INTERSECTIONAL IDENTITIES AND PERFORMED LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: STORIES OF BECOMING A US K-12 CONTENT TEACHER By Curtis Allen Green-Eneix A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Second Language Studies – Doctor of Philosophy 2023 ABSTRACT Teacher educators have been reimagining ways to train pre-service teachers with the necessary background knowledge, methodological tools, and skills to address the growing needs of multilingual and multicultural classrooms (Carter Andrews, 2021; Cochran-Smith, 2003; Li & Sah, 2020). As classrooms grow in cultural and linguistic diversity within the United States (de Brey et al., 2019)—the national context of this study, there is a need to train the predominately White teaching force (Irwin et al., 2021) to be equitable educators who are linguistically responsive (Lucas & Villegas, 2011, 2013) in order to attend to and foster linguistic development within their content classrooms. However, educational linguists (e.g., Bacon, 2020; Coady et al., 2016; Metz, 2019) have found that equipping both pre-service and in-service teachers with “correct” methodologies and knowledge about supporting culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students was not enough due to their beliefs about supporting multilingual learners within the content classroom. In light of these findings, more research is needed to investigate how undergraduate pre-service teachers’ experiences and identities inform the various language ideologies they bring into their training (Freeman & Johnson, 1998; McKinney, 2017; McKinney & Tayler, 2019) and how their language ideologies impact their engagement with the current training to be linguistically responsive K-12 content teachers. Within this dissertation, I set out to examine how undergraduate pre-service teachers’ language ideologies, their lived experiences, and their intersecting identities (e.g., linguistic, socioeconomic, race, and nationality) inform their understanding concerning whether language should be integrated into their content teaching and multilingual students’ learning. To achieve this goal, I conduct a narrative case study where I provide a complex picture of my four White male undergraduate students who are training to be K-12 content teachers at a Midwestern university. Through survey responses, semi-structured interviews, and guided reflective responses, I used an ideology-as-praxis approach to find my participants performed their linguistic ideologies through their stories of personal experience with learning a language, their coursework, and their teaching experience. While my participants expressed juxtaposing language ideologies, such as supporting students’ full linguistic repertoire while preparing them for a dominant monolingual society, I found my participants shared stories to perform their language ideologies related to perceived contextual incentives. These perceived contextual incentives ranged from the larger US society wanting everyone to be a participating member through the use of English to my participants’ imagined classroom where multilingual learners’ linguistic repertoires would be leveraged to learn the required content. In reporting these findings, I conclude this dissertation by discussing the implications for teacher education that blends pre-service teachers’ lived experiences and ideologies with the theoretical and technical learning they need to support the academic achievement of their students in multilingual and multicultural classrooms. Copyright by CURTIS ALLEN GREEN-ENEIX 2023 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I left this section to be the final meaningful thing to write in this dissertation because, even now, I am struggling to fully capture my heartfelt gratitude to the people who helped, shaped, encouraged, supported, and loved me during this time. Dr. Peter De Costa, I am so appreciative of your guidance throughout my time at Michigan State University. I have learned so much from you through the multitude of writing projects, guest-edited volumes, organizing colloquiums and conferences, and presentations I got to work with you on. I am extremely grateful for your compassion in helping me during times that were hard and for all of the advice you have given me as I prepare for my new chapter. This dissertation would not have been possible without you. You left an indelible mark on who I am as a scholar that cannot be fully captured within these pages. Thank you for being my advisor. Dr. Shawn Loewen, your mentorship throughout my time in the program made it possible for me to write this dissertation and not feel like a fraud. The conversations over beer, the phone calls over the pandemic, and the occasional haunting you at the office meant so much to me that words can’t describe. Thank you for fighting to bring me into the program. Dr. Charlene Polio, thank you so much for providing me with a space to stay over the summer, and for making food ever so often during the pandemic. Dr. Koen van Gorp, thank you for encouraging me throughout my time writing the dissertation and for pushing me to do great work. Thank you all for being part of my committee. I am also indebted to many individuals within and outside of the SLS program who gave me ideas and things to consider, provided critical comments on drafts of my dissertation, pointed to resources to review, and overall kept me sane during this time. Dr. Dustin De Felice, thank you so much for answering any questions I had or just letting me vent about my dissertation. In no particular order, I would like to thank those who I also bothered during my dissertation: v Desiree Midby, Matt Coss, Carlo Cinaglia, Philip Montgomery, Vashti Lee, Adam Pfau, Brittany Finch, Dr. Hima Rawal, and Amr Rabie. The comments and conversations were extremely helpful, and the dissertation would not have been completed without them. Obviously, they are in no way responsible for any shortcomings found within this dissertation – that responsibility is mine to bear. Robert Randez and Dr. Ryo Maie, thank you so much for being there and pushing me to continue improving myself and the quality of work throughout my time in the program. Even though I was bull-headed and a curmudgeon at times, your friendship and conversations with me provided so much emotional support to cross the finish line. I also want to thank Drs. Wendy Li, Dimitrii Pastushenkov, Matt Kessler, Hayriye Kayi-Aydar, and Jaime Mejia Mayorga for the support and guidance you have given me over the years. Lastly, I want to thank my family and friends. Thank you, Dustin Natte, Yazan Abu Hijleh, Fred Yen, Sam Seery, and Philip Hill for supporting me and being there to help me relax when I was stressed about tomorrow’s work. The Smith family (Jon, Amy, Abigail, Alex, Nick, Stazi, and Vlad) thank you for everything you have done from giving me a place to rest, to making me an honorary member of your family, and the encouragement you have given me. Mom, Grandma Becky, and Jim and Cindy, all of this would not have been possible without your love, support, and encouragement to do the scariest thing in life: go to college. Ruoming Wang, Aurora, my love. Your patience and your love were the things that kept me going when I wanted to quit. Thank you. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Organization of the Dissertation Chapters ....................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................... 8 2.1 Ideology or belief, which term to use? .............................................................................. 8 2.2 Three (Overlapping) Approaches to language ideology. ............................................... 10 2.3 The blending of approaches in teachers’ language ideology research ......................... 17 2.4 Adopting a language ideology-as-praxis approach. ....................................................... 19 2.5 On Intersectional Identities and ideologies..................................................................... 25 2.6 Justification for the study................................................................................................. 27 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY OF A NARRATIVE CASE STUDY............................... 29 3.1 Narrative Case Study........................................................................................................ 29 3.2 Research Site ..................................................................................................................... 31 3.3 Participants........................................................................................................................ 33 3.4 Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 39 3.5 Data analysis ...................................................................................................................... 52 3.6 Researcher Reflexivity ...................................................................................................... 57 3.7 Research Ethics ................................................................................................................. 60 3.8 Chapter Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 62 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION 1 ................................................ 64 4.1 Entering the teaching profession from exurbia .............................................................. 65 4.2 Ideologies about societal perceptions of student characteristics .................................. 74 4.3 Ideologies about language in school ................................................................................ 86 4.4 Ideologies about the teacher’s role .................................................................................. 96 4.5 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................... 101 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION 2 .............................................. 103 5.1 RQ 2: Participants engagement with ESU’s training .................................................. 104 5.2 Training to be equitable within the narrative of education ........................................ 104 5.3 Steve and Skyler: Learning the codes to be an inclusive educator ............................. 110 5.4 Mike and Jeff: The ideals of one place filter into another .......................................... 118 5.5 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................... 130 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS .......................................................... 132 6.1 RQ 1: Participants’ life histories and interpretation in supporting CLD students .. 134 6.2 RQ 2: Ideologies encountered during participants’ training and filtering of those beliefs...................................................................................................................................... 138 6.3 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 144 6.4 Future Directions ............................................................................................................ 145 6.5 Practical Implication....................................................................................................... 147 vii REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 151 APPENDIX A: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS........................................................ 168 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW VIGNETTES WITH QUESTIONS ..................................... 171 APPENDIX C: BACKGROUND SURVEY ........................................................................... 173 APPENDIX D: GUIDED REFLECTION LOGS .................................................................. 178 viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CLD Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students ELL English Language Leaner ESU Evergreen State University IRB Institutional Review Board L1 First Language L2 Second Language RQ Research Question SIOP Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol TESOL Teaching English as a Second Language ix INTRODUCTION We need to remember that beliefs and values about language derive from the same primitive system that governs religion, morality, and politics, and that simply ‘correcting facts’ is an insufficient motivation for social change. (Wolfram, 2018, p. 375). As historic events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, have unearthed latent inequities and exacerbated inequalities reminiscent of the United States' gilded age (Sommeiller & Price, 2018), scholars in applied linguistics (Baker-Bell, 2020; De Costa et al., 2021d; Kubota, 2016) and education (Goodwin, 2017; Shandomo, 2010) continue to investigate ways to address inequities in education and make classrooms more equitable, accessible, and inclusive, specifically for students from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds. The drive for more inclusive classrooms comes as recent movements, such as The Black Lives Matter movement (e.g., Guerrettaz & Zahler, 2017), have ignited conversations concerning how the second language teacher education and teaching English as a second language (TESOL) fields hold the hegemonic view that language is “impervious to the effects of racism, xenophobia, and concerns about language rights” (Motha, 2020, p. 128). These events are also coupled with critiques from scholars (e.g., Cochran-Smith, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2017; Kubota & Miller, 2017; Li & Sah, 2020) arguing for the need for both pre-service and in-service teachers to be better equipped to support CLD students as classrooms increase linguistic, racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity within the United States (Goodwin, 2017), which constitutes the national context of this study. However, the above epigraph from Wolfram (2018) illustrates that teaching is more than preparing teachers with “correct” methodologies and knowledge about supporting CLD students. Preparing future teachers must include interrogating the series of beliefs about language that teachers bring into the program, and helping them understand how their language ideologies impact their teaching. 1 Language ideologies refer to the cluster of concepts, representations, and partial understandings that connects to the non-ideological reality and is supported by (im)material practices that attach values and meanings to a linguistic repertoire and semiotic resources in a particular institutional setting (Anderson et al., 2022; Bacon, 2020; Fives & Gill, 2015; Metz, 2019; Rosa & Burdick, 2016). The call to incorporate pre-service teachers’ ideologies into teacher education programs entails more than simply teaching the content of teaching methods, which itself is not a new or novel idea. This point has been brought forth by scholars such as Freeman and Johnson (1998) and Kumaravadivelu (2003, 2006) and, most recently, McKinney (2017). Specifically, Freeman and Johnson (1998) noted the need to understand language beliefs within their special issue of TESOL Quarterly by focusing on English language teacher education. Specifically, they argued that preparing teachers entails addressing the act of teaching that resides within: We now know that teachers’ beliefs about teachers and teaching are instrumental in shaping how they interpret what goes on in their classrooms. And we admit that teachers’ beliefs and past experiences as learners tend to create ways of thinking about teaching that often conflict with the images of teaching that we advocate in our teacher education programs. [Overall,] prior knowledge is a powerful factor in teacher learning in its own right, one that clearly deserves our attention and study if we mean to strengthen and improve, rather than simply preserve and replicate, educational practice. (emphasis added, Freeman & Johnson, 1998, p. 401) Despite Freeman and Johnson’s call to further investigate teachers’ ideologies, research on language ideologies has mainly examined language policy and implementation (e.g., Bernstein et al., 2023; Fitzsimmons-Doolan, 2014; Wiley, 2014; Warhol & Mayer, 2012). By contrast, research on pre- and in-service teachers’ ideologies, which has increased in recent years, has looked at how ideology impacts teachers through their curriculum design (e.g., Dos Santos & Windle, 2020) and classroom practices (e.g., Chaparro, 2019; Flores & Rosa, 2019). Focusing on the latter, Chaparro (2019) highlighted how in-service teachers’ race and language ideologies 2 racialized the linguistic practices of poor and minoritized students. This subsequently created a durable deficit discourse that was enacted through their uncritical adoption of classroom practices and materials which also involved measuring students against White, middle- to upper- class US English speakers. Such an uncritical adoption that d isproportionately impacted CLD students learning opportunities in the classroom was also found in related studies (e.g., Kanno, 2018; Sah & Uysal, 2022) as teachers either felt it was beyond the scope of their duties (Bacon, 2020) or were not aware of policies in place on the federal and state level within the United States (e.g., Kangas, 2020; Warhol & Mayer, 2012). Moreover, the increased investigation concerning pre- and in-service teachers’ ideologies has also caused scholars to investigate the intersectional language ideologies teachers are exposed to and how their beliefs and past experiences, as Freeman and Johnson (1998) pointed out earlier, conflict with what they learn in their teacher education programs. For instance, Bacon’s (2020) study explored 127 in-service teachers’ ideologies as they entered the teaching profession in Massachusetts. He found that participants still engaged in hegemonic language ideologies such as monolingualism, while contradicting (1) their own beliefs and relationship with language, and (2) their Sheltered English Immersion training that aimed at preparing them for the “multilingual realities of today’s U.S. classrooms” (p. 172). Bacon’s (2020) findings were not unique, however. Similar mix-method studies such as Anderson et al. (2022), who worked with 86 MA graduate students across the United States and nine other countries, Emerick and Goldberg (2022) who collaborated with167 career and technical education teachers in Pennsylvania, and Metz (2019; Metz & Knight, 2021) who focused on 27 in-service teachers in Missouri all encountered similar findings to those reported in Bacon (2020). The aforementioned studies highlighted that in-service teachers were influenced and often embraced language 3 ideologies that intersect with race, social class, and nationality in ways that subsequently take shape in discourses such as a “Language Gap” (Johnson & Johnson, 2022), “Culture of Poverty” (Ladson-Billings, 2006, 2017), and Standard (Academic) English ideology (Flores, 2020; MacSwan, 2020; Wiley & Lukes, 1996). Collectively, the above studies in applied linguistics showcase an amalgamation of ideologies that have become normalized within the larger societal context of the United States through a series of discourses that attempt to highlight deficit ideologies that are often invoked in order to “[explain] and justifies outcome inequalities…by pointing to supposed deficiencies within disenfranchised individuals and communities” (Groski, 2011, p. 153). Similar findings surrounding pre- and in-service teachers holding deficit ideologies within the United States have also been found in related fields. Specifically in the field of education, Kumar and Hamer (2013) found that 25% of their 84 White pre-service teacher participants were explicitly not comfortable teaching CLD students despite engaging in multicultural professional development and having to adhere to state and national teaching standards involving CLD populations. In the US, the findings of deficit ideologies seem to be most prevalent among the homogenous (e.g., White, female, middle-class, and monolingual) teaching force (Irwin et al., 2021). The majority of the U.S.-based studies (e.g., Anderson et al., 2022; Bacon, 2020; Metz, 2019; Metz & Knight, 2021) that investigate the language ideologies of teachers have primarily focused on in-service teachers or graduate pre-service teachers. 1.1 Organization of the Dissertation Chapters To fully lay out my argument that pre-service teachers need to be equipped not only in teaching methods but also navigate social realities found in their future communities of practice to create learning opportunities for all students, my dissertation consists of six chapters. 4 Following the introduction, I present the theoretical framework in Chapter 2, which focuses on the interplay between language ideology and professional identity. Specifically, I elaborate on language ideology and how research has explored language ideologies concerning in- and pre- service teachers. Following this explanation of language ideologies, I shift to discuss how professional identities are ideologically laden that yield material and immaterial results. Then, I provide a brief overview of my dissertation and the two research questions that guide it. In Chapter 3, I explain the methodology used for this study. I will first explain what is and why I use a narrative case study design. Next, I devote space to discuss the context of the study, Evergreen State University (ESU), along with my four focal participants, Mike, Jeff, Skyler, and Steve (all names, locations, and course numbers are pseudonyms). Following that, I explain why and how I use an assortment of data collection tools, such as semi-structured interviews, survey responses, and guided reflective logs, to complicate rather than simply triangulate my findings to answer my central research questions. Following this review of data collection tools, I shift to explain how I analyzed the data using multiple cycles of coding from identifying initial short stories to using value coding to further dive into and understand the ideological orientations my participants engage in or reject throughout the study. Then, I elaborate upon my role as a researcher, and how my own lived experiences impacted the design, collection, analysis, and reporting of the study. This focus on my reflexivity then shifts to the final section where I discuss the macro and micro ethical decisions engaged throughout the study. In Chapter 4, I focus on the first research question concerning how my participants’ identities and experiences shape how they express their ideologies concerning CLD students. As a result of analyzing the data through my analytical procedure, the central finding that I set out to 5 illustrate in this chapter is that my participants (Skyler, Steve, Jeff, and Mike) express their beliefs about language within education in relation to their life experiences in and outside their similarly described hometowns. This finding is broken down into two parts. The first section, entering the teaching profession from exurbia—a kind of community that is located between suburbs and rural communities (Berube et al., 2006), makes the case that my participants came from a similarly described hometown setting that influenced their reasons to go into teaching, despite living in completely different regions from one another. The second section, which focuses on ideologies about language speakers, society, and school, showcases how my participants held both hegemonic and counterhegemonic language ideologies concerning the context they are/were in, such as their hometown, the university classroom, the K-12 space, and their personal role. In Chapter 5, I focus on the second research question concerning the extent to which pre- service teachers engage with their teacher training that aims to prepare them to support CLD students. Within the chapter, I make the central argument that even though all my participants, who were either about to enter or have entered their teaching practicum, are trained to teach their content subject and have the knowledge to use sheltered instruction, the training they all received to teach CLD students was not the same. Additionally, the development of “best” pedagogical methods and the acquisition of content knowledge does not result in equitable educators as they still held deficit ideologies surrounding racially, linguistically, and culturally diverse students as the training concerning their beliefs was compartmentalized in one class (among many within the broader five-year program) taken in the first year in their teacher training. In Chapter 6, I summarize the key findings from the previous two chapters, where I discuss the significance and meaning of these findings as they relate to my research questions. 6 Additionally, I consider how my findings pertain to the current theoretical understanding concerning the intersection of ideology and identity in teacher development in relation to the scholarly discussion of teacher education. I then discuss the limitations of the study. Lastly, I proffer future directions for research and potential implications to begin training pre-service teachers to be equitable educators so they can navigate the ideological mire before, during, and after they enter their professional context. 7 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In establishing why more research is needed to understand pre-service teachers’ ideologies as they are about to enter the classroom, I set out to describe the theoretical framework – language ideology-as-praxis – as it interplays with pre-service content teachers’ professional identity. To achieve this aim, I first elaborate on my terminological choices concerning why I do not distinguish between ideology and belief. Once this is cleared, I will introduce how language ideology has been understood and adopted within applied linguistics and education in one of three ways. Then, I show how research investigating content in-service and pre-service teachers’ beliefs use similar but slightly different concepts related to language ideology across these three approaches. Following this review, I introduce the approach – Projekt Ideologietheorie (PIT, Rehman, 2013) or ideology-as-praxis – to shift the view of ideology from a consciousness/unconsciousness dichotomy implied in previous operationalizations to one that situates ideology as a form of social practice. Additionally, I situate language ideology as interrelated to pre-service teachers’ intersectional identities. Finally, I conclude the chapter with a brief overview of the current study and the two research questions that guide my dissertation. 2.1 Ideology or belief, which term to use? The fields of education and applied linguistics have engaged with and explored in-service teachers’ ideologies in a multitude of ways from how ideologies impact pedagogical decisions within the classroom and, subsequently, student outcomes to their beliefs about language learning in general. However, this term “ideologies” remains a fuzzy and elusive concept (van Dijk, 1998). Within the field of education, Pajares (1992) captures scholars’ struggle in defining ideology in the form of varying constructs, neologisms, and understandings: Defining beliefs is at best a game of player’s choice. They travel in disguise and often under alias—attitudes, values, judgments, axioms, opinions, ideology, perceptions, 8 conceptions, conceptual systems, preconceptions, dispositions, implicit theories, explicit theories, personal theories, internal mental processes, action strategies, rules of practice, practical principles, perspectives, repertories of understanding, and social strategy, to name but a few that can be found in the literature. (p. 309) Pajare’s (1992) list of neologisms found within education can also be found within the field of applied linguistics along with terms such as cognition (e.g., Kubanyiova & Feryok, 2015; Green- Eneix & De Costa, 2022) – what teachers know, think, and believe concerning pedagogy in their teaching context (Borg, 2006) – and discourse (e.g., Bernstein et al., 2020; Zhang, 2022). The terms that have often been engaged within educational linguistics and teacher education in recent years are attitudes (e.g., Block, N., & Vidaurre, 2019; Lee & Oxelson, 2006), beliefs (e.g., Garrity et al., 2018; Pettit, 2011), and ideology (Anderson et al., 2022; Bacon, 2020, 2022; Chaparro, 2019; Fitzsimmons-Doolan, 2014; Metz, 2019; Metz & Knight, 2021; Sah & Uysal, 2022). The identified studies illustrate the ways in which scholars focus their examination around how teachers and other key stakeholders construe their role to support, constrain, or passively provide (meaningful) educational opportunities for multilingual learners within their content classroom. While there is a plethora of terms to label ideology, I use ideology and belief interchangeably within this dissertation moving forward. I do not distinguish between these terms for two key reasons. The first follows a similar logic as Metz (2019). Like him, I wish to “honor both the developing emphasis on language ideologies in educational linguistics and the rich history of research on teachers’ beliefs in teacher education,” with this knowledge yielding great potential “to support teachers to take up contemporary linguistic knowledge” and incorporate it in their teaching (p. 20). In other words, the literature focusing on language ideology and language beliefs provides insight into how the construct impacts pedagogical decisions (e.g., Emerick & Goldberg, 2022; Henderson & Palmer, 2015), embedded in the 9 interpretation of sociopolitical constraints (e.g., Kangas, 2020; Bernstein et al., 2023) and shape how language is constructed as legitimate based on one’s identity (e.g., De Costa et al., 2021c; Flores & Rosa, 2015). In not distinguishing these terms, I can build upon the literature surrounding language ideologies as a whole to further our understanding of how to train non- language specialists to meaningfully incorporate students’ languages within their content teaching (e.g., Deroo & Ponzio, 2019). The second reason lies in the approach and theoretical framing I take within this dissertation concerning ideology. I turn to introduce how ideology has been engaged in three varying and, at times, overlapping ways. 2.2 Three (Overlapping) Approaches to language ideology. While I have framed ideology to have seemingly infinite ways to define the term, there are three approaches to conceptually frame language ideology based on the prior historical reviews of ideology (Rehmann, 2013; Vincent, 2010), and how scholars within applied linguistics, linguistic anthropology, and education have framed the term. These three approaches are ideology-theory (green), ideology-critique (yellow), and ideology-practice (blue) (see Figure 1). 10 Figure 1 Ideological approaches triangle Note: This has been inspired by Bernstein et al.’s (2020) figure entitled discourses of dual language education. I represent each of these approaches within an overlapping triangle in Figure 1 to illustrate that each approach has distinct characteristics that can overlap to construct a blended approach to ideology but cannot be fully unified in an all-encompassing approach. Focusing on the ideology-as-theory approach, this approach’s central goal is to understand the beliefs that affect individual and group construction and engagement with concepts and activities within society. Compared to the other two approaches, ideology-as-theory is a neutral approach, as Rehmann (2013) explains, aimed at simply studying how “ideological inversions, displacements, and enemy-constructs” (p.4) are understood, expressed, and represented within society. Ideology-as-critique, by contrast, views ideology as a form of false consciousness that signifies the beliefs people are socially conditioned to consume and are 11 unaware of, resulting in them misconstruing their objective reality with their social reality (Eagelton, 1994; Marx & Simon, 1994; Rehmann, 2013; van Dijk, 1998). As Marx and Engels (Marx & Simon, 1994) argue, the aim of ideology-as-critique is to dissolve these illusions to see reality and dismantle inequality and top-down domination. Lastly, ideology-as-practice focuses on the means by which ideologies are socialized and guide individuals and groups to map the social principles and practices along selective historical, moral, political, and religious relationships within society (Rosa & Burdick, 2016; Wiley, 2014). Similar to that of ideology-as- theory approach, ideology-as-practice is often taken up to study how the social world shapes the rules and uses of language within and across contexts and situations, since language is both a social practice and an ideologically defined resource (Darvin & Norton, 2015; Kroskrity, 2004, 2010; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994). Among the three approaches to engaging with ideology, educational linguists, teacher educators, and linguistic anthropologists in applied linguistics and education have d eveloped their theoretical framings of language ideologies in one of the three central approaches which also share key similarities. Reviewing the literature surrounding the terms and operationalization scholars use to discuss language ideology in areas of investigation such as teacher education (e.g., Pettit, 2011; Zhang, 2022), bi/multilanguage education (e.g., Bernstein et al., 2020, 2023; Chaparro, 2019), language policy (e.g., Fitzsimmons-Doolan, 2014, 2017; Kangas, 2020), there appear to be five general camps in defining language ideology (see Table 1). I identify these stances as critical language ideology, socio-cognitive language ideology, cultural systems, semiotics, and ideology-as-praxis. 12 Table 1 Definitions of language ideology Stances Exemplary Definition of language ideology Reference “Shared bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of Rumsey, language in the world” 1990, p. 346 “[A] consensual belief system about the way language is and is Wolfram, supposed to be. In its most pervasive form, language ideology is 1998, pp. Critical unquestioned and appears to make “common sense” so that no 109-110 language specialized knowledge or information is required to understand ideology fundamental “facts” about language and its role in society.” “The power of ruling class ideas of language…to eliminate and Sah & overshadow competing views, which in turn shape the Uysal, commonsense view of language” 2022, p. 2 “[the] beliefs, feelings, and conceptions about language structure Kroskrity, and use which often index the political economic interests of 2010, p. individual speakers, ethnic and other interest groups, and nation 192; also states. These conceptions, whether explicitly articulated or see embodied in communicative practice, represent incomplete, or Kroskrity, ‘partially successful,’ attempts to rationalize language usage; such 2004 rationalizations are typically multiple, context-bound, and necessarily constructed from the sociocultural experience of the Socio- speaker” cognitive “[The] relationships between language and culture are fluid, Bernstein allowing many ideologies to circulate in a group at a time. et al., Second, awareness of ideologies varies among members of a 2021, p. group, with some unable to explicitly report on ideologies in 458 circulation. Third, ideologies mediate (but do not determine) the relationship between language and social structures. Finally, language ideologies play a role in the creation of identities (‘We talk like this here.’).” 13 Table 1 (cont’d) “The cultural (or subcultural) system of ideas about social and Irvine, linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and 1989, p. political interests” 255 “First, language ideologies are belief systems shared by members Wortham, of a group—ones that apply to language….Second, language 2001, p. Cultural ideologies are the often-implicit construal’s that speakers make of 256 system particular instances of discourse” “Language ideologies encompass attitudes, cultural conceptions Johnson et of language and language variation, shared bodies of al., 2020, commonsense notions about the nature of language, and position p. 591 particular features/varieties as more natural.” “Sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a Silverstein, rationalization or justification of perceived language structures 1979, p. and use” 193 “Participants and observers frame their understanding of linguistic Irvine & varieties and map those understandings onto people, events, and Gal, 2000, activities that are significant to them….