Premium
University Faculty Beliefs About Emergent Multilinguals and Linguistically Responsive Instruction
Author(s) -
Gallagher Colleen E.,
Haan Jennifer E.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
tesol quarterly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.737
H-Index - 91
eISSN - 1545-7249
pISSN - 0039-8322
DOI - 10.1002/tesq.399
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , scope (computer science) , psychology , multilingualism , preference , pedagogy , mathematics education , class (philosophy) , second language acquisition , linguistics , computer science , philosophy , paleontology , artificial intelligence , microeconomics , economics , biology , programming language
Internationalization trends worldwide have brought more multilingual students into English‐medium university classrooms in the United States and elsewhere. Faculty across the disciplines increasingly have the dual challenge of developing both content and advanced academic language. Ample precedent in P–12 education suggests developing instructors’ knowledge of (a) students as language learners, (b) instructional techniques grounded in second language acquisition theory, and (c) contextual factors necessary for helping instructors implement linguistically responsive instruction ( LRI ). This study probes the extent to which prior work transfers to the tertiary setting, focusing on participating faculty members’ beliefs about multilingual students, LRI , and context. The authors collected survey data from 197 faculty at a mid‐size comprehensive university in the midwestern United States and analyzed written comments provided by participants. They found that, on the whole, faculty participants displayed deficit views regarding students’ linguistic and academic abilities and questioned the appropriateness and feasibility of several of the LRI techniques. Many rejected the notion that language instruction was within the scope of their responsibilities and expressed a strong preference for support provided outside of class time. The authors discuss the results in terms of the notions of rigor, college readiness, and faculty development in LRI .