praxis. Writing
Center Journal, 14(1), 94–99.
IRIS. (n.d.). Welcome to IRIS+ System | the generally accepted system for impact investors to measure, manage, and
optimize their impact. https://iris.thegiin.org/#:~:text=IRIS%2B%20is%20the%20generally%20accepted,%2C%20
managing%2C%20and%20optimizing%20impact.&text=Impact%20investors%20seek%20to%20maximize,decisions%20
alongside%20risk%20and%20return
Irwin, V., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., York, C., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., Dilig, R., &
Parker, S. (2021). Report on the Condition of Education 2021 (NCES 2021-144). U.S. Department of Education. Wash-
ington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Ismail, S. A. M. M., Karim, A., & Mohamed, A. R. (2018). The Role of Gender, Socioeconomic Status, and Ethnicity
in Predicting ESL Learners’ Reading Comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34(6), 457–484. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/10573569.2018.1462745
Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Williams, B. (2019). Transformative social and emotional learning (SEL): Toward
SEL in service of educational equity and excellence. Educational Psychologist, 54(3), 162–184. doi:10.1080/0046152
0.2019.1623032
James, C., & Garrett, P. (Eds.). (1991). Language awareness in the classroom. Longman.
Janks, H. (2019). Critical Literacy and the Importance of Reading With and Against a Text. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 62(5), 561–564. doi:10.1002/jaal.941
Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly,
40(1), 157–181. doi:10.2307/40264515
Jensen, B., Whiting, E. F., & Chapman, S. (2018). Measuring the multicultural dispositions of preservice teachers.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(2), 120–135. doi:10.1177/0734282916662426
JIPS. (2020, May). Joint IDP Profiling Service-The New Normal: Collecting Data Amidst a Global Pandemic. https://
www.jips.org/jips-publication/the-new-normal-collecting-data-amidst-a-global-pandemic-may-2020/
Johns, C. (2013). Becoming a reflective practitioner (4th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Johnson, N. K. (2005). Senegalese ‘into Frenchmen’? The French technology of nationalism in Sénégal. In Language,
ethnic identity, and the state. Routledge.
Johnson, N. K. (2005). Senegalese ‘into Frenchmen’? The French technology of nationalism in Sénégal. In, Language,
ethnic identity, and the state. Routledge.
Johnson, N. K. (2012). Conceptualizing the nation: Myths, imagined communities, or multiethnic realities? The cases
of Israel, France, and the United States. In The multicultural dilemma: Migration, ethnic politics, and state intermedia-
tion. Routledge.
Johnson, N. K. (1993). Black skin, black masks: A case of mistaken identity. American Political Science Association.
Johnstone, G. T., & Artiles, A. J. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of inclusion and diversity in education (pp. 116–129). SAGE.
Jolls, C., & Sunstein, C. R. (2006). The law of implicit bias. California Law Review, 94(4), 969. doi:10.2307/20439057
Jones, J. L., & Jones, K. A. (2013). Teaching reflective practice: Implementation in the teacher-education setting. Teacher
Educator, 48(1), 73–85. doi:10.1080/08878730.2012.740153
Jones-Jang, S. M., Mortensen, T., & Liu, J. (2021). Does media literacy help identification of fake news? Information literacy
helps, but other literacies don’t. The American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 371–388. doi:10.1177/0002764219869406
Jungheim & Lopez. (2020, October). Zooming Out: A Reflective Checklist to Improve Online English Instruction.
CATESOL 2020 Annual State Conference. TESL Student Forum virtual presentation.
Kachru, B. B. (1989). Teaching World Englishes. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 85–95.
Kachru, Y. (1985). Discourse analysis, non‐native Englishes and second language acquisition research. World Englishes,
4(2), 223–232. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.1985.tb00410.x
Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1998). Staff development and the structural approach to cooperative learning. Professional
development for cooperative learning: Issues and approaches, 103-121.
Kahl, D. (2013). Critical communication pedagogy and assessment: Reconciling two seemingly incongruous ideas.
International Journal of Communication, 7, 2610–2630. 1932–8036/20130005
Kahoot. (2020). https://kahoot.com
Kajamaa, A., Mattick, K., & de la Croix, A. (2020). How to do mixed‐methods research. The Clinical Teacher, 17(3),
267–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13145
Kanno, Y., & Varghese, M. M. (2010). Immigrant and refugee ESL students’ challenges to accessing four-year college
education: From language policy to educational policy. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 9(5), 310–328.
doi:10.1080/15348458.2010.517693
Kaufman, D. (2004). Constructivist issues in language learning and teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24,
303–319. doi:10.1017/S0267190504000121
Kaufman, R. R. (1974). The patron-client concept and macro-politics: Prospects and problems. Comparative Studies in
Society and History, 16(3), 284–308. doi:10.1017/S0010417500012457
Keesing-Styles, L. (2003). The relationship between critical pedagogy and assessment in teacher education. Radical
Pedagogy. https://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_1/03_keesing-styles.html
Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002). The micropolitics of teacher induction. A narrative-biographical study on teacher
socialisation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 105–120. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00053-1
Kessler, G. (2013). Teaching ESL/EFL in a world of social media, mash‐ups, and hyper‐collaboration. TESOL Journal,
4(4), 615–632. doi:10.1002/tesj.106
Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. The Falmer Press.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical pedagogy primer. Peter Lang.
Kinsella, K. (2012). Evidence Based Principles to Guide English Language Development in the Common Core Standards
Era. Center for Teacher Efficacy. California State University San Francisco.
Knapp, S., Gottlieb, M., & Handelsman, M. (2017). Enhancing Professionalism Through Self-Reflection. Professional
Psychology, Research and Practice, 48(3), 167–174. doi:10.1037/pro0000135
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy (Rev. and Updated.). As-
sociation Press.
Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of Group
Process (pp. 33–57). John Wiley.
Kormos, J. (2017). The second language learning processes of students with specific learning difficulties. Routledge.
Kormos, J., & Smith, A. M. (2012). Teaching languages to students with specific learning differences. Multilingual
Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847696212
KozleskiE. B.YuI. (2018). Inclusive education. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0162
Kozol, J. (2012). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. Crown.
Kramlich, D. J. (2021). The language classroom as transformative response to the unique needs of migrants and refugees.
In B. L. Leaver, D. E. Davidson, & C. Campbell (Eds.), Transformative language learning and teaching (pp. 149-157).
Cambridge University Press.
Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2007). Three fundamental concepts in SLA and their relevance in multilingual contexts.
Modern Language Journal, 91, 905–920. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00677.x
Krashen, S., & Mason, B. (2020). The Optimal Input Hypothesis: Not All Comprehensible Input is of Equal Value.
CATESOL Newsletter, 1-2.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Prentice-Hall International.
Krasnoff, B. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching: A guide to evidence-based practices for teaching all students eq-
uitably. Region X Equity Assistance Center, Education Northwest.
Krutkowski, S. (2017). A strengths-based approach to widening participation students in higher education. RSR. Refer-
ence Services Review, 45(2), 227–241. doi:10.1108/RSR-10-2016-0070
Kubota, R. (2016). Critical content-based instruction in the foreign language classroom. Content-based foreign language
teaching: Curriculum and pedagogy for developing advanced thinking and literacy skills, 192-212.
Kubota, R. (2002). The author responds:(Un)raveling racism in a nice field like TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 84–92.
doi:10.2307/3588363
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (2006). Race and TESOL: Introduction to concepts and theories. TESOL Quarterly, 40(3), 471–493.
doi:10.2307/40264540
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Raising cultural Consciousness. In Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teach-
ing (pp. 267–275). Yale University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Raising cultural consciousness. In B. Kumaravadivelu (Ed.), Beyond Methods: Macrostrate-
gies for Language Teaching (pp. 267–285). Yale University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Yale University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society: A modular model for knowing, analyzing,
recognizing, doing, and seeing. Routledge/Taylor and Francis. doi:10.4324/9780203832530
Kumar, R., Zusho, A., & Bondie, R. (2018). Weaving Cultural Relevance and Achievement Motivation into Inclusive
Classroom Cultures. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 78–96. doi:10.1080/00461520.2018.1432361
Kumi–Yeboah, A., & James, W. (2014). Transformative learning experiences of international graduate students from
Asian countries. Journal of Transformative Education, 12(1), 25–53. doi:10.1177/1541344614538120
Kunnan, A. J. (2000a). Fairness and justice for all. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assess-
ment (pp. 1–13). CUP. Retrieved from http://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/58744/excerpt/9780521658744_excerpt.pdf
Kuruvilla, E. (2017). Reflective teacher preparation in the context of inclusive classroom. In I. A. Amzat & N. Padilla-
Valdez (Eds.), Teacher professional knowledge and development for reflective and inclusive practices (pp. 25–35).
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315397702-3
Kyung Hee, K., & Zabelina, D. (2015). Cultural bias in assessment: Can creativity assessment help? The International
Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 6(2), 129–148.
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied Linguistics.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally relevant approach to literacy
teaching. Theory into Practice, 31(4), 312–320. doi:10.1080/00405849209543558
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice,
34(3), 159–165. doi:10.1080/00405849509543675
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal,
32(3), 465–491. doi:10.3102/00028312032003465
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1),
74–84. doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, I. V. W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1),
47–68.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Towards a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1),
47–68.
Lambert, W. E. (1981). Bilingualism and language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1),
9–22. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb41993.x PMID:6951502
Landa, K. G., & Barbetta, P. M. (2017). The effects of repeated readings on the reading performances of Hispanic
English language learners with specific learning disabilities. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 20(1),
1–13. doi:10.9782/2159-4341-20.1.1
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). A handbook for teacher research. McGraw-Hill Education.
Larivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teacher’s level of reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 9(3),
341–360. doi:10.1080/14623940802207451
Larrivee, B. (2008). Meeting the challenge of preparing reflective practitioners. New Educator, 4(2), 87–106.
doi:10.1080/15476880802014132
Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. Routledge.
Lau, S. M. C. (2020). Translanguaging as a decolonization project? Malawian teachers’ complex and competing desires
for local languages and global English. In Envisioning TESOL through a translanguaging lens (pp. 203–228). Springer.
LAUSD. (n.d.). Los Angeles Unified School District / Homepage. https://achieve.lausd.net/domain/4