[while] suffused with the p. 35; also political and moral issues…[that] are subject to the interests of see, Gal & their bearers’ social positions” Irvine, Semiotic 1995; Gal & Irvine, 2019 “Language ideologies approaches locate the meaningfulness of Rosa & linguistic signs in relation to other signs in particular historical, Burdick, political-economic, and sociocultural contexts, and interrogate 2016, p. from what perspectives a given sign comes to take on particular 103 value” “Systems of belief, performed in context, at the intersections of Bacon, language and social power structures” 2020, p. 173 “Language ideologies thus link individuals' (a) experiences and Anderson Ideology-as- beliefs with (b) their language practices and c) what they think et al, 2022, praxis about their own and others' language practices. [L]anguage p. 3, p. 4 ideologies can be societally shared while also demonstrating individual nuances .... Moreover, language ideologies are demonstrated to be multiple, fluid, and contradictory, even within one individual's articulations 14 While Table 1 is not an exhaustive representation of how scholars drafted language ideologies to narrow their study, it provides a quick and informative overview of how language ideology has been operationalized within the field. However, to fully contextualize the curated table of (language) ideology definitions in notable, if not seminal, studies within the central approaches of ideology mentioned earlier, I mapped these stances on ideology onto the ideological approaches triangle along with the conceptual components found across these definitions (Figure 2). Figure 2 Stances and components of language ideology Figure 2 maps a number of (but not all) components in formulating their definitions of language ideology as a means to interrogate and study the ideologies found within Table 1. In listing these 15 components here and comparing them to both the description and series of definitions of language ideology, one can see that many of these components overlap and are slightly changed depending on where they are located. For example, one component that is often framed is the ecology of ideologies (e.g., “contextually bounded” found in Figure 2). Although earlier definitions situated context to resemble culture (e.g., Irvine, 1989) or the world at large (e.g., Rumsey, 1990), recent definitions (Johnson et al., 2020; Rosa & Burdrick, 2016) often, explicitly or implicitly, incorporate the Douglas Fir Groups’ (2016) three concentric circles. Douglas Fir Groups’ concentric circle model denotes how a context is multilayered with varying levels of influence. While the first two circles locate individual activity (i.e., micro context) and the social and institutional communities (i.e., meso context), the third and outer circle (i.e., macro context) focuses on ideology concerning how beliefs are a unified whole that is shared within society. Specifically, the Douglas Fir Group (2016) describes this third system as an ideological structure of society that “both shape and are shaped by sociocultural institutions and communities as well as agency of individual members within their locally situated contexts of action and interaction” (Douglas Fir Group, 2016, pp. 24-25). Context is not the only concept that has shifted depending on the way educational linguists and education researchers theorize language ideologies. Another example of components shifting based on the approach applied linguists (e.g., Fitzsimmons-Doolan, 2014; Sah & Uysal, 2022) and education researchers (e.g., Alfaro & Bartolomé, 2017; Hunt & Siever, 2018) use to investigate ideologies is a series of beliefs. When we apply a series of beliefs to different approaches of language ideology (e.g., ideology-as- theory, ideology-as-critique, ideology-as-practice) this concept changes: • unconscious (i.e., implicit) beliefs in ideology-as-critique; • regimes of value, also commonly framed as a series of beliefs, in ideology-as-critical practice; 16 • mental frameworks—often referenced also as a series of beliefs with slightly different connotations—in ideology-as-theory; • a cluster of concepts, representations, and partial understandings in ideology-as-practice; and • a cultural map of social principles and practices within a given society/community in ideology-as-practice. While these theoretical frameworks are similar in attempting to express the way there is a myriad of ideologies an individual can have to shape their understanding of their world, these frameworks shift the way beliefs are engaged with and identified within a study. Research using language ideology as the central concept has begun to blend these approaches to study in-service teachers’ language ideologies. It is to these studies that I turn to next. 2.3 The blending of approaches in teachers’ language ideology research Outside of the three central approaches, scholars who investigate language ideology has begun to combine these three approaches as a way to “locate the meaningfulness of linguistic signs [and their practices] in relation to other signs [and practices] in particular historical, political-economic, and sociocultural contexts” surrounding education linguistics and teacher training (Rosa & Burdrick, 2016, p. 3). One blended approach adopted by a majority of studies focusing on language ideologies concerning content teachers has been what I call ideology-as- theoretical practice. This approach has been taken up in research focused on teacher cognition (Borg, 2006, 2019, Green-Eneix & De Costa, 2022). In this paradigm1 , ideology is a way to represent the “mental lives that have emerged from teachers’ diverse personal and language learning histories” along with their teaching experiences and the contexts that “they do or learn 1 It is important to note that the sociocognitive paradigm has mainly been situated within one of three approaches: Ideology-as-theory, Ideology-as-critique, and Ideology-as-critical theory. This has caused the phrase “series of beliefs” to be evident across a wide range of approaches, as language ideology has often been focused on operationalizing the term rather than fully situating it within these approaches due to myriad and unforeseen reasons. For this dissertation, I am situating a “series of beliefs” within this paradigm as it has been one of the longest and main areas of research within applied linguistics and educational linguistics to focus on teachers’ language ideologies. 17 to do their work” (Kubanyiova & Feryok, 2015, p. 435). Notably, a critical practice approach to ideologies, however, views ideology as inherently unconscious in the purview of “common sense” (Sah & Uysal, 2022; Wolfram, 1998). Often framed as “false consciousness” –a term originating from Marx (Eagelton, 1994; Rehmann, 2013; Vincent, 2010)—ideology signifies how someone misconstrues one’s objective reality with their social reality; and they often do this to expose or conceal their beliefs that are tied to their social or political position, perspective or interest (Marx & Simon, 1994). A notable example is Sah and Uysal (2022) whose multiple case study focused on two public in-service teachers in Florida. They illustrate within their study that their participants who were not clear in their ideological and political stance had “liberal ideologies of language” that often “privilege[d] the dominant language” viewing culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students’ home language as problematic. While these perspectives have been informative concerning how both pre- and in-service teachers negotiate language ideologies, scholars (e.g., Alfaro & Bartolome, 2017; Anderson et al., 2022; Bacon, 2020, 2022; Chaparro, 2019; Hall & Cunningham, 2020; Metz, 2019; Metz & Knight, 2021) have recently taken up an ideology-as-praxis approach as a means to move ideology away from as a construct only within an individual on a cognitive level that shapes how one perceives and acts through their understanding and interpretation of themselves within the world. In other words, ideologies are not simply a form of consciousness that individuals engage through, but rather something that is engaged with as they experience and participate in communities. As I also view language ideology as not being solely a form of consciousness but tied to performance in a particular situation, I too adopt this approach which I elaborate on in depth next. 18 2.4 Adopting a language ideology-as-praxis approach. A mixed approach to ideology between theory and practice approach, called Projekt Ideologietheorie (Rehman, 2013), but what I will refer to as ideology-as-praxis, offers a blended view of ideology. Ideology under this approach is a form of social practice and varying levels of consciousness that is performed in as well as part of the situation within a particular context. The goal of ideology-as-praxis approach is to understand how people engage in sensemaking as they navigate and transverse the ideological terrain, while performing their beliefs in a particular context. This approach adopts Freire’s (2000) definition of praxis as “the reflection of action and reflection, is the source of knowledge and creation” (p. 100) in order to investigate “people’s thinking about reality and people’s action upon reality, which is praxis” (p. 106). In highlighting the blending of action and reflection, educational linguists (e.g., Deroo & Ponzio, 2019; Deroo et al., 2020) mobilize Freire’s praxis theory to explain praxis as a means of producing new forms of knowledge through the reflection and engagement with the ideologies enacted in one’s teaching context. These ideologies are viewed in relation to teachers’ prior experiences with theoretical and technical learning (Shandomo, 2010). In using this approach, I define language ideology as (1) a cluster of concepts, representations, and partial understandings that connects to an individual’s lived reality, and (2) being supported by (im)material practices (e.g., telling a story, teaching approaches, and the implementation of physical and virtual resources) that attach values and meanings to a linguistic repertoire and semiotic resource in a particular institutional setting (Althusser, 2014; Anderson et al., 2022; Bacon, 2020; Fives & Gill, 2015; Metz, 2019; Rosa & Burdick, 2016). The definition builds on several recent findings found within recent educational linguistics literature (Bacon, 2020; Metz, 2019; Metz & Knight, 2021) focusing on teacher education and teachers’ language ideologies, synthesized below. 19 Educational linguists that have used this praxis-oriented approach have focused on teachers and how the role of language is imagined within the classroom (Bacon, 2020; Metz, 2019, Razfar, 2012); specifically, they have begun to reevaluate how ideology is not a series of internalized (un)conscious beliefs that are static and contradictory. Rather, to them, ideology is dynamic that is contextually performed. For instance, Metz (2019) found in his survey-based study with 310 U.S. high school English language arts teachers that the teachers held both hegemonic (i.e., Standard English is the correct form of English) and counter-hegemonic (i.e., embracing linguistic pluralism) language ideologies that conflicted with one another. In a more recent study, Metz and Knight (2021) further built upon Metz’s (2019) initial findings in their qualitative investigation with 27 English Language Arts content teachers. They found that their in-service teacher participants, despite coming from different backgrounds and life experiences, narrated their beliefs in a similar fashion. Specifically, content teachers expressed their beliefs in four particular clusters: (1) speaker characteristics, (2) societal perceptions of language, (3) the dominant school narrative, and (4) the English teachers’ role in teaching language (pp. 23-25). These ideological clusters have been identified in similar findings within applied linguistics, through studies that have offered a critique on monolingualism (Baker-Bell, 2017; Hinton, 2016; Silverstein, 1996; Wiley, 2014), neoliberalism/elite multilingualism (e.g., Barakos & Seeleck, 2019; Kubota, 2011, 2016), standard(ization of) English (Flores, 2020; Lippi-Green, 2012; MacSwan, 2020; Snow & Uccelli, 2009), and the language gap (Johnson & Johnson, 2022; Johnson & Zentella, 2017). For this reason, Metz and Knight (2021) go on to argue that there is a dominant school language narrative that is “not a single ideology, but the amalgamation of ideologies. It is a story that teachers tell about language use” (p. 251). 20 Ideology in this approach uses an assortment of data collection tools to capture participants’ multiple gazes (Gal & Irvine, 2019), or the varying vantage points that “creates a sign relation worthy of notice” (pp. 21-22), with the goal being to understand individuals’ beliefs within a particular site. The use of these multiple tools aims to investigate beliefs as it impacts teacher training and pre-service teachers (potential) classroom practices while also seeking to "complicate, and not just to triangulate, findings between forms of data" (Anderson et al., 2022, p. 13). Just as the multiplicity of one’s beliefs are shaped by one’s lived reality and are locally situated in a context and change over time, the complication of findings entails using multiple forms of data collection (e.g., surveys, interviews, and guided reflective logs) to provide varying insights about individuals multiple language ideologies that could be lost in focusing on one kind of data. For this reason, Gal and Irvine (2019) argue, there is a methodological imperative “to find as many of these gazes as possible and pertinent, and to investigate their differing construals” (p. 22) as evidence takes multiple and varying forms. The use of multiple forms of data has been illustrated in a number of studies focusing on both pre-service and in-service teachers’ beliefs surrounding supporting CLD students in the content classroom (e.g., Bacon, 2020, 2022; Banes, 2016; Metz, 2019; Metz & Knight, 2021). One way recent research has complicated their findings was through the use of mix methods. For example, Bacon’s (2020) semester-long mix-method study with 127 graduate pre- service teachers used an iterative design to understand pre-service teachers’ beliefs further. While his survey results provided insight that his participants disagreed with English-only teaching, he found within the survey his participants where hesitant to incorporate students L1 in their classroom. To complicate his findings, Bacon incorporated semi-structured interviews and written reflections. As a result of incorporating qualitative data, Bacon found participants’ 21 viewed language learning strategies irrelevant in the content classroom while also expressing not feeling equipped to incorporate “principles of language learning into practices relevant for their content area” (p. 182). The use of quantitative- and qualitative-oriented methods provides one way to complicate rather than simply triangulate findings to illuminate “a productive tension related to understanding complex, dynamic sociolinguistic systems” (Anderson et al., 2022, p. 14). Another way studies have complicated their findings was using complementary methods to provide a different type of insights. For example, Razfar’s (2012) narrative inquiry study used participatory observations, field notes, and semi-structured interviews to elicit emergent narratives that show his focal participant’s, an in-service teacher, “beliefs in relation to practice and student outcomes” (p. 78). Despite being all qualitative forms of data collection, Razfar provides a complex picture of his participant’s language ideologies as a form of practice in which “actors navigating and enacting difficult issues filled with tensions, contradictions, and multiple positionalities” make sense of their circumstances and relationships (p. 78). These findings support the findings of Bacon (2020) in that participants’ ideologies around teaching in the teacher training classroom did “not necessarily [translate] directly into practice” (Bacon, 2020, p. 184). While earlier scholars framed this similar result as teachers having contradictory beliefs (e.g., Henderson & Palmer, 2015; Metz, 2019), Razfar and Bacon’s findings illustrate language ideologies tied to individuals’ lived reality (Razfar, 2012) and “contextual incentives” (Bacon, 2020, p. 185) of their teaching. Therefore, complicating rather than triangulating one’s findings entails using the varying tools that provide varying vantage points to capture the fluidity and seemingly contradictory nature of individuals’ language ideologies in relation to their lived reality, the phenomenon in question, and the complex relationships they have with language. 22 Building on this body of language ideology work, I will explain how I used this approach in my dissertation next. Language Ideology in this study: practicing what they believe. Like studies before mine, I set out to understand how pre-service content teachers engage in sensemaking as they navigate and transverse the ideological terrain related to education. I adopt most of the components that compose language ideology as brought forth by scholars who have focused on this ideological approach. Specifically, I maintain that ideology is a cluster of concepts, representations, and partial and skewed understandings (Gal & Irvine, 2019), multifaceted and complex (Rosa & Burdrick, 2016), tied to practice (Razfar, 2012; Sayer, 2019), and contextually bounded across varying levels of interaction (Anderson et al., 2022; Bacon, 2020). In addition, ideology, for this dissertation, is embedded in social reality that is filtered through context and embodied performance that is tied to one’s intersectional identity. To focus on the way ideology is ingrained in our social reality, Althusser (2014) and Zizek (1989) inform my understanding. Ideology, as Althusser (2014) writes, “represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (p. 181). In other words, ideology helps shape an individual’s partial understanding to carry out a prescribed (in the context of this study, pedagogical) practice that reels them into an imagined relation to material conditions (e.g., curriculum, physical space of the classroom, accessible physical and virtual resources) they interpret and (im)materialize through their performance in a particular context (Althusser, 2014; Backer, 2020). For Althusser (2014), this performance is bounded to institutions within the meso-layer of society (Douglas fir Group, 2016) as a necessary part of social reality. Zizek (1989), who builds upon Althusser’s understanding of ideology, states: Ideology is not simply a ‘false consciousness,’ an illusory representation of reality, it is rather this reality itself which is already to be conceived as ‘ideological’ – ‘ideological’ is 23 a social reality whose very existence implies the non-knowledge of its participants as to its essence – that is, the social effectivity, the very reproduction of which implies that the individuals ‘do not know what they are doing.’ ‘Ideological’ is not the ‘false consciousness’ of a (social) being but this being itself in so far as it is supported by ‘false consciousness. (p. 21) As ideology is embedded in social reality, individuals –such as pre-service and in-service teachers as I will show—are generally unconscious of the activities/practices they opt to participate within. To illustrate Zizek’s (1989) point that ideology is a social reality supported by false consciousness2 , Kangas (2020) investigated why K-12 schools in the United States were not giving comparable resources or support to provide students with disabilities with opportunities for a meaningful education. In her qualitative study with 10 teachers, who were general educators, special educators, and ESL specialists, she found, Educators thought their beliefs about the respective laws and policies were facts….In actuality, their beliefs – and policies – were locally constructed in the walls of their schools, district offices, and intermediate units, not a policy trickling down from state or federal government (Kangas, 2020, p. 901, emphasis added) Kangas’s finding illustrates Zizek’s point that ideology can be valid or as a self-evident, valid in a particular context while obscuring the full understanding before realizing it; such realization, however, occurs through self-reflection or when teachers are made aware of the ideology. In elaborating upon how ideology is embedded in a social reality that can change based on the particular institutional context, I quickly turn to how language ideologies relate to the individual and their pedagogical performance as it is shaped by their intersectional identities. 2 “false consciousness” is a term originating from Marx where someone misconstru es one’s objective reality with their social reality to express or conceal their beliefs that are tied to their social or political position, perspective or interest (Marx & Simon, 1994; Eagelton, 1994; Rehmann, 2013; Vincent, 2010). 24 2.5 On Intersectional Identities and ideologies Language ideologies are also informed by the multiple identities and experiences of the individual. For this study, I adopt Norton’s (2013) definition of identity, in which she postulates identity as “the way 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. 4). This definition of identity entails identity as multidimensional and multifaceted. It also captures someone’s ideologies pertaining to a social group and categories in a particular context, whether real or imagined. Additionally, people’s language ideologies and identities are interrelated in regards to one’s positionalities on race, class, and others. For example, Chaparro’s study (2019) highlighted how an in-service teacher’s ideologies racialized the linguistic practices of poor and minoritized students in terms of race and language. The racialization created a durable deficit discourse through their uncritical adoption of classroom practices and materials in which students were measured against White, middle- to upper-class US English speakers. These deficit ideologies intersected not only race and language but also social class, which has rarely been explored (Glodjo, 2017) in applied linguistics. Focusing on social class and language, Hunt and Seiver’s (2018) review of empirical research on the U.S. education system found d eficit ideologies have “crept into mainstream thinking, including the poor as lazy, linguistically and cognitively deficient, impulsive, hypersexual, and not valuing education” (p. 346). However, in-service teachers are not the only ones to hold these particular beliefs because pre-service teachers have also been found to uphold them. Specifically, scholars have found that White pre-service teachers have explicitly held some deficit ideologies that continually intersect with race, social 25 class, and language. These discourses have been labeled in varying ways, such as the “Language Gap” (Johnson & Johnson, 2022) and the “Culture of Poverty” (Ladson-Billings, 2006, 2017). In exploring what ideologies and identities are and how they are interrelated, I use intersectionality to account for the multifaceted and multilayered nature surrounding categories such as race and social class, and how they mutually shape one another within and across contexts. Developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989), intersectionality is a heuristic device that challenges essentialist views of identities to consider how identity categories, such as class and race, converge and reinforce one another to differentially shape our experiences and the biases we experience (Collins & Bilge, 2020). While intersectionality is viewed as a heuristic, it is also an analytical tool to understand the complexities of one’s lived experience in a unified identity, such as that of a White monolingual pre-service teacher. While multiple approaches to analytically using intersectionality have been created, I use what McCall (2005) calls an intracategorical approach to intersectionality. This approach, as McCall (2005) explains, critically examines existing identities, such as social class, and challenges the essence of this category “in order to reveal the complexity of lived experience within such groups” (p. 1774). For example, research using intracateogrical approach focuses on how a singular identity, such as social class, intersects with other identity categories such as race and linguistic identity (e.g., English speaker) to understand the complexities of one’s lived experience in a unified identity. Using an intracatergorical approach to understand my focal participants' varying identities and experiences will provide a nuanced understanding of (1) their beliefs surrounding supporting culturally and linguistically students in their classroom, and (2) how their ideologies surrounding education are shaped before going into their teaching practicum. Now, I conclude the chapter 26 with a brief overview of the current study and the two research questions that guide my dissertation. 2.6 Justification for the study Based on the current literature, I identify two gaps concerning teacher education as it relates to supporting CLD students and language ideologies. The first concerns the need for more scholarship on the ideologies that undergraduate K-12 content teachers have toward teaching and supporting CLD students. Much of the research on language ideologies has been focused on in- service teachers (Metz, 2019; Metz & Knight, 2021; Sah & Uysal, 2022). While research focusing on pre-service teachers has been growing, studies have focused on graduate student participants enrolled in coursework tied to the degree they were pursuing (e.g., Anderson et al., 2021; Bacon, 2020). While there have been a few studies that have focused on undergraduate pre-service teachers (e.g., Banes et al., 2016; Garrity et al., 2018), more research is needed concerning how undergraduate pre-service teachers’ life histories inform their various language ideologies in their future classrooms. The second gap relates to the documentation of deficit ideologies despite U.S. teacher education programs attempting to address inequities in education. There is a need to understand the way pre-service teachers engage or disengage with the current training and reimagine training to help pre-service teachers understand how an uncritical adoption of language ideologies in their teaching can impact their students. While scholars have begun to propose ways to integrate ideologies into teacher education programs (e.g., Li & Sah, 2020; Shandomo, 2010), more research is needed to explore ways praxis activities that both assist and involve pre- service teachers in developing “rationally defensible beliefs that would enable them to fulfill the more responsibilities of teaching” (Ashton, 2014, p. 36). 27 Therefore, I set out in this dissertation to look at pre-service teachers’ language ideologies, and how their lived experiences and positionalities shape their understanding over whether language integrates into their content teaching and students’ learning. This research poses the following questions: 1. How do pre-service teachers’ identities inform the ways they express their ideologies related to teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students? 2. How do pre-service teachers engage with their undergraduate education as they prepare to support multilingual learners in the K-12 content classroom? To answer these questions, this study takes a narrative case study design (Duff, 2008, 2012; Stake, 1995, 2005) that examines the ideologies of four undergraduates, Skyler, Steve, Jeff, and Mike (pseudonyms), with respect to race, social class, language, and education as they are about to become teachers in the U.S. K-12 educational system. 28 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY OF A NARRATIVE CASE STUDY The last two chapters focused on the background of the study while also outlining how identities and ideologies interconnect. This chapter situates the hybridized methodology used in this study in accordance with a post-structuralist paradigm. Next, I devote space to discuss the context of the study, Evergreen State University (ESU), along with my four focal participants, Skyler, Steve, John, and Michael (all names and locations are pseudonyms). Following that, I elaborate upon the different methods developed and used in my research study and explain how I analyzed the data collected from the tools used. Lastly, I elaborate upon my positionality within the study and the macro and micro ethical decisions I made during this process. 3.1 Narrative Case Study This study aims to investigate White undergraduate pre-service content teachers concerning how their positionalities around social class and race, their lived experiences, and the context in which they are situated inform their ideologies toward supporting English learners. To achieve this aim and to address the study's research questions, I adopted a hybridized methodological framework, specifically a narrative case study design, for this study. A narrative case study draws from narrative inquiry (Benson, 2014; Barkhuizen, 2015, 2019; Polkinghorne, 1995) and case study (Duff, 2008, 2012, 2020; Creswell & Poth, 2018; Stake, 1995) methodology. Specifically, narrative inquiry is "a way of doing research that focuses on the stories we tell about our lives … the meaning we make of the events we live or imagine in our future lives" (Barkhuizen, 2015, p. 169). In other words, narrative inquiry focuses on the stories and, ultimately, the narratives of a person or a group of people as a means of constructing and reflecting upon the knowledge found within these experiences (Benson, 2014; Creswell & Poth, 2018). However, narrative inquiry, as Brakhuizen (2019) explains, has a range of dimensions 29 that can distinguish a narrative study (i.e., the focusing on narratives and the way they are composed) (i.e., the use of narratives as a method to explore the phenomenon in question). For this study, I used narratives to study pre-service teachers' ideology but do not want to rely solely on narrative data in order to full understanding of my participants’ beliefs through multiple sources of data. For this reason, I adopted a case study design. Case study research bears a particular ontology that sets out to understand a specific problem thoroughly, incident, or phenomenon tied to a particular context and time (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Duff, 2012, 2020; Stake, 1995). As Creswell and Poth (2018) further explain, case study research is a type of qualitative design where the "investigator explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information" (p. 96). I used a single case approach for this research study because I am not focusing on multiple contexts but on a particular context regarding how prepared a group of pre-service teachers are to support linguistically and culturally diverse students in a Midwestern state of the United States (Duff, 2008, 2012, 2020; Stake, 2005, 1995). Case study research has the ability to, as Duff (2020) explains, "offer a strong heuristic property as well as for analytic possibilities for illustrating a phenomenon in very vivid, detailed, and highly contextualized ways from different perspectives" (p. 145). In other words, researchers can use various data collection tools (e.g., surveys, interviews, documents) to discover or at least better understand the phenomenon in question. The use of these different types of data sources provides the researcher with multiple perspectives to understand a particular phenomenon through triangulation, and allows readers to judge whether the context of the study has any congruence to their own context, something which is referred to as transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Duff, 2008). In this way, a narrative case study offers 30 me a means to draw on multiple data sources and participants' narratives to understand the phenomenon around language ideologies – whether viewed positively or negatively. 3.2 Research Site Evergreen State University (ESU) is a Midwestern research university. The university has a nationally acclaimed undergraduate teacher education program that takes students five years to complete. The first four years of the program focus on developing pre-service teachers' content knowledge related to their subject matter (e.g., social studies, science, math, language arts), along with taking courses related to "the most effective teaching practices" (ESU website). For pre-service teachers aiming to be elementary teachers, ESU's primary aim is to provide training so that teachers can teach all subjects in grades K-5. This training entails developing the necessary depth of knowledge to teach their desired subject area (e.g., science, language arts, social studies, or mathematics) in self-contained classrooms. In addition to their major, students must also pick a minor (also called an endorsement) from 9 approved options. Regardless of the minor, elementary pre-service teachers must take three courses related to TESOL according to education program’s elementary academic advising guide 2022/2023. Pre-service teachers who aim to teach secondary education (grades 6 – 12) focus on developing the necessary content knowledge when they choose a major that is outside of education but related to an area of instruction. For instance, someone majoring in chemistry could teach science in middle and high school in the United States, whereas someone majoring in history, economics, or political science would be able to teach social studies. Pre-service secondary teachers, however, do not need to take a minor from the teaching education program but must take four courses related to teaching, learning, and supporting diverse learners. 31 Regarding teaching language learners in the Midwest state where ESU is located, there is no specific major since pre-service teachers must have a core major in a content area – which includes languages that are not English (e.g., Spanish). Although there is no major, there is a minor that could be paired with a content major. To be TESOL endorsed, both elementary and secondary pre-service teachers need to apply to enroll due to limited space (ESU website). Once enrolled, they take five TESOL and linguistically related courses (e.g., second language theories, TESOL methods, approaches to teaching grammar, second language learning for children, and language and culture). In addition, as ESU outlines, "candidates are required (by [state's department of education]) to document their own experiences learning [an additional language to] gain an appreciation of the processes involved" (ESU education website). In other words, pre- service teachers at ESU in Midwest state should learn another language as they are training to be a teacher. After completing their course work, pre-service teachers would then have their fifth and final year dedicated to a teaching internship where they intern and practice their teaching in either urban, suburban, or rural schools in the Midwest. In conjunction with the general education program, pre-service teachers entering the practicum stage have the ability to choose where they go for their placement. They can then take two tests run by the state to be certified as an elementary or secondary teacher. During this study, the COVID-19 pandemic raged across the United States, with ESU, like all institutions at the time, going remote between early spring 2020 to Fall 2021. Between spring 2020 to Fall 2021, all classes at ESU went online, and classroom placements in ESU's teacher training program had lined up either online or canceled to minimize the risk to both learners and teachers. When this study started in the Spring of 2022, ESU, the Midwest state, and the United States were beginning to roll back restrictions emplaced at the beginning of the 32 pandemic. Part of this reason was due to the number of cases falling due to the vaccine being disseminated. The other part was due to the general public becoming increasingly frustrated with the pandemic and wanting to go back to "normal." Due to these restrictions beginning to be lifted, my participants and I had to navigate these changes (see ethics section). 