The emergence of critical multilingual language awareness in teacher education: the role of experience and coursework

Abstract

AbstractTo better prepare future teachers for an increasingly linguistically diverse student population, teacher education programs have integrated critical language awareness frameworks into their coursework. However, re­search on the influence of such coursework on teachers’ critical multilingual awareness is scarce. Given the importance of developing teachers’ critical multilingual language awareness (CMLA), this case study explores the impact of experience and course work on a novice language teacher educator and a pre-service teacher’s emerging CMLA at a large Mid­western U.S. university. It gauges teachers’ evolving awareness of the five CMLA domains (cognitive, social, affective, performance and power), with a particular focus on the power domain. Based on an iterative and recursive qualitative analysis of interview and course artifact data, this study shows that teachers are able to develop CMLA through coursework, especially if they are able to link it to personal experiences. Furthermore, a deep understanding of the power domain of language builds on (1) an awareness of the other domains of CMLA—in particular the affective and social domains—and (2) the ways these domains impact English learners’ equitable access to educational opportunities.ABSTRACT (MANDARIN) 针对语言越发多元化的中小学学生群体, 教师教育项目致力于更好地培养职前教师, 因而开始在课程中融入与批判性语言意识相关的知识框架。然而, 目前研究很少涉足这类课程如何影响教师的批判性多语语言意识(CMLA)的发展。鉴于培养老师CMLA的重要性, 本文所描述的研究探索个人经历及课程内容对一名职前语言教师教育者以及一名职前教师的已萌芽的CMLA的影响。此研究的数据搜集于一所美国中西部大学的教师教育项目。本研究衡量了教师对CMLA五个维度(认知的, 社会的, 情感的, 表现的, 及权力的)的不断发展的认识, 且集中探讨权力这一维度。通过一系列对采访与课程资料数据的迭代的和递归的质化分析, 本研究展示了通过教师教育课程发展教师CMLA的可能性, 尤其是当课程内容与教师的个人经历建立关联。此外, 教师对语言的权力维度更深层次的认识建立于(1)对CMLA其他维度的认识, 尤其是情感和社会维度；(2)对这些维度如何影响英语学习者得到的教育公平和教育机会的认识。PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYPre-service and in-service teachers often struggle to enact pedagogical practices that sustain the diverse languages that multilingual and multicultural learners bring into the classroom. This problem is amplified when the teachers are white monolingual, English-dominant speaking individuals with little experience working with minoritized students. To better understand how we might be better able to foster greater awareness of multilingual learners’ existing language resources, we traced the development of a pre-service teacher’s critical awareness of language alongside the support she received from a novice teacher educator. Drawing upon Prasad and Lory’s Domains of Critical Multilingual Language Awareness (CMLA) Framework for Teachers, which considers the overarching influence of power across five domains (cognitive, affective, social, performance and power), we explored (1) how both our participants interpreted power in an English language teacher education practicum course that focused on translanguaging, and (2) how power issues were manifested in the coursework. Our interview and course artifact data suggest that teachers are able to develop CMLA through coursework, especially if they are able to link it to personal experiences. We also argue that a deep understanding of the power domain of language builds on (1) an awareness of the other domains of CMLA—in particular the affective and social domains—and (2) the ways these domains impact English learners’ equitable access to educational opportunities. The paper closes with a call to integrate CMLA as a central framework for curricular design as a means of complementing a justice-oriented translanguaging pedagogy.Keywords: Critical multilingual awarenesstranslanguagingteacher educationpre-service teacherspower Open ScholarshipThis article has earned the Center for Open Science badges for Open Materials through Open Practices Disclosure. The data and materials are openly accessible at https://jstagedata.jst.go.jp/. To obtain the author's disclosure form, please contact the Editor.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)Notes1 In addition, the pre-service teachers take one linguistics course and one course on language and culture from the anthropology department, both of which are not designed particularly for language teachers.2 The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University where the study took place (STUDY00005629).