Preservice secondary science teachers’ understanding of academic language: Moving beyond “just the vocabulary”

Abstract

To prepare preservice secondary science teachers to teach English learners (ELs), teacher education programs must provide sustained coursework and experiences in principles and strategies found effective in supporting ELs' learning of science. In the context of a teacher education program recognized for its attention to ELs, we investigated seven preservice secondary science teachers' understanding of academic language and of how to support EL students' use of academic language. More specifically, over the course of their 13-month program, we examined changes in (a) preservice teachers' understanding of the three levels of academic language (i.e., lexical, or vocabulary; syntactic, or sentence; and discursive, or message) and (b) the types of instructional support they reported using at each level (e.g., peer collaboration at the discursive level). We also compared their understanding of academic language and instructional support both to their experienced cooperating teachers' understanding and to their actual classroom practice. From qualitative analysis of data collected, we found that preservice teachers understood academic language as more than just vocabulary-as spanning lexical,

Preparing preservice teachers to teach science to english learners: A review

“…The interventions for preparing PSTs to teach science in linguistically diverse classrooms that were identified for this review varied in structure, complexity, and focus, ranging from single courses, parts of courses, and workshops to integrated interventions that spanned methods courses and/or field placements (see Table 1). Six of the interventions included PSTs who were earning endorsements at the elementary level (Arreguín‐Anderson & Alanis, 2017; Bravo et al, 2014; Gibbons, 2008; Hernández, 2016; Jung & Brown, 2016; Stoddart et al, 2013; Stoddart & Mosqueda, 2015), seven interventions included participants earning endorsements at the secondary level (i.e., Heineke et al, 2019; Lyon, 2013a, 2013b; Lyon et al, 2018; Meier et al, 2020; Roberts et al, 2016; Siegel, 2014; Tolbert et al, 2019; Walker & Stone, 2011), and one intervention spanned both elementary and secondary levels (i.e., Settlage et al, 2014). Half of the interventions (i.e., Bravo et al, 2014; Gibbons, 2008; Hernández, 2016; Lyon et al, 2018; Roberts et al, 2016; Stoddart et al, 2013; Stoddart & Mosqueda, 2015; Tolbert et al, 2019; Walker & Stone, 2011) focused on preparing PSTs for science instruction for ELs generally, while two interventions (Lyon, 2013a, 2013b; Siegel, 2014) focused on preparing PSTs to equitably assess students in linguistically diverse classrooms, two (i.e., Jung & Brown, 2016; Meier et al, 2020) focused on supporting PSTs in identifying and designing supports for academic language demands in their science lessons, another (i.e., Arreguín‐Anderson & Alanis, 2017) emphasized PSTs' use of paired learning strategies to support language development in science, and a final intervention (i.e., Settlage et al, 2014) focused on PSTs' ideologies about ELs and science instruction for linguistically diverse classrooms.…”

“…Half of the interventions (i.e., Arreguín‐Anderson & Alanis, 2017; Bravo et al, 2014; Jung & Brown, 2016; Lyon et al, 2018; Roberts et al, 2016; Stoddart et al, 2013; Stoddart & Mosqueda, 2015; Tolbert et al, 2019) took place over the course of one semester. Despite research indicating that extended duration can support teacher learning (e.g., Desimone, 2009), only three interventions (i.e., Heineke et al, 2019; Lyon, 2013a, 2013b; Meier et al, 2020) lasted a year or more, though it is unclear to what extent Meier et al' (2020) intervention integrated language, literacy, and science specifically throughout their 13‐month long intervention beyond one language and literacy integrated science methods course.…”

“…Despite the variation in how interventions integrated language and literacy into science instruction, common themes emerged, including ensuring rigor (e.g., Meier et al, 2020; Roberts et al, 2016; Siegel, 2014) while providing scaffolds for language development (e.g., Jung & Brown, 2016; Stoddart et al, 2013), attending to and incorporating students' cultural, linguistic, and academic resources (e.g., Heineke et al, 2019; Roberts et al, 2016), focusing on scientific discourse and disciplinary language use (e.g., Lyon et al, 2018; Meier et al, 2020), and emphasizing collaboration (e.g., Arreguín‐Anderson & Alanis, 2017; Bravo et al, 2014). These themes reflect research identifying critical components of language and literacy integrated science instruction (e.g., Buxton & Lee, 2014) and might help PSTs overcome the traditional siloed nature of language and science methods instruction (Bravo, 2016; Stoddart, Solís, Tolbert, & Bravo, 2010).…”

“…However, the role that field experiences played within interventions varied. In most interventions, connections between field experiences and PSTs' university‐based learning were made when PSTs engaged in field‐based observations (e.g., Hernández, 2016; Meier et al, 2020; Siegel, 2014), completed field‐related assignments (e.g., Gibbons, 2008; Heineke et al, 2019; Roberts et al, 2016), or enacted targeted instructional practices in their field placements (e.g., Bravo et al, 2014; Lyon et al, 2018). In most cases, field experiences appeared to be positioned as contexts to consider as PSTs developed their own instructional materials and lessons (e.g., Jung & Brown, 2016; Siegel, 2014) or as a testing ground for practices learned in methods courses (e.g., Hernández, 2016; Lyon, 2013b), often with no training for the mentor teachers to support cohesion across program components and field experiences.…”

“…While many studies described how their interventions provided opportunities for PSTs to examine their beliefs or, more commonly, develop new visions for science instruction and linguistic diversity, just over half of the studies (i.e., Bravo et al, 2014; Heineke et al, 2019; Lyon, 2013a, 2013b; Meier et al, 2020; Siegel, 2014; Settlage et al, 2014; Stoddart & Mosqueda, 2015; Walker & Stone, 2011) provided outcomes related to those opportunities.…”