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage.
Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B.,
Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A., Sunstein, C. R., Thorson, E. A., Watts, D. J., & Zittrain,
J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. doi:10.1126cience.aao2998 PMID:29590025
Learning for Justice. (2016). Social justice standards: The teaching tolerance anti-bias framework. https://www.learn-
ingforjustice.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/TT-Social-Justice-Standards-Anti-bias-framework-2020.pdf
Learning for Justice. (2018). Critical Practices for Anti-Bias Education: Instruction.
Lee, J. S., & Bucholtz, M. (2015). Language socialization across learning spaces. The handbook of classroom discourse
and interaction, 319 - 336. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4h89b3z0
Leonardo, Z. (2013). Race frameworks: A multidimensional theory of racism and education. Teachers College.
Leung, S. (2001). Language socialization: Themes and advances in research. Working papers in TESOL & Applied
Linguistics, 1(1), 1–18.
Levien, R. (Director, Writer, Producer), Fox, K. (Producer), & Levien, Z.P. (Producer). (2009). Immersion [Film]. You-
Tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Y0HAjLKYI
Liggett, T. (2010). ‘A little bit marginalized’: The structural marginalization of English language teachers in urban and
rural public schools. Teaching Education, 21(3), 217–232. doi:10.1080/10476211003695514
Linares, S. M. (2016). Othering: Towards a critical cultural awareness in the language classroom. How, 23(1), 129-146.
Lin, M., & Lucey, T. (2010). Individual and group reflection strategies: What we learned from preservice teachers.
Multicultural Education, 18(1), 51–54.
Lin, S., & Scherz, S. D. (2014). Challenges facing Asian international graduate students in the US: Pedagogical consid-
erations in higher education. Journal of International Students, 4(1), 16–33. doi:10.32674/jis.v4i1.494
Linville, H. A. (2014). A mixed methods investigation of ESOL teacher advocacy: “It’s not going in and just teaching
English.” University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
Linville, H. A. (2016). ESOL teachers as advocates: An important role? TESOL Journal, 7(1), 98–131. doi:10.1002/tesj.193
Linville, H. A. (2020). A closer look at ESOL teacher advocacy: What we do and why. TESOL Journal, 11(3), e00508.
doi:10.1002/tesj.508
Linville, H. A., & Whiting, J. (Eds.). (2019). Advocacy in English language teaching and learning. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781351036665
Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in
Society, 23(2), 163–198. doi:10.1017/S0047404500017826
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203348802
Liu, K. (2015). Critical reflection as a framework for transformative learning in teacher education. Educational Review,
67(2), 135–157. doi:10.1080/00131911.2013.839546
Liu, K. (2017). Creating a dialogic space for prospective teacher critical reflection and transformative learning. Reflective
Practice, 18(6), 805–820. doi:10.1080/14623943.2017.1361919
Livingston, S. A. (2018). Test reliability—Basic concepts (Research Memorandum No. RM-18-01). Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Llurda, E. (2015). Non-native teachers and advocacy. In M. Bigelow & J. Ennser-Kananen (Eds.), The Routledge hand-
book of educational linguistics (pp. 105–116). Routledge.
Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 8(2), 1-26.
Longo, F., & Lindsay, G. (2011). Knowing nursing through inquiry: Engaging students in knowledge creation. The
Journal of Nursing Education, 50(12), 703–705. doi:10.3928/01484834-20111116-05 PMID:22085210
López, S. J., & Louis, M. C. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education. Journal of College and Character,
10(4). Advance online publication. doi:10.2202/1940-1639.1041
Lucas, P. (2012). Critical reflection. What do we really mean? In Collaborative education: Investing in the future — Pro-
ceedings of the 2012 ACEN National Conference (pp. 163-167). Australian Collaborative Education Network (ACEN).
Lunsford, A. (1991). Collaboration, control, and the idea of a writing center. Writing Center Journal, 12(1), 3–10.
Luo, M. N., & Huang, M. (2019). ESL teachers’ multiple intelligences and teaching strategies: Is there a linkage? TESOL
Journal, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.379
Lustick, H. (2015). Administering discipline differently: A Foucauldian lens on restorative school discipline. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(3), 1–15. doi:10.1080/13603124.2015.1100755
Luxia, Q. (2005). Stakeholders’ conflicting aims undermine the washback function of a high-stakes test. Language Test-
ing, 22(2), 142–173. doi:10.1191/0265532205lt300oa
Lyken-Segosebe, D. E. (2017). Acculturative stress and disengagement: Learning from the adjustment challenges faced
by East Asian international graduate students. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(6), 66–77. doi:10.5430/
ijhe.v6n6p66
Lynch, B. K. (2001). Rethinking assessment from a critical perspective. Language Testing, 18(4), 351–372.
doi:10.1177/026553220101800403
MacDonald, H. (2017, October 9). The false “science” of implicit bias. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/
the-false-science-of-implicit-bias-1507590908
Machado, A. (1927). Traveller, there is no path. Academic Press.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communi-
cate in an L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x
MacLean, M. S., & Mohr, M. M. (1999). Teacher-researchers at work. National Writing Project, University of California.
Madison, D. S. (2005). Introduction to critical ethnography: theory and method. In Critical ethnography: Method, ethics,
and performance (pp. 1–16). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://www-doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.4135/9781452233826.n1
Mahboob, A., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Using local languages in English language classrooms. In W. A. Renandya &
H. P. Widodo (Eds.), English language teaching today: Building a closer link between theory and practice (pp. 25–40).
Springer., doi:10.1007/978-3-319-38834-2_3
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2006). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.),
Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages (pp. 1–41). Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853599255-003
Malebese, M. (2017). A socially inclusive teaching strategy for transforming the teaching of English first additional
language. Perspectives in Education, 35(2), 16–29. doi:10.18820/2519593X/pie.v35i2.2
Mann, S., & Walsh, C. (2017). Reflective practice in English language teaching. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315733395
Markowitz, L. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2020). Teaching with a social, emotional, and cultural lens. Harvard Education Press.
Martínez, P. (2021). Culturally responsive and sustaining education. NYU Metro Center. https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/sites/
default/files/2020-05/01222020_CRE.pdf
Martinez, D. C. (2017). Imagining a language of solidarity for Black and Latinx youth in English language arts class-
rooms. English Education, 49(2), 179.
Marx, K. (2010). Karl Marx. Lawrence & Wishart Electric Book.
Masullo Chen, G. (2016). Social media: From digital divide to empowerment. In The Routledge companion to media
and race. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.4324/9781315778228-11
Matsuda, P. K. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. college composition. College English, 57(4), 637–651.
doi:10.2307/25472180
Matsuda, P. K., & Cox, M. (2009). Reading an ESL writer’s text. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.), ESL writers: A guide
for writing center tutors (2nd ed., pp. 39–47). Heinemann.
McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for language teachers. Hodder Arnold.
McDougall, S., Brunswick, N., & de Mornay Davies, P. (2010). Reading and dyslexia in different orthographies: An
introduction and overview. In N. Brunswick, S. McDougall, & P. de Mornay Davies (Eds.), Reading and dyslexia in
different orthographies (pp. 3-21). Psychology Press.
McIntosh, J. (2020). Whiteness and Language. The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology, 1-12.
McIntyre, E., Kyle, D. W., Chen, C., Kraemer, J., & Parr, J. (2009). Six principles for teaching English language learn-
ers in all classrooms. Corwin.
McKay, S. (2002). Ch. 5 Teaching methods and English as an international language. In Teaching English as international
language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford University
Press.
McKay, S. L., & Wong, S.-L. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second-language
learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 577–606. doi:10.17763/
haer.66.3.n47r06u264944865
McLaren, P. (1984). La vida en las escuelas: Una introducción a la pedagogía crítica en los fundamentos de la educación.
Siglo XXI editores.
McLaren, P. (2003). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.),
The critical pedagogy reader (1st ed., pp. 69–96). RoutledgeFalmer.
McNamara, T. (2006). Validity in Language testing: The challenge of Sam Messick’s legacy. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 3(1), 31–51. doi:10.120715434311laq0301_3
McNeill, A. (2017). Native and non-native teachers’ sensitivity to language learning difficulties and problems from a
learner’s perspective: Implications and challenges for teacher education. In J. de D. Martinez Agudo (Ed.), Native and
non-native teachers in English language teaching (pp. 239-253). De Gruyter Mouton.
McNeill, A. (1996). Vocabulary knowledge profiles: Evidence from Chinese-speaking ESL teachers. Hong Kong Journal
of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 39–63.
McNeill, A. (2005). Non-native speaker teachers and awareness of difficulty in pedagogical texts. In E. Llurda (Ed.),
Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp. 122–138). Springer.
doi:10.1007/0-387-24565-0_7
Medgyes, P. (2017). The (ir) relevance of academic research for the language teacher. English Language Teaching Journal,
71(4), 491 - 498. doi:10.1093/elt/ccx034
Mendez Newman, B. (2017). Tutoring translingual writers: The logistics of error and ingenuity. Praxis. Writing Center
Journal, 14(3).
Merchant, G. (2013). Critical media literacy. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Merriam, S. B., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M.-Y., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G., & Muhamad, M. (2001). Power and positional-
ity: Negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(5),
405–416. doi:10.1080/02601370120490
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Messick, S. (1981). Evidence and ethics in the evaluation of tests. Educational Researcher, 10(9), 9–20.
doi:10.3102/0013189X010009009
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 447–474). ACE/Macmillan.
Metz, M. (2019). Accommodating linguistic prejudice? Examining English teachers’ language ideologies. English Teach-
ing, 18(1), 18–35. doi:10.1108/ETPC-09-2018-0081
Meyerson, D. (2001). Tempered Radicals: How people use difference to inspire change at work. Harvard Business
School Press.
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning.
Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult education. Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformation Theory out of Context. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 60–62.
doi:10.1177/074171369704800105
Middleton, R. (2017). Critical reflection: The struggle of a practice developer. Academic Press.
Mihara, K. (2011). Effects of pre-reading strategies on EFL/ESL reading comprehension. TESL Canada Journal, 28(2),
51–73.
Miller, M. S., & Shinas, V. H. (2019). Inquiring about inquiry: A research journey. Journal of Practitioner Research,
4(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5038/2379-9951.4.1.1093
Milner, H. R. IV. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unfore-
seen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400. doi:10.3102/0013189X07309471
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in language: Investigating standard English (4th ed.). Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203124666
Min, E. (2020). Writing to authority figures: Korean students’ communication in English. KOTESOL Journal, 16(1),
211–220.
Min, E. (2021). Equity-minded classroom-based assessment practices. In J. Crawford & R. Filback (Eds.), TESOL guide
for critical praxis in teaching, inquiry, and advocacy. IGI Global.
Mirhosseini, S. A. (2018). An invitation to the less-treaded path of autoethnography in TESOL research. TESOL Journal,
9(1), 76–92. doi:10.1002/tesj.305
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second Language Learning Theories (3rd ed.). Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203770795
Modic, M. B. (n.d.). Incorporating Appreciative Inquiry Into Your Teaching Tool Kit. Journal for Nurses in Profes-
sional Development, 31(5), 303 - 304. https://www.nursingcenter.com/journalarticle?Article_ID=3206513&Journal_
ID=54029&Issue_ID=3206238
MOE (Ministry of Education) Taiwan. (2002). White paper on media literacy educational policy. Retrieved March, 21,
2021, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/ 2122416591771.pdf
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Ap-
proach to Connect Homes and Classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132-141. doi:https://education.ucsc.edu/ellisa/
pdfs/Moll_Amanti_1992_Funds_of_Knowledge.pdf
Molla, T., & Nolan, A. (2020). Teacher agency and professional practice. Teachers and Teaching, 26(1), 67–87. doi:10
.1080/13540602.2020.1740196
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach
to connect homes and classrooms. In N. Gonzalez, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing
practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 71–87). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Moll, L. C., Velez-Ibanez, C., & Greenberg, J. B. (1989). Year one progress report: Community knowledge and classroom
practice: Combining resources for literacy instruction (IARP Subcontract No. L-10). University of Arizona, College of
Education and Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology.
Moll, L., González, N., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities,
and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017, January). Equity and assessment: Moving towards culturally responsive
assessment (Occasional Paper No. 29). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for
Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).
Moore, C. (2020, September 1). What is Appreciative Inquiry? A Brief History & Real Life Examples. https://positive-
psychology.com/appreciative-inquiry/
Moore, E., & Nash, A. (2020). Heritage language education. The Cambridge Introduction to Applied Linguistics, 56.
Moore, E. (2017). Managing classroom transgressions: Use of directives in a reading practice. Linguistics and Educa-
tion, 41, 35–46. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2017.07.006
Moore, E. (2020). Affective stance and socialization to Orthodox Christian Values in a Russian heritage language
classroom. In M. J. In Burdelski & K. M. Howard (Eds.), Language Socialization in Classrooms (pp. 71–90).
doi:10.1017/9781316946237.005
Morgan, B. (2016). Language teacher identity as critical social practice. Reflections on language teacher identity re-
search, 203-209.
Morgan, D. L. (2017). Research design and research methods. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A
pragmatic approach. Sage. doi:10.4135/9781544304533
Morrison, K. (2017). Informed asset-based pedagogy: Coming correct, counter-stories from an information literacy
classroom. Library Trends, 66(2), 176–218. doi:10.1353/lib.2017.0034
Morrison, T. (2017). The origin of others. Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/9780674982628
Motha, S. (2016). Who we are: Teacher identity, race, empire, and nativeness. In Reflections on language teacher identity
research (pp. 223–229). Routledge.
Mousavi, S. A. (2009). An encyclopedic dictionary of language testing (4th ed.). Rahnama Publications.
Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS (2nd ed.). Sage. https://dx.doi.
org/10.4135/9781849209014.
Mullings, L. (1997). On our own terms: race, class, and gender in the lives of African American women. Routledge.
Murray, D. (2018). The world of English language teaching: Creating equity or inequity? Language Teaching Research:
LTR, 24(1), 60–70. doi:10.1177/1362168818777529
Nakamaru, S. (2010). Lexical issues in writing center tutorials with international and US-educated multilingual writers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(2), 95–113. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.01.001
Naraian, S. (2016). Teaching for “real”: Reconciling explicit literacy instruction with inclusive pedagogy in a fourth-grade
urban classroom. Urban Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0042085916648742
Nash, R. (1999). Bourdieu,‘habitus’, and educational research: Is it all worth the candle? British Journal of Sociology
of Education, 20(2), 175–187. doi:10.1080/01425699995399
National Disability Authority. (2020). What is universal design. Center for Excellence in Universal Design. http://uni-
versaldesign.ie/What-is-Universal-Design/
NCTSN. (2020, December 15). Child Trauma Toolkit for Educators. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network.
https://www.nctsn.org/resources/child-trauma-toolkit-educators
News, U. N. (2016, September 1). Inclusive education vital for all, including persons with disabilities – UN rights
experts. https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/09/537952-inclusive-education-vital-all-including-persons-disabilities-un-
rights-experts
Ngunjiri, F. W., Hernandez, K. C., & Chang, H. (2010). Living autoethnography: Connecting life and research. Journal
of Research Practice, 6(1), E1. Retrieved May 12, 2013, from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/241/186
Nguyen, T. T. L. (2020). Teacher-research: Agency of Practical Knowledge and Professional Development. Journal of
Language and Education, 6(2), 181–189.
Nieto, S. (2009). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203872284
Nieto, S. M. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Nijakowska, J., Tsagari, D., & Spanoudis, G. (2018). English as a foreign language teacher training needs and perceived
preparedness to include dyslexic learners: The case of Greece, Cyprus, and Poland. Dyslexia (Chichester, England),
24(4), 357–379. doi:10.1002/dys.1598 PMID:30302865
Nkoane, M., Ambrosio, J., & Mahlomaholo, S. (2013). Sustainable learning environments and social justice: Editorial
comment. TD. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 9(3), v–xiii.
Noack, R., & Gamio, L. (2015, April 23). The world’s languages, in 7 maps and charts. Washington Post. https://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/23/the-worlds- languages-in-7-maps-and-charts/
Noguera, P. (2008). The Trouble with Black Boys...and other reflections on race, equity, and the future of public educa-
tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
North, S. (1984). The idea of a writing center. College English, 46(5), 433–446. doi:10.2307/377047
Norton, B. & Gao, Y. (2008). Identity, investment, and Chinese learners of English. Academic Press.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Longman/Pearson Education.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner
contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 159–171). Pearson Education.
Norton, B. (2010). Language and identity. In N. Hornberber & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language edu-
cation (pp. 249–269). Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847692849-015
Norton, B., & Early, M. (2011). Researcher identity, narrative inquiry, and language teaching research. TESOL Quarterly,
45(3), 415–439. doi:10.5054/tq.2011.261161
Norton, B., & Gao, Y. (2008). Identity, investment, and Chinese learners of English. Journal of Asian Pacific Commu-
nication, 18(1), 109–120. doi:10.1075/japc.18.1.07nor
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (Eds.). (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524834
Norton, L. S. (2009). Action research in teaching and learning: a practical guide to conducting pedagogical research
in universities. Routledge.
Obar, J. A., & Wildman, S. S. (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge-an introduction to the special
issue. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 745–750. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2015.07.014
Ochs, E. (1986). Introduction. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language Socialization Across Cultures (pp. 1–13).
Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking lin-
guistic relativity (pp. 407–437). Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E., & Kremer-Sadlik, T. (2015). How language became knowledge. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 25(1), 66–86.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2011). The theory of language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin
(Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 1–21). Wiley Blackwell.
Oettingen, G. (2014). Rethinking positive thinking: Inside the new science of motivation. Penguin.
Oettingen, G., Pak, H., & Schnetter, K. (2001). Self-regulation of goal-setting: Turning free fantasies about the future
into binding goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 736–753. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.736
PMID:11374746
Olson, B. (2013). Rethinking our work with multilingual writers: The ethics and responsibility of language teaching in
the writing center. Praxis. Writing Center Journal, 10(2).
Orfield, G. (2001). Schools more separate: Consequences of a decade of resegregation. Academic Press.
Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Educational psychology: Developing learners (7th ed.). Pearson.
Ortega, L. (2012). SLA after the social turn. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisi-
tion (pp. 167–180). Routhledge.
Osborne, A. B. (1996). Practice into theory into practice: Culturally relevant pedagogy for students we have marginalized
and normalized. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 27(3), 285–314. doi:10.1525/aeq.1996.27.3.04x0351m
Otto, S. E. (2017). From Past to Present: A Hundred Years of Technology for L2 Learning. The Handbook of Technology
and Second Language Teaching and Learning, 10-25. doi:10.1002/9781118914069.ch2
Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context. Routledge.
Padlet. (2020). https://padlet.com/dashboard
Paik, S. J., Kula, S. M., Saito, L. E., Rahman, Z., & Witenstein, M. A. (2014). Historical perspectives on diverse
Asian American communities: Immigration, incorporation, and education. Teachers College Record, 116(8), 1–45.
PMID:26120219
Palfreyman, D. (2005). Othering in an English language program. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 211–233. doi:10.2307/3588309
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.
Pantić, N. (2015). A model for study of teacher agency for social justice. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 759–778. doi:
10.1080/13540602.2015.1044332
Pantić, N., & Florian, L. (2015). Developing teachers as agents of inclusion and social justice. Education Inquiry, 6(3),
27311. doi:10.3402/edui.v6.27311
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational
Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. doi:10.3102/0013189X12441244
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique
forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a chang-
ing world. Teachers College Press.
Parkay, F. W., Anctil, E. J., & Hass, G. (2014). Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality educational
programs. Prentice Hall.
Park, L. E. (2014). Shifting from reflective practices to reflexivity: An autoethnography of an L2 teacher educator.
English Teaching, 69(1), 173–198. doi:10.15858/engtea.69.1.201403.173
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Pentón Herrera, L. J., & McNair, R. L. (2021). Restorative and community‐building practices as social justice for English
learners. TESOL Journal, 12(1), e00523. doi:10.1002/tesj.523
Peregoy, A. F., & Boyle, W. F. (2017). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for teaching K-12 English
learners. Pearson.
Perrucci, R., & Hu, H. (1995). Satisfaction with social and educational experiences among international graduate students.
Research in Higher Education, 36(4), 491–508. doi:10.1007/BF02207908
Peshkin, A. (1988). In Search of Subjectivity—One’s Own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21.