3.3 Participants For this study, I purposefully sought a homogenous sampling that was comprised of White male pre-service teachers who were in the last two years of their training. While I selected White pre-service teachers as they represented the majority of the teaching force (Irwin et al., 2021) I opted to recruit White males as they both represent the majority in terms of ethnicity but not in gender as, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 23% of the teaching force are males (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). This decision comes as White women are largely represented within the recent scholarship focusing on how language ideologies impact language use within the content classroom (e.g., Coady et al., 2016; Sah & Uysal, 2022). While there are arguments to be made to include the female participants as they train to be content teachers, there is a need to also understand and investigate how White males’ narratives converge and diverge as they view their roles as teachers in relation to language within the narrative education. Therefore, I focus on White males in this research study. Due to the pandemic, I virtually recruited my participants over email through the assistance of colleagues teaching TESOL and linguistically related courses at ESU. For this study, I was able to recruit four undergraduate White male students who were learning to become K-12 educators who were and were not aiming to be endorsed to teach English as a Second Language (TESOL). My participants were Skyler, Steve, John, and Michael3 , and they were in 3 all names and places were replaced with pseudonyms or deidentified in order to protect my participants’ identity. 33 their mid-twenties. Table 2 provides an overview of my participants' backgrounds as they self- reported on the survey that incorporated traditional objective questions to measure social class (e.g., income, level of education, living accommodation) and subjective questions from the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (Adler & Stewart, 2007; Rubin, 2012; Rubin et al., 2014). While I further explain this scale in the data collection section of this chapter, the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status is a set of two subjective questions that gauges participants’ perceived socioeconomic position (Adler & Stewart, 2007). These questions ask participants to locate themselves on a scale from one to ten with ten indicating they perceive their perceived position in their community to be above other members. I intentionally left community vague in the survey. These subjective questions together with more traditional objective measures were used to develop an initial understanding of my participants’ socioeconomic position at the time of this study. Skyler identified himself as a White, monolingual English speaker who was born and raised in the same state as Evergreen. Specifically, he grew up in a small town that is part of the largest metropolitan city in the state, but, as he describes, his hometown is "technically a suburb of [metropolitan city], but we are the farthest, most away [suburb]" (Interview 1). His parents owned their own home in this small commuter town, with Skyler highlighting he lived "in a relatively big house" in between the trailer park and what he and his friends referred to as the "nice neighborhood" (Guided Reflective Log 3). Living in such a relatively sized house, his parents had an approximate joint income of $100,000 – $149,999. This caused Skyler to respond to the MacArthur Scale question as a 7 (community) and 6 (the rest of the United States) for his family income. Both of his parents attended college, where Skyler's mother earned a Bachelor's in education and his father earned a Master's degree. 34 Skyler went straight from high school to attending Evergreen State University during the height of the pandemic. He was aiming to be a special educator, or someone who works with children with disabilities, within primary education (grades K-6) with no intention to get endorsed in ESL. During this study, he was in his last semester of courses before going into the teaching practicum. Skyler attended in-person classes and lived in an apartment with one or more peers near ESU. Additionally, he was a tutor assisting teenagers and adults prepare for their Tests of General Education Development but did this job for the experience as a way to prepare for his future career as a teacher. A majority (75%) of Skyler's living expenses came from his parents providing monetary support, with the remaining 25% coming from part-time work. Steve identified himself as a White, emergent bilingual English (first language) and Spanish (learning) speaking male. He was raised in a small suburban town in the same Midwestern state as Evergreen State University but is approximately 10 minutes from the state's southern border. He described his hometown as being hidden since "nobody knows where that's at" since he said it had "maybe less than 2000 people" (Interview 1). He continued to describe his hometown as mainly composed of White and Latinx populations, with English and Spanish commonly used. Steve's parents, like Skyler's, made around $100,000 to $149,999, and his parents owned a home and held post-secondary degrees. His mother received an associate's degree, and his father received a Bachelor's degree. Steve responded to the MacArthur Scale questions for his perceived standing (Questions 12 & 13) in his hometown and the rest of the United States as a 7 for his family income. On the other hand, he responded to his general perceived social class position within his community – his hometown – as an 8 (Survey item 17) and a 6 (Survey item 18) for the rest of the United States. Steve went straight from high school to ESU. He was living in ESU's dorms on campus. 80% of his living expenses came from his 35 parents providing monetary support, with the remaining 20% coming from scholarships as he pursued his current secondary education major. During this study, Steve was pursuing to be a history teacher in secondary education (grades 6-12) with no intention to be endorsed in ESL. However, he was pursuing a Spanish minor that required him to take some ESL-focused courses. At the time of this study, Steve was in his last semester of course work before going into his teaching practicum. Jeff identified himself as a White "Czech" bilingual male born and raised in the United States. He spoke English (L1) and Spanish (L2) fluently as his additional language. He was born in the same state as ESU but was raised near its Western state border in a small town a few hours away driving from ESU and an hour away from a metropolitan city. His parents owned a home with an approximate income of between 150,000 and 174,999 USD. His mother earned a master's degree in education, while his dad only had some college experience but no degree. John responded to the MacArthur Scale questions for his perceived standing (Questions 12 & 13) as a 5 for his hometown and a 6 for the rest of the United States. However, he responded to his general perceived social class position within his community – his hometown – as a 7 (Survey item 17) and a 6 (Survey item 18) for the rest of the United States. In terms of his living accommodation, he lived in an apartment off ESU's campus alone. 50% of his living expenses came from his parents providing monetary support, with the remaining 50% coming from himself as he was teaching. During this study, Jeff was aiming to be a world language teacher (specifically in Spanish) in secondary education along with an ESL endorsement. Jeff completed all of his coursework and was doing his teaching placement at a local high school near ESU. It was also 36 during this time Jeff was applying to jobs as his practicum would be completed shortly after the research study. Mike identified himself specifically as a White "American" male who is an emergent bilingual speaker with English being his first language and French being his additional language with limited proficiency. Unlike Skyler, Steve, or John, Mike was born and raised on the East coast in the suburbs of one of the largest metropolitan cities in the United States. For Mike, he lived in a bilingual home with his mother and his au pair –a helper such as a nanny or a butler who comes from another country to work for and live with the host family –and spoke French at home. Both of his parents held post-secondary degrees, his mother holding a bachelor's degree, and his father holding a professional one. Michael's parents owned their own home and made over 200,000 USD and, at the time of the study, were prepared to buy a home in the Southwest of the United States. Mike responded to the MacArthur Scale questions for his perceived standing based on his family income (Questions 12 & 13) where he indicated a 7 for his hometown and a 10 (the top of the ladder) compared to the rest of the United States. Interestingly, when asked the Macarthur Scale questions (Questions 17 & 18) based on his general social standing based on income, education, and respected jobs, Mike placed himself substantially lower in his hometown (5) than the rest of the United States (8) compared to the rest of the participants. Mike went straight from high school to ESU. He was living in an apartment with a peer off ESU's campus, where 70% of his living expenses came from his parents providing monetary support, with the remaining 30% coming from scholarships as he pursued his current secondary education major with an ESL endorsement. Mike decided to attend ESU in order to get away from his hometown located on the East coast of the United States and ultimately wanted to attend a school that “would be the most 37 flexible with what [he] wanted to do” (Interview 1). In this case, Mike initially wanted to focus on engineering and physics which ESU provided him with a clear pathway to do along with “a very substantial scholarship” that informed his decision to attend ESU. As I will further explain in Chapter 4, Mike shifted to training to be a secondary science teacher with an ESL endorsement due to the pandemic. During the study, he was in his last year of coursework before going into the teaching practicum. Table 2 Narrative case study participant bios Name Major Linguistic Living Mother's (M); Approximate background accommodations Father's (F) Annual family * while attending Education income university (Living (Primary form of accommodation) support) Skyler Primary English Renting an apartment (M) $100,000 – Special (L1) with multiple peers Bachelors; $149,000 Education (Supported by (F) Master's (Own home) no ESL parents) endorsement Steve Secondary English Living in a dorm on (M) $100,000 – Education (L1.), campus Associate; 149,999 no ESL Spanish (Support by parents) (F) Bachelor's (Own home) endorsement (L2) Jeff Secondary English Living in an (M) Masters; $150,000 – Education (L1), apartment by myself (F) Some $174,999 with ESL Spanish (Supported by parents college but no (Own home) endorsement (fluent L2) and self-supported) degree Mike Secondary English Living in an (M) $200,000+ Education (L1), apartment and renting Bachelor's; (Own home) with ESL limited with one or more (F) endorsement French peers Professional (L2) (Supported by degree J.D. parents) 1 Participants self-identified their ethnicity and gender identity along with language proficiency. 38 3.4 Data Collection I attained a certificate of approval for this research study in January 2022 from The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at ESU. Once I gained this certificate, I proceeded to do targeted recruitment. I reached out to several colleagues teaching courses related to language teaching methods, and asked if they would be able to connect me with some potential participants who were White men. After connecting me with potential participants, the instructors were not informed if they participated or not. Once the introduction was made, I emailed potential participants individually to inform them of the purpose, the level of participation, and the voluntary nature of the study, in which I made clear no repercussions would occur if they decided not to participate. In explaining the study, I also informed them they would be monetarily compensated for participating where they would receive in total $200. After this initial email, I answered all the questions they had about participating in the study to ensure they were fully informed before making their decision. Once they indicated they would like to participate, I would send them a Qualtrics survey link that had them go through the consent form again before starting the main survey. Once the survey was complete, I set up times with each participant individually to begin the interviews while also setting up their individual Google Drive folder that housed the reflective journal prompts. My participants only had access to their folder, which required them to sign into their school account to access the contents within the folder. In using a narrative case study design, I collected multiple data sources to attain an in- depth and detailed understanding of each of my participants. Following the example and recommendation of several recent ideology studies (Anderson et al., 2022; Bacon, 2020; Metz, 2019), I use an assortment of data collection tools to "complicate, and not just to triangulate, 39 findings between forms of data" (Anderson et al., 2022, p. 13). Specifically, I used complementary methods to collect multiple data sources that provide a different type of insight to understand pre-service teachers' language ideologies concerning their positionalities around social class and race in relation to their community, the ESU teacher training program, and language. However, my study deviates from recent ideology studies since these studies resulted in using a mixed-method approach as a means to complicate their data. This complication between data for these studies results in having a large number of participants to run statistical analysis while also collecting fine-grain data from qualitative sources (often assignments meant to be a source of reflection). While their complication has provided substantial insight concerning ideologies surrounding pre- and in-service teachers, my study does not have the number of participants to run any informative statistical analysis. Rather, the survey, the multiple interviews, and the guided reflective logs I implemented for this study serve to provide a complex picture that requires an in-depth look at each participant. Each source of data (outside of the survey) used an iterative approach to tailor questions and data collection materials relevant to my participants. This approach allowed me to deeply engage and dive deeper into my participants’ responses while making the materials relevant to them. Additionally, I used interview vignettes to elicit participants’ beliefs that could not be captured in doing only semi-structured interviews –I further explain interview vignettes later in this section. The difference of complicating one’s findings to that of triangulation is that the latter is aiming to develop a comprehensive understanding concerning a particular phenomenon through the convergence of multiple and different data sources. Complicating one’s findings, however, entails using complementary forms of data to understand the messy relationship an individual has with a particular 40 phenomenon at the time of the study. This entails not settling on truncating one’s varying findings to a unified theme. Rather, the goal is to answer the research questions with the quirks that come when studying the complex, multidimensional relationship that comes when researching people’s beliefs about language in relation to their lived experiences and the particular phenomenon under investigation. Therefore, the data sources listed in Table 3 provide a snapshot of how I used my data sources to answer my RQs. Table 3 Research questions (RQs) and corresponding data sources RQ # Focus of Question Sources of data RQ 1 students' identities shape how they • Survey express their beliefs concerning • Interviews 1, 2, & 3 culturally and linguistically diverse • Reflective response logs students. RQ 2 pre-service teachers engage with and • Archival documents (TE ESL perceive their undergraduate education endorsement curriculum; Teacher as they prepare to support multilingual certification description) learners in the K-12 content classroom? • Interviews 2, 3, & 4 • Reflective response logs The data collection lasted over five months in the 2022 spring semester. In what follows, I further describe the data I collected, why they are used, and how they were developed. In doing so, I aim to provide a transparent picture concerning the design of my study and to establish trustworthiness needed for qualitative investigations. Research Journal. Throughout this study, I kept a research journal to record my decisions as issues arose during the data collection process. Additionally, I used the research journal to engage my reflexivity as I handled the micro-ethical considerations throughout the study (Appleby, 2016; Attia & Edge, 2016; De Costa et al., 2021a). Recording my thought 41 process within this journal allowed me to create an audit trail (Akkerman et al., 2006; de Kleijn & Leeuwen, 2018). This audit trail, as Duff (2008) writes, "involves keeping records of relevant documentation for decisions made, data collection strategies, the development of instruments or protocols, and examples of analysis procedures…[to create] a paper trail of what was done and why, should questions arise later" (p. 109-110). In other words, an audit trail documents the development of a research study from the idea's inception to the presentation of the findings to establish the transferability and trustworthiness of the research study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). A research journal assists in this process by noting the research decisions (e.g., when, and how often interviews be held) and the activities (e.g., how the data will be analyzed and why). I also used the journal to self-question these decisions and reflect on my attitude throughout the research process. Additionally, this research journal allowed me to reflect on privilege as it relates to myself and my participants who are White males. While using a research journal and being a reflexive researcher is advocated for when doing qualitative research (Attia & Edge, 2016; Duff, 2008), how the journal is constructed, maintained, and used is often an individual endeavor. Some may employ a "Dear dairy" approach. Others may establish a systematic log approach detailing the day, time, and other specific information for careful review for future inquiries. Despite the approach, these journals provide a way to talk with oneself as problems, issues, and general topics occur throughout the study. Therefore, I used the following protocol when developing my research journal. On the first page, I established my dissertation research journal rules which comprised of the following five rules: 1) Entries in this book must be established chronologically. a. No divvying the book into sections for certain topics or phases of the dissertation – this transition should occur naturally. 2) Every entry/topic in this book is only for my dissertation. 42 a. No to-do list or daily lists unless it pertains to my dissertation 3) Each topic/entry must have a short title and an accompanied number (chronological) a. If the topic extends beyond a page, simply put the same number on the left side of the following page. 4) I must provide context (2-3 sentences) to the topic/entry. a. This provides a means to understand the framing or current place of writing the topic/entry. 5) Outside of this rule section, I must write in pen. I used the journal following the abovementioned rules every time I grappled with a new decision relating to this research project, whether methodological or theoretical. I also used this to write down my ideas about what I found in my data analysis in the form of memos. Pen was used to write these entries, so they do not fade or become smudged—a problem I continually face as I am left-handed—over time. Additionally, I use a pen rather than a pencil as a means to being unable to erase any perceived mistakes at the time. There were instances, after reflection, where these mistakes provided insight concerning the topic being written on or other areas of my dissertation research. Survey. A survey (see Appendix A) was designed and administered to attain participants, consent to participate in the study (see ethics section), background information, and their beliefs concerning their view of language in education. The survey was composed of 32 items that used multiple-choice, fill-in the response, a bar slider equaling 100 responses, and two matrix tables. All questions except for the consent to participate in this study were optional. Focusing on participants' backgrounds, I used multiple choice and fill-in responses to get participants gender, race/ethnicity, country of origin, languages spoken, amount of courses taken focusing on TESOL, and if they are pursuing an ESL endorsement. For questions concerning their ethnicity, I opted to adopt the U.S. Census 2020 questions multi-select questions to provide participants with described options while still having the freedom to specify further. For example, if participants indicated they were White, they could further specify their ethnicity (e.g., White German). The 43 background questions were placed at the beginning of the survey immediately after the consent form. Once the background questions were filled, the survey shifted to focus on participants' social class. I used objective and subjective items to identify participants' social class. In noting that social class comprises an individual's material affordances and their perceived position in society, the survey I initially developed for my QRP 2 had participants answer questions focused on both the objective and subjective measurements of social class. For the objective measurements, I adopted questions that focused on parents' education level, family income, family accommodations, participants' current living accommodations, and who covers the participants' housing costs (see Connelly et al., 2020; Rubin, 2012). To contextualize these responses, I incorporated the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (Adler & Stewart, 2007). The MacArthur Scale asks participants to locate themselves on a 10-rung "social ladder," with the higher rungs denoting higher social class position (e.g., ten equates to the top class in this instance). As noted by Adler and Stewart (2007), this scale has two variations, with the first asking my participants to place themselves in relation to other people in their country (i.e., the United States). The other version is similar but asked them to place themselves within their community – in this case, the definition of a community is withheld, resulting in participants defining it for themselves. As Rubin et al. (2014) noted, this subjective measure captures aspects otherwise missed by only incorporating objective measures since it provides a way to ask participants to self-identify themselves within their community and country. These subjective social class questions requiring reflection and self-identification were followed up in the first interview session (Appendix A). 44 Guided reflective journals. Reflective journals are an effective tool to understand and get another perspective on participants' thoughts, reflections, and experiences surrounding four areas of interest related to teaching CLD learners that may not be available in a survey or a synchronous semi-structured interview. I developed four journal entries that participants had to complete online on Google Drive between the last three interview sessions. Each entry used a similar structure. Each journal had instructions at the beginning that established clear expectations about the content participants needed to provide for that journal. Specifically, I specified the length of each journal in terms of approximate word length – I also provided an optional time length in case participants needed to gauge how long to spend on the journal generally. The type of information for that journal provides participants with an overarching purpose and a few guiding but optional (3 – 5) questions. Each journal had four different purposes tied to the central research questions. The first is their linguistic background in order to understand their relationship with language and language learning – again, following the example of (Anderson et al., 2021; Bacon, 2020). The second is their views surrounding academic achievement concerning what it is, what it entails for learners, and what it means specifically for language learners. The third log focused on how they perceive social class along with how their social and linguistic background may shape how they support emergent bilingual learners. The fourth log had participants reflect on how their experience participating in this research study may have informed their imagined role in their future classrooms. Lastly, the bottom of each journal entry had a privacy clause. This clause said, "all data collected will be de-identified (removing names of people, places, and other aspects that may identify your participation in this study). Only I and my advisor will have access to this data." This clause reminded my participants that they were free to write anything related to the 45 prompt and not worry about self-censorship. Moreover, I let them know I would de-identify this information before disseminating it to the scientific community. Once the reflective logs were completed, I commented on participants' journals when I wanted to inquire further about something they had written before, during, and after the interview. This allowed our dialogue to be open during the interviews and in the journals as I sought to understand better their beliefs concerning the overarching prompts I created. Interview vignettes. For this study, A vignette is a written incomplete descriptive episode that is used to reflect "realistic and identifiable settings that resonate with participants for the purpose of provoking responses" to potentially sensitive issues or topics (Skilling & Stylianides, 2020, pp. 542-543), while also encouraging discussion concerning potential solutions to a particular problem "where multiple solutions are possible" (Jeffries & Maeder, 2005, p. 20). While vignettes are rarely used within the field of applied linguistics (e.g., Basturkment et al., 2004; Graus & Coppen, 2017), scholars in education (e.g., Storms, 2014) and social work (e.g., Bradbury-Jones et al., 2014; Hughes & Huby, 2004) have actively used vignettes to understand the phenomenon under investigation further. In this regard, vignettes provide a focus and stimulus for the participant to engage in sensitive topics through plausible situations as a means to reflect and engage with ideologies that may not be possible in the other methodologies such as interviews, observations, and surveys (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2014; Hughes & Huby, 2004; Wilks, 2004). In regard to researching pre-service teachers' beliefs, participants' response to the vignette represents the mix of their knowledge and beliefs as they attempt to make sense of and orient themselves to the scenario presented to them (Jenkins et al., 2010). This sense-making and orientation to a vignette can further encourage participants to reveal personal experiences that are 46 related to the decisions they employ in the scenario. The central critique of vignettes entails that this hypothetical situation cannot fully capture a real-life context since vignettes cannot contain all necessary information resulting in participants' actions not being reflective of what they would actually do in a similar but real situation (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2014; Jenkins et al., 2010). In noting this critique, O'Dell et al. (2012) highlight the role of vignettes is not to predict what individuals will do but to understand their subjective beliefs, feelings, and experiences that come out through their interpretation and orientation to the vignette. Moreover, the lack of relevant information in the scenario to inform participants' responses is beneficial in investigating language ideologies or beliefs in general since the gap in information provides a space for individuals to interpret these situations and bring in their personal experiences, stories, and understandings to this new (ultimately hypothetical) situation (Hughes & Huby, 2004). Through this ability to engage with participants’ ideologies in a different, more context-focused way, I employ vignettes within my interviews. For my study, I developed three vignettes that focus on three issues: (1) access to education during the height of the pandemic; (2) a teacher using deficit discourse to stereotype a language learner between a fellow teacher; and (3) students engaging in raciolinguistic ideologies to position their peer as a deficit learner. These vignettes were used as a simulated response with the last three interview sessions to elicit value-laden responses surrounding sensitive social justice issues related to social class, race, and language in an educational context. Following the recommendations of Skilling and Stylianides (2020) and Jeffries and Maeder (2005), I designed each vignette to be 150 – 200 words in length that attempted to portray the characters and the school context realistically. This was done by reviewing scholarship related to the language gap ideology (Johnson & Johnson, 2022) – see vignette #1, linguistically 47 responsive teaching (Lucas & Villegas, 2013) and raciolinguistic ideology literature (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Von Esch et al., 2020) – see vignette #3; and, reading the news of events that occurred during the pandemic and literature focusing on the digital divide (van Dijk, 2019) –see, vignette #2 (Appendix B). Once the vignette was initially made, I piloted them with teachers and teacher educators to assess how representative the situation and participants were within the vignette. This resulted in refining each vignette multiple times to tweak the length, the focus, and the content while considering what questions to ask with each vignette that also went through a piloting stage. When administrating the vignette, I informed participants there was no "wrong" answer. Additionally, the first and last vignette was introduced at the beginning of the second and fourth interviews. The second vignette was introduced near the end of the third interview. This was to see if participants and myself responded to the interview differently depending on when t he vignette occurred. Lastly, participants could read the vignette for themselves and continue to refer to it as they engaged in both the standard questions – the questions I developed for each vignette that was asked for each participant – and unscripted questions to explore their responses further. Interviews. I employed interviews as a central form of data collection to understand participants' experiences, beliefs, and other forms of socially constructed knowledge. Although interviews are commonly used in qualitative research, there are primarily three ways they are implemented and structured, with each format differing in rigidity. These three formats are often referred to as open-structured, semi-structured, and closed-structured interviews (Prior, 2018; Wengraf, 2001). All three kinds of interviews fall on a continuum based on the agency and the extent to which a question constrains the participant’s response. Specifically, open questions are 48 used in interviews to create rapport with the participant while allowing them to discuss a central topic or prompt in any amount of detail and depth. A more closed question constrains participants' responses, leaving little room for spontaneity (Prior, 2018, pp. 231 - 232). For my study, I used four semi-structured interviews with each participant that used a mix of closed and open questions. In using four semi-structured interviews with each participant, the amount of structure of each interview varied from moderately to heavily structured based on the focus of the interview (Wengraf, 2001). The first interview (see Appendix A) was a warm-up/induction session for the study. In this interview, I wanted to understand better my participant's backgrounds concerning how they got into teaching and taking a class on language education. This resulted in a majority of the questions being open. I informed my participants that I would like to learn more about them and their personal life history, so they should feel free to take as much time and provide as much information as they feel comfortable sharing. The second interview (see Appendix A) sought to understand their community and get a tentative sense of how their ideologies on race shape their view understanding of teaching practices they are learning within the United States. The focus on race within the second interview derives from recent literature illustrating one’s beliefs about language speakers intersects with racial identities (De Costa et al., 2021c; Flores & Rosa, 2015; Von Esch et al., 2020) In the third interview (see Appendix A), I was focused on learning what they considered "Standard English" and its role in instructing their future students. This third interview was primarily aimed at eliciting their language ideologies, mainly facilitated by further understanding participants’ responses to the language ideology statements portion of the survey (see Appendix C). The fourth and final interview focused on their role in making education more equitable. While the first interview took on a more narrative approach in which I 49 focused on the participants' life history as they got into education, the other interviews also provided participants the ability to use their experiences as a resource to answer the more structured interview sessions. This is due to partly using an episodic narrative approach (Muller, 2019) that is informed by their responses in the questionnaire, guided reflective logs, and vignette responses. An episodic narrative approach, as defined by Muller (2019), is "a systematic, "funneled" approach that is used to encourage research participants to convey bounded stories about their experiences of particular phenomena" (p.2). In other words, this type of interview approach allows me to understand my participants' beliefs and perceptions toward social concepts (e.g., race, social class, and language) and issues related to education while also providing participants the autonomy to "choose the content and detail" of the stories they opted to tell as they perceive their experiences connected to these social concepts and issues (p. 3). This approach has six steps to structure the interview. Muller (2019) outlined these steps as 1. Select a phenomenon of interest 2. Describe the interview process – provide a summary of the interview structure and process 3. Definition of the phenomenon – ask the participant to define or describe the phenomenon of interest 4. Request: a story about an episode – interview asks the participant to share a story about a situation, event, period, or occurrence within a context of interest 5. Request: a story about the phenomenon – interviewer asks the participant to share a story about the phenomenon within the context of the episode described earlier. 6. Additions or amendments – Participants are provided the opportunity to add on or amend any part of the narrative they have shared. (p. 6) I developed my semi-structured interviews following the recommendation of Muller (2019) as a way to structure my interviews to elicit and focus participants' narratives to the phenomenon I am investigating. 