doi:10.3102/0013189X017007017
Pessoa, R. R., & de Urzêda Freitas, M. T. (2012). Challenges in critical language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4),
753–776.
Peterson, E. (1990). Teaching How to Read the World and Change It. In The Critical Pedagogy Reader. London: Rout-
ledge Falmer.
Peterson, P., & West, M. (2003). No child left behind? the politics and practice of school accountability. Brookings
Institution Press.
Pike, K. L. (1967). Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior. Mouton & Co. doi:10.1037/14786-002
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research,
9(3), 233–265. doi:10.1191/1362168805lr166oa
Porto, M. (2019). Affordances, complexities, and challenges of intercultural citizenship for foreign language teachers.
Foreign Language Annals, 52(1), 141–164. doi:10.1111/flan.12375
Powell, R. (2011). Classroom Climate/Physical Environment: Creating an inclusive community. In R. Powell & E. C.
Powell, R. (2011). Culturally responsive assessment: Creating a culture of learning. In R. Powell & E. C. Rightmyer
(Eds.), Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing the gap (pp. 87–118). Routledge.
Powell, R., Cantrell, S. C., Malo-Juvera, V., & Correll, P. (2016). Operationalizing Culturally Responsive Instruction:
Preliminary Findings of CRIOP Research. Teachers College Record, 118(010306), 1–46.
Powell, R., Chambers Cantrell, S., Malo-Juvera, V., & Correll, P. (2016). Operationalizing Culturally Responsive Instruc-
tion: Preliminary findings of CRIOP Research. Teachers College Record, 118, 010306.
Powell, R., & Rightmyer, E. C. (Eds.). (2011). Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing the gap.
Routledge.
Powers, S. W. (2011). Discourse/instructional conversation: Connecting school and personal discourses. In R. Powell & E.
C. Rightmyer (Eds.), Literacy for all students: An instructional framework for closing the gap (pp. 190–230). Routledge.
Prashnig, B. (2005). Learning Styles vs. Multiple Intelligences (MI). Teaching Expertise, 9, 8-9. Retrieved from https://
www.rcsdk12.org/cms/lib/NY01001156/Centricity/Domain/9842/ls%20vs%20mi%20tex9_p8_9.pdf
Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 33–40.
Prier, J. (2017). Commanding the trend: Social media as information warfare. Strategic Studies Quarterly: SSQ, 11(4),
50–85.
Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. J., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: what is it and why does it matter? In R. Kneyber
& J. Evers (Eds.), Flip the System: Changing Education from the Bottom Up. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315678573-15
Programs, E. L. (n.d.). Fellows 50th Anniversary. English Language Programs. https://elprograms.org/about/50th-
anniversary/
Project Implicit. Take a test. (n.d.). https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
Raelin, J. A. (2002). I don’t have time to think! versus the art of reflective practice. Reflections: The SoL Journal, 4(1),
66–79.
Rampton, B., Maybin, J., & Roberts, C. (2015). Theory and Method in Linguistic Ethnography. In J. Snell, S. Shaw,
& F. Copland (Eds.), Linguistic Ethnography. Palgrave Advances in Language and Linguistics. Palgrave Macmillan.
doi:10.1057/9781137035035_2
Rao, K., & Meo, G. J. (2016). Using universal design for learning to design standards-based lessons. SAGE Open, 6(4),
1–12. doi:10.1177/2158244016680688
Rao, P. (2017). Learning challenges and preferred pedagogies of international students. International Journal of Edu-
cational Management, 31(7), 1000–1016. doi:10.1108/IJEM-01-2016-0001
Ray, D. C. (Ed.). (2015). A therapist’s guide to child development: The extraordinarily normal years. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315737959
Reysen, S., Katzarska-Miller, I., Gibson, S. A., & Hobson, B. (2013). World Knowledge and Global Citizenship: Factual
and Perceived World Knowledge as Predictors of Global Citizenship Identification. International Journal of Develop-
ment Education and Global Learning, 5(1), 49–68. doi:10.18546/IJDEGL.05.1.04
Rhee, M. J. (1992). Language planning in Korea under the Japanese colonial administration, 1910–1945. Language,
Culture and Curriculum, 5(2), 87–97. doi:10.1080/07908319209525118
Riley, B. (2018). Sorry to Bother You. Annapurna Distribution.
Riley, S., Sims-Schouten, W., & Cahill, S. (2003). Exploring the dynamics of subjectivity and power between researcher
and researched. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 4(2), 40.
Roever, C., & Phakiti, A. (2017). Quantitative methods for second language research: A problem-solving approach.
Routledge.
Rosa, J. (2019). Looking like a language, sounding like a race: Raciolinguistic ideologies and the learning of Latinidad.
Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190634728.001.0001
Rosa, J. D. (2016). Standardization, racialization, languagelessness: Raciolinguistic ideologies across communicative

contexts. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 26(2), 162–183. doi:10.1111/jola.12116
Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society,
46(5), 621–647. doi:10.1017/S0047404517000562
Ross, K. (2015). Quality as critique: Promoting critical reflection among youth in structured encounter programs. Journal
of Peace Education, 12(2), 117–137. doi:10.1080/17400201.2014.979400
Rubdy, R. (2015). Unequal Englishes, the native speaker, and decolonization in TESOL. In R. Tupas (Ed.), Unequal
Englishes: The politics of Englishes today (pp. 42–58). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Rymes, B. (2010). Classroom discourse analysis: A focus on communicative repertoires. In N. H. Hornberger & A. Luke
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 528–546). Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847692849-021
Rymes, B. (2010). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Focus on Communicative Repertoires. In N. H. Hornberger & S.
L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 528–546). Multilingual Matters.
Saito, E., & Khong, T. D. H. (2017). Not just for special occasions: Supporting the professional learning of teachers
through critical reflection with audio-visual information. Reflective Practice, 18(6), 837–851. doi:10.1080/14623943.
2017.1361921
Saito, L. E. (2020). The complexities of generational status in fourth and fifth generation Japanese Americans. The Fam-
ily Journal (Alexandria, Va.). Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1066480720977510
Salomon, G. (1992). The changing role of the teacher: From information transmitter to orchestrator of teaching. In F. K.
Oser, A. Dick, & J. L. Patry (Eds.), Effective and Responsible Teaching: The New Synthesis (pp. 35–49). Jossey-Bass.
Saltis, M. N., Giancaterino, B., & Piece, C. (2020). Professional dispositions of teacher candidates: Measuring disposi-
tions at a large teacher preparation university to meet national standards. Teacher Educator, 1–15.
Sanchez, P. M., Doherty, D., & Dobbs, K. L. (2020). Skin Color and System Support in Latin America. Journal of Race,
Ethnicity, and Politics, 1–21. doi:10.1017/rep.2020.13
Santiago-Ortiz, A. (2019). From Critical to Decolonizing Service-Learning: Limits and Possibilities of Social Justice-
Based Approaches to Community Service-Learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 25(1), 43–54.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (2017). On the impossibility of learning “not to see”: Colorblindness, invisibility, and anti-bias educa-
tion. International Critical Childhood Policy Studies Journal, 6(1), 38–51.
Saunders, W. (1999). Improving literacy achievement for English learners in transitional bilingual programs. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 5(4), 345–381. doi:10.1076/edre.5.4.345.6936
Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (1999). The effects of instructional conversations and literature logs on the story
comprehension and thematic understanding of English proficiency and limited English proficient students. Center for
Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Save The Children. (2020, April 14). Learning must go on: Recommendations for keeping children safe and learning,
during and after the COVID-19 crisis. Resource Centre. https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/library/learning-must-
go-recommendations-keeping-children-safe-and-learning-during-and-after-covid
Savignon, S. (1990). Communicative language teaching: Definitions and directions. Georgetown University Round Table
on Languages and Linguistics, 1, 207-217.
Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (2007). Language socialization: An historical overview. In P. A. Duff & S. May (Eds.), En-
cyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 1–13). Springer.
Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engage-
ment: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1),
1–28. doi:10.118641239-017-0063-0
Schleppegrell, M. J., Achugar, M., & Oteíza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content‐based instruction
through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 67–93. doi:10.2307/3588259
Schleppegrell, M. J., & Bowen, B. (1995). Problem-posing: A tool for curriculum renewal. ELT Journal, 49(4), 297–306.
doi:10.1093/elt/49.4.297
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the profes-
sions. Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D. A. (1992). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge.
Schulman, L. (1999). Foreword. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the Learning Profession (pp.
xi–xiv). Jossey-Bass.
Schwarzer, D. (2001). Whole language in a foreign language class: From theory to practice. Foreign Language Annals,
34(1), 52–59. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02802.x
Scott, S. S., & Edwards, W. (2012). Project LINC: Supporting lecturers and adjunct instructors in foreign language
classrooms. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(3), 253–258. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ994290
Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2013). Social media for teaching and learning. Pearson Learning Systems.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences
(3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Senior, R. (2006). Maintaining the classroom community. In The experience of language teaching (pp. 199–227). Cam-
bridge University Press.
Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts on social justice educa-
tion. Teachers College Press.
Shandomo, H. M. (2010). The role of critical reflection in teacher education. School-University Partnerships, 4(1), 101–113.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers’ attitudes and concerns
about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773–785.
doi:10.1080/09687590802469271
Shawcross, P. (2019). What do we mean by the ‘washback effect’ of testing? ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/242129949_What_do_we_mean_by_the_’washback_effect’_of_testing
Sherman, B., & Teemant, A. (2021). Enduring principles of learning: Pathways to vital learning in vibrant classrooms.
Academic Press.
Shin, N. (2018). The effects of the initial English language learner classification on students’ later academic outcomes.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(2), 175–195. doi:10.3102/0162373717737378
Shogren, K. A., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2014). Using the core concepts framework to understand three generations of
inclusive practices. Inclusion, 2(3), 237–247. doi:10.1352/2326-6988-2.3.237
Shohamy, E. (2001a). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Pearson Education.
Shohamy, E. (2001b). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18(4), 373–391.

doi:10.1177/026553220101800404
Shohamy, E. (2012). Linguistic landscapes and multilingualism. In The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp.
Shohamy, E. (2017). Critical Language Testing. In E. Shohamy, I. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assess-
ment (pp. 441–454). Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_26
Shor, I. (1980). Critical teaching and everyday life. South End Press.
Short, D., Cloud, N., Hellman, A., Becker, H., & Levine, L. (2018). The 6 principles for exemplary teaching of English
learners: K-12. TESOL International Association. https://www.tesol.org/the-6-principles/the-6-principles
Sietz, K. A. (2011). Parent Collaboration: Developing partnerships with families and caregivers. In R. Powell & E. C.
Simmons, C. L. (2019). Critical consciousness: A measurement tool for english to speakers of other languages (ESOL)
teachers in U.S. K-12 education (Order No. 27543844). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(2321028721). Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/critical-
consciousness-measurement-tool-english/docview/2321028721/se-2?accountid=14749
Simmons, D. (2017). Is Social-Emotional Learning Really Going to Work for Students of Color? Education Week. https://
www.edweek.org/education/opinion-is-social-emotional-learning-really-going-to-work-for-students-of-color/2017/06
Simmons, D. (2019). Why we can’t afford white-washed social emotional learning. ACSD. http://www.ascd.org/publica-
tions/newsletters/education_update/apr19/vol61/num04/Why_We_Can’t_Afford_Whitewashed_Social-Emotional_Learn-
ing.aspx
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Phillipson, R., Mohanty, A., & Panda, M. (2009). Social justice through multilingual education.
In Social justice through multilingual education (1st ed., Vol. 7). Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847691910
Smagorinsky, P. (2013). What does Vygotsky provide for the 21st century language arts teacher? Language Arts, 90(3),
192–204.
Smith Jaggars, S., & West Stacey, G. (2014, January). What we know about developmental education outcomes. Research
Overview, Community College Research Center, Teacher’s College, Columbia University.
Smith, A. M. (2006). Inclusion in English language teacher training and education [PhD Thesis, Lancaster University].
http://www.eltwell.co.uk/docs/Inclusion-In-English-Language-Teacher-Training-and-Education.pdf
Smith, A. M. (2008). Inclusive education within TEFL certificate courses. In J. Kormos & E. H. Kontra (Eds.), Language
learners with special needs (pp. 214–233). Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847690913-011
Smitherman, G., & Villanueva, V. (2000). Language knowledge and awareness survey conducted by the CCCC language
policy committee: Final research report. National Council of Teachers of English Research Foundation and the Confer-
ence on College Composition.
Smitherman, G. (2000). Talkin that talk: Language, culture, and education in African America. Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203254394
Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd.
doi:10.5040/9781350225282
Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2),
2–9. doi:10.1177/002248718904000202
Social Justice Standards the Teaching Tolerance Anti-bias framework. (2016). Retrieved March 23, 2021, from https://
www.learningforjustice.org/
Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (Eds.). (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. Sage.
Sowell, J., & Sugisaki, L. (2020). An exploration of EFL teachers’ experience with learning disability training. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 13(1), 114–134. doi:10.5294/laclil.2020.13.1.7
Speaking Content StandardsC. A. S. A. S. https://www.casas.org/docs/research/speaking-content-standards.pdf?sfvrsn=
Spigelman, C. (2001). Argument and Evidence in the Case of the Personal. College English, 64(1), 63–87.
doi:10.2307/1350110
Spolsky, B. (2017). History of Language Testing. In E. Shohamy, I. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language Testing and Assess-
ment. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd ed.). Springer., doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_32
Stanlick, S. (2015). Getting “real” about transformation: The role of brave spaces in creating disorientation and trans-
formation. Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library.
Stapleton, P., & Shao, Q. (2018). A worldwide survey of MATESOL programs in 2014: Patterns and perspectives.
Language Teaching Research, 22(1), 10–28. doi:10.1177/1362168816659681
Steyn, B., & Le Roux, I. (2007). Experiential learning and critical reflection as a tool for transfer of business knowledge:
An empirical case study of a start-up simulation intervention for nascent entrepreneurs. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir
Ekonomiese en Bestuurswetenskappe, 10(3), 330–347. doi:10.4102ajems.v10i3.694
Stillman, J., Anderson, L., Arellano, A., Wong, P. L., Berta-Avila, M., Alfaro, C., & Struthers, K. (2013). Putting PACT
in context and context in PACT: Teacher educators collaborating around program-specific and shared learning goals.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(4), 135–157.
Strauss, V. (2020, March 27). 1.5 Billion children around globe affected by school closure. What countries are doing to
keep kids learning during pandemic. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/03/26/nearly-
14-billion-children-around-globe-are-out-school-heres-what-countries-are-doing-keep-kids-learning-during-pandemic/
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded Theory procedures and techniques (2nd
ed.). Sage. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/basics-of-qualitative-research/book235578
Stremmel, A. J. (2007). The value of teacher research: Nurturing professional and personal growth through inquiry.
Voices of Practitioners, 2(3), 1–9.
Suhr, M. (2014). Identity re-construction: An autoethnographic inquiry of an experienced non-native English speaking
teacher in an English-dominant country [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
Sun, C. S. C. (2019). Indigenous media in transformation: Languages and other factors in Taiwan. The Asia Dialogue.
Retrieved March, 21, 2021, from https://theasiadialogue.com/2019/09/21/ indigenous-media-in-transformation-languages-
and-other-factors-in-taiwan/
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. Handbook of research in second language teaching and
learning, 1, 471-483.
Swan, M., & Smith, B. (2001). Learning English. A teacher’s guide to inference and other problems. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667121
Szecsy, E. (2008). Technology in language teaching and learning. In J. M. González (Ed.), Encyclopedia of bilingual
education (Vol. 1, pp. 822–825). SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412963985.n313
Teachable. (n.d.). Get started with teachable. Retrieved March 23, 2021 from https://support.teachable. com/hc/en-us/
articles/219891027-Get-Started-with-Teachable
Teacher, M. (n.d.). Mobile Teacher - Watch. Teach. Share. http://mobileteacher.org/
Teaching Tolerance. (2017). Social justice standards. Academic Press.