50 Muller's (2019) strategy proved to be a reasonably practical and useful strategy for starting interview sessions, such as the second one, which focused on issues of race and education, a current and difficult topic in the United States. Focusing on the second interview, I asked participants to provide me with their understanding of race after we made a light conversation. Once they provided me with their definition, I asked if there was an experience or experience in their life that informed me how they developed this understanding. After providing their definition, I asked them if this was the case anytime while in school. This allowed participants to engage with and reflect on these experiences while being open to discussing these difficult topics. In between these questions, I also shared my experiences with issues to connect with their understanding but share my slightly different understanding of the topic being asked and how my own experiences built my views. While Mulller's (2019) approach allowed participants to connect with topics with their experiences, I also created interview questions following Wengraf's (2001) recommendation on how to create open and closed interview questions that address my research questions without asking the research question or questions that were too theoretical and therefore, difficult for my participants to understand. Using four rounds of moderately structured interviews that followed Muller's (2019) episodic narrative structure and Wengraf's (2001) interview question development, I conducted the interviews with each participant, which lasted an hour to an hour and a half. There were, however, times the interview went over 90 minutes due to the participants wanting to discuss their thoughts about the topic of the interview. Each interview was audio-recorded using a hand recorder or Zoom – this depended on the participants’ preference and state of the pandemic to meet in person or online (see Ethics section in this chapter). Once recorded, I roughly transcribed the completed interviews using Otter.ai (https://otter.ai) before meeting the next interview with 51 them. This was done as a way to review the transcripts before the next interview as a way to clarify or further ask about something that was said that was interesting and related to my research questions or something that we did not have time to get to due to the session hitting or (at times) exceeding time. After all the interviews, I refined the transcriptions by carefully listening to and correcting any sections incorrectly transcribed by the Otter.ai software. Overall, I collected five survey responses, over 23 hours of interviews, and around 70 pages of reflective journal entries. In discussing why surveys, guided reflective logs, vignettes, research journals, and semi-structured interviews were used and how they were developed, I will go into how I analyzed the data generated from these instruments to address my central research aim. 3.5 Data analysis After collecting all of the survey responses, guided reflective logs, and semi-structured interviews – and using Otter.ai (https://otter.ai) to finalize the transcripts of those interviews near the end of May 2022, I created .docx files of the interviews along with the guided reflective journals. To go through the 23 hours of interview data and around 70 pages of reflective journal entries, I used a digital qualitative analysis tool to assist me in organizing and coding the data. Specifically, I used MaxQDA since it afforded me the tools to organize, integrate and visualize my codes (Consoli, 2021; Oswald, 2017; Paulus et al., 2013). Additionally, I used MAXQDA due to my familiarity with the software as I have used it for prior projects and assisting in several workshops, the user-friendly interface and intuitive operating system, the expansive functionality, and the cost of the tool4 . Finally, MAXQDA provided me with the means to 4 This is solely based on my opinion using the tool for both qualifying examines and multiple research projects. I have also examined the various qualitative data tools and came to the conclusion MAXQDA is the most “bang for the buck” for a graduate student compared to similar available tools on the market. 52 engage with my participants' narrative and non-narrative data that was found in the data I collected. In using intersectionality to understand how my participants' multiple identities as they become teachers (see Chapter 2), Anthias (2012) elaborates that there are various foci to examine how participants' "positionalities and hierarchies are embodied" by distinguishing the various levels of analysis. One level focuses on participants' experiential accounts that often take the form of their narratives "relating to meaning-making and sociality (including the affective, the emotional, and the body)" (p. 11). Another level focuses on incorporating identification, distinction, and othering aspects that can extend into other aspects of participants' identities beyond a singular spatial and temporal setting. The series of stories participants share are contextually bounded, temporally and spatially, and co-constructed with their interlocutors. Pavlenko (2007) furthers this point by highlighting that the stories we share are never fully our own or devoid of cultural, political, or historical context. Specifically, she explains stories are, "co-constructed for us and with us by our interlocutors, real or imagined, by the time and place in history in which the events portrayed have taken place and the time and place in which they are told…" (p. 180). Additionally, stories are not without purpose in telling them within the situation. Barkhuizen (2011) highlights narratives are constructed for that situation, referred to as narrative knowledging, or a cognitive activity of telling stories to "[make] sense of and reshap[e] an experience through narrating" as a way to engage in the meaning-making process to understand that experience in relation to the current time and situation (p. 395). Within the constructivist nature of narrative inquiry, there are many ways to view what a story is to analyze these stories, from analysis of narratives to narrative analysis (Barkhuizen, 2019, Polkinghorne, 1995). Before analyzing my participants' stories, I first had to define and 53 operationalize what stories are in my study. When reviewing the literature that uses narrative inquiry, there are multiple interpretations concerning what constitutes a story– e.g., small story (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008) and big story (Pavlenko, 2007). Due to my focus was not on the granular implemented discourse features (e.g., intonation on words, length of conversational pauses, and interruptions) found in small stories nor on the entire life history of my participants, which is often affiliated with big stories, I opted to adopt Barkhuizen's definition and operationalization of what he calls short stories. Short stories are "excerpts of data extracted from a larger set of data such as conversations, interviews, written narratives (such as teacher journals), and multimodal digital stories" (Barkhuizen, 2016, p. 660). A clear example of a short story would be the following story from Jeff that I elaborate further in Chapter 4: Excerpt 1: Example of a short story Last week the list came out, and I found out that one of my students [Ivan] was a heritage speaker of Bosnian. Never once did I know that, as he never once brought it up. I thought he was just a typical White boy from West [Midwest State]. And when I asked him, he was like, “ya know, like, my family doesn't speak English.” And it was just mind - blowing. And this was in February, was like, “What is going on!?” And I don't know, like, for me, as someone with an ESL background, like, that was just so disheartening. (Jeff, Interview 2) The above excerpt illustrates Barkhuizen’s (2019) list of features that short stories typically have as 1. They are a narrated experience related to someone's past or (imagined) future 2. They include reflective or evaluative commentary on those experiences – comments which portray emotions and beliefs associated with the experiences (p. 195). 3. They typically have a temporal dimension 4. They embody action 5. Stories always make reference, implicitly or explicitly, to who was involved in the story action, when the action took place, and where it happened" (p. 195). I use Barkhuizen's definition and operationalization of short stories as a way to carry out my first level of my analysis. 54 The first layer of my analysis follows some of the recommendations in Consoli (2021) and Benson (2018). I first wanted to identify the short stories found within my data, specifically focusing on the semi-structured interviews. Following the criteria about what constitutes a short story (Barkhuizen, 2019), I developed tentative codes that focused on the temporal dimension a short story could have (Consoli, 2021). In this case, I had three codes. The first code, "before going into education," focused on stories that occurred before the participants decided to be a teacher. These stories often relate to their first year or two at ESU and their experiences in their hometown. The second code, "life of a teacher in training," focused on their experiences while doing their ESU coursework. Lastly, the code "reflecting forward in their teaching experience/sharing their teaching experience" focused on stories that highlight participants teaching experiences and/or their imagined experiences. Along with using these codes to identify the temporal dimension of the stories and Barkhuizen's (2019) criteria for a short story, I used in-vivo coding, which entails using participants' word or phrase to ensure my participants' voice's capture the central point of the study on the surface level. Some examples of in-vivo coding include the following codes I developed such as "they don't speak proper English," "Classy if you're white," "microaggressions," and "too many X factors." Once I had gone through all of the codes for the interviews, I reviewed the current codes, where I compared and interrogated them in the form of coding my codes. This coding of codes, as Saldana (2016) explains, entails "condens[ing] a larger number of sequential split codes [in this case, my in-vivo codes] into a more manageable lump for analysis…the resulting lump code could consist of one the [in-vivo codes]…if it seems adequately subsume the rest; it could consist of a woven combination of selected code words; or it could be a new code altogether" (p. 229) 55 This lumping of codes is beneficial before going into the next and final cycle of my analysis as it allows me to understand my data on a deeper level as I attempt to consider ways the content of my participants' short stories may connect with one another as it relates to my research questions. After coding my codes and creating lump codes, I then proceeded to my final cycle of coding – values coding. Values coding focuses on examining cultural values and beliefs systems in relation to intrapersonal and interpersonal participant experiences and actions (Saldana, 2015). Just as language ideologies are composed of a series of beliefs, values and attitudes, I coded the identified short stories along with the non-storied data in the interviews for participants' beliefs, values, and attitudes. I coded my interviews again where I would use B: for belief, V: for value, and A: for attitude with an accompanying description. I followed Saldana’s (2015) framing of values and attitudes. Values represented “the importance we attribute to ourselves, another person, thing, or idea” (p. 131). Attitudes, on the other hand, can be viewed as the emotional quality to our beliefs that take on the evaluative and reflective dimension of expressing our language ideologies (Saldana, 2015, p. 131). For example, "B: Standard English", "V: diversity,"; and "A: correct English is good English." As I was values coding, I followed Saldana's (2015) advice in which Conceptual values, attitudes, and beliefs may not always be directly stated by participants. Phrases such as, "It’s important that,” “I like,” or I need” alert [me] to what may be valued, believed, thought, or felt along with such obvious cluing phrases as “I think,” “I feel,” and “I want.” (p. 133) Once I have gone through all of the interviews for values coding, I then categorize them and “reflected on their collective meaning, interaction, and interplay” (Saldana, 2015) as the three constructs are all part of an ideology. I then applied these codes and categories to my guided reflective journals. Finally, when coding was completed for all of my data, I moved to report my 56 findings addressing how pre-service teachers’ lived experiences and positionalities and the context they within inform their language ideologies. 3.6 Researcher Reflexivity In describing the nature of this research study, the tools used to collect data, the procedure to analyze my data, and my participants’ backgrounds, the remaining chapters focus on the study's ethics. Before going into the ethical decisions made throughout the study, I must first discuss my research reflexivity. De Costa et al. (2021b) present a clear and commonly used description of researcher reflexivity where it is [A] process in which researchers critically reflect on (1) their biases, theoretical predisposition, assumptions, and power relations vis-à-vis the researched, and (2) on how these aspects affect every stage of the research, from the disciplinary framing of the research questions, the choice of the research methodology, to how they present their findings. (p. 64). In understanding my role within the study, you, the readers, can understand how I played a role in shaping the “setting, context, and social phenomenon” I set out to study (Schwandt, 2001, p. 224). In order to provide a transparent and rigorous study, you need to understand how my lived experiences led me to focus on the ideologies of the United States' future K-12 educators. Following this, I explain my relationship with my participants. Like my participants, I am a White, English-speaking male who grew up in “small town USA” which is described as a close-knit community where everyone knows everyone and relies on one another. I mainly grew up in small towns and rural communities. However, unlike my participants, I never had a stable community or shelter growing up. This is because my family would be considered precariat growing up in which we made either at or below the poverty line. During 2009, my family’s combined income was below the poverty line for a family of three (>$18,310 in the contiguous States and D.C., see Federal Register, Jan 23, 2009). Due to our low 57 income, my family in the same year joined the thousands of families 5 , or an estimated 6 million people who experienced housing insecurity because of the Great Recession. From 2009 till 2016, I went back and forth in experiencing sheltered homelessness, where my mom and I couched surfed with friends and strangers, and unsheltered homelessness, where we would sleep in my mom’s Ford truck6 . During this time, we moved from state to state, trying to find a place to call “home” and afford to keep it. This took me to various towns and rural communities. I saw the living painting of Aurora Borealis dance across the Alaskan sky; I heard the crawdads sing while tasting the soul of Louisiana; I experienced the warmth and hospitality found in the Great Smokey Mountains in Tennessee. As I lived in these areas, I could see and be part of a wide swath of dominantly White communities with English being the only language spoken. This would not change until only my mother and I moved to Idaho in 2011. It is in Idaho where, after a year of living there, I ultimately enrolled in university to get out of poverty. I was the first in my family to attend university. During this time between 2012 – 2016, I would still experience housing precarity along with seasons of starvation. Up to this point, I have always enjoyed learning, and was my primary way to escape the realities and pangs of life. This is particularly why I found an escape when I was in school, as I had some level of control. Even though growing up, language was not a big part of my life as my family and 5 An exact number concerning how many people became displaced during this time is difficult to estimate due to a variety of factors such as varying definitions and classifications of displaced individuals coupled with missing or incomplete data, and difficulty reaching/identifying people who may be experiencing housing insecurity (Faber, 2019; Lee et al., 2021). However, a conservative estimate is around 437,454 (Faber, 2019) to 643,000 (U.S. HUD, 2010) people at the height of the recession. 6 For a long time, homelessness was viewed as something static, monolithic, and stigmatized with the common depiction of someone being homeless as individuals commonly seen on the street (Lee et al., 2021). However, homelessness goes beyond overt displacement. There is hidden homelessness where individuals are without a permanent home and live in alternative accommodations such as couch surfing with friends or loved ones to reside in one’s car while still working and/or going to school. This shift in understanding of homelessness is viewed as part of a recent shift in how scholars starting to reevaluate the varying and multiple ways people can experience housing insecurity (U.S. HUD, 2008; Lee et al., 2021). While it is beyond the scope of this dissertation to go into the details about homelessness and the varieties of it, I wanted to bring to attention at least two ways someone like myself could experience homelessness. 58 community were monolingual, I stumbled upon linguistics and later TESOL, and aimed at understanding how language shapes our experiences in school and society. Once I completed my undergraduate education in 2016 and entered graduate school through the training and support provided by the United States Department of Education initiative, the Ronald E. McNair Post - Baccalaureate Achievement Program, I began to re-engage with my past experiences, and how being White and a speaker of English afforded me unequal opportunities. This investigation of unequal opportunities tied to education and language would be sharpened as the United States experienced increased visible acts of racism alongside increased nationalism (Jenks & Bhatia, 2020). While I began exploring and learning about issues of race during my undergraduate years as instances such as George Zimmerman’s acquittal for his role in the shooting of Trayvon Martian in 2013, along with the broader Black Lives Matter movement unfolded, I would not actively engage in these issues until my doctoral training. This lack of engagement was partly due to my attempt of trying to survive but also, in some way, my willingly being ignorant (see, Martín, 2021) as the system still ultimately benefited me. As the U.S. was coming to terms with the brutal murder of George Floyd in Minnesota in 2020, while I was pursuing my Ph.D., I re-engaged with issues of racism and questioned my role in the processes of racialization. This was when I began to actively engage in these issues with my advisor and colleagues in multiple forms, from face-to-face discussions to examining issues of race and English language teaching in the form of publications (De Costa et al., 2021c, d). This was a means of starting to engage with and hopefully be part of the solution in combatting structural racism (Jenks & Lee, 2020). When reading about my experiences compared to my participants, it is clear that we have some similarities and stark differences. 59 While my participants and I come from similar linguistic and cultural backgrounds (i.e., L1 English speakers who were born and raised in The United States), my participants and I d iffer immensely in terms of our economic status, family education, level of training, and how we have been socialized into our respective communities. These similarities have granted me a type of insider status that, I believe, allowed me the ability to make some connections with my participants as an insider. In saying this, there were still power differences between my participants and me, partly due to myself being the researcher. Additionally, it is important to highlight that I had a pre-existing relationship with two participants: Skyler and Michael. Before the start of this study, my relationship with both of them was that of a teacher-student as they were in my course. During this teacher-student relationship, I only interacted with them to assist them in learning how to incorporate language teaching methods and practices as part of their content lessons. I did not approach Skyler or Michael for this research study until several months after providing them with their final grade for the course. This was so my role as a teacher would, hopefully, not influence their decision to participate in this study which I informed both as completely voluntary. While I was not their teacher during the study's data collection, points of the discussion revolved around what I taught, potentially affecting what they said during these periods. In reading Berger’s (2015) experience, I reminded myself to be cautious during the interview, and not to project my experiences onto my participants. Instead, I focused on their experiences related to the interview questions. 3.7 Research Ethics In understanding my background and my relationship with my participants, I turn to how I engaged in macro-level and micro-level ethics as problems, dilemmas, and overall gray issues occurred throughout the research study. At a macroethical level, outside of getting IRB approval 60 and consent from my participants (see data collection section), I also had to consider how my interviews were being facilitated and how my participants wanted to participate in the interviews. To address this question, I asked if participants wanted to do the interviews online or in person – if the participants wanted to do the interviews in person, they and I wore a mask. This form of consent and the option to conduct interviews in person or online were employed to protect my participants as the COVID-19 pandemic was still occurring during the study. In terms of compensation, I compensated each participant $200 due to their high level of participation; on average, it took 10 hours to complete all the interviews and reflective logs. This averaged around $20 an hour. Beyond meeting macroethical requirements (i.e., IRB), I have also taken into account microethical considerations, which include making sure that I “respect and protect the interests of … [my] participants and, at the same time, be frank in [my] reporting to the academic community on critical findings that may cast the participant/s in a poor light” (Kubanyiova, 2008, p. 515). To navigate this balance during data collection, I actively engaged them in discussions on areas around education related to race, social class, and language without interrogating them. Rather, the aforementioned episodic narrative format (Muller, 2019) provided me a way to further explore their rationale to questions, while leaving it up to them how much or little they provided. During this process, I view interviews as a social practice and a discursive event where both the interviewer and interviewee co-construct and produce descriptions of the investigated phenomenon (Prior, 2018). In this regard, I interviewed across social class boundaries (Mao & Feldman, 2019). Concerning social class, Mao and Feldman (2019) highlight how both the interviewer's and the interviewees' social class position shape the process and “the interpretation of the information generated through that process” (p. 126). In 61 this way, the differences in one social position can cause status barriers that could widen the social distance between the interviewer and the interviewee. Therefore, I would attempt to follow the recommendations of Mao and Feldman (2019), such as avoiding using academic jargon and abstract terms and taking a learner and a resource position, rather than one of an academic one or someone of authority. Lastly, I engaged in member checking for this research study. Member checking entailed asking my participants, after I developed the interview transcripts, if everything was portrayed correctly and if there was anything that wanted to omit or modify. Additionally, I asked follow- up questions concerning points that were not clear or needed further elaboration. While member checking helps represent my participants, I still had to be cautious not to present my participants in a way that would negatively impact them (De Costa et al., 2021a,b). This heed for caution was especially needed as I was unable to do member checking when analyzing and writing up the findings for this study due to unforeseen personal events on my part. Therefore, I engaged with my own reflexivity to account for my own positioning related to the privileges and assumptions I am afforded (Appleby, 2016; Attia & Edge, 2016). I have developed an audit trail where I maintain clear records in my research journal concerning all my research activities. These activities include detailing the decisions I made concerning data collection, how I processed and coded my data, my reflection throughout the study, and the memos created to elaborate on what was done and why (Duff, 2012). 3.8 Chapter Conclusion This chapter described the research design for this narrative case study and the central data I collected over five months. First, I introduced my four focal participants – Skyler, Steve, John, 62 and Michael – to the research site – Evergreen State University. Following this, I elaborated upon my data analysis procedure to address my two central questions: 1. How do pre-service teachers’ life histories shape how they express their ideologies about teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students? 2. How do pre-service teachers engage with their undergraduate education as they prepare to support multilingual learners in the K-12 content classroom? I concluded the chapter by discussing how I navigated the micro- and macro-level ethical decisions throughout the study. In Chapters 4 and 5, I present my findings to answer my questions. 63 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION 1 In the preceding chapters, I have established the need to further investigate language ideologies through an ideology-as-praxis approach to examine how language ideologies inform public K-12 education in the United States along with how pre-service content teachers engage with and potentially (re)produce said beliefs. As deficit ideologies continue to be identified in recent studies (Anderson et al., 2022; Bacon, 2020, 2022; Sah & Uysal, 2022), the purpose of my narrative case study is to examine how the intersectional identities of White pre-service teachers, their lived experiences, and the contexts they participate in inform the ideological orientation they draw on to shape and perform their transiting identities as knowledge consumers to knowledge producers. To sufficiently address this purpose, I divide the findings of my narrative case study into two chapters, each focusing on one research question. For this chapter, I focus on the first research question: 1. How do pre-service teachers’ identities inform the ways they express their ideologies about teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students? In this chapter, I set out to illustrate the central finding where Skyler, Steve, Jeff, and Mike employed their experiences as a means to interpret and construct their professional identity and how language fits within this conceptualization as they trained and entered the education sector within the United States. As they come from similar communities in and outside of the Midwest state as ESU, my participants’ ideological gazes, or the conceptualizations and construals, had varying focuses surrounding how they understood the role language played in their individually defined communities, in society, and in relation to themselves as future teachers. I aim to showcase the finding for this chapter in three parts. The first section (Entering the teaching profession from exurbia) makes the case that my participants came from a similarly described hometown that influenced them in terms of their reason to go into teaching despite 64 living in different regions from one another. The second section (Ideologies about language speakers, society, and school) focuses on how my participants held both hegemonic and counterhegemonic language ideologies concerning the context they are/were in, such as their hometown, the university classroom, and the K-12 space. Finally, in the last section (Beliefs about the teacher’s role), I begin to illustrate the contradictory nature of my participants' beliefs as they elaborate upon the perceived role and responsibilities they have as K-12 teachers, and what this means for their CLD students. 4.1 Entering the teaching profession from exurbia Skyler, Steve, and Jeff grew up in small towns dispersed across the same midwestern state in which Evergreen State University (ESU) is located. I asked them to define what community meant to them, as the survey they filled out before the first interview intentionally left it up to open interpretation. They defined community as their hometown, with their description almost similar despite living in different towns. For instance, Skyler described his hometown as “technically a suburb of [major metropolitan city], but we are the farthest, most away” [SIC]. He went on to describe that it takes around an hour to get to his town, which he labeled as “Hick town” that had very little diversity: Excerpt 1: Over 90% White I grew up in an area. I don't know the exact demographic numbers, but I'd probably guess over 90% white, probably 95% even. Once I hit middle and high school, we had a lot of school-of-choice kids coming from the [Nearby county] area. Many Hispanic or Black kids who went to our middle and high school didn't live in [hometown], but they came to our schools because they were better schools than where they lived. (Skyler, interview 1) While Skyler could have simply focused on describing his community based on location and the approximate size of the community, he describes his community to larger discourses around school enrollment in his mentioning of “school-of-choice kids.” The term school-of-choice ties 65 to a unique policy implemented in select states within the US. According to the U.S. Department of Education, school choice “describes an array of elementary and secondary education options [where]…parents can send their children to the public schools designated for their home address, or they may have other options within the public school system” (Wang et al., 2019, p. 1). Although he used a deficit label to describe his hometown as a “hick town” as a way to refer to a small town mainly composed of White individuals, Skyler uses “school-of-choice kids” to represent diversity in the short story. School-of-choice kids appear to be used to signify his interpretation of his community as predominantly White and privileged as he described his hometown as having “better schools” than many of the communities “Hispanic or Black kids” were traveling from in order to attend school at Skyler’s hometown. When asked to talk more about students coming to his hometown due to them “being better schools,” Skyler further elaborated on the demographic background of commuting students through the larger societal school of choice discourse. Excerpt 2: How the world works The vast number of students of color at our school didn't live in [hometown]. There are some, obviously, but the majority were school-of-choice from [nearby area]. This is probably a half hour away from [major metropolitan city], but it's much more like suburbs than we are. [it’s] much closer to urban [town]. There used to be a massive car industry there, and then it was leftover time. And so now it's a much lower income area. Same with, like, [town]. So that's why many school choice kids come from there to [hometown]. And just because of how the world works, people of color are often more likely to live in lower-income areas. That's why it just happens to be that all the kids coming, like the school of choice, are Hispanic or Black. So, people would come to our district to go to school because the schools in their districts were underfunded and not as good. And that's the whole standard. The way the money is distributed on test scores that's a whole other issue, right? (Skyler, interview 1) The above excerpt highlights that not only was Skyler’s community predominately White but economically well off. This can be seen when Skyler mentions students commuting tend to come 66 from “lower-income areas” and communities of color as the program provides the opportunity for them to choose their school in areas that have more resources and funding. The intersectional identities of race and social class are signified through Skyler describing commuting students’ town as “suburban” and his hometown as a “hick town” as mentioned prior. As we see, Skyler described these towns in relation to his understanding and knowledge of the sociohistorical context of his home state (e.g., his reference to “there used to be a massive car industry there”) and societal conversations surrounding school enrollment In saying this, Skyler –as we will see in the following sections—drew on the ideology of school choice in his rationale as a teacher and supporting CLD students. Steve and Jeff also echoed Skyler’s description of his hometown being dominantly White, with notable resources characterizing their hometown. Steve’s description further focuses on the economic distribution in his town. When describing where he lived, he began to explain how his hometown made distinctions between groups of people, focusing on where they lived. Excerpt 3: Lakeside living [My hometown is] in the South [of the state]. There are a lot of people there who are at the poverty line, mostly like lower-middle-class to poverty in that area. But then there was a lake in the town where the upper-class people lived around this lake together. All the houses were nice and expensive, and like, that kind of thing. And so, the community I grew up in had many more people who were not in that area, though. A lot of people lived downtown mostly, and then a few people who like lived out in the country. (Steve, interview 1) Just like Skyler, Steve makes a similar distinction in the economic division but focuses within the town concerning the lake and downtown. When asked who lived downtown compared to around the lake, Steve brought up there was a “large like, um, like, the Latino population in my town” (interview 1), with many of them living downtown. He also highlighted that the languages 67 spoken in his hometown are “English and Spanish,” but English was mainly spoken around the lake. On the other hand, Jeff describes his hometown not in terms of economic affordances but in relation to political affiliation and the community’s homogenous nature in ethnicity and language. This is best illustrated at the beginning of his first guided reflective log, where he wrote: Excerpt 4: Next to a 50-foot Trump Train 2020 sign [Hometown] is your pretty run-of-the-mill rural northern [Midwest] community. There are about 10,000 people, of which nearly everyone is (proudly) white, cisgender, straight, monolingual (English-speaking), and conservative. I wish I were joking when I say that there’s a 50-foot “Trump Train 2020” homemade billboard standing right off the [hometown] exit on US-[highway number], just a few miles from my family home… still to this day, a year and a half since the presidential election. (Jeff, Guided Reflective Journal #1) While Skyler highlighted past education policies still shaping his community and who attended his school, Jeff’s account highlights the vestiges of a divisive U.S. presidential election (between Donald Trump and Joseph Biden) that were used to maintain the norm in the community. Unlike Skyler and Steve, Jeff’s hometown did not have school-of-choice students who attended his school. Instead, he shared that the diversity in his community was limited; growing up, he recalled, “there was one Hispanic family in my grade. A handful of Black families, but no Asian [families]. So, like, my diversity was minimal” (Interview 1, Jeff). While Jeff, Steve, and Skyler lived within the same state as ESU in similar but slightly different communities growing up, Mike lived in a completely different state. Mike grew up in a state on the east coast of the US. And just like Jeff, Steve, and Skyler, he lived in a town away from a large metropolitan city. Specifically, he says, “I’m from [hometown]. So that’s maybe a 40-minute drive North of [large metropolitan city]” (interview 68 1). Mike further elaborated that he lived in a “pretty well off” community where he wrote in his first guided reflective log: Excerpt 5: Complicated diversity in a White community I was born and grew up in and around [large metropolitan city]. I grew up in a community that was predominantly White and upper class; however, each town I lived in had a complicated level of diversity to it. In [large metropolitan city], the population is incredibly densely packed and made up of many cultures and identities …. Growing up in the suburbs, I still grew up in a primarily sheltered and closed community. While there was some diversity, the majority of the people around me were still White and well-off. (Mike, Reflective log 1) When asked about living in a “complicated level of diversity,” Mike elaborated that he “always grew up around the term, melting pot” with “people screaming in the streets with different languages and stuff” (Interview 2). This linguistic diversity was also found in his home, where his parents had the financial resources and physical accommodation to hire au pairs 7 to take care of him growing up. While he experienced more linguistic diversity compared to Skyler, Steve, Jeff, and Mike did have some school-of-choice students attend his school. However, he shared that the students living outside his town had to “travel further and pay extra money to attend the school because they lived outside the district” (Interview 1). Even though Mike grew up in a different state and context than Skyler, Steve, and Jeff, his hometown also erected invisible barriers in terms of cost of living and geographical distance from major metropolitan cities despite having an economic connection to these areas (Berube et al., 2006). Skyler, Steve, Jeff, and Mike lived in very similar hometowns despite living in different regions in the same Midwest state as ESU or another state, in the case of Mike. While all of them labeled their hometowns as either rural or suburban, their description of their respective 7 Au pair is an individual who has attained a J-1 Visitor Exchange Visa within its au pair category as a way to continue their education in the United States and live with a US family while taking care of the family’s children and earning some compensation for their work (Bowman & Blair, 2017; US Department of State, 2022). 69 hometowns' size, location, and demographics hints towards an exurb. Exurb, as Berube et al. (2006) define, are “communities located on the urban fringe that have at least 20 percent of their workers commuting to jobs in an urbanized area, exhibit low housing density, and have relatively high population growth” (p. 1). Berube et al. (2006) illustrate in their study that most exurbs are “disproportionately White, middle-income, homeowners, and commuters” (p. 1), with the Midwest having more exurbs than the West and Northeast of the United States. Another similarity is that Skyler, Steve, and Mike described their experience with diversity as limited, if at all, in part due to the geographic location of and the economic resources found in their communities. While I asked all my participants how they defined community for the survey, they all provided the same answer why their hometown was the community they chose. Their rationale is best captured in Jeff saying, Excerpt 6: Shaped me as a person Because I think that has had the greatest impact on who has shaped me as a person. And it’s funny, I say that because I don’t think I’m anything like your Joe Schmo in my home community, but I think that those experiences helped me discover who I am. (Jeff, Interview 1) My participants lived experiences in their hometowns were a source of understanding and interpretation that, as I will show in the following sections in this chapter, continue to inform their journey to be a K-12 teacher, and to what extent being a teacher entails supporting culturally and linguistically diverse students. In addition, the experiences the pre-service teachers acquired growing up can be seen in their decision to be a teacher. Skyler, Steve, Jeff, and Mike became teachers partly due to their family’s solid connection with teaching. This can be seen when I asked them how their journey led them to become teachers. For Skyler, he entered ESU to be a teacher. Part of this decision was due to him following his mother’s footsteps: 70 Excerpt 7: My mom, the special education teacher So [my mom] started teaching [at my elementary] when I was in second grade, actually, the year I was [there]. So, I'd go into school with her before [it opened]…I would be in school a lot when I was younger. I think it’s because my mom [since she] was a special education teacher for ten years. Eventually, I just realized that I always liked working with kids, whether tutoring, babysitting, or hanging out with my mom. (Skyler, Interview 1) While his mother was a special education teacher, Skyler took an assortment of classes that covered a variety of topics in education before focusing on the same area as his mother due to a chance “15-hour” placement he had to complete for his early childhood special education class the semester before the study was conducted. This chance experience was the catalyst to focus his teaching pathway to concentrate in special education. Therefore, even though he was not pursuing an ESL endorsement as part of his teacher training, he did take TESOL courses as a result of ESU’s teacher training requirements that stipulated that all pre-service teachers take two TESOL-related courses. While Skyler entered ESU to pursue an education degree from the beginning, my other participants entered ESU with other plans that changed due to either evolving interests or circumstances. For instance, Jeff first joined ESU for pre-law, but quickly realized the major was not for him: Excerpt 8: My mom, the bilingual ed teacher I originally declared my major at [ESU] as pre-law. And then I took my first political theory class, and I was like, "Yeah, I don't think I have the mental capacity nor the desire to do this for the rest of my life." My mom is a teacher. She actually had her minor in bilingual Ed back in the day. So, I grew up in a very culturally relevant and appreciative lens my whole life. And so when I was like, “Okay, back to the drawing board” for my major. (Jeff, Interview 1) Upon this realization, Jeff wanted a career related to his affinity for learning and connecting with other people from another culture, as he grew up in “a very culturally relevant and appreciative 71 lens” in which he was taught to value people’s languages and cultures. Upon asking Jeff how he ended up majoring in Spanish, he recounted that he had to take Spanish in high school but was disinterested until he entered ESU, where a teaching assistant encouraged him to pursue his passion: Excerpt 9: Changing the perception of Spanish in a new community I never took my first Spanish class until my sophomore year in high school. I had no interest in it, but every single person in my high school had to take it. This is what you did. And I really loved it. At the time, I had no intention of even pursuing Spanish in college. And then at [Evergreen], we had to take language for pre-law too. And I had an amazing TA for my Spanish 201 class. And she said to me like, "you know, you're pretty good at this. And, like, you seem you're into it. You should consider minoring in Spanish." And when I was picking my new major, I looked at [ESU’s] majors and was very pragmatic about it. I was like, “What can I do?” And I realized that Spanish classes always made me happy. (Jeff, Interview 1) While Spanish was not valued in his community, as “every single person” had to take it to graduate high school, Jeff was reintroduced to Spanish at university. Being in university allowed him to reevaluate his interest in the language. Because his mother was a bilingual education background, he explored pursuing a major in teaching English as a second language. Skyler sought out TESOL as he wanted to “travel the world and teach English abroad”; thus, he saw his potential major as helping him achieve that goal (Interview 1). However, he found out that ESU does not offer a TESOL major. The absence of a TESOL major, coupled with the encouraging words from his Spanish 201 instructor resulted in him switching from pre-law to Spanish, with his concentration being Secondary Education with a TESOL minor. Mike entered education as a result of a culmination of circumstances sparked by the COVID-19 pandemic: 72 Excerpt 10: Finding teaching in the pandemic storm When I got to ESU, I originally planned on studying physics with a double major in engineering for mechanical engineering. And that slowly morphed into mechanical engineering. And eventually, it was really interesting and all, but I was having a lot of trouble between that and some mental health issues. And with COVID starting all at the same time, it was just a huge storm. And my mother just suggested I do education. And that was something I hadn’t deeply thought about and considered beforehand, but it made a lot of sense when she suggested it. (Mike, Interview 1) Upon realizing he did not want to be an engineer but a teacher who opened the door for students to see the wonder of science, Mike informed me that teaching for him made sense since he enjoyed helping people acquire new knowledge. By the time I recruited Mike to be part of this study, he was completing his last semester of coursework before starting his school placement. He was also almost done with his ESL endorsement requirements, where he took three TESOL- related courses, and was taking his last course. When asked how he decided to pursue an ESL endorsement, Mike informed me that his experience of constantly being surrounded by language at home made him fascinated with languages, despite proclaiming he was a bad language learner. Steve initially rejected going into education partly due to feeling “discouraged” as he saw how his mother, a kindergarten teacher, was poorly treated during the COVID-19 pandemic by “the administration and staff” of her school (Interview 1). As a result, Steve jumped around majors in his first semester, where he went from graphic design to exploring other majors such as public relations since, as he shared, “I always knew that I, like, wanted to help people in some way” (interview 1). After feeling discontent with his current major (public relations) at the time, Steve figured to reconsider education by talking with an advisor in the education program. After consulting with the advisor, he reflected on his deep appreciation and value for education as his mother and grandmother were teachers. In addition, his father, a small business owner, was “a big promoter of education too” (Interview 1). Like the other participants, Steve came from a 73 family lineage of teachers that provided him with the social capital to value and understand the role of education. At the time of this research study, Steve was in his last year of coursework for his Secondary education degree, where he was focusing on teaching social studies (i.e., topics such as US history, geography, and civics). Steve was attending in-person classes and was living in an ESU dormitory. Even though he was not pursuing an ESL endorsement and was not required to take any TESOL-related courses for his teacher training, he had already taken one TESOL-related course before the beginning of this study. And at the time of this study, he was taking another TESOL-related course. Overall, Steve, Mike, Jeff, and Skyler all came from similarly described exurbs and entered the teaching profession partly due to their mothers being K-12 educators. 4.2 Ideologies about societal perceptions of student characteristics Thus far, I have illustrated that Skyler, Steve, Jeff, and Mike came from similar exurbs, and their family played a notable role in their decision to go into teaching. This section showcases some of the ideologies they conveyed in the survey, series of interviews, and guided reflection prompts. Specifically, I use Metz’s (2019) language ideologies clusters to showcase how my participants held both hegemonic and counterhegemonic language ideologies concerning the context they are/were in, such as their hometown, the university classroom, the K-12 space, and their personal role. For this study, I have adopted Metz’s (2019) ideology clusters to report my findings in three clusters: 1. Beliefs about societal perceptions of student characteristics 2. Beliefs about language in school 3. Beliefs about the teacher’s role (p. 31) For this section, I focus on the first two clusters before going into the third cluster in a separate section (i.e., English-only classrooms with opportunities for linguistic diversity). 74 Finally, I examine my participants’ perceived role as K-12 teachers for CLD students. Similar to the findings of Metz (2019) and Metz and Knight (2021), my participants discussed their beliefs about language use in relation to various identity ascriptions, specifically concerning race, nationality, and socioeconomic status. However, these beliefs often intersected with these identities (e.g., nationality, race, and socioeconomic status) at different points within their narratives. Throughout the interviews, Skyler, Steve, Jeff, and Mike shared their beliefs that were communicated through narratives. Their narratives illustrate who was and who was not an English language learner, and how US society (at times referenced as “the world”) perceived English language learners. Starting with the third guided reflective prompt, I asked how they defined a student learning English and what backgrounds and characteristics they have. Steve, Skyler, and Mike had the following responses: Excerpt 11: An English language learner is… STEVE Any student who is not familiar with the English language. Oftentimes the parents of these students do not speak English, therefore, the students did not learn English in the home, or they recently moved to an English-speaking country from another nation that does not speak English as their primary language. Additionally, these students may come from a refugee background, fleeing a warring nation or one suffering from social and political issues….and may have traumas that impact their learning in the classroom. (Steve, Guided Reflective Response #3) SKYLER They may be very young and are learning English at the same time as their L1; they may be fairly proficient in English but are still learning some vocabulary and working towards native-like fluency… the list goes on. This is without even mentioning the potential environmental stressors that may be prevalent in the life of someone learning English: they may be a refugee, needing to learn English to work, trying to fit into society, worrying about losing part of their identity…and again, the list goes on. (Skyler, Guided Reflective Response #3) MIKE Often times, I would first associate certain characteristics with these learners, such as likely not being local to the area. I’m not sure that I could come up with general terms to describe these learners as a whole, as [they] come from so many different backgrounds. (Mike, Guided Reflective Response #3) 75 The above excerpt represents non-storied data where my participants engage in sensemaking to construct what constitutes an English language learner. Across the three descriptions, my participants attributed English language learners to represent multiple kinds of intersecting identities. Skyler and Steve initially perceived English language learners to be either young children or adults which can be seen in a number of places. Skyler made two distinctions between ELLs’ age in which he started his answer by saying, “learning English at the same time as their L1.” The use of learning English at the same time as their L1 informs that, for Skyler, ELLs are still elementary-age learners who are juggling multiple languages. Steve, who took on a teacher identity through his constant use of “student,” indicated ELLs are young as he focused on the parents’ lack of English ability and are in school learning English rather than someone who is young and learning English outside of the classroom. Further along in Excerpt 11, Skyler and Steve juxtapose this ideologized interpretation of ELLs being young with this group of learners coming from another country as a result of conflict and tragedy. When they shift their conceptualization of an ELL as someone who may be a refugee or immigrant, they do so trying to complicate their understanding of the ELL identity which can be seen when, for example, Skyler says, “This is without even mentioning the potential environmental stressors.” While Mike quickly expressed that the identity of an ELL is too difficult to use “general terms,” he, along with Steve and Skyler, indicated the other value that composes the ELL identity is tied to their mobility (e.g., Mike saying, “I would first associate certain characteristics with these learners, such as [them] not being local to the area”). The locality of English language learners was part of all my participants’ guided reflective logs that distinguished, in this case, potential language learners who originated from outside of an English-speaking country. This can be seen when Steve writes, “recently moved to 76 an English-speaking country from another nation,” suggesting that English learners are immigrants or refugees. This point on English learners being potentially immigrants or refugees also emerged when Skyler listed the “environmental stressors” for someone to learn English, such as “needing to learn English to work, [or someone] trying to fit into society.” In writing about these characteristics, they followed up by saying there are “so many different backgrounds” (Mike) that cannot be captured in a simple reflective post resulting in them saying in some form, “the list [of who a language learner is] goes on” (Skyler). Therefore, Skyler and Steve engaged in sensemaking to construct an ELL identity that yields the ideological values surrounding age, mobility, and social, emotional, economic, and political hardships to answer how they define someone learning English. Mike, on the other hand, focused on mobility but reframed from providing any more information as these learners come from many and varying backgrounds that cannot be captured in an assortment of terms. While Steve, Skyler, and Mike explicitly wrote about English language learners’ origin, Jeff, in multiple interviews, focused on the intersection of racial and national identities to present a complex picture of CLD student identity. These two intersecting identity ascriptions continue the trend seen in Excerpt 12 where we observe that English language learners are typically not perceived to be originally from the United States (national identity aspect) or White (racial identity aspect). Jeff focused on these two aforementioned intersecting identities as he shared a story to explain how the “world” viewed English language learners. During the first interview, Jeff recounted one experience that occurred in middle school between his PE teacher and a Latinx student: Excerpt 12: It’s just a joke, José I remember one day in middle school [during] PE. One of the kids’ names was José, and he spoke English. Yes, I mean, I'm sure he did. But he was very quiet, like, very quiet. I 77 don't know if that had anything to do with his true English proficiency. [But] when we were in PE class every day, the PE teacher would always do attendance. And every time he would get to José, he would always say his name like, José, Can you see? [saying this to the tune of the USA national anthem]. But he'd be like, "but you're not American.” Like he would literally say that [along with], "so, like, it's just a joke. It's just a joke." I was like, it's supposed to be funny, and I didn't know why I didn't think it was funny. Something feels really off here. (Jeff, Interview 1) The above short story showcases how ideologies are performed to illustrate one’s theories or values about the world and the attitudes they have as they make sense of these theories or values –in this case as Jeff expresses how the world mistreats CLD students within an educational setting. Within the story, language is racialized (Chaparro, 2019) and nationalized through overt and materialized acts. The materialization and manifestation of these ideologies occurs, in this case, when Jeff describes how the PE teacher strips José’s nationality away from him and recasts it to the tune of the national anthem that he distorts to “José, can you see?”. Jeff’s story also illustrates how linguicism and racism, in general, are concealed or denied while maintaining inequities and social exclusion as the teacher adds, “but you’re not American,” while following it up through dismissive comments to mitigate the impact of his acts of linguicism and racism by stating “it’s just a joke” (see Pérez, 2017). Jeff uses this story to express his attitude towards this racialization of CLD students which could be interpreted as discomfort or a form of disapproval when he provided his evaluation of the story in him stating something feeling off at the time. As Jeff pursued an ESL endorsement, he wanted to provide the necessary and equitable support to CLD students that enter his classroom. In a recent experience as a student teacher in a suburban school near ESU, Jeff found himself blindsided as the school informed him that one of his students was a language learner, despite teaching the student for a couple of months: 78 Excerpt 13: ESL students can look White!? Last week the list came out, and I found out that one of my students [Ivan] was a heritage speaker of Bosnian. Never once did I know that, as he never once brought it up. I thought he was just a typical White boy from West [Midwest State]. And when I asked him, he was like, “ya know, like, my family doesn't speak English.” And it was just mind - blowing. And this was in February, was like, “What is going on!?” And I don't know, like, for me, as someone with an ESL background, like, that was just so disheartening. (Jeff, Interview 2) In the above excerpt, Jeff’s description illustrates how one’s conceptualization of, in this case, an ELL is an ongoing process that is locally situated and develops over time. Jeff’s perception of ELLs seemed to focus on the ways they looked and spoke, which is why he initially viewed Ivan as a non-ELL as Jeff thought Ivan was a “White boy from West [Midwest State].” This description exemplifies how language learners, like Ivan, are constructed and viewed in relation to their race and ethnolinguistic identities, which in turn could potentially result in them being perceived as either a normative or non-normative English speakers (Flores & Rosa, 2015, 2019). The above excerpt also illustrates two additional points. The first relates to how ideologies and their corresponding identity labels, in this case an ELL identity, undergo a constant process of construal and uptake (Gal & Irvine, 2019), that is, individuals enact their partial understanding and theories (e.g., a typical White boy from the West) that were developed from prior experiences and performed within a particular situation. As we saw within Excerpt 13, Jeff’s strong emotional reflective commentary in the final sentence (“What is going on!?”; “so disheartening”). In leveraging his ESL background, Jeff emphasizes his value in wanting to be inclusive of other languages as well as supporting ELL learners through his intersecting identities (White, Secondary Spanish teacher who is ESL endorsed) and experiences as a teacher trained in supporting ELL students. Through an ideology-as-praxis lens, Jeff’s values and 79 attitudes that construct an ELL student were an ongoing process as he had to reevaluate and produce a new episteme as it relates to who an ELL is at his school. The second point Excerpt 13 and Excerpt 14 illustrate is that ideologies are not purely in the head but part of the context through material resources afforded to us. As Jeff was describing his shock about learning a student was a heritage speaker of Bosnian, Jeff further leveraged his ESL background as he further explained his shock: Excerpt 14: He’s White and looks American CURTIS: And you go into why it's more disheartening. Is it because you didn't realize it or because you feel like you weren't supporting the student? JEFF: Yeah, I mean, I would say both of those. I don't know. I think it's disheartening because if we don't even know something as basic about the students, like what languages they speak …. I thought he was being stupid because he was just tuning out and being on his phone like; maybe he wasn't getting the English side of it that well. I was duped. [In terms of his grades,] his English is definitely his poorest area, like, far and away drastic, like 20% class difference ... But his name [Ivan] does not look like anything but American. He's white. He has no accent; he speaks perfect English. (Jeff, Interview 2) Excerpts 13 and 14 illustrate the ways in which the ELL identity is ideologically constructed and maintained within a particular time and context, i.e., Jeff’s school as he was learning to teach Spanish. This is evident in Excerpt 14 where Jeff learned from the school via an email that Ivan needed additional linguistic support as he and other students were identified as English language learners because they took the WIDA test relatively late. While Jeff initially described being disheartened due to not recognizing an ELL and thus mischaracterizing his students as lazy or irresponsible (e.g., “[the student] was just tuning out and being on his phone”), the lack of information caused Jeff to feel “duped” as little information was shared with him from the administration; specifically, Jeff was not aware that Ivan was not originally from the United States and thus needed linguistic support. 80 In short, the characteristics and the ideological values attached to the ELL identity for Jeff extended beyond one’s geographical mobility or ability to speak multiple languages, as we saw with Skyler, Steve, and Mike in Excerpt 11. Rather, Excerpts 12, 13, and 14 illustrate how individuals, like Jeff, might interpret and construct an ELL identity that intersects race and nationality. Jeff was against harming students as he had witnessed his former high school gym teacher call out José as “not American” (Excerpt 12). Despite pursuing an ESL endorsement as he trained to be a secondary Spanish teacher, Jeff inadvertently racialized Ivan as a non-ELL as both the characteristics Jeff focused on were related to Ivan’s race (e.g., Excerpt 13: “a typical White boy from [the Midwest]”) and linguistic ability (e.g., Excerpt 14: “He has no accent; he speaks perfect English”), despite seeing signs of needing assistance elsewhere. My participants performed their language ideologies as they either presented their interpretation and critique of how society views CLD students or employed their experiences as a means to present who was or was not an English language learner as it intersected racial and national identities. Another notable characteristic of my participants was that they viewed English language learners through the lens of social class. For Skyler, he viewed social class, race, and language as identity categories that informed each other. The focus on this intersectional identity relationship is alluded to when he addresses my question about how he understood the difference between urban schools and rural schools: Excerpt 15: Locating quality schools in the stereotypes SKYLER: when someone says, “urban school,” I'll be honest, the first two things that come to my mind are underfunded and an over-representation of students of color and students from, like, minoritized groups. CURTIS: Are they the same, or is one better off? SKYLER: Definitely, the stereotype is that a rural or suburban school would be better than an urban school. When I’ve talked to my parents about it, my mom’s a teacher; she talks about how hard it was. I have a friend who is a student teacher at [an urban school]. And he told me stories about how, like, the stereotypes you hear about urban schools 81 don’t sound too far off where he is. The stereotype is that urban schools are inherently lesser than [rural or suburban schools]…[because] the schools are underfunded because they score lower on tests. They get punished when they should really be receiving more support to help get the tests up. And the fact that the greater portion of people of color and other minoritized groups, like language groups, live in urban settings. (Skyler, Interview 2) Skyler’s perception of urban schools as “underfunded” and “inherently…lesser than” rural or suburban schools fall within the social narrative of an achievement gap influenced by macro- and micro-political discourses (De Costa, 2010; Jaffe, 2009). In the US, schools are evaluated based on students’ performance in the form of test scores as a result of No Child Left Behind 8 (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). The No Child Left Behind policy made it so schools’ federal funding was determined based on students’ test scores with poor performance causing funding to be withheld. As Menken (2008; 2010) illustrated, schools that had a large CLD student population were disproportionately impacted due to these high-stakes content tests as English was the barrier that affected English language learners’ performance. As the policy required schools’ performance to be made available to the public, this information was used in both macro- and micro-political discourses to fuel an achievement gap ideology as stories concerning where the “good” schools and districts and the “failing” schools are located (e.g., Bui & Doughtery, 2017). In the case of the above excerpt, Skyler is aware of this hegemonic view of urban schools as these schools are underfunded because “they score lower on tests” than rural 8 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 that was ratified in 2001 and was in effect from 2002 to 2015. While there was no federal academic standard that states had to meet, states were tasked with making their own standards and assessments which were required to be administered on a yearly basis to evaluate whether students were making significant progress within the content areas of math, social sciences, science, and English language arts (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). The act placed increased accountability on teachers and schools as federal funding was tied to a local educational agency’s (i.e., education institutions) annual report cards that informed parents and the genera l public about a school’s performance and teacher quality. The report cards of schools were aggregated across each state to make a state report card that in turn impacted how schools received funding. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was reworked to be part of the Every Student Succeeds Act which was ratified in 2015 and is still in effect as of writing this dissertation. 82 and suburban schools. This is particularly notable when he uses the phrases “minoritized groups” and “the stereotype is…” when referencing urban schools but disagrees with these views. Instead, Skyler formulates his general belief around equitable education counter to the larger discourse of using test scores to determine which schools get more money as he says, “[urban schools] should really be receiving more support to help get the tests up.” As fronted within the short story, this counter-belief comes as he applies the theories he attained from hearing the lived experiences of his mom and friend. While alluded to in the third interview, my participants’ views on social class and language were further elaborated in their reflective logs. Going back to Skyler, he writes on how he interprets the correct and incorrect nature of language as it relates to social class and race within US society: Excerpt 16: The school dialect Additionally, I feel that the manner in which one speaks a language has also been used to indicate social class. For example, standard English is often viewed as the ‘right’ way to speak English in society; thus, those who speak standard English are typically viewed as pertaining to a higher social class. This is why dialects that aren’t considered standard English, such as African American Vernacular English, remain a controversial point in schools. (Skyler, Reflective Log 3) As we have seen in prior excerpts concerning the material reality of social class in the form of self-segregated communities (see section 4.1), we also see the immaterial realities of societal ideologies taken, shaped, and expressed individually through Skyler. In this case, Skyler highlights that language and social class matter because “standard English is viewed as the ‘right’ way…[and] pertaining to a higher social class.” Additionally, there is an immaterial reality that the variety of English in school favors White, middle- to an upper variety of English. 83 As Skyler highlights, the “African American Vernacular English 9 ” variety has been the focus of a larger school narrative as “a controversial point in schools.” The controversy surrounding African American Vernacular English, as Skyler refers to it, exists in part due to raciolinguistic ideologies enacted through political and media outlets related to providing equitable education within the US and what that means in a multilinguistic and multicultural society. 10 While not focusing on the contentious history of English and education about race, Steve also reports the view that the societal narrative of how English and social class are intertwined, especially in the United States. Specifically, he focuses on how the quality of someone’s spoken English and the extent to which they use English determines their social class. Excerpt 17: The language of business and U.S. society Speaking generally, there is a view that people in the United States speak English in higher social classes and do not speak as much English in lower social classes. Part of this is due to the fact that some immigrants and/or refugees do not come to the United States in a high social class. That, combined with the stigma that English is to be spoken as the common language in business and general society. In the U.S., we propagate the idea that language has ties to social class. (Steve, Reflective Log 3) In focusing on “immigrants and/or refugees” and how they do not come to the US “in a high social class,” Steve provides a deficit view that someone resettling to the US will be relatively poor (an ascribed social class identity) due to their perceived lack of English and nationality. He adds that English is a vital linguistic resource that provides essential social and material capital as it is “the common language in business and general society.” While having the same idea, Jeff 9 This variety of English has had multiple and varying names, such as Ebonics, Black English, Black Vernacular English, African American Vernacular English, and African American Language. To fully engage with the sociohistorical and political nature revolving around this variety of English, I direct readers to Lippi-Green (2010) and Baugh (2021). 10 This debate of equitable education surrounding language occurred in multiple incidents, such as “The Ann Arbor Decision” in 1979 (Baugh, 2021), the “Oakland Ebonics controversy” in 1996 (Collins, 1999), and the English only Movement that occurred from 1998 to 2002 in—most notably—California, Arizona, and Massachusetts (Borden, 2014; Moore, 2021). 84 writes in his reflective log that especially the media generates content surrounding these linguistic ideologies: Excerpt 18: Speaking two languages can be classy or trashy I think bilingualism is viewed through an incredibly hypocritical lens by our society. I remember seeing “speaking two languages” mentioned in a BuzzFeed video asking people, “what’s considered elite if you’re rich but trashy if you’re poor” and I think back to that often. Especially now, as I am applying to full-time jobs for the first time and am actively marketing myself as bilingual, I’m forced to face the reality that selective bilingualism trumps compound bilingualism in many cases in the social sphere. For example, people’s reception to learning that I speak Spanish is usually overwhelmingly positive. No one is telling me, “We speak American here in the United States,” or “go back to Mexico,” or anything like that. (Jeff, Reflective Log 3) The resource of having multiple languages dependent on one’s social class also played a factor, as Jeff explained when he was consuming a “BuzzFeed video” that used classist language such as “elite” and “trashy.” This is then followed up by his sharing of his own current experience of trying to get a job where he describes mobilizing his capital. Jeff’s “actively marketing [himself] as bilingual,” results in him receiving “overwhelmingly positive” responses. This idea of elite multilingualism (Barakos & Selleck, 2019) or linguistic entrepreneurship are forms of neoliberal ideologies that focus on the commodification and exploitation of, in this case, linguistic resources for the sake of economic competition (De Costa, Park, & Wee, 2016). Thus, Jeff’s consumption of online media exemplifies how individuals can unintentionally encounter language ideologies that, in this case, take on the form of linguistic elitism as “a discursive construct imagined, characterized, (re)shaped and reproduced in popular narratives and by the acts of people” (Barakos & Selleck, 2019, p. 365). In short, this performance of ideologies (Gal & Irvine, 2019; Metz & Knight, 2021) emphasizes that my four participants (Skyler, Steve, Jeff, and Mike) are not static as individuals; 85 rather, they used different ideological orientations and experiences with respect to the context and time (Bacon, 2020; Rosa & Burdick, 2017) in which they were situated. 