Teaching Tolerance. (2018). Social Justice Standards: The teaching tolerance anti-bias framework. The Southern Pov-
erty Law Center.
Teemant, A., & Hausman, C. (2013, April 15). The relationship of teacher use of critical sociocultural practices with student
achievement. Critical Education, 4(4). Retrieved from https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/182434
Teemant, A., Leland, C., & Berghoff, B. (2014, April). Development and validation of a measure of Critical Stance for
instructional coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 136–147. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.008
TESOL International Association. (2010). Standards for initial TESOL pre-K-12 teacher preparation programs. TESOL.
TESOL International Association. (2019). Standards for Initial TESOL Pre-K-12 Teacher Preparation Programs. Author.
TESOL International Association. (2019). Standards for initial TESOL Pre-K-12 teacher preparation programs. TESOL.
TESOL. (n.d.). TESOL Advocacy Action Center. TESOL International Association. https://www.tesol.org/advance-the-
field/tesol-advocacy-action-center
TESOL. (n.d.). TESOL Communities of Practice. TESOL International Association. https://www.tesol.org/connect/

communities-of-practice
Tess, P. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual)–A literature review. Computers
in Human Behavior, 29(5), A60–A68. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.032
Tharp, R. (2006). Four hundred years of evidence: Culture, pedagogy, and Native America. Journal of American Indian
Education, 45(2), 6–25.
Tharp, R., Estrada, P., Dalton, S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclu-
sion, and harmony. Westview Press.
Thomas, D. P. (2016). Critical pedagogy and Socially Responsible Investing (SRI): Questioning our post-secondary
institutions’ investment strategies. Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 4–21. doi:10.3167/latiss.2016.090302
Thomas, J. J. (2005). Illuminating the path: The research and development agenda for visual analytics. IEEE.
Tian, W., & Louw, S. (n.d.). Appreciative Advising and Reflection In Feedback On Teaching Practice In Pre-Service
Teacher Training. The Appreciative Inquiry Commons. https://appreciativeinquiry.champlain.edu/educational-material/
appreciative-advising-and-reflection-in-feedback-on-teaching-practice-in-pre-service-teacher-training/
Tierney, W. G., & Duncheon, J. C. (2016). The problem of college readiness. SUNY Press.
Tierney, W. G., & Sablan, J. R. (2014). Examining college readiness. The American Behavioral Scientist, 58(8), 943–946.
doi:10.1177/0002764213515228
Tinker Sachs, G. M., & Ho, B. (2011). Using cases in EFL/ESL teacher education. Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching, 5(3), 273–289. doi:10.1080/17501229.2010.537755
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. ASCD.
Torres, P. V., & Stukan, D. (2019). Racial bias within the TESOL profession and its implication in the EFL context: Interview
with Ryuko Kubota. MEXTESOL Journal, 43(1). http://mextesol.net/journal/index.php?page=journal&id_article=5693
Torres, C., & Rao, K. (2019). UDL for language learners. CAST Professional Publishing.
Transcript of Exhibit 2 at 14, State v. Lane, (Hennepin Cnty. Minn., July 7, 2020) (27-CR-20-12951)
Troudi, S. (2018). Politics of testing and assessment. In The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp.
1–8). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0356
Tyler, R. W. (2013). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chi-
cago/9780226086644.001.0001
U. S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Academic performance and outcomes for English learners: Performance on
national assessments and on-time graduation rates. https://www2.ed.gov /datastory/el-outcomes/index.html
U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). English Language Fellow Program. U.S. Department of State. https://exchanges.state.
gov/us/program/english-language-fellow-program
U.S. Educational Language Policy. (2020). Retrieved September 10, 2020, from https://www.cal.org/areas-of-impact/
language-planning-policy/u.s.-educational-language-policy
U.S. Peace Corps. (n.d.). Work for the World. Make the Most of Your World. https://www.peacecorps.gov/
UN. (n.d.). Goal 4 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4
UNESCO. (2013). Inclusive practice: Equality and diversity for academics. https://en.unesco.org/inclusivepolicylab/
system/files/teams/discussion/2018/2/e-and-d-for-academics-factsheet-inclusive-practice.pdf
UNESCO. (2019, October 31). What teacher shortage? It’s not just the scale but the nature of the challenge. World
Education Blog. https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/what-teacher-shortage-its-not-just-the-scale-but-
the-nature-of-the-challenge/
UNESCO. (2020, July 7). Distance learning solutions. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/

solutions
UNESCO. (n.d.). Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all. UNESCO. unesdoc.
unesco.org. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718/PDF/373718eng.pdf.multi.page=23
UNESCO. (n.d.). ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/themes/ict-education/

competency-framework-teachers
UNHCR. (2020, April). UNHCR Engaging with Communities via “WhatsApp Trees”. UNHCR Operational Data Portal
(ODP). https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/77836
UNHCR. (2020, June). Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2019. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
https://www.unhcr.org/5ee200e37.pdf
UNICEF LACRO. (n.d.). Children in Latin America and the Caribbean. UNICEF Latin America and Caribbean. https://
www.unicef.org/lac/en/children-latin-america-and-caribbean
UNICEF. (n.d.). COVID-19: Education preparedness and response. UNICEF Latin America and Caribbean. https://
www.unicef.org/lac/en/covid-19-education-preparedness-and-response
United Nations. (n.d.). Goal 4 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4
United Nations. (n.d.a). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol. https://www.un.org/
disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf
United Nations. (n.d.b). Goal 4. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4
Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing language teacher identity: Three perspec-
tives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4(1), 21–44. doi:10.120715327701jlie0401_2
Viesca, K. M., Teemant, A., Hammer, S., Alisaari, J., Perumal, R., Flynn, N., Routarinne, S., Ennser-Kananen, J. (Under
Review). Quality content teaching for multilingual students: An international examination of excellence in instructional
practices in four nations.
Villanueva, V. (2006). Blind: Talking about the new racism. Writing Center Journal, 26(1), 3–19.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. State University
of New York Press.
Vogt, K. (2015). Teachers’ assessment literary enhancement: Needs analysis report. https://taleproject.eu/pluginfile.
php/2127/mod_page/content/2/TALE%20Needs%20analysis%20report.pdf
Von Braun, J. (n.d.). Forecast 2020: Financial Meltdown and Malnutrition. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/
chronicle/article/forecast-2020-financial-meltdown-and-malnutrition
Vosloo, S. (2018). Designing inclusive digital solutions and developing digital skills: Guidelines. https://unesdoc.unesco.
org/ark:/48223/pf0000265537
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S.
Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.
Walker, I., Chan, D. K. G., Nagami, M., & Bourguignon, C. (Eds.). (2018). New Perspectives on the Development of
Communicative and Related Competence in Foreign Language Education. Academic Press.
Waller, L., Wethers, K., & De Costa, P. I. (2017). A critical praxis: Narrowing the gap between identity, theory, and
practice. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 4–27. doi:10.1002/tesj.256
Walliman, N. (2017). Research methods: The basics. Routledge.
Walqui, A. (2008). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. doi:10.1080/13670050608668639
Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners: A peda-
gogy of promise. WestEd.
Wang, J., An, N., & Wright, C. (2018). Enhancing beginner learners’ oral proficiency in a flipped Chinese foreign
language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5-6), 490–521. doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1417872
Weaver, T. (2020). Antiracism in social-emotional learning: Why it’s not enough to talk the talk. EdSurge. https://www.
edsurge.com/news/2020-06-16-antiracism-in-social-emotional-learning-why-it-s-not-enough-to-talk-the-talk
Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. doi:10.1093/applin/
amx039
Wei, L., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Translanguaging classroom discourse: Pushing limits, breaking boundaries. Classroom
Discourse, 10(3-4), 209–215. doi:10.1080/19463014.2019.1635032
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511803932
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowl-
edge. Harvard Business Press.
West, G. B. (2021). “Is this a safe space?”: Examining an emotionally charged eruption in critical language pedagogy.
Education Sciences, 11(4), 186. doi:10.3390/educsci11040186
WFP. (2020, July 2). Coronavirus and hunger: WFP ready to assist largest number of people ever: World Food Pro-
gramme. UN World Food Programme. https://www.wfp.org/stories/coronavirus-and-hunger-wfp-ready-assist-largest-
number-people-ever
WFP. (2020, May 27). Coronavirus puts 14 million people at risk of missing meals in Latin America and the Caribbean.
World Food Programme. https://insight.wfp.org/covid-19-puts-14-million-people-at-risk-of-missing-meals-in-latin-
america-and-the-caribbean-a54e42789153
Whipp, J. L. (2003). Scaffolding critical reflection in online discussions: Helping prospective teachers think deeply about
field experiences in urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 321–333. doi:10.1177/0022487103255010
Whitaker, M., & Valtierra, K. (2018). The dispositions for culturally responsive pedagogy scale. Journal for Multicultural
Education., 12(1), 10–24. doi:10.1108/JME-11-2016-0060
Whitaker, M., & Valtierra, K. (2019). Schooling Multicultural Teachers. Emerald Publishing. doi:10.1108/9781787697171
Widodo, H. P., Perfecto, M. R., Van Canh, L., & Buripakdi, A. (2018). Situating Moral and Cultural Values in ELT
Materials. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63677-1
Williams, B. (2001). Developing critical reflection for professional practice through problem‐based learning. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 34(1), 27–34. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.3411737.x PMID:11430603
Williams, L., & Kocher-Klicker, J. (2011). Evaluations: Open World Units 1-8. Klett Verlag.
Williams, M. K. (2017). John Dewey in the 21st Century. Journal of Inquiry and Action in Education, 9(1). https://
digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/jiae/vol9/iss1/7
Wilson, P. M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W., & Natareth, I. (2010). Disseminating research findings: What should re-
searchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implementation Science; IS, 5(1), 1–16. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-91
Witenstein, M. A., & Saito, L. E. (2015). Exploring the educational implications of the third space framework for trans-
national Asian adoptees. Berkeley Review of Education, 5(2), 117–136. doi:10.5070/B85110051
Wong. (2020). Smartphone market in Taiwan - Statistics & Facts. Statista. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from https://www.
statista.com/topics/6038/smartphone-market-in-taiwan/
Wood, L. A. (2018). The spectacle of lynching: Rituals of white supremacy in the Jim Crow South. American Journal
of Economics and Sociology, 77(3-4), 757–788. doi:10.1111/ajes.12249
World Health Organization. (2019). Disability. https://www.who.int/disabilities/en/
Wright, T., & Bolitho, R. (1993). Language awareness: A missing link in language teacher education? ELT Journal,
47(4), 292–304. doi:10.1093/elt/47.4.292
Wright, W. E. (2019). Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research Theory, Policy, and Practice
(3rd ed.). Caslon.
Xiong, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2018). Understanding East Asian graduate students’ socio-cultural and psychological adjustment
in a U.S. midwestern university. Journal of International Students, 8(2), 769–794. doi:10.32674/jis.v8i2.103
Yang, S. (2009). Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice. Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy & Society, 12(2), 11–21.
Ye, X. (2021). EFL Learning motivation differences of Chinese junior secondary school students: A mixed-methods
study. Education, 49(2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2019.1711143
Yon, D. A. (2003). Highlights and overview of the history of educational ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology,
32(1), 411429. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093449
Yost, S. Y., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, S. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection:
Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39–49.
doi:10.1177/002248710005100105
Young, I. M. (2011). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.
Young, V. A. (2010). Should writers use they own English? Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1), 110–117.
doi:10.17077/2168-569X.1095
Zeichner, K. M. (1981-1982). Reflective teaching and field-based experience in teacher education. Interchange (Wash-
ington, D.C.), 12(4), 1–22. doi:10.1007/BF01807805
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zentella, A. C. (2016). “Socials,” “poch@s,” “normals” y los demás: School networks and linguistic capital of high school
students on the Tijuana-San Diego border. In H. S. Alim, J. R. Rickford, & A. F. Ball (Eds.), Raciolinguistics: how language
shape our ideas about race (pp. 327–346). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190625696.003.0019
Zhalelkanova, A. (2019). Pre-service EFL teachers’ views on inclusive education ELT: A comparative study of Kazakh
and Turkish contexts [Master’s Thesis, Pamukkale University]. http://acikerisim.pau.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/
handle/11499/26994/Aizat%20Zhalelkanova.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Zhang, H., Yuan, R., & Wang, Q. (2018). Toward an understanding of EFL teacher culture: An ethnographic study in
China. Teachers and Teaching, 24(4), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2017.1391773
Zhao, C. G., & Liao, L. (2021). Metacognitive strategy use in L2 writing assessment. System, 98, 102472. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102472
Zhou, J., & Cole, D. (2016). Comparing international and American students: Involvement in college life and overall
satisfaction. Higher Education, 73(5), 655–672. doi:10.100710734-016-9982-2
Zhu, H. (2014). Reflective thinking on EFL classroom discourse. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 5(6),
1275–1282. doi:10.4304/jltr.5.6.1275-1282
Zizumbo-Colunga, D., & Flores Martínez, I. (2017, November 7). Is Mexico a Post-Racial Country? Inequality and
Skin Tone across the Americas. Center for Research and Teaching in Economics. Center for Research and Teaching in
Economics, CIDE. https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/ITB031en.pdf
Zygmunt, E. M., Cipollone, K., & Tancock, S. (2020). Community-Engaged Teacher Preparation and the Development
of Dispositions for Equity and Social Justice. Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, 1299-1319.
538
About the Contributors
Jenifer Crawford is a Professor of Clinical Education in the Rossier School of Education at the Uni-
versity of Southern California. Crawford earned her Ph.D. in Urban Schooling from UCLA specializing
in teachers’ leadership and advocacy in public schools in collaboration with linguistically and racially
minoritized communities. A former teacher in the U.S., Mexico, and Brazil, she currently prepares
multilingual teachers for diverse learners and contexts. Her research interests include critical praxis in
language education rooted in critical pedagogy, an understanding of racial discourses, leveraging parent
and community involvement, and integrating technology.
***
Laura Loder Buechel received her M.Ed. from Northern Arizona University in 2000 and her PhD
from the University of Fribourg, Switzerland in 2014. She is a teacher trainer at Zurich University of
Teacher Education and more information can be found here: https://phzh.ch/personen/laura.loder.
Ebru Damar is a faculty member in applied linguistics at Bursa Uludag University in Bursa, Turkey.
Nevin Durmaz is an experienced language teacher and former Fulbright Language Teaching As-
sistant at Indiana University, Bloomington. She earned a Masters of Arts in Women’s Studies from
Istanbul University and a Masters of Arts in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages from the
University of Southern California. Her research interests include critical pedagogy, discourse analysis,
active learning and technology use in classroom.
Esther Gross, Ed.D., serves as the Global Education Director for Hebrew Studies at The Center for
Educational Technology in Israel and is a visiting professor at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles,
California. A former Hebrew language teacher and K-12 director for two decades, Dr. Gross teaches
pre- and in-service Hebrew teachers in various schools across the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Aus-
tralia, Europe, and the Middle East. Dr. Gross teaches pre-service and in-service Hebrew teachers about
the theories of language learning and strives to promote the implementation of critical and progressive
pedagogies and technology in teaching Hebrew-as-a-second-language. She has also led and participated
in evaluation processes of various Jewish day schools and has written textbooks and teacher guides
for Novice learners guided by critical and progressive approaches to Hebrew language instruction. In
addition, she is one of the co-founders of the National Association of Hebrew Teachers (NAHET) in
North America and its former co-chair. She has earned her Doctorate in Educational Leadership from

the University of Southern California. Her dissertation on Critical Ambitious Pedagogy was nominated
for Dissertation of the Year Award.
Katherine Guevara, DPPD, MS TESOL, MSSE, with educational leadership experience in 80

countries on 6 continents, strives to collaboratively design more accessible and inclusive learning and
training which has reached millions in-person, online, on TV, via mobile apps and text messaging. Dr.
Guevara is Founder and CEO of the social enterprise Mobile Teacher; UNICEF consultant on Educa-
tion in Emergencies for the Most Vulnerable in Latin America and the Caribbean; Associate Director
of Clinical and Translational Research Education directing an education resource center at the Southern
California Clinical and Translational Science Institute (SC CTSI); Instructional Designer, and Faculty in
the Rossier School of Education MAT-TESOL program at the University of Southern California, United
States of America (USA). Dr. Guevara has also served as a TESOL professional for the U.S. Department
of State/Georgetown University English Language Specialist and Fellow Programs in Ecuador, and for
the U.S. Peace Corps in Ukraine.
Dawn Janke is Executive Director of Writing and Learning Initiatives at California Polytechnic
State University in San Luis Obispo where she leads writing across the curriculum and academic sup-
port programs designed to ensure optimal educational opportunities for the university’s diverse student
populations. Dr. Janke has taught college-level writing courses for the past twenty years. She is a member
of Cal Poly’s Academic Assessment Council, serves as secretary of the California State University (CSU)
English Council, and is a member of the CSU Admissions Advisory Board. Her research is centered on
writing and student achievement. She earned a doctorate from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California and a master’s degree in English from Southern Illinois University;
she also holds an Illinois professional educator license in English Education at the middle and second-
ary levels.
Nancy Kwang Johnson, MPA, MA, PhD (Cornell University, Government), Founding Executive
Director of M.A. in International Affairs program, Social Sciences and Humanities Division Chair, and
Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of New York Tirana (Albania), has two decades
of higher education experience in Albania, Canada, France, Senegal, Serbia, and the U.S. with exper-
tise in International Program Administration, Curriculum Design, and Teacher Training. Dr. Johnson
is pursuing her MAT-TESOL at the University of Southern California (2020-2021). Her research and
publications explore language, culture, and assimilation throughout the Asian and African Diasporas,
Negritude, Post-colonial and Diaspora Studies, Social Justice, and Critical Race Theory. Her teaching
languages are French and English. As a TESOL state affiliate board member, Dr. Johnson trains teachers
about DEI best practices. Within the affiliate, her additional roles include overseeing the DEI Taskforce
(as DEI Chair-Elect), coordinating social media communication, and professional development (chapter).
Dr. Johnson is a TESOL Guide for Critical Praxis Editorial Advisory Board member.
Samantha Jungheim is an experienced English instructor and alumnus of the University of South-
ern California (USC) Rossier School of Education Master of Arts in Teaching-TESOL program. Her
long-standing interest in foreign languages and cultures led her to teach for two and a half years in South
Korea. In 2019, Jungheim taught USC students’ spouses at the USC Office of International Services as
the English Language Program Coordinator where she empowered students with her culturally sustaining
539
lessons. She has worked in various roles for the USC American Language Institute (ALI) to aid USC
non-native English speakers in their academic and professional language goals. Jungheim initiated the
ALI Writing Labs and Book Club during the COVID-19 pandemic. In October 2020, she presented three
times during the CATESOL 2020 Regional State Conference. Jungheim continues contributing to the
TESOL field as a socially just educator, materials writer, and researcher.
Ziqi Li graduated from the University of Southern California, with a master’s degree majored in
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Her research interest is centered on com-
munity, identity, and language learning. More specifically, in her scholarship and practice she works to
understand the role of social interactions in culturally diverse community contexts on students’ identity,
performance, and language acquisition in and outside of the classroom. As both a bilingual learner and
educator, her research area explores how educators cross cultural, social, and racial differences to provide
educational access and practices in multicultural environments.
Shane Liliedahl graduated from The University of Southern California in 2018 with a MAT-TESOL.
He has taught ESL for 7 years, including a year abroad in Japan, and as head teacher for private ESL
institutions. He currently teaches at International Education Center at Orange Coast College.
Qinghua Liu graduated from the University of Southern California, with a master’s degree majored
in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)
Arthur McNeill is a faculty member at Webster University Thailand. He worked for over 20 years
at universities in Hong Kong, most recently at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
where he was Director of the Center for Language Education and Associate Dean of Humanities and
Social Science. He was formerly Associate Professor of Education Studies at Hong Kong Baptist Uni-
versity and Head of TESOL at Edinburgh University’s Moray House School of Education. His academic
interests include vocabulary acquisition, teacher language awareness and English for academic purposes.
He co-edited Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing (Multilingual Matters)
and co-authored the on-line course, English for Academic Study (Epigeum/OUP). He holds a PhD in
applied linguistics from the University of Wales, Swansea.
Emmy J. Min is an Associate Professor of Clinical Education at University of Southern California’s

MAT-TESOL and World Master in Language Teaching programs. Min’s research interests include issues
of instruction and assessments for the education of English language learning and ethnic minority stu-
dents. For over 20 years, Dr. Min has taught English in different international contexts, and as a teacher
educator, she has given workshops and presentations to current and prospective language teachers. Her
work related to assessment and instruction has been published in peer-reviewed journals and books.
Currently, she is also serving as a CATESOL board member.
Jennifer Miyake-Trapp, EdD, assistant professor of education at Pepperdine University Graduate

School of Education and Psychology, is a scholar-practitioner committed to social justice and educa-
tional equity through instructional transformation. She strives to empower educators to enact asset-based
pedagogical approaches in diverse learning contexts. Her primary interests focus on culturally sustaining
curriculum and instruction, teacher critical reflection, instructional design, learning technologies, and
540
English language teaching. Always close to K-12 classrooms, she frequently collaborates with local
public schools to develop student-centered, community-based programs and partnerships. Dr. Miyake-
Trapp is a leader in online learning and currently serves as Chair of the MS in Leadership suite and the
EdD in Learning Technologies programs at GSEP.
Ekaterina Moore is Associate Professor of Clinical Education at Rossier School of Education,