4.3 Ideologies about language in school Skyler, Steve, Jeff, and Mike held hegemonic and counterhegemonic views concerning the language that should be learned and taught in school that sometimes conflicted with each other. One of the main ideologies identified across my participant’s interviews, reflective logs, and surveys was standard English – “a bias toward an abstract, idealized homogenous language, which is imposed and maintained by dominant institutions, and which has as its model the written language,” while drawing on upper- to a middle-class variety of English (Lippi-Green, 1997, p. 64). Standard English ideology is part of multiple assimilation ideologies that focus on making the minority adopt majority patterns, behaviors, and/or practices either economically, culturally, and/or politically, albeit to varying degrees. On the survey, Jeff, Mike, Steve, and Skyler disagreed with the statement that Standard English is the correct form of English. However, this idea of what constitutes “correct” was consistently found in how they described the term (Metz, 2019; Metz & Knight, 2021), which is examined next. Using “appropriate” English. When I asked my participants how they viewed Standard English, they all described it similarly. They related the term to “a more formal and rigid version of English” that has “a lot more of the structure and guidelines” (Mike, Interview 3) that are often associated with “English language arts classes in school” (Steve, Interview 3), “grammar instruction” (Skyler, interview 3), or “speaking like a textbook” (Jeff, Interview 3). The description of standard English invites comparison to Snow and Uccelli’s (2009) findings surrounding the features of Academic English. In the following excerpt, Jeff further specified how he viewed Standard English. 86 Excerpt 19: American English uses no slang like Chicano English I think of White, middle to upper-class people with a genuinely decent educational background, at least a high school diploma. Yeah, just talking, and a Midwest accent is probably standard, more or less. You know what I mean? If we're thinking of just like American Standard English, yeah, no slang, no vernacular or like, cultural pieces like no Chicano English, Spanglish, or mixing [languages]. Like, none of that. Standard English, I think, would be like how we're interacting right now. (Jeff, Interview 3) Jeff highlights that standard English is tied to race and social position “White, middle to upper- class people” who have “a genuinely decent educational background, at least a high school diploma.” Moreover, he distinguishes this standard view of English from the social use of English while positioning himself and myself as standard English speakers as he says, “like how we’re interacting right now.” Jeff’s sentiment about standard English can also be seen when Skyler reflects on the hegemonic nature of English, precisely this seemingly educated and high social class variety: Excerpt 20: The language everyone should speak Being a White male that grew up speaking English as my native language, I've never been in a situation where people didn’t speak English somewhere; I’ve never had to go into a situation where I didn't understand what was going on. I grew up with English that everyone is supposed to speak according to society as the main language. (Skyler, Interview 3) Describing standard English as proper, structured, and akin to a textbook, my participants present how standard English is perceived as academic English tied to “middle upper-class” people with a “decent educational background.” Additionally, my participants focused on the de facto nature of English in the larger society by emphasizing that to be successful and part of society, “everyone is supposed to speak [English].” Moreover, Jeff’s elaboration of standard English orient other varieties of English, such as “Chicano English [and] Spanglish,” through a deficit lens associated with not being educated 87 and/or in a lower social position (Flores, 2020; MacSwan, 2020, Snow & Uccelli, 2009). As he explained the characteristics of standard English, Jeff informed me this interpretation of Standard English was based on several instances he witnessed play out in the classroom. He elaborated on one of these moments with his mentor teacher. Excerpt 21: Learning to enforce standard English My mentor teacher is kind of a grammar Nazi, especially on our heritage speakers. I don't know if it's because they're heritage speakers or just because this is just how they talk: [voice of student] “Mrs. [Mentor], I ain't got no pencil today.” [changing voice to be Mrs. Mentor] “You don't what a pencil?” [student] “I ain't got no pencil.” [Mrs. Lawrence] You don't what a pencil? [Student] “ain't got.” I'm just, like, in my head. I'm like, “have.” And [the student is] like, “Oh, I don't. I don't have a pencil.” You can almost see them being like, “why?” And then, they'll come up to me after and literally be like, “Is she really trippin’ about how I just said that question?” And I'm like, It's not for me to discuss. But to me, those are things I would never even bat an eye at because I don't care enough. (Jeff, Interview 3) The above excerpt captures how Jeff’s mentor teacher, who held prescriptivist beliefs that favored Standard linguistic ideologies towards language (Jeff refers to her as being “a grammar Nazi”), was attempting to correct a student who was presumably using what scholars call African American English (AAE)11 (Greene, 2021; Lanehart & Malik, 2015). Within this same excerpt, Jeff is quick to account that while he felt he was not in a position to discuss the incident (“it’s not for me to discuss”), being a student teacher, he would hold seemingly a indifferent attitude as he “would never even bat an eye at” the student’s use of language. 11 This variety of English has had multiple and varying names such as Ebonics, Black Vernacular English, African American Vernacular English, and African American language (Lippi-Green, 2010). I use African American English (AAE) because it is frequently used by Black American Linguists to signify the different speech varieties within the United States across age, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic position, region, e ducation, religion amongst others that intersect with someone’s ethnicity/race and nationality (Greene, 2021; Lanehart & Malik, 2015). To further engage with the sociohistorical and political nature revolving around this variety of English, I recommend The Oxford Handbook of African American Language (Lanehart, 2015) and Linguistic Justice: Black Language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy (Baker-Bell, 2020). 88 Building on the societal views of the need to speak this “proper” variety of English, I asked them about their response to the statement that Standard English is necessary for academic settings (see Appendix A). Mike and Jeff both disagreed with the statement. When I asked both of them to elaborate on their responses, they elaborated on their initial survey response. For Jeff, he highlighted that “standard English is necessary just for the point of getting across” to “mostly everybody” (Interview 3). He further explained that for teachers, “the language that you use needs to be understood by the masses; It needs to be intelligible.” He continued to build on this point: Excerpt 22: Teaching to communicate so everyone understands Standard English is necessary just to get across what you need to clearly and in a way that mostly everybody understands. However, I don't think it's necessary because even though the student said, “I ain't got no pencil,” I still knew she was saying, “Can you give me a pencil?” And we were able to, like, communicate what needed to be communicated. So, I don't think it's necessary. However, I think it's important, especially in the role as a teacher. (Jeff, Interview 3) In the above Excerpt, Jeff further explained his earlier statement of caring about a student’s language use as long as they are “able to communicate what [needs] to be communicated.” He further built upon his example of his mentor teacher with a student speaking AAE to begin expressing his pluralist views of language. He further explained that “my job is to make sure that they can just develop casual English-speaking register” so they can be “successful outside of the classroom” (Interview 3). However, Jeff deemed Standard English to be “necessary” for teachers as they need to be understood by “mostly everybody.” When I asked Mike to elaborate upon his rationale for disagreeing with the statement, he added that as someone reaches “more formal settings, it’s just more expected of everyone” to use standard English. Additionally, he shared that this is “why I selected somewhat disagree, because 89 I think, especially early on in schooling, it is way more necessary just to encourage students’ language development” (Interview 3). When I asked him if Standard English impacted academic achievement, Mike expressed that it “definitely does impact or limit academic achievement” as it relates to writing “more formally in essays, such as research papers, or things along those lines” (Interview 3). However, Mike held a counter-hegemonic view that Standard English should not be the model for new language learners as it “would be more beneficial to try and encourage them to become more comfortable with the language” (Interview 3). This point was further built upon a quick experience when he recounted that he had studied French: Excerpt 23: Being too formal stifles communication I took French for many years, and I had a friend who moved to my town from France. And when I was showing him all the, I guess, vocabulary I was studying for my class, he was pretty confused with what I was learning. And he wasn’t sure how to help me because the French I was learning was so formal. He compared it to how his grandparents would speak, as opposed to how he would have spoken amongst his peers, to his teachers, parents, or anyone. Even though that’s not English, to me, it seems it would still relate to the situation someone learning English might encounter. (Mike, Interview 3) The above story captures how language could be perceived as inauthentic due to being “so formal” and removed from authentic uses as it interconnects with the speakers and audience members’ social identities. The ideology of authenticity, as scholars (e.g., Park, 2022; Shenk, 2007; Vasquez & Wetzel, 2009) argue and illustrate, uses their beliefs of language as a symbolic boundary to position one’s racial and national identity within and separate from other perceived hierarchized groups within the society. This can be seen in Excerpts 21 and 22, where one student used AAE but was quickly corrected by Jeff’s mentor teacher, regardless of her being understood by both the teacher and Jeff. In the above excerpt, we see Mike also viewed formal of English as inauthentic, and potentially positioning students as foreign within the dialogic 90 interactions that occur outside of the classroom (Park, 2022). While Mike and Jeff viewed standard English as necessary regarding societal perceptions, their views changed in relation to the level of education and the individual in question. Both held similar individual views that Standard English should not be prioritized as it is inauthentic to actual language use. While Mike and Jeff had complicated their beliefs surrounding the use of standard English, all of my participants believed that learning standard English in school was necessary to be successful in society, as a way to navigate pre-existing structures found within it (Metz & Knight, 2021). Thus, in their view, standard English was key for securing both professional and academic success. Focusing first on professional success, Steve believed Standard English was “beneficial, like corporately,” where “if you're going into a job interview, I would try to be like, as formal and proper as possible” (Interview 3). Mike and Skyler echo this sentiment. When I asked Mike and Skyler whether English was necessary to be successful in the US, they related the use of English to professional settings: Excerpt 24: To be part of the world, speak English There's no official language for the country. But like you said, English is the de facto language, and the vast majority of large businesses, groups, and corporations use English as their standard. So, if you want to fit into that world and become a part of that, using English is very important in moving up. (Mike, Interview 3) The focus on the de facto nature of English in the United States, as Mike mentioned, “there’s no official language for the country” but extended this point to “businesses and groups and corporations,” corroborates with earlier findings on how English is viewed as a linguistic resource to be exploited in society and closely tied to how language and social class inform one another (Barakos & Seeleck, 2019; De Costa et al., 2016; Kubota, 2016). 91 Moreover, Mike’s focus on how English is “seen as more necessary” was also echoed by Skyler, who answered the question as though he would be talking to his students in the classroom: Excerpt 25: Set them up to fail or be part of the world and speak English I never want to be that person that would make a kid feel bad for not speaking English as their native language or feel as if their language is in any way invalidated because they're being told not to speak their L1 in the classroom. But I would come at them honestly saying, like, “the world is gonna want you to speak English. And so, in our classroom, we're gonna work on speaking that.” I would try to provide those opportunities for them to use your native language still. But I can't, like, ignore how the world works. I can set them up and be like, “oh, yeah, you don't have to learn English. You can continue to use your just your native language.” I want to set them up to be able to work in the real world. (Skyler, Interview 3) As Skyler took on a teacher identity, he was thus torn between incorporating students’ home language in the classroom or focusing on English and risk making his students feel their language is “in any way invalidated” in the classroom. While wanting to keep to his initial ideas of plurilingualism in the classroom, he viewed his role as a teacher as preparing students for society. Skyler viewed English as a necessary skill to be a member of society, and he shared that he “can’t ignore how the world works.” As a result of this seemingly top-down perspective of “the world is gonna want you to speak English,” Mike and Skyler viewed learning Standard Academic English as essential to entering the labor market after school (Block, Gray, & Holborow, 2012, Sayer 2019). Proper English for Academic success. Regarding of academic success, this idea of English being a mediator of interaction also became evident as participants prioritized monolingual ideologies in how they viewed academic achievement and the role of language in their classroom. For example, in the following excerpt, Steve answered part of the second guided 92 reflective log by asking, “In defining what school success is, how does language play a role in students’ success or struggle in school?” Excerpt 26: Academic success is learning English Language also plays an important role in academic success. Language, as it relates to literacy, is crucial to students in a classroom. Depending on how literate a child is in the dominant language of the classroom, they can either be extremely successful or fall behind the rest. Often, classrooms have a primary language used for instruction, communication, and discussion. Students who are not familiar with this language or who are learning it may have a hard time understanding course material or keeping up with their peers. Many times, there are no resources available for language learners in the classroom. (Steve, Guided Reflective log 2) The excerpt highlights that language plays an important role in academic success, with Steve and my other participants noted that success falls on how well students know the classroom language in terms of literacy while noting resources to support their linguistic development being limited. It is not, as they put it, any language but the “dominant language of the classroom.” To clarify what Steve viewed as the “dominant language,” I asked Steve what he meant by this phrase. He explained that he viewed it in terms of writing “because we talked about this in class too, and we all came to this conclusion that for writing, we need some sort of Standard English, like regulations, so everybody has a cohesive paper” (Interview 3). Just as academic writing required, as Steve explained, Standard English to be successful in school despite ELLs receiving little materials to support their linguistic development (Excerpt 26), Steve questions the necessary level students need to be proficient in English. This is illustrated when I ask him what this means for his class and in helping them learn: Excerpt 27: Adding scare quotes around proficient STEVE: In school, I think success would be helping them become “proficient.” I add air quotes around “proficient” because, I don't know, proficiency is a pretty high bar that I don't even think that I'm at when it comes to speaking English. But I think allowing them to be proficient in a sense, where they aren't falling behind in the content, or they don't 93 feel separated from their peers. They’re able to do the work that's given to them in the class. CURTIS: What does proficiency mean for you in your class? STEVE: Um, proficiency? In my class? Um, I don't know; I would say conveying your point effectively in both communication and writing. To the extent that, like, the teacher, me, can understand what you're talking about. So that it is understandable, but also like me being the teacher being able to provide feedback that will help them grow additionally. (Steve, Interview 3) As Steve focused on the societal view of success, such as good grades and high performance on local and national assessments (e.g., the SAT), he pushed back against this when shifting the perspective from society to himself and his class. He questioned the term proficiency as he put “air quotes around” the term, and he seemed to view someone proficient in English as someone who has complete mastery “when it comes to speaking English.” He appeared to take on more plurlinguistic values as he evaluated his usefulness in teaching his imagined students in his class, so they don’t “[fall] behind in the content, or …feel separated from their peers.” The view of academic success tied to acquiring Standard English was not specific to Steve, however. Nor was Steve the only one trying to reconcile tensions between societal or even classroom perceptions of English and his own interpretation of students’ linguistic resources within the classroom. This tension was also evident with Jeff, Skyler, and Mike. Jeff and Skyler did focus on this societal perception of academic success, as framed by my question, but juxtaposed it with how they viewed success. Jeff, for example, viewed success as “being prepared with the educational and life skills and tools.” In regards to multilingual learners being academically successful, he wrote, Excerpt 27: The barrier to traditional success in school [Multilingual students’] language assets and deficits play a major role in their success in school. For students who are not yet proficient in the K-12 academic English register, their English-language deficit is obviously going to pose a barrier between them and the traditional notion of what it means to be “successful” in school. 94 (Jeff, Guided Reflective Log 2) Like Steve, Jeff also focused on students’ non-English linguistic ability as a deficit rather than a resource in development as it pertains to societal views of being academically successful. This view of a barrier due to students who were “not yet proficient in the K-12 academic English register” was also shared by Skyler; however, he took a slightly different tone from Steve and Jeff: Excerpt 28: Teachers and schools should remove barriers to success I’ve very deliberately included “access to” in regards to in-school success because, unfortunately, limited English proficiency may make it harder for some students to be successful. This is not the students’ fault. This is the fault of their school. As ed ucators, it is our job to remove obstacles and barriers that may hinder our students’ success. We must make accommodations for the unique needs of all our students, and students with limited English proficiency are no exception. (Skyler, Guided Reflective Log 2) While Skyler shared a similar view that students’ “limited English proficiency” was a barrier to their success, he highlighted it’s “not the students’ fault” but the school’s. School, in this case, can be interpreted as the (imagined) institution the students were within but also, as Skyler writes in the following sentence, the educators’ responsibility as well. Mike shared the same sentiments as Skyler. In his second reflective log, he builds on his early views that English language learners should not be assumed to learn Standard English but instead learn English that is authentic to language use and “become more comfortable with the language” (Guided Reflective log 2). He shared his linguistic experience studying Hebrew when he was 11 years old for his Bar Mitzvah, a Jewish coming-of-age ritual: Excerpt 29: Thrown into learning Hebrew Every day I struggled immensely, and I could barely accomplish what students many years younger than myself were learning simultaneously. Being put in an alternative environment to have lessons more closely aligned with my level of understanding could have been beneficial, but instead, I found myself surrounded by my peers (of which some 95 were like me with limited understanding, but some others were following along as they had been attending for years) in a classroom where I could not follow along no matter how hard I actually tried. Based on this experience, I can imagine how difficult it would be for a student learning English as a second language to embody those “successful” traits that I discussed earlier. As a result, I feel that these students need to be provided with supplemental materials, either to help them keep up with the content potentially in their native language (while they continue to develop their English language skills) or additional scaffolding and support to ensure these students are able to draw just as much meaning from each lesson as any of their peers. (Mike Guided Reflective Log 2) In the above story, Mike positions himself as the imagined English language learner as he had to learn Hebrew at a “very young age.” While he had to learn Hebrew within a short amount of time because he entered Hebrew School late, he struggled despite the school teaching Hebrew in English. And needed to perform the ceremony on his “13 th birthday.” Having a “very limited knowledge and experience of the Hebrew language,” Mike subsequently struggled with Hebrew and wanted to be in an alternative environment rather than being “surrounded by [his] peers” who were at the same level as him or beyond him as “they had been attending for years.” Mike’s language learning experience for his Bar Mitzvah contextualizes Jeff and Skyler’s point that students’ limited understanding is not their fault, and thus should be provided resources. Otherwise, they should be put in an alternative setting to “ensure these students can draw just as much meaning from each lesson as any of their peers.” Additionally, Mike and Skyler believed that students’ first language should be used “to keep up with the content” in the form of resources and to adapt instruction. This is very similar to Skyler’s point made in Excerpt 28 that teachers should “make accommodations for the unique needs of all our students” in the form of differentiated instruction. 4.4 Ideologies about the teacher’s role Up to this point, I have illustrated Steve, Skyler, Jeff, and Mike’s series of beliefs concerning the societal perceptions concerning the traits and characteristics of English language 96 learners because these beliefs intersected at varying levels of race, social class, and nationality. I have also shown that my participants’ beliefs about language in school as standard English and Academic English were conflated and interchanged. Both varieties of English were viewed as essential to navigating the current social structures and being professionally and academically successful. For both the characteristics of English learners and the role of language school, I also showed how my participants complicated, if not contradicted, these beliefs when the topic directly focuses on them through their rationale and stories. Because all my participants advocated for supporting English language learners in the K- 12 classroom focused on developing English, I shifted the conversation in the third interview to focus on the content classroom. While Skyler and Steve were training to be content subject (and not ESL) teachers, I asked all my participants whether teachers should worry about teaching or supporting students’ English language development in content-focused classrooms. All four participants acknowledged the importance of supporting students’ language development but pointed out the responsibility should not fall on one teacher. Focusing on the former, Mike best captured this attitude: Excerpt 30: Reaching out to comfortably support CLD students I think it’s really important for teachers to have at least a basic set of skills they can draw from to support any potential students they may have gone through that process. But I don’t necessarily think it should be required for every teacher to be fully trained and prepared to help a student fully with [their English development]. If they don’t have that full training and feel comfortable approaching everything, they should at least have someone else on their staff or in the school that they can reach out to and collaborate with. (Mike, Interview 3) While in the past sections, my participants performed their beliefs through the evaluative commentary of how society or institutions viewed language within and outside of school. Excerpt 30 presents how Mike explicitly states his beliefs that teachers should have “a basic set 97 of skills” to support students developing their English. He further specifies this linguistically supportive belief to elude teachers do not need to be ESL specialists to assist CLD students (required…to be fully trained and prepared to help a student fully with their English development). Just as he considered students should feel comfortable with the language, Mike accompanies this belief with values of support taking on a role on the level of English ability students have with the phrase “fully with their English development” being interpreted as someone with little to no English proficiency. Mike’s beliefs on linguistic support shift away from the student to the teacher where he focuses on making sure teachers should have the option to have someone else available to help support English language learners, especially “if they don’t have the full training and feel comfortable.” Mike’s beliefs surrounding language in the classroom centered around students’ linguistic proficiency and adequate support structures for both the teacher to properly support the student in the school. As Mike understood and agreed there needs to be some linguistic support for students, his response presents an interesting picture in that teachers are unable to be “fully trained” to help and accommodate the diverse backgrounds they would encounter in their classroom. My participants furthered this point to indicate that this linguistic support would be difficult and runs the risk of them being overburdened in their duties. Steve best expresses this point when answering my question if teachers should support CLD students’ linguistic development in the content classroom: Excerpt 31: Overburdened with no guidance or resources I think specifically concerning social studies. It is a constantly expanding subject where you have to teach so much in social studies, depending on what you're teaching. I think it's possible to support bilingual students, but it is, I think, more difficult in content classes. Um, especially, like, I don't know, a lot of times teachers have to provide their own resources, which makes it more difficult. And there are not a whole lot of content standards within content classes that focus on developing language skills, either. So. 98 (Steve Interview 3) Steve brings forth discourse found within news and media as being overworked and underfunded; however, the several classes he took directly taught SIOP models12 as a way to incorporate language learning opportunities for all of his students that would not detract from the perceived core duties of teaching social studies. Additionally, the course Steve introduced how the K-12 content standards for the Midwest stated Steve would teach within had a language component for each of them in order to “focus on developing language skills.” When I asked him if he would support his students since he is trained in the SIOP, he provided a mixed response: Excerpt 32: How do I support CLD students in my class? I do think that it is important, and it should be done. I'm just not necessarily sure how it should be done. I think there are practices you can do, especially in group work. I know that a lot of times, students learn from their peers. (Steve, Interview 3) This uncertainty on how to support English language learners despite learning about teaching techniques like SIOP and differentiated instruction was found with Steve and Jeff. As I mentioned, Jeff was the only one in his practicum teaching in a nearby suburban school. Despite the training and teaching experience he had prior, he found differentiated instruction difficult as he had his own classroom teaching level 1 and level 2 Spanish –which he refers to Spanish one and two: Excerpt 33: I need you to pass with a 60% I think that the actual differentiation of instruction is so difficult, like I really only differentiate my assessment. It's something I'm kind of just thinking about now for the first time. I'm only one person. I have students who could be doctors one day very easily. And then I have some students, I'm like, “I just need you to pass with a 60%.” You know what I mean? I mean, I don't know, it's Spanish one and two. I go slow because I can't afford to have more than, like, two or three kids way behind. 12 Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) is a model focused on “making content compressib le for English learners” through English-medium instruction (Echevarría, Vogt, & Short, 2016, n.d). 99 (Jeff, Interview 3) While differentiated instruction does not entail tailoring the lesson to every student, Jeff understood it in this light as he alluded to the varying kinds of students in the class. The ones who “could be doctors” as opposed to the others who only need “a 60%” to pass. As he struggled with implementing differentiated instruction techniques in his classroom, he elaborated upon his struggles as it relates to English language learners: Excerpt 34: What do accommodations look like for ELL students? I've never even seen what accommodations look like for ELL students because they're not in our system. So even though I have them, I am still determining what they should be. No one has ever told me. So. No, I've had no practice with differentiating instruction prior to the internship year at all. (Jeff, interview 3) As Jeff studied and learned the varying techniques and methods to support culturally and linguistically diverse students at ESU, he highlighted he had “no [hands-on] practice with differentiating instruction” before going into his teaching. This point of view echoes similar stances reported in previous studies (Bacon, 2020, 2022; Pettit, 2011; Lee & Oxelson, 2006) where content teachers who received little training on how to support students’ linguistic development within content classrooms felt it was beyond the scope of their duties as they are unable to identify and enact practical strategies and methods to support their CLD students. Mike and Steve, in this instance, framed their point of viewing it is important to support CLD students’ linguistic development within the content classroom as long as they have some English proficiency already. Moreover, the support within the classroom would focus on preparing students for the “real world.” The “real world,” in this case, could be interpreted as the imagined realities of the classrooms and schools they would be located within, is best expressed by Jeff, who had practical experience. 100 In learning that students felt teachers should not feel obliged to support English language learners linguistically, I directed the question to them. Specifically, I asked how they would support their students who do not speak English as their first language in their classroom (see Appendix A). For Skyler, he explained that the support he would provide would be tied to the amount of the student’s language he could incorporate into his teaching: Excerpt 35: Supplemental aids and guides are enough And it depends on the content or the type of school you're talking about. Obviously, if it's a bilingual school, it'd be much more so than it would in a non-bilingual school or in a non-bilingual classroom. And I think that's something that partially depends on maybe the amount of students that are in the classroom that also speak that native language. Of course, that's not to say that you shouldn't completely toss that language out the window. I think it's just thinking of it proportionately. And so it'd be more of a situation where it's providing them like supplemental aids and guides, like in their native language. (Skyler, Interview 3) While maintaining that all students should be supported in their academic development (Excerpt 28), Skyler viewed the amount of support students receive should be proportionate to “the amount of students that are in the classroom that speak that native language” along with “the type of school” and classroom. 4.5 Summary of Findings In this chapter, I set out to answer my first research question concerning how my participants' identities inform how they express their ideologies concerning culturally and linguistically, diverse students. All four participants (Skyler, Steve, Mike, and Jeff) came from comparable exurbs and entered the teaching profession partly due to their mothers being K-12 educators. Additionally, my participants talked about English language learners in relation to hegemonic and counterhegemonic beliefs. The hegemonic beliefs I identified concerning the characteristics on a societal and personal level brought in sharp focus how race, nationality, and social class identity labels intersected with each other and were performed through a series of 101 beliefs. These beliefs being authentic English speakers (Park, 2022; Shenk, 2007; Vasquez & Wetzel, 2009), standard English (MacSwan, 2020), and linguistic entrepreneurship (De Costa et al., 2016). As discussed, my participants also conflated standard English with academic English and maintained that the former was needed to be successful in the United States in and outside of school. Lastly, they perceived their responsibilities as K-12 teachers were to mainly teach the content and prepare them to be successful outside of the classroom. This understanding of their duties informed their perceived role as K-12 teachers where they would support culturally and linguistically diverse students to the extent students’ linguistic abilities did not hinder teaching the content. This was expressed through a classroom learning ideal to that of the real world, and how they viewed the role English played within the classroom. In the next chapter, I go to answer my second and final research question. 102 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION 2 In the last chapter, I answered my first research question focusing on how my participants’ life histories shaped how they expressed their ideologies concerning culturally and linguistically, diverse students. My findings in the fourth chapter illustrated that my pre-service teachers had shifting ideologies where they would express their beliefs about language regarding societal perceptions and individual views based on their life experiences in and outside their similarly described hometowns. Even when trying to juxtapose their beliefs about language away from the societal views, they would use their experiences to align with their societal beliefs as they perceived their role as a K-12 teacher is to prepare their students for the “real world.” In showcasing these findings, I have yet to discuss how their training prepared them to enter the K- 12 classroom. Nor have I explored how prepared they were to support culturally and linguistically diverse students. For these reasons, I set out to answer the following question: 2. How do pre-service teachers engage with their undergraduate education as they prepare to support multilingual learners in the K-12 content classroom? To answer the above question, I use the data collected from semi-structured interviews and their guided reflective log responses. Additionally, I use publicly available data from ESU’s website concerning the central goal of the teacher education program in training both elementary (Kindergarten to 6th grade) and secondary (6th to 12th grade) pre-service teachers, the academic requirements for both programs, types of courses, and information concerning what it entails to get an endorsement in ESL at ESU’s state. 103 5.1 RQ 2: Participants engagement with ESU’s training To address the second question concerning how Steve, Skyler, Jeff, and Mike engaged with their training relating to CLD students, I break this part of the chapter into three sub- sections: 1. Training to be equitable within the narrative of education 2. Steve and Skyler: (Un)prepared-ness in understanding codes to be an inclusive educator 3. Mike and Jeff: The ideals of one place filter into another The first section aims to provide a clearer understanding concerning the goal ESU sets out in training future teachers along with the type of courses my participants had to take. In the first section, I aim to quickly show that ESU’s program was embedded with ideologies that shaped what it meant to be a K-12 content teacher. After covering the teacher training program, the following two sections are broken up based on the type of cohort my participants were placed in, and whether or not they were pursuing an ESL endorsement. These two sections hope to illustrate how Steve, Skyler, Mike, and Jeff all engaged with the ideologies found throughout ESU’s teacher training as it related to supporting and teaching CLD students. 5.2 Training to be equitable within the narrative of education As mentioned in the third chapter, there are two kinds of training pre-service teachers can obtain at ESU: (1) training to teach elementary (grades K – 6) or (2) training to teach secondary education (grades 6 – 12). These two types of training differ from one another on a programmatic goal and curriculum level. For teachers aiming to teach elementary students, ESU’s elementary academic advising guide 2022/202313 states the goal of their training as follows: 13 This material is publicly available on their website with three different versions: “2019 -2022 (seniors)”, “2022- 2023 (Juniors)”, and “2022-2023 (Sophomores/Freshmen).” Since my participants had one year left at the start of the study (spring 2022), I opted to go with the 2022-2023 Junior version. 104 Students will gain the knowledge and skills necessary to teach all subjects in kindergarten through 3rd grade or 3rd grade through 6th grade (p. 3 in ESU 2019-2020 elementary academic advising guide). In addition, our students will choose an endorsement in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) or Birth-Kindergarten (B- K). (p. 3) In the description for training future elementary teachers, ESU uses language focusing on preparing teachers with general teaching knowledge, skills, and approaches to teaching across the curriculum. In the use of “all subjects,” pre-service elementary content teachers are positioned to be the primary teacher to build students’ content foundation while also helping students integrate and learn how to do school in their initial years. The focus to be an all- encompassing teacher is evident in the curriculum where elementary content teachers take a range of courses related to teaching across the curriculum – in this case, English language arts, Social studies (e.g., history), mathematics, and science (See Figure 3). 105 Figure 3 Elementary curriculum (not including endorsements or cohort requirements) Note: The above course abbreviations have been changed to generic abbreviations that capture the central focus of the course (e.g., elementary mathematics = MTH). The above figure illustrates the diverse number of classes elementary pre-service teachers (regardless of their endorsement they take and the grade area they plan to teach within) must take at ESU. While the courses for elementary pre-service teachers focus on teaching approaches and issues of social justice, elementary pre-service teachers take several courses (e.g., CLD 240, TESOL 200/401 in Figure 3) focusing on learning about multilingual learners and ways to support them across the content areas they would need to teach in their future class. Secondary teacher education, on the other hand, differs in terms of goals and curriculum. 106 Secondary teacher training at ESU differs from that of their elementary counterpart. This is clearly stated in ESU’s Secondary education academic advising guide 2021-202214 , Students pursuing secondary certification (grades 6-12) earn degrees in the departments/colleges of their teaching majors and must complete all of the requirements. Endorsements on a [Midwest] secondary certificate indicate that the certificate holder is highly qualified to teach those subjects…(p. 3) The majority of the training, before they enter the classroom, in this case, is tied to an approved roster of “teaching majors” with these majors focused on content or language. Specifically, pre- service teachers can major in the following areas: Agriculture, Arabic, Art Education, Biology, Chemistry, Mandarin Chinese, English, French, German, History Education, Japanese, Mathematics, Music Education, Physical Science, Physics, Social Science Education, Political Science, and Spanish15 . Once they graduate with one of the listed majors, individuals can then get a certification in secondary education. To be certified in secondary teaching, individuals need to take an additional year where they do their practicum in a secondary classroom to practice their teaching. During this time, pre-service secondary teachers are required to take additional classes aimed at further developing their teaching. When we examine secondary teachers’ required classes that are taken before their practicum the courses focused on teaching are significantly fewer and do not have any classes on how to support CLD students and foster their linguistic development. Specifically, pre-service secondary teachers are only required to take six courses in total that directly relate to teaching (see Figure 4). 14 This is the only version publicly available on ESU’s website. 15 Names of majors have been slightly altered due to some having potentially identifying information concerning the school. 107 Figure 4 Secondary education curriculum (not including endorsements) Specifically, the first two courses that are also seen in the elementary education curriculum (Figure 3) focuses on using pre-service teachers’ experiences as a student (ED 150) and how one’s intersecting identities impact opportunities within and outside of school (ED 101). The last three courses (ED 407, ED 408, and ED 409) focus on preparing secondary teachers with approaches, strategies, or skills to teach their content curriculum within a secondary education context. The only course that potentially connects to supporting learners to develop linguistically as they learn the content is ED 407. ED 407 trains pre-service teachers to adapt “subject matter to learner diversity” and create learning opportunities for CLD learners so they can “make sense of the curriculum” (Registrar course description). Outside of ED 407, secondary pre-service teachers are not required to learn about multilingual learners and ways to support them within the content classroom. While elementary training focused on developing pre-service teachers’ ability to teach subjects in their grade area within ESU education college with the goal being a degree in 108 elementary education, pre-service teachers are ideologically framed depending on their grade level. In his first interview, for instance, Jeff further elaborated on the ideological distinctions between elementary and secondary teacher training at ESU. Excerpt 1: You are content experts. This last summer there was one woman, very high up at [ESU]. And she said to us one time at a meeting for all of the people who are about to [do their practicum], “Elementary teachers are relationship experts. Secondary teachers are content experts.” And I look at that now. And I just want to like, like, why can't we be both? Like she definitely pigeonholed us. And to be like, you're there to teach content, like, got to get through your classroom management can't let the kids walk all over you. (Jeff, Interview 1) In recounting the story before he started his teaching practicum, Jeff positions the woman who positioned him to only “teach content” as a symbol of ESU’s teacher training program that represented the ideal that being a secondary teacher entails not having a relationship with their students. This belief, as he reflected back as an emerging teacher, felt constrained because this went against how he came to conceptualize what it meant to be a teacher. This distinction between relationship experts and content experts can be seen in both the goals and the required courses elementary and secondary pre-service teachers need to take before their practicum. As my participants trained to be either elementary or secondary content teachers (see Table 4), Skyler, Steve, Jeff, and Mike engaged with their undergraduate education differently as they prepare to be K-12 content teachers. 109 Table 4 Participant training education focus Name Major Pursuing TESOL Cohort program Language Background endorsement? Skyler Elementary No US Urban Education English (H.L.) Special Education (grades 3 – 6) Steve History No US Urban Education English (H.L.), Spanish (L+) Jeff Spanish Yes World Education English (H.L.), Spanish (fluent L+) Mike Engineering Yes World Education English (H.L.), limited French (L+) Part of this difference entailed the type of cohort they joined as they began training to be content teachers. ESU has two optional specialization programs which, I will call, for anonymity purposes, the World Education cohort and the US Urban Education cohort. I will explain both of these in their respective finding sub-sections. The aspect found that shaped my participants’ engagement with their undergraduate education as they prepared to support multilingual learners was how they started to take TESOL-related courses as part of their training. While all of them believed it was necessary to support emergent multilingual learners in their content classroom (Chapter 4), Skyler, Jeff, Steve, and Mike took TESOL-related courses for varying reasons. As I will show for each participant, they all consumed and (re)produced ideologies found at ESU differently as their multiple identities and life experiences informed how their ideologies about language and teaching CLD students. 5.3 Steve and Skyler: Learning the codes to be an inclusive educator The US Urban cohort aims at providing future teachers the “tools to understand the history and effects of social, cultural, political and economic issues that play out in urban 110 schools” in the United States while also embracing “cross-cultural differences” and creating “inclusive learning environments” (ESU education website). As Steve and Skyler were in this cohort, they learned about culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012; Paris & Alim, 2017), but, according to Steve and Skyler, this did not entail multilingual learners or aspects of language. Rather, as Skyler explained how culturally sustaining pedagogy was presented to him, he said it focused on “how issues of race and diversity are interwoven with education” (Interview 1). This is best illustrated as both of them took ED 301 which incorporated a service component due to the US city cohort requiring students to fulfill 30 hours of service “working with children, youth, and/or urban communities” (ESU education website). For Steve, ED301 was meant to help him learn how to support students’ literacy development. However, he explained the course was not for “people who weren't English language learners but had reading disabilities” (Steve, Interview 2). While the course allowed him to get an initial guided experience in the classroom, most of the interaction was focused on issues of race which he felt “a little apprehensive about” especially when talking with his students in the class (Steve, Interview 2). While Steve and Skyler took the same students’ literacy course at different times, they did not think about supporting multilingual learners in their classes prior to taking a TESOL- related methodology course near the end of their training. In particular, TESOL 302 16 (pseudonym) which was a course I with a colleague re-developed to be in alignment with the state standards for the ESL endorsement. The course focused on theories, strategies, or general 16 While I was not teaching this course at the time of my dissertation study, I did teach and co -develop the material for the course. The course Steve, Mike, and Skyler took were similar in content. The material used to explain this course come from my own that was used to teach Mike and Skyler. Although I mentioned this in Chapter 3 in -depth, I wish to reiterate that I was Mike and Skyler’s teacher the prior semester. During this teacher-student relationship, I only interacted with them to assist them in learning how to incorporate language methods and practices as part of their content lessons. I did not approach either of them to participate in this study until several month s after providing them with their final grade for the course. I also stated clearly in my correspondence with them that their decision to participate in this study is as completely voluntary. 111 approaches to developing CLD students’ English language acquisition in their future teaching. The key course objectives focused on having students learn to use Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) so they can provide English language development and assistance to multilingual learners within their content classroom (Echevarría, Vogt, & Short, 2016, n.d; Lucas & Villegas, 2011). To achieve this objective, Steve and Skyler had to develop lesson plans and activities using SIOP approaches to demonstrate their ability to tailor their instruction to learners’ language proficiency levels and prior knowledge “as a way to make academic language understandable so that [ELLs] may learn grade-appropriate academic content while also acquiring the English language skills needed for school” (Peregoy & Boyle, 2017, p. 126). For Skyler, this was the first time he had to consider and practice supporting English language learners. Excerpt 2: Considering how to accommodate for the first time In your class [TESOL 302], that was the first time where I really even thought about what I would do if I had a student that didn't speak English at all. And so that, I had to think, okay, like, how can I differentiate the lesson now? Can I make accommodations for them? How can I make them feel like they're not on the outside having to learn how to get on the inside, but that they just speak a different language? (Interview 2, Skyler) Although Skyler had taken a different TESOL-related course on SLA theory earlier, due to the course being required since he was training to be an elementary (grades 3 rd to 6th ) teacher, the course required him to consider how to make accommodations in his classroom for English learners in his lessons. Additionally, the course (TESOL 302) required him to consider how to make his classroom welcoming to his potential English learners as members of his classroom or someone “inside” the learning environment rather than strangers or someone “outside” due to their linguistic abilities. Skyler liked TESOL 302 course as it was more practical than courses such as his SLA theory. While the theory may have assisted Skyler in understanding the way to 112 apply it practically in TESOL 302, he felt classes related to theory were simply a form of rote memorization with few practical implications for the classroom: Excerpt 3: What would Krashen say? What would Chomsky do? I've always liked those classes the most where it's more so doing than just taking quizzes. Yeah, it's good that you remember all of the different names of the theories and who created the theories and stuff. But, I'm not going to be sitting in my classroom one day and be like, what would? What would Krashen say? What would Chomsky do? (Skyler, Interview 3) In the above excerpt, Skyler highlights how classes focused only on theory are important (e.g., “good to remember all the different names of the theories”) but felt it had little bearing on his teaching as he, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, turns key linguists taught within TESOL theory courses into ideological framings (e.g., “What would Krashen 17 say? What would Chomsky18 do?”) to signify the overvalue of theory over practice. Steve, on the other hand, had not taken any TESOL-related courses until he took TESOL 302 which was required due to his Spanish minor. This course, as he explains, was the first time he engaged in the act of teaching. 17 Stephen Krashen is an American linguist and educational researcher who proposed many hypotheses related to second language acquisition in the form of acquisition, input, interaction, and output. Stephen Krashen’s work is taught at ESU to introduce the interactionist approach to (second) language acquisition and instruction. 18 Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, political theorist, and public figure whose work within linguistics is often credited with introducing the cognitive perspective to language acquisition. At ESU, Chomsky’s work is often introduced to learners within courses focusing on second language acquisition theories to learn how language is processed cognitively. 113 Excerpt 4: Fronting theory instead of practice I would say that I'm in that process [of practicing teaching] right now. Because my [first- year teacher training courses], didn’t really do a whole lot of lesson planning. It's more like discussion, in theory, kind of behavioral practices, that kind of stuff. But in my class this semester, we're getting into lesson plans. And so, my assignments are mini-lesson plans and practicing skills and stuff, like looking at standards and making objectives based on those standards. And so, I'm learning that right now, but I still have more to learn. (Interview 2, Steve) While Steve disclosed he took first-year teacher training courses that provided him a space to discuss “theory [and] behavioral practices,” he was now beginning to practice skills related to teaching. As Steve expressed uncertainty concerning how to support English language learners in his course in Chapter 4, he was also unsure about and anxious over how TESOL 302 would equip him with the necessary skills to support CLD in his future classroom. Excerpt 5: Unsure about how to include language in a content class I think that, as a teacher, you should support your students, no matter what you teach. I don't exactly know how to do it at the moment. You know, I mean, like, yeah, you're supposed to be teaching history, but teaching students. I don't know. Without being your students’ advocate, you can't expect them to learn the content. While I’m proficient in a second language and I've been in [the language learner] position, I’m anxious. I'm just not necessarily sure how I should [support English learners]. (Interview 3, Steve) In the above excerpt, Steve adopts a teacher identity (e.g., “as a teacher”) to signify his agreement with the course that students should be supported in the content classroom. This is furthered as he takes on a language learner identity (e.g., “I’ve been in [the language learner] position”). He pulls back by saying as someone who is “teaching history” he is anxious and uncertain about how he would support multilingual students in his classroom since, as he further explained, they “don’t speak English properly” (Interview 3). 114 Steve and Skyler viewed TESOL 302 positively for different reasons. For Steve, he was starting to consider he could support students that extended beyond the languages he spoke. Excerpt 6: Supporting students beyond the languages I speak I think it's definitely helpful to learn a language. This class [Methods of Second and Foreign Language Teaching] doesn't make it seem like you need to learn another language. It teaches a lot of methods that you can use to help English language learners, even if you don't speak their language. (Steve, Interview 3) The above quote highlights how TESOL 302 shifted his general beliefs. Specifically, Steve believed the only way he could support his students who speak a language other than English was to learn their language. Spanish, in this case, was the language Steve imagined he needed to learn in order to be linguistically responsive in his teaching. This linguistic affiliation belief intersected with his life experiences concerning the characteristics of English learners and the role language plays in school (chapter 4). Skyler, on the other hand, was made more aware of the need to consider language as part of fostering diversity which he would encounter in future classes. Excerpt 7: At some point, I will use what I learned I'm sure at some point, probably sooner rather than later and more than I'd expect, I'll encounter students that either don't speak English or aren't very proficient at speaking English. Whether that's because they speak another language at home or because they have some kind of intellectual disability or other disabilities that just make it so they don't speak English or any language as well. So it's nice learning some of those practices. (Skyler, Interview 3) When reviewing the above excerpt Skyler connects the importance of the course to his future role as a special educator; this is seen when he goes back and forth between multilingual learners (e.g., “they speak another language at home”) and learners with disabilities (e.g., “they have some kind of intellectual disability or other disabilities”). Yet, in the initial few lines, Skyler 115 hints this course is supplementary rather than essential as he says, “I’m sure at some point …I’ll encounter students” who do not speak English proficiently. While they both viewed the class favorably, Steve and Skyler left TESOL 302 class lacking a clear understanding of what it meant and looked like to support multilingual learners in their class. For Steve, he still felt it necessary to support multilingual learners by explicitly teaching English to them. Excerpt 8: Do I teach Standard English in my class? To what extent do I teach Standard English? Like, you're supposed to teach kids about different grammatical forms and functions? This is something I haven't thought much about this because it's a hard concept for me to understand. Because, like, I grew up speaking Standard English. (Steve, Interview 4) It is clear from the excerpt that Steve, in taking on a teacher identity, believed that one way to support multilingual learners was through providing explicit instruction in the English language. In this case, Steve held a hegemonic view of English (e.g., the multiple uses of “Standard English”) as he positions himself as an authority on the language (e.g., I grew up speaking English). This follows similar findings in which SIOP approaches are often construed and used to maintain monolingual practices within the classroom (Bacon, 2022; Hinton, 2016; Menken, 2010). Steve’s uncertainty on how to support multilingual learners is further evident in the last reflective log that asked him what he was still nervous as he was about to go into the classroom: Excerpt 9: Nervous about accommodating the diverse One thing I am still nervous about is how to accommodate all of my students in the classroom. Students come from many diverse backgrounds, and it can be difficult to cater to the needs of each student without others in the classroom getting too far ahead or falling too far behind, especially in a class with language learners or students with disabilities. (Steve, Reflective Log #4) 116 Steve focuses on all the potential backgrounds his future students may bring into the class appear to feel stifling for Steve (e.g., “difficult to cater to the needs of each student”) as he connects it to his imagined responsibilities as a teacher (e.g., “without others in the classroom getting too far ahead or falling too far behind”). While he is knowledgeable that he should support CLD students and those with disabilities, Steve was overwhelmed before entering the classroom. Skyler, however, recognized the importance of the course but felt it was just part of the inclusive lexicon of being a teacher with no clear means to achieve it in his future classroom. Excerpt 10: Validating and honoring students, theoretically I think it's more so just the specific ways to do it. I don't know what to do right now. I know I need to, like, validate and honor each student's individual background. But what I need to know is what does that actually look like? Like, I know all the words I'm supposed to say, like that I'm going to do and, like, how it should look, theoretically. (Skyler, Interview 3) While Skyler had received more training than Steve on supporting multilingual learners, he still felt lost concerning what it meant to “validate and honor each student’s individual background.” The last sentence in particular of the excerpt implies the values to be a teacher at ESU is tied to being able to “validate,” “honor” and even “create inclusive learning environments” which the US Urban Cohort set out to train future teachers to understand. Yet, both Steve and Skyler left the methods course not fully sure what it meant to support multilingual learners in their class while teaching their content area. This could begin to highlight a need to develop more praxis- oriented activities to assist pre-service teachers in translating the theoretical knowledge they are learning into their own (potential) pedagogy. Especially in the case of Steve and Skyler, they were willing to varying degrees to support CLD students in their linguistic development but retained limited understanding from the few classes they were required/opted to take within their academic journey. When I asked if they felt prepared to support multilingual learners and if they 117 were going to pursue any more TESOL courses, my exchange with Steve best captures both of their responses: Excerpt 11: Not so much prepared-ness to do so CURTIS: Are you planning on taking any more outside of this one? STEVE: Um, no, because this is the only one that's required for my minor and I'm graduating next year, I don't really have any time. CURTIS: So in taking this course, the [Language teaching methods]? Do you feel like you you're prepared to support those students linguistically that may be in your content class? STEVE: I think that I have. Like, definitely the resources and the skills to do so. But maybe not so much the prepared-ness to do so. I don't know, I think that like, it would be a lot more helpful to actually see this play out in the classroom rather than talking and learning about it. (Steve, Interview 4) 5.4 Mike and Jeff: The ideals of one place filter into another The World Education cohort is aimed at providing future teachers the “tools they need to teach with a global view” to make an impact in the classroom as they “are increasingly culturally diverse” (ESU education program website). As Mike (focusing on Chemistry) and Jeff (focusing on Spanish) were training to be secondary education teachers, they entered the cohort as it provided an easier path to get an ESL endorsement and aligned with their goals. As highlighted in Chapter 4, Mike’s family was able to afford au pairs to raise him in a multilingual home with French being the language often spoken outside of English. Growing up in a multilingual environment was the central reason Mike pointed back to when I asked how and why he decided to pursue an ESL endorsement. Excerpt 12: The valuable education process in teaching another language Growing up, I had a lot of these people speaking other languages are always in my house and taking care of me. And so early on, I just found other languages really interesting, and fascinating. But I've always been really bad at learning them. When I got to the point where I decided I was going to do teaching. I remembered I had a really hard time learning other languages. So even if I can't relate exactly to what other students might be feeling, I kind of have a little bit of the same frustration or difficulty understanding. And I 118 also want to go overseas, and even if I won't be teaching English, I feel like the background of teaching another language or learning another language, that sort of education process, I feel like will be very valuable. (Mike, Interview 1) For Mike, the ESL endorsement represented a level of “interest and [fascination]” with language. Mike in Excerpt 12 incorporates his personal identity as a language learner that informed his decision to get an ESL endorsement. In doing so, he expressed his beliefs about language learning being a source of “frustration and difficulty” and hope to support or at least sympathize with learners as they acquire English in his course. Outside of wanting to be a source of support for his students, Mike pursued the ESL endorsement as it, for him, offered cultural capital for his professional advancement as it would provide him with overseas experience “teaching another language or learning another language.” While Mike joined the ESL endorsement due to his upbringing and desire to further experience language in a different setting, Jeff pursued the ESL endorsement for similar but different reasons. Unlike Mike, Jeff did not pursue an ESL endorsement due to living in a multilingual environment. To recount Jeff’s description of his hometown (Chapter 4), he lived in an almost homogenous exurb community where English was the only accepted language. Jeff took TESOL-related courses as a few were required for his major, Spanish. However, he recounts a short story that occurred in his initial years at ESU where he was getting advice from his academic advisor concerning what he should do as he was going to pursue a secondary education certificate in Spanish. His advisor suggested getting a TESOL endorsement for the following reason: Excerpt 13: TESOL is easy and employable My advisor really recommended it. She was like, “This discipline is on the up and up in terms of employability.” Not even thinking of it from like, be a good person perspective. But she was like, “No, like, you need a job. My job is to get you a job. You should do 119 ESL.” And she was like, “A lot of language majors do it. It’s very common. It’s not a hard minor.” (Jeff, Interview 1) Although Jeff initially wanted to enter the TESOL profession before realizing there was no major in its own right (Chapter 4), his advisor at ESU recommended pursuing the minor only to improve his prospects of getting a job since it was “on the up and up.” In addition to encountering beliefs that position ESL as a marketing tool, Jeff highlights in the above story that language teachers, such as he, naturally pursue an ESL endorsement following input from his advisor who seemed to imply that language majors commonly take this endorsement as the ESL minor at ESU is easy to do (e.g., “It’s not a hard minor”). Jeff and Mike entered the TESOL endorsement programs with ideas it would provide them a pathway to travel the world based on their life experiences; but while in the program, they also encountered neoliberal ideologies ESU propagated as their university sought to get more content teachers to take up an ESL endorsement (e.g. Block et al., 2012). Both of them would carry these ideas as they encountered subsequent ideologies surrounding issues of social justice and language as ESU trained them to support CLD students. As Mike and Jeff went through ESU’s teacher training as part of the World Education cohort, they informed me that the tools they learned to teach with a global view was learning to use culturally sustaining pedagogy. Culturally sustaining pedagogy was evident throughout Mike and Jeff’s training but the term, unlike for Steve and Skyler, did not entail issues of race and social justice. Instead, the term (i.e., Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy) took on the meaning of how different societies engage with global issues in relation to education, and how language fits within these issues. 120 Mike. Focusing first on Mike, he was accepted to be part of a small program where he “and two other people” were selected for a study abroad program in Ghana during my research study. Mike subsequently informed me that he and these other students were concurrently taking a pre-abroad course where they learned and discussed how education in the United States and Ghana was engaged differently. It was at this point that he saw how language and culture were not a homogenous value system within a country but something that impacts education in both interactions and through conveying information within the classroom. Excerpt 14: More aware of cultural and linguistic diversity from Ghana Obviously, I know that people in different places have different cultures and live their lives in different ways. But I don't think I was ever really aware of how close together geographically these different cultures can kind of exist within a country. And so I was speaking with some of the other students who are from Ghana, and they were describing how there's so many different languages. And because someone lives in the northern part of Ghana, they'll probably speak a different dialect or a different language than someone who grew up on the coast…I think I was aware of that on some level, but not as conscious about it. So, I think that might be something that I need to be more aware of, especially when I have my own classroom. (Mike, Interview 2) Excerpt 14 begins to illustrate how my participants’ initial understanding of concepts such as culture (e.g., “people in different places [like a country] have different cultures and live their lives in different ways”) apparently began to evolve as they trained to be a teacher. In Excerpt 14, Mike showcases how his initial understanding of culture was changing surrounding how countries can have more than a single culture (e.g., not being aware of how close “these cultures can kind of exist within a country) or language (e.g., people in different parts of Ghana can “speak a different dialect or a different language). The pre-study abroad course caused Mike to reflect on his conceptualization of culture beyond a unified and somewhat essentialized set of daily practices to consider how “different cultures can kind of exist within a country.” This newly expanded conceptualization of culture is paired with Mike attributing culture through the 121 material (including language) affordances that shape events and performances that exist within a physical location (e.g., “they'll probably speak a different dialect or a different language than someone who grew up on the coast”). In addition to reflecting on how he shifts his views on culture, Excerpt 14 represents how people engage with their ideologies at varying levels as they experience and participate in communities. Mike engages in reflection, after interacting with the students from Ghana, where he highlights how his beliefs about culture were not immediately evident to him (e.g., “I think I was aware of that on some level, but not as conscious about it”). This observation by Mike is noteworthy because in the first interview, Mike informed me that he lived in a linguistically and culturally diverse place, which he described as bearing a “complicated level of diversity” as he lived in an East Coast state (Chapter 4). Yet in Excerpt 14, he reevaluates what could be interpreted as his understanding of linguistic and cultural diversity because he states in the last sentence, “I think that might be something that I need to be more aware of, especially when I have my own classroom.” Within this last sentence, Mike is engaging with both the experience he had within the pre-study abroad course and what this experience entails for him as a future teacher. Mike assumes a teacher identity as he alludes to how this new understanding of culture and language may need to be applied to his future classroom (e.g., “something that I need to be more aware of especially when I have my own classroom”). When I asked Mike to elaborate on what he meant concerning the Ghana course and his future classroom, Mike explained how “the Ghana class ha[d] been the most impactful” for him due to his “interactions with students from all cultures” (Interview 2). He further explained that he took the course to try to further his understanding which he could not do in other classes. 122 Excerpt 15: Difficulty adapting topics from TESOL 302 to Science I wish that I was able to adapt my understanding and stuff more for topics that are just science. And I know that was something that I had a little bit of trouble with within your class. And all of my lessons—lesson plans I think were science or math based. I'm trying to push myself out of that a little bit and get some experience with other topics as well. (Mike, Interview 2) The understandings Mike was beginning to develop surrounding the differences between cultures and languages were simply a way to understand these differences. Despite being able to meet the objectives of TESOL 302—the course to which Mike is referring (“I had a bit of trouble with within your class”) – Mike felt he did not know how to take his understanding and apply it to his content classroom (“I wish that I was able to adapt my understanding and stuff” to topics like science). When asked if he had engaged with topics such as culturally sustaining pedagogy outside of his Ghana course and my course (TESOL 302), Mike explained this approach had been adopted across his classes. However, he felt it was not relevant for him or his teaching of chemistry: Excerpt 16: If they are comfortable and fluent in English [Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy] is definitely something that has come up in multiple of my classes, and I've started to gain a little bit of an understanding of how I could approach it in a classroom. But I think, at least at this point in my education, I would still think that the best way to [support CLD students] depends on their general [English proficiency]. If they are comfortable and fluent enough that they can sit in a normal classroom setting and maybe receive some supplemental materials here or there that could assist them, then that might be the best case. (Mike, Interview 3) Although culturally sustaining pedagogy aims to sustain and foster “linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism” (Paris, 2012, p. 93) as a means to combat monolingual and monocultural deficit ideologies (De Costa et al, 2021; Paris & Alim, 2017), Mike und erstands that this approach is only to integrate students into other cultures. When asked to further elaborate on how 123 he would use this approach within his classroom he said explained, “To me, it makes a lot more sense of how you would bring in information and just sources from different cultures to help students feel more welcome or involved or anything along those lines” (interview 4). Within this exchange and in Excerpt 16, Mike is still actively processing and learning how to support CLD students (e.g., at this point in my education) with him concluding that the support hinges on their “general [English proficiency]” on the student and how comfortable they feel to attend “a normal classroom setting.” However, he disclosed that culturally relevant pedagogy may not be relevant for him and his class. Excerpt 17: Science isn’t very culturally relevant A lot of the material is specifically content-based, and it isn't very culturally relevant. Science isn't based on who did it. It's just a repeatable phenomenon. And so to me, I think the easiest way to really bring in cultural examples would be just the scientists and researchers and the, their backgrounds and the situations and circumstances in which they were able to make these discoveries. But even that is going a little bit away from the content that I would actually be trying to teach or that I would be expected to teach. And I feel like it's a little harder to bring that sort of stuff in. (Mike, Interview 4) Despite taking multiple classes that introduced culturally sustaining pedagogy as it relates to multiple cultures and languages, and taking a pre-study abroad class where he learned from and talked with students in Ghana, Mike interpreted his subject area, “Science,” as being a neutral and universal subject with culture playing a peripheral, if any, part in teaching it. This can be seen when he delineates what science is and is not through the multiple uses of “just” (e.g., It’s just a repeatable phenomenon; to really bring in cultural examples would be just the scientists and researchers…) to signify his interpretation of science at large. While Mike focused on Science in general and not chemistry in particular to illustrate how culturally relevant pedagogy does not fit within a science classroom (e.g., “Science isn’t based on who did it”), Excerpts 17 and 18 underscore how Mike was still in the process of 124 learning how to support CLD students within his classroom as he was unsure how to make the content relevant to students beyond Western contexts—specifically, outside of the United States. When asked if he would support CLD students who come from different cultural backgrounds in his course, Mike focused on the content of the course, while still being willing to explore ways to include language development within his course. Excerpt 18: It’s a high school setting I think it is a little difficult for me because it's a high school science setting. So much of it is very content-based, and it would still sort of have to follow along with those lines. But I think there are still different ways that I could include aspects of language learning and development into that. (Interview 4) Jeff. Jeff entered ESU to be a pre-law student but then eventually became a Spanish major in secondary education. Following this shift, he reflected on how his time at ESU both in and outside of the teacher training program made him reassess his held conceptualizations and perceptions. One example of him engaging in critical reflection (Carter Andrews, 2021; Shandomo, 2010) was when he first got on ESU’s campus where unintendedly experienced diversity for the first time: Excerpt 19: Surrounded by people who don’t look like me I do remember though like, my first semester, my first couple weeks at ESU, just thinking, I have never been surrounded by so many people who don't look like me. And it was almost uncomfortable at first and I was a Spanish major, like, you know, I mean, like, you think like, on paper those are the people who are used to working with linguistic and cultural differences. And here I was, like, "Oh, my God, like, like, like, I see the White people, but there's just everything else too," which was just so crazy at that time. (Jeff, Interview 1) As Jeff experienced discomfort, during the interview he understood what it means to be a language teacher “on paper.” The idea was that a language teacher should be knowledgeable if not “used to working with linguistic and cultural differences” from the start of their journey 125 instead of something learned and acquired. While universities like ESU have a diverse campus and promote diversity and inclusion, the act of encountering and interacting with culturally, racially, and linguistically diverse students is not enough to prompt critically reflecting on one’s held beliefs, especially for White students who grew up in, as Skyler, Steve, Jeff, and Mike described, seemingly racial homogenous home communities (Jayakumar, 2015). As he was recounting his training at ESU, Jeff highlighted that he learned, “The world was not made to serve everybody equally” with future educators, such as himself, “to help a) break that system, b) acknowledged that system, and c) teach students about those systems” (interview 1). As part of his initial education courses (the same courses Mike, Skyler, and Steve also needed to take due to them being foundation teacher education courses here at ESU), Steve informed me how this course caused him to critically reflect on how he “was taught to be colorblind” in his rural community. Excerpt 20: Grains of privilege We did a privileged calculator with grains of rice. Like, you do like the statements do you align with this? And I remember, in the class of 30 people, I had the second most grains of rice. And I remember going back to my dorm and crying to my mom. I was like, “I don't know, like, I'm feeling all these things!” But that was just like such a wake-up call for me. Like, the world is built to serve me in so many ways, just as it's built to serve people in different ways. And to me, I mean, that goes hand in hand with me being a teacher. (Jeff, Interview 1) The above activity caused Jeff to calculate the grains of privilege he was able to experience previously that allowed him to bring in his lived experience as he was learning the content being taught (Carter Andrews, 2021; Shandomo, 2010) – social justice and equity in education (Figure 4). As Jeff viewed teachers as needing to be knowledgeable and used to working with linguistic and cultural differences, he also embraced the ideas of social justice ESU taught in the courses he took. One aspect Jeff embraced was culturally sustaining pedagogy. 126 Jeff viewed culturally relevant pedagogy with language and local communities like Mike; however, he also connected it to social justice in the form of translanguaging (DeRoo & Ponzio, 2019; Deroo et al., 2020; Poza, 2017). Like Skyler and Steve, Mike explained that culturally sustaining pedagogy (which he refers to as Culturally relevant pedagogy) was evident throughout his classes. Specifically, he expressed, “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard culturally relevant pedagogy/culturally sustaining pedagogy!” However, just like the other participants, Jeff felt it was all theoretical still: Excerpt 21: A powerful tool, in theory of course I'm a huge fan of translanguaging. And that was something I had never even know, existed before college. And I think that it is a really powerful tool. In theory, of course, I've never really seen it super in-depth in practice, but I think it makes sense, like, use the language you already know, to build the language that you want to learn. (Jeff, Interview 4) Like Mike, Jeff agreed with the idea of translanguaging could support CLD students within the content classroom but did not receive any insight on how to incorporate translanguaging practically within his courses. As he entered the classroom for his practicum, Jeff tried to incorporate translanguaging within his class but realized the beliefs about education and social justice found at ESU did not mesh well with his teaching context. Notably, he revealed, “When you go into the classroom, the teachers aren’t doing that” (Interview 2). Jeff furthered this point by stating that what is taught at ESU is not tied to the reality of the classroom indicating a divide between teacher training and practical implication of said training. Specifically, he elaborated, “So much of what I learned at ESU about everything, but especially social justice was so amazing in theory, and I was so excited to enact it’ (interview 2). He contextualized this point by remembering the interaction he had with his mentor as he entered the classroom during his last semester: 127 Excerpt 22: Only what they teach you in school When I got to my school I started, like, bringing up these ideas [culturally responsive pedagogy]. My mentor was like, “Oh, honey. This is how you know you're a new teacher.” Like, she literally told me that people don't really do these things. She's like, “This is just what they teach you in school.” And I remember leaving a little bit heartbroken. It was just a slap in the face with reality that made me so much less excited to teach, to be honest. I was like, “Oh, this was all just for show.” It only looks good on the ESU teacher prep paper. (Jeff, Interview 2) While scholars have pushed to use translanguaging within K-12 education settings as a means to support the learning of those CLD students (Flores & García, 2013; Kayi-Aydar & Green-Eneix, 2019), this may be more than tied to teachers’ ideological stance (García & Kleyn, 2016). As illustrated in Excerpt 22, Jeff believes and wants to use this approach within his own class; however, the context that he is within does not (e.g., “people don’t really do these things”). In this case, the ideological stance tied to being a teacher also includes the reality of the context that conceives of what it means to be a teacher (e.g., “a slap in the face with reality”) in a specific way (i.e., explain what this way is). Jeff further shared that the notion of translanguaging was situated as something strange and foreign: Excerpt 23: Translation? Transgender? Translanguaging…that’s not a thing. So many people don't like even my mentor. Like, for example, she has no idea what that word is. She translated to trans. “Why is that like, transgender?” That's what she said to me. And I was like, “Nope, no, no, it is not actually completely different things. But it's like translanguaging.” [switching to his mentor] “Like, that is not a thing.” (Jeff, Interview 2) As Jeff’s learning and identity occurred in practice (Kanno & Stuart, 2011), the ideologies and lived experiences he had in learning at ESU (e.g., wanting to use translanguaging) did not carry over to his teaching context (e.g., his mentor saying “that is not a thing”). This, I would argue, is due to the ideas not being self-evident in his practicum context (c.f. Kangas, 2020). In other 128 words, translanguaging was viewed as invalid as Jeff’s mentor, a gatekeeper to being a teacher in this specific educational context, dismisses the term as an impracticality to teach students’ Spanish. Despite being at slightly different points in their training, both Mike and Jeff felt prepared to teach their content; however, they viewed the means to supporting CLD students differently. For Mike, because he felt unsure how to incorporate language support for CLD students in his class, he ultimately reverted to enacting monolingual ideals that entailed separating the students into a separate space only to learn the language (Excerpt 16) or supporting them by providing them with supplementary handouts. This spurred Mike to want to further his education as he discussed his future plans with me: Excerpt 24: Potential MA TESOL student I'm not too sure whether I'll start teaching right away when I get to New Mexico, or in the fall. I might take a year to work and then go back and do a TESOL master's program or something along those lines. But, I want to use my teaching. (Mike, Interview 3) Jeff on the other hand wanted to support and embrace many of the ideas found within ESU’s teacher training context such as culturally sustaining pedagogy and translanguaging. However, due to him trying to incorporate these approaches into his own teaching, Jeff experienced pushback when he learned the reality of his teaching context (Excerpt 23) which filtered (Bacon, 2020) the approaches and beliefs ESU taught to fit within this context. After this point and at the end of the research study, Jeff mentioned his future plans as he was rearing to graduate in a few weeks. It was here he informed me he had interviewed for two potential jobs: Excerpt 25: A job is a job So, it's called an enrollment management specialist. So essentially, like streamlining students, applications, Visa has transcripts, course selections, all types of things like that. So, I will interview for that tomorrow. And then, I'm also interviewing with the same 129 company to be a program advisor. So, answering all students’ questions about their programs, which is the job I really want. But for the other one it’s just more technical base, which isn't really what makes me tick. But hey, a job is a job. (Jeff, Interview 4) As Jeff wanted to be a teacher to support CLD students and took up an ESL endorsement to be marketable due to his advisor’s advice (Excerpt 13), he was able to get a job just not as a teacher. This shift was due to the current environment around education that was evolving during the time. 5.5 Summary of Findings As I have illustrated in the above chapter, ESU had a number of ideologies found within the curriculum that Steve, Skyler, Mike, and Jeff identified, embraced, and (re)produced differently. These beliefs on the programmatic level positioned my participants as either “relationship experts” or “content experts” depending on whether they wanted to teach elementary (grades K-6) or secondary (grades 6 to 12) education. This positioning was evident in the goals and programmatic design my participants went through as they trained to be teachers at ESU. Steve and Mike embraced ESU’s framing of a teacher who still wanted to support CLD students in their classroom but left the required TESOL courses inadequately prepared to achieve this on their own. Additionally, due to their limited requirement to take TESOL-related courses, the likelihood of both of them furthering their learning on how to support CLD is rather slim due to constraints in their schedule. Mike and Steve who sought out a TESOL endorsement were also inhibited. Given that all of my participants learned about Culturally sustaining pedagogy, Mike and Jeff embraced many of the ideas such as translanguaging. Although Mike was selected to be one of few students to take a pre-study abroad course to engage in intercultural communication and understanding of education with teachers in Ghana, Mike felt using culturally sustaining pedagogy was not relevant to his science classroom with supporting CLD students entailing 130 some supplementary material if not placing them in another classroom to only learn English. Jeff on the other hand wanted to support and subsequently embraced many of the ideas found within culturally sustaining pedagogy such as translanguaging. However, he found that what he encountered and embraced at ESU did not translate to his teaching context during his practicum resulting in Jeff learning the reality of what it means to be a teacher in his teaching context. In answering this question, I turn to the last chapter where I further discuss these findings in relation to the rest of the literature. 131 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS In this dissertation, I have focused on language ideology and the interconnected relationship it has with identity. More specifically, I set out to investigate how undergraduate pre-service teachers’ lived experiences and positionalities shape and potentially inform how they interpret and engage with their training surrounding integrating language into their content classroom. Chapter 1 introduced the increased need to understand pre-service teachers’ language ideologies, as it pertains to supporting CLD students within an increasingly multilingual and multicultural classroom. Also, within this chapter, I stated that teacher education, along with TESOL training, needs to consider preparing future teachers to navigate the ideological nature of this profession as a means to create learning opportunities for all students, despite their linguistic abilities and cultural backgrounds. This is an assertion that I will extrapolate upon and illustrate a potential way of achieving this within the implications. In Chapter 2, I introduced the theoretical framework used within this study. The chapter introduced three central approaches the field of applied linguistics has used to situate language ideology, namely as a form of theory, critique, or practice. I built upon these three approaches to introduce hybrid approaches that have been occurring within recent research in order to reimagine how language ideologies impact education. Once reviewing these varying approaches to language ideology, I elaborated upon the ideology-as-praxis approach I used within this dissertation. Using this approach, I defined language ideology as an amalgamation of concepts, representations, and partial understandings that attaches values and meanings to a set of linguistic and semiotic resources as it relates to individuals’ relationship to language and their lived realities. From there, I then introduced the research questions I set out to answer: 1. How do pre-service teachers’ life histories shape how they express their ideologies about teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students? 132 2. How do pre-service teachers engage with their undergraduate education as they prepare to support multilingual learners in the K-12 content classroom? To answer the above questions, Chapter 3 focused on the hybridized methodology I call a narrative case study. This methodology uses both storied and non-storied data to understand how language ideologies are embedded within the teacher training program at ESU—a Midwestern research university. I conducted a 32-item survey and four semi-structured episodic interviews, and collected four guided reflective logs to get multiple vantage points to complicate how my participants, Mike, Jeff, Skyler, and Steve, described and more importantly enacted their ideologies through the emergent stories they told during the study. Furthermore, I elaborated on my data analytic procedures and how my own lived experiences and ideologies impacted the decisions I made for this study as well as my relationship with my participants. In Chapter 4, I reported that Mike, Jeff, Skyler, and Steve came from similar exurb communities across two different states. My participants held both hegemonic language ideologies, such as Standard English and Monolingualism, as well as counterhegemonic language ideologies (e.g., linguistic pluralism), concerning the contexts they are/were in (e.g., their hometown, the university classroom, the K-12 space), and their respective personal roles. Chapter 5 built on the findings illustrated in Chapter 4, where my participants wanted to support culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students in their classroom so that the latter could meaningfully learn the content the former taught, while also being successful outside of the classroom. However, the extent of their training to support multilingual learners varied depending on whether they were teaching elementary (Skyler) or secondary education (Jeff, Mike, Steve). This resulted in my participants (Steve, Mike, and Jeff) leaving their TESOL 302 methods course feeling unprepared for how to support their multilingual learners in their content classroom. For many of my participants, TESOL 302 was the only course they would take that 133 explicitly addressed incorporating language strategies and approaches to support the linguistic development of CLD students. In this final chapter, I expound upon my findings from Chapters 4 and 5 to clearly answer my research questions. In concentrating on what I found from my investigation with Skyler, Steve, Jeff, and Mike, I discuss my findings in relation to the current literature tied to educational linguistics and teacher education when relevant. I then briefly mention the limitations of the study. Lastly, I close the chapter and this dissertation with a discussion of future directions for research. I also explore potential implications with respect to training pre-service teachers in order to prepare them into becoming equitable educators who can navigate the ideological mire before, during, and after they enter their professional context. 6.1 RQ 1: Participants’ life histories and interpretation in supporting CLD students To directly answer my first research question, my participants’ identities were a source of partial understanding of why and how they opted to support CLD students. As I illustrated in Chapter 4, my findings were similar to other studies (e.g., Bacon, 2020; Metz, 2019). Jeff, Mike, Skyler, and Steve expressed their beliefs in four particular clusters that composed what Metz and Knight (2021) called the narrative of education— speaker characteristics, societal perceptions of language, dominant school narrative, and the teacher’s role in teaching language (Metz, 2019). As my participants shared their short stories within each cluster, they used varying ideological orientations to perform their understandings, interpretations, and conceptualizations related to their intersectional identities as White male content teachers within a U.S. context. When my participants expressed short stories about societal perceptions of English and speaker characteristics, they relied on their understanding and conceptualization of U.S. society’s relationship with English that were a complementary combination of raciolinguistic ideologies 134 and Standard English ideology. Focusing first on raciolinguistic ideologies, Steve, Jeff, Skyler, and Mike similarly expressed that in U.S. society, English is often both a reflection of status concerning a person’s socioeconomic position (Jeff, excerpt 18; Skyler, excerpt 16; Steve, excerpt 17) and seen as being essential to being considered “American”. More specifically, the type of English that was valued seemed to that used by a White, middle-class speaker of English (Jeff, excerpt 12, 13, 19; Skyler, excerpt 20). This understanding was frequently followed up with their lived experiences in their hometowns to capture how English was essential to live in a specific part of town (Steve, excerpt 3), to be successful in and outside of school (Mike, excerpt 24; Skyler, excerpt 25; Steve excerpt 26) and who looks and sounds “American” (see Jeff, excerpt 14). In analyzing the short stories of my participants, I demonstrated how their lived experiences were a source of understanding, interpretation, and conceptualization that were mobilized at varying times and situations to discern who constituted an English language learner. These discernments, in turn, shaped their decision to subsequently become a teacher. Crucially, such an understanding and conceptualization can impact the necessary resources CLD students receive within the content classroom. For example, we heard from Jeff’s short stories surrounding how he preconceived his student’s (Ivan’s) ethnolinguistic identity before realizing he was an English language learner (review Jeff, excerpts 12 & 13). Because my participants perceive language within the narrative of education (Metz, 2019; Metz & Knight, 2021), English was often conceptualized to be more prestigious than other languages, often taking an elite status for my participants. Specifically, as Barakos and Selleck (2019) explain, my participants possessed social and/or material capital that were reflective of “the perceived socioeconomic and mobility advantages that a language affords (or is perceived to 135 afford)” (p. 368). And in relation to Barakos and Selleck’s (2019) discussion on elite multilingualism and related literature on neoliberalism (e.g., Krzyżanowski, 2020) and neoliberal language ideology (e.g., De Costa et al., 2016; Kubota, 2011; 2016), I interpreted my participants’ use of phrases such as “move up,” and “the world,” with referents like “refugee,” and “American,” when situating Standard English as indicative of their perception that such a variety of English bears more socioeconomic and mobility advantages over other languages. For my participants, English within the context of K-12 education in the U.S. is perceived as not only prestigious but an essential commodity for both business and academia (Mike, excerpt 24; Jeff, excerpt 27; Steve, excerpt 26). This is best captured by a number of my participants’ stories and explanations, such as Skyler saying, “The world is gonna want you to speak English. And so, in our classroom, we’re gonna work on speaking that” (Skyler excerpt 25). Alternatively, Jeff highlighted the inequity of the U.S. linguistic market where bilingualism is often depicted as either “classy or trashy,” depending on one’s intersecting national, linguistic, and racial identity (c.f. De Costa et al., 2016; Shenk, 2007; Park, 2022; Vasquez & Wetzel, 2009). While other studies have reported how the Standard English ideologies of K-12 content teachers have shaped appropriate language use in the classroom (Flores, 2020; MacSwan, 2020; Snow & Uccelli, 2009; Wiley & Lukes, 1996), I, however, build on these findings to argue that Standard English, along with other ideologies found such as authenticity (Mike, excerpt 23; Park, 2022; Shenk, 2007), is a social product that my participants were aware of and enacted to interpret the ideological and material resources associated with English. In relation to my findings, Althusser (1969) provides insight concerning how ideology and identities are interrelated and shape how meaning is derived as they participate within institutions. He noted: So ideology is a matter of the lived relation between men and their world. This relation, that only appears as "conscious " on condition that it is unconscious, in the same way 136 only seems to be simple on condition that it is complex, that it is not a simple relation but a relation between relations, a second degree relation. In ideology men do indeed express, not the relation between them and their condition of existence, but the way they live the relation between them and their conditions of existence: this presupposes both a real relation and an "imaginary," "lived " relation. (p. 233) To contextualize this quote through my findings, my participants’ imaginary relations were their role English had within the United States as it was informed by their lived experiences growing up in their hometowns and subsequently their time at ESU. Both their lived relationship with English within and outside of school fueled their explanations concerning who was an English learner often constituting someone not from the United States. My participants’ intersectional identities and life experiences shaped how they engaged with ideologies as social products that they encountered both within the day-to-day physical space but also in digital domains, regardless of whether they were conscious or unconscious of it at the time (Jeff excerpts 4, 18, 21, 22; Mike, excerpts 5, 23, 24; Skyler excerpts 2, 15, 16; Steve excerpts 3, 17, 26). My participants derived meaning from the language ideologies and interpreted them based on their intersectional identities and life experiences. The emergent stories my participants opted to share, redraft, or further elaborate upon with me during each interview and reflective log became a form of material practice. This is exemplified as Skyler frequently interpreted the role of English both in and outside of education through the lens of “how the world works” (excerpt 2) as they derived meaning from the sociohistorical and sociopolitical context that surrounds language within K-12 education and US society (Hinton, 2016; Moore, 2021; Wiley, 2010, 2014). In highlighting how my participants expressed Standard English and Raciolinguistic ideologies concerning societal perceptions of the role language plays in education as well as the characteristics affiliated with who language learners were, I would like to emphasize that it is 137 important to note they expressed counter-hegemonic ideals when it came to themselves as educators (Alfaro & Bartolomé,2017). However, some educators such as Mike (excerpt 30) felt it was either not their responsibility. Specifically, they viewed providing CLD students with the necessary support as essential to their teacher role, but they were (1) unsure how they would achieve this in their content classroom (e.g., Steve, excerpt 32, 34), (2) had difficulty supporting students due to external pressure (e.g., Jeff, excerpt 33), or (3) thought that providing minimum support was enough (e.g., Skyler, excerpt 35). My findings corroborate with recent findings and arguments (e.g., Anderson et al., 2022; Bacon, 2020; Bernstein et al., 2023; Emerick & Goldberg, 2022) that ideology is complicated as it is often tied to an individual’s ongoing sensemaking performance in a particular (imagined) teaching context. Therefore, my participants came to partially understand and interpret the role of English in education based on their own experiences with it in school, which in turn informed how they engaged with their training to be K-12 educators—which my second research question set out to answer. 6.2 RQ 2: Ideologies encountered during participants’ training and filtering of those beliefs To directly answer my second question, Jeff, Mike, Skyler, and Steve believed teachers needed to support emergent multilingual learners in the content classroom (Chapter 4); however, the extent of their training to support multilingual learners varied depending on whether they were teaching elementary (Skyler) or secondary (Jeff, Mike, Steve) students (Chapter 5). Just as recent findings have highlighted how ideologies are embedded and manifested in the curriculum (e.g., Dos Santos & Windle, 2020) and enacted practices (e.g., Sayer, 2019), ESU’s teaching program positioned Jeff, Mike, Skyler, and Steve as either “relationship excerpts” or “content excerpts” (Jeff, excerpt 1). As a consequence, language was constructed as being necessary for relationships but supplementary if not dispensable to deliver the curriculum. For elementary 138 teachers (Skyler), ESU’s curriculum situated language support as necessary, with Skyler being required to take multiple courses surrounding language learning and teaching (Figure 5). Figure 5 Elementary curriculum (not including endorsements or cohort requirements) On the other hand, secondary teachers (Jeff, Mike, and Steve) did not need to take any courses surrounding language learning or learning methods to support language learners within their future classrooms (Figure 6). 139 Figure 6 Secondary education curriculum (not including endorsements) Instead, Jeff, Mike, and Steve needed to complete the primary teaching majors and then, at the tail end of their education or when they took a few courses focused on learning to teach their content. Given how my participants interpreted ESU’s teacher program construction of a K-12 content teacher as a content specialist or relationship expert, this identity was not constructed solely based on my participants’ lived experiences when they were in school or how they imagined what a teacher is based on their interaction with their parents who were educators (Chapter 4: Jeff, excerpt 8; Skyler, excerpt 7). Rather, during their time at ESU, my participants were learning to be teachers, in keeping with Althusser’s (2014) notion of the act of interpellation: I would suggest: all ideology hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete subjects, through the functioning of the category of the subject…. Ideology ‘acts’ or ‘functions’ in such a way as to ‘recruit’ subjects among individuals (it recruits them all) or ‘transforms’ individuals into subjects (it transforms them all) through the very precise operation that we call interpellation or hailing (p. 190) 140 In other words, Mike, Jeff