University of Southern California. Her interests include classroom language socialization, ethnography,
and discourse analysis.
L. Erika Saito is an Assistant Professor at National University, Sanford College of Education, Mas-
ters in Social Emotional Learning (SEL) & Masters in Inspired Teaching and Learning SEL Emphasis
Course Lead. She was a classroom teacher for 17 years in public and private institutions across southern
California, specializing in K-12 English language development and reading intervention. Her research
focuses on Asian American history, co-ethnic communities, ethnic identity, and generational status.
Pinar Sali works as an assistant professor at the department of English Language Teaching in Uludag
University, Turkey. She received her B.A. and M.A. in English Language Teaching from the same uni-
versity and her PhD in English Language Teaching from Anadolu University, Turkey. As a lecturer and
a teacher trainer, she teaches courses on second/foreign language teaching and language teacher educa-
tion both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Furthermore, she supervises M.A. theses. Her core
areas of interests include language teaching methodology, classroom interaction, and language teacher
education/training. More recently, she is also interested in critical pedagogy in language teaching, criti-
cal thinking, and teacher/language teacher professional identity.
Analee Scott finished her MA/TESOL degree at Gonzaga University in Spokane, WA in 2020. She
currently works at the University of California, Berkeley as a student affairs professional.
Xiaodi Sun, born in Xuzhou, China, and graduated from the University of Southern California, with
a master’s degree majored in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).
Camillia A. Trombino is currently an ESL Faculty Intern in the Faculty Diversity Internship Pro-
gram at Glendale Community College in Glendale, CA and an ESL Instructor at Kaplan International
in Los Angeles, CA. She is a recent graduate of the World Masters in Language Teaching program at
University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA and the Universidad Iberoamericana in Tijuana,
Mexico where she earned a double Master’s in TESOL and Education. She is passionate about critical
multilingual education, including research and outreach regarding language standards and the inequitable
power dynamics of English and Spanish in combination with each other and the indigenous languages
of the Americas. She has collaborated with students of all ages in dual immersion, art, and language
classrooms in the U.S. and Mexico, and will continue engaging students to consider the value attached
to their native languages and modes of speaking.
Jacqueline Vega López’s passion for positively influencing the field of Teaching English as a Second
Language (TESOL) cemented her role of being a life-long educator to the multicultural and multilingual
population it promotes. Her undergraduate studies in Cultural Anthropology at the University of Cali-
541
fornia, Santa Barbara (UCSB), and international experiences through the U.S. Department of State’s
Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholar Program allowed her to deeply understand the fundamentals
of intercultural appreciation with people of diverse backgrounds. Through her previous roles as a grade
school English teacher in South Korea and tutor at the University of Southern California (USC) for
language-learning graduate students, it became her greatest aspiration to spread excellent and equitable
language instruction everywhere. Her Master of Arts in Teaching-TESOL program at USC further fu-
eled her dream of empowering emergent multilingual students by working with colleagues to remain
committed to equity and uphold high language education standards.
Kara Mitchell Viesca, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Educa-
tion. Her scholarship focuses on advancing equity in the policy and practice of educator development,
particularly for teachers of multilingual learners.
Chuqi Wang was born in Jilin, China, and graduated from the University of Southern California,
with a master’s degree majored in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).
Kevin Wong is a tenure-track Assistant Professor at Pepperdine University in the Graduate School of
Education and Psychology. He received his Ph.D. in Teaching and Learning from New York University,
specializing in literacy and multilingual education. As a former TESOL elementary school teacher in
Hong Kong and current instructor in the TESOL program, his research is centered on advancing equity
in global TESOL contexts through multilingual education and critical inquiry.
Eric Yang is an EdD Student, University of British Columbia.
Ni Yin was born in Guangzhou, China, and graduated from the University of Southern California,
with a master’s degree majored in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).
Davey Young is a lecturer in the Department of English Studies at Sophia University in Tokyo, Japan.
He is a PhD candidate at Waseda University’s Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies. His research
focuses on the preparedness of English language teachers to teach students with disabilities, as well as
professional development towards inclusive practice.
Alexa Yunes-Koch is a Mexican immigrant and has taught multilingual learners in Mexico, U.S., and
China. She is currently a graduate research assistant at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, where she
teaches Multilingual Education. Her work focuses on reframing teachers’ perceptions around minoritized
learners with the goal of systemically empowering children from all backgrounds and interrupting racial
injustice in schools.
542
543
Index
4D Framework 305-309, 311-312, 316-318, 320 Classroom Norms 47, 51-56, 61, 191
5R Framework 307, 320 Code-Switching 20, 161, 177, 250
Colonizer-Colonized Dichotomy 26, 33, 495
A Communities Of Practice 46, 50, 463, 478, 489, 492, 495
Community Circle 50-51, 62, 396-398, 405
Academic Elitism 201 Community of Practice (COP) 455, 466
Academic Equity 201 Conditional Knowledge 132, 142-143, 154
Action Research 5, 210-211, 274, 413-414, 416-417, Critical Advocacy 468-469, 471-478, 483-484, 486-
436, 446 487, 489-492, 495
Activate Prior Knowledge 19 Critical Awareness 2, 14, 19, 34, 167, 288, 457, 471
Active Learning 373, 375-376, 378-379, 387, 391, 461 Critical Consciousness 34, 48, 127, 132, 134, 136-137,
Advocacy 88, 133, 222, 290, 300, 326, 336, 468-480, 139-141, 144-145, 147-148, 154, 203-205, 211,
482-484, 486-492, 495 214, 216-217, 220, 229, 234-235, 238, 287-290,
Advocate 22, 147, 214-216, 249, 290, 295, 447, 469- 297-300, 302, 373, 396, 468-469, 471-472, 474,
471, 476, 479-480, 489, 491, 495 476, 486-488, 492, 495
Affective Filter 117, 402, 405, 411 Critical Content 344-345, 347, 358, 364
Alpha 466 Critical Inquiry 204, 206, 208-212, 216, 245, 263
Andragogy 395, 411 Critical Language Reflection Tool 203, 209, 212,
Assessment 2, 7, 11, 63-77, 80-81, 118, 207, 209, 229, 214-215
232, 238, 263-265, 267, 331, 333-335, 339, 398- Critical Media Literacy 347
399, 402-403, 405, 407, 422, 432, 461, 478, 486 Critical Pedagogies 4, 373-376, 378
Authentic Dialogue 288-289, 295, 298, 300, 302 Critical Pedagogy 87, 261, 269, 277, 288, 290, 373,
Authentic Dialogue and Meaning Making 289, 298, 376, 391
300, 302 Critical Praxis 1, 9, 48, 58, 133, 159-160, 175, 180,
Authenticity 63, 66, 69, 73, 80, 427-428 199, 203, 206, 209, 216-217, 222, 246, 260,
Autoethnography 245-250, 255-256, 259, 492, 495 262-263, 287, 293, 295, 326, 344-347, 351, 354,
356-358, 412, 437
B Critical Reflection 10, 38, 71-73, 77, 80, 127, 138,
180, 183, 203-212, 214, 216-217, 229, 260-264,
Beta 466 267-269, 274, 277, 305-307, 309, 311, 316-318,
BIPOC 273, 277, 453-456, 463-464, 466 320-321, 373, 382, 391
Black Lives Matter 85, 87, 98-99, 102 Critical Thinking 10, 19, 58-59, 88, 102, 111, 115, 117,
Bloom’S Taxonomy 11, 104, 345-346, 350-351, 355 128, 147, 272, 289, 344-347, 349-351, 355, 382,
384, 394, 400, 404, 406, 408
C Critically-Oriented Ethnography 222, 224, 242
Cultural Capital 4, 135, 138-139, 289, 295, 302
Checklist 63, 127, 216, 260-261, 263-265, 267, 270- Culturally Affirming 215-216, 220
271, 273-274, 287-290, 292-293, 295, 297-300, Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teaching
446 and Learning 261
Classroom Ethnography 221, 227

Index
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 205, 216, 220, 224, Explicit Knowledge 154, 162, 164, 177
242, 391 Explicit Language Socialization 44-45, 47-48, 51,
Culturally Responsive Instruction 221-224, 229, 232, 56, 58-59, 62
238, 264, 277 Exploratory Practice 414-415, 437
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy 85, 87-89, 224, 242,
391 F
Culturally Sustaining 5, 109, 111, 216, 222, 224, 236,
242, 260-262, 266, 268, 271, 274, 277, 374-375, Fake News 348-349, 355
379, 383, 385, 387, 391, 394-396, 411, 453-454 Fixed Learning Centers 113, 131
Culturally Sustaining Education 411 Flipped Instruction 14, 19
Culturally Sustaining Instruction 242 Funds Of Knowledge 237, 261, 287-290, 293-295,
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy 5, 224, 242, 261-262, 298, 300, 302, 313, 375, 391
277, 375, 379, 383, 385, 387, 394-396
G
D
GLAD 52, 54-55, 62, 254, 316
Declarative Knowledge 154
Decolonization 179, 199, 201 H
Dialect 26, 66, 147, 162, 177
Differentiation 8, 73, 109-110, 114, 120, 131, 345, Higher-Order Concerns 135, 154
355, 384-386, 388, 395
Disability 140, 261, 268, 438-440, 445-447, 451, 473 I
Dispositions 85, 87-89, 104, 136, 204, 349
Diversity 23, 41, 44, 51, 53-54, 89, 109, 117, 121, 131, Identity 4, 10, 19, 21-23, 25-26, 30, 33-34, 36, 46, 51,
133-134, 138-139, 141, 147, 161, 171, 173, 185, 54, 77, 87, 89, 101, 133, 135, 144-145, 160, 162,
211, 237, 270, 290, 386, 395, 408, 411, 445, 461, 168, 171, 174, 179, 193, 237, 246-248, 250, 252-
464, 468-469, 488 255, 259, 287-290, 293, 295, 297-298, 300, 302,
Dominant Ideology 307, 321, 347 373, 396, 441, 455, 466, 471, 475, 478-479, 489
Dynamic Learning Centers 131 Implicit Bias 22, 88, 478, 495
Implicit Knowledge 154, 164
Inclusion 41, 50, 63, 88, 160, 216, 230, 237-238, 256,
E 339, 346, 380, 411, 442, 446-447, 461, 468-469
East Asian students 373, 379, 383 Inclusive classroom 44-45, 47, 49, 52-53, 58
Educational Equity 278 Inclusive Education 438-441, 446, 448, 451
Effective Teaching Practice 453, 455, 457-458, 466 Inclusive Practices 438-440, 442, 446-448, 451
Elementary 54, 212, 214, 226, 251, 264, 268-269, 462 Information Gap Activity 19
Elicit Performance 19 Input 3-4, 8, 11, 14-15, 19, 101, 122, 191, 235, 441
Emerging Bilinguals 278 Instructional Conversations 111, 116, 122, 125, 128,
Emic Perspective 183, 201, 428 131
Enduring Principles of Learning 108-110, 128 Integrated Reflective Cycle 307, 321
English As A Foreign Language 1, 14, 25, 85-86, 267 Integration 1-5, 9-10, 14, 19, 21, 198, 344-345, 348,
equitable classroom 45-46, 49, 59 355-356, 425
Equity in Assessment 80 Interactionist Model of Disability 439, 451
Equity In Education 216, 411 Interactive Scenarios 5, 19
equity-driven assessment 68-69 International Student 318, 380
Ethnography 221-225, 227, 230, 242, 246, 423 Intersectionality 22, 246, 248, 255, 259, 337, 342-343,
Etic Perspective 183, 201 468-469, 471, 473-475, 492
Evaluation 46, 58, 72, 76-77, 80, 209, 214, 229, 298- Investment 58, 187, 224, 238, 254, 288, 336
299, 326, 339, 418, 432, 437 Iron Triangle 468-469, 471, 475, 478, 483-484, 486-
Experiential Learning Cycle 307, 321 487, 489-492, 495
544
Index
K multilingual writing support 132-133, 135, 147

Multilingualism 118, 159, 169, 173, 182, 208, 214, 216
Knowledge Base 159-160, 162, 167, 455
N
L
News Literacy 347, 349, 355
L1 Profiles 160, 162-165, 168-169, 173-175 Non-Native English Speaker Teachers 454, 456, 464
Language Awareness 44-45, 47-48, 53, 56, 58-59,
159-162, 167-168, 174-175, 177-178 O
Language Classroom 5, 15, 44-45, 53, 87, 214, 216,
221, 223, 225, 255-256, 274, 314, 433, 469, 484 Official Language 168, 172, 178, 225, 406
Language Input 3-4, 19 Offline 330, 428, 453-454, 456, 463
Language Learner 21, 33, 37, 48, 77, 179, 193, 199- Online Instruction 266, 345
200, 233, 270, 470, 475 Otherness 41
Language Output 19 Output 3-4, 8, 11, 14-15, 19, 235, 348, 441
Language Policy 165-174, 178, 181, 208
Language Socialization 44-49, 51, 56, 58-59, 62, 250 P
Language Teaching 1, 5, 14-15, 19, 33, 54, 85, 87, 101,
139, 160, 164, 180, 212, 221-222, 225-226, 233, Pedagogy 5, 21-22, 42, 65, 85, 87-89, 108-110, 112,
238, 242, 247, 255, 373-374, 394-395, 413, 442, 132, 134-137, 144, 205, 207, 214-216, 220, 224,
448, 464, 468-469 229, 232, 238, 242, 261-262, 264-265, 267, 269,
Language Teaching Program 242 277-278, 288, 290, 295, 299, 373, 375-376, 379,
Languaging 2, 19, 135-136, 139, 142, 144-145, 215, 383, 385, 387, 391, 394-396, 454-455, 461
225, 237 Positionality 22, 34, 154, 184, 193, 198, 201, 204, 217,
Learning Campaign 327, 330-331, 333-334, 336, 343 233, 246-248, 250, 252-256, 259, 349, 474, 478
Learning Centers 108-109, 111-118, 120-122, 125, Positions Of Power 168, 255, 287-290, 298, 300, 302
128, 131, 329 Practicality 63, 66, 69-70, 76, 80, 117, 355
Lesson Planning 1-2, 5, 20, 101, 355 Praxis 1-2, 9, 23, 37, 48, 58, 64-65, 89-90, 118, 133,
Lower-Order Concerns 154 159-160, 175, 180, 199, 203, 206, 209, 216-217,
222, 237, 245-246, 260, 262-264, 266-267, 274,
M 287, 293, 295, 326, 336, 344-347, 351, 354, 356-
358, 412, 437, 454, 463, 468, 475-476
Machiavellian 468-469, 491, 495 Pre-Service Teacher Education 90
Majority World 453-454, 456, 462-464, 466 Primary School 88-89, 101, 165, 312, 314
Meaning Making 140, 215, 287-289, 298, 300, 302 Problem-Based Learning 381-382, 391
Media-Related Literacies 345-347, 349-350, 355, 358 Procedural Knowledge 154, 455
Medical Models of Disability 439, 451 Professional Development 37, 204, 216-217, 271, 375,
Medium Of Instruction 166, 168, 174, 178, 215 383, 387, 403-404, 407-408, 412, 415, 417, 431,
Metalanguage 162, 165-167, 178 446, 453-454, 456, 462, 478, 488, 492
Metalinguistic Awareness 132, 136, 140-143, 148,
154, 162-164, 178 Q
Micro-Learning 326-327, 331, 343
Migrant/Refugee 327-328, 330, 336-339, 342-343 Qualitative Research 183, 245, 423-424, 428, 437
Minoritized Learners 2, 19 Quantitative Research 422-423, 437
Minority Language 178
Mixed-Methods Research 437 R
Monolingual Standards 181, 201
Most Vulnerable Learner 342-343 Raciolinguistic Context 9, 19
Multicultural Environment 394, 411 Raciolinguistic Ideologies 225, 243
Multilingual Education 3-4, 10, 108 Reflection Framework 217
545
Index
Reflection Tool 203, 206-209, 212, 214-217 Student-Centered Learning 290, 298, 302
Reflective Practice 204, 208, 211, 220, 229, 243, 249, Students with Disabilities 438-442, 445-447
262, 269, 271, 273, 313, 414-416, 437, 446 Sustainable Development Goals 326-327, 439
Reflective Practitioners 226, 243, 263, 376
Reflective Research 373-374, 376-384, 386-387 T
Reflexivity 136, 142, 238, 246, 249-250, 255-256, 259
Relationship Skills 25, 42 Teacher Education 90, 101, 104, 164, 203, 206-207,
Reliability 63, 66, 68-69, 71, 76, 80, 274, 423, 427, 211, 216, 298-299, 305, 374, 454-455, 480
429, 431 Teacher Educators 9, 203-204, 206, 210, 212, 216-
Research Methodology 245 217, 480
Responsible Decision-Making 25, 42 Teacher Language Awareness 159-160, 162, 167-168,
Restorative Justice 22, 33, 50, 62 174, 178
Role Fluidity 199, 202 Teacher Learning 245, 274
Teacher Reflection 20, 89, 204, 210, 263, 265
S Teacher Research 412-415, 418, 432, 437
Teacher Training 85, 87, 89, 94, 101, 267, 273, 287,
Second Language Acquisition 3-4, 159-160, 223, 236, 289, 297, 338, 412-413, 432, 438, 440-442, 446-
411, 443, 446 448, 456, 463-464, 469
Second Language Socialization 46-47, 62 Teaching Strategies 114, 313, 317, 373-376, 394-397,
Self-Awareness 21, 25, 42, 223, 247 402, 404, 411, 429
Self-Management 25, 42 TESOL 1-5, 9, 21, 23, 25, 27, 33-34, 36-38, 46, 56,
Six Principles 63-64, 66, 76, 111, 326-327 58, 93, 109-112, 132-133, 159, 167-168, 174-175,
SMS 326, 330-331, 333, 335-336, 343 179-180, 182, 199-200, 203-204, 206-212, 214,
Social Action 2, 4-5, 14-15, 19, 48, 65, 398 216-217, 222, 226, 233, 245-248, 250, 252-256,
Social and Emotional Learning 22, 42 260-262, 265, 267-268, 273-275, 279, 287-288,
Social Awareness 25, 88 305-307, 309, 311-312, 314, 317-318, 320, 326-
Social Emotion 411 329, 332, 336-340, 344-349, 356, 364, 373-374,
Social Justice 4-5, 7, 21-25, 27-30, 33, 37, 42, 48, 51, 376-378, 382, 384, 386-387, 394, 397, 404,
53-54, 56, 85-90, 93, 98, 101, 132, 135, 139, 184, 412-414, 419, 422, 424, 427-428, 432-433, 438,
205, 229, 235, 237-238, 267, 271, 275, 278, 288, 440, 442-443, 446-448, 453-458, 461, 463-464,
290, 302, 311, 321, 375, 395, 403, 408, 438, 442, 468-469, 471, 474, 478-479, 483-484, 487-492
448, 451-452, 455, 469, 488-489 TESOL Educators 1-2, 27, 38, 56, 109-112, 167-168,
Social Justice Education 86, 442, 452 203-204, 206-207, 209-210, 212, 216-217, 245,
Social Justice Perspective 448, 451 250, 252-253, 260-261, 273, 305-307, 320, 326-
Social Justice Standards 7, 22-23, 27, 30, 51, 53-54, 329, 331, 338-339, 373, 376, 382, 404, 453-454,
56, 87, 89, 93, 98, 101, 290 456-458, 461, 463-464, 488
Social Media 15, 344-358, 364 Tool 63, 65-66, 77, 101, 110, 112, 144, 179, 203,
Social Media Ecosystem 344-348, 350-358, 364 205-209, 212, 214-217, 221-222, 225, 229-230,
Social Relevance 395, 397, 401-402, 405 245, 264-265, 267-268, 275, 287, 305-307, 320,
Social-Awareness 23, 42 346, 353, 355, 357, 401, 404, 414, 428, 457,
Socially Relevant Education 411 460, 462, 488
Sociopolitical Context 4, 10, 20 Transformative Intellectuals 48, 226, 238, 243
Solidarity Work 5, 14-15, 20 Translanguaging/Translingualism 202
Specific Learning Difficulty 438, 439, 441, 452 Trauma-Informed Teaching and Learning 326-327,
Stakeholder 217, 470, 483, 495 338, 343
Standard Language Ideology 202 types of knowledge 142, 155
Student Reflection 20
546
Index
U W
Unpacking 85, 88, 104 Washback 63, 66, 70, 73, 75-77, 80
User Testing 457, 466 Working Definition 457-458, 467
Writing center pedagogy 132, 137, 144
V Writing System 159, 165, 178
Validity 63, 66-69, 75-76, 80, 217, 274, 427, 429

Video 3, 8, 11, 19, 70, 293, 297-298, 343, 350-351,
361, 384, 397, 406, 417, 453-455, 457, 459-463
547

TESOL Guide For Critical Praxis in Teaching, Inquiry, and Advocacy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TESOL Guide For Critical Praxis in Teaching, Inquiry, and Advocacy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TESOL Guide for Critical

A volume in the Advances in Educational

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

Teaching Practices and Language Ideologies for Multilingual Classrooms

Practical Perspectives on Educational Theory and Game Development

Strategies for Student Support During a Global Crisis

Handbook of Research on Future Opportunities for Technology Management Education

701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 496

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 538

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 496

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 538

A CRITICAL TURN IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS

CRITICAL PRAXIS IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS

Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing USA

INTEGRATION OF LANGUAGE SKILLS AND PRACTICES

Traditional Approaches to Language Integration

Progressive Approaches to Language Integration

Critical Approaches to Language Integration

A Balanced Approach to Beginner-Level Foreign Language Instruction

LANGUAGE INTEGRATION LESSON PLAN TEMPLATE

continued on following page

Menu of Analysis and Application Activities

AN EXEMPLAR INTEGRATED LESSON

continued on following page

continued on following page

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Nancy Kwang Johnson

Learning for Justice’s (Formerly Teaching Tolerance) Social Justice Standards

Figure 1. Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Lenses

The newly defined key domains in Figure 1 include:

• Identity and Self-Awareness: Developing self-identity and engaging in self-awareness

Table 1. Social Justice Domains and Social Emotional Learning Competencies

Social Justice Domains CASEL Competencies

Ethnic Identity and Generational Status Framework

Language, Ethnicity and National Identity - The

Ethnicity as a Marker - Self-Identification vs. State-Identification Framework

Social Justice Facilitation Implementation Strategy

Social Emotional Environment

Table 5. Brainstorming Worksheet

Social Justice Standard(s) Brainstorm Activities Language Standards

Middle School Lesson Plan – “Others Are Us” Poem (2021)

Table 6. SJ and SEL Pre-teaching Reflection Protocol – Middle School

Social Justice Facilitation Implementation Strategy

High School, Hagwon, College, University, Adult

Teacher: Date: October 19, 2021

Social Justice Standards:

Social Emotional Learning Goals:

Language Standards and Objectives:

Key Vocabulary: identity, bias, perception, stereotype, others, othering

Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Theme:

Social Emotional Behavior Check-ins:

Social Justice and Social Emotional Learning Domains Activities:

Lesson Plan Steps:

Table 8. SJ and SEL Post-teaching Reflection Protocol – Middle School

Social Emotional Environment

Middle School Lesson Plan – “Others Are Us” (2021)

Table 9. SJ and SEL Pre-teaching Reflection Protocol – High School/College/Adults

Social Justice Facilitation Implementation Strategy

High School, College, University, Adult Education

continued on following page

Table 10. Continued

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

Date: _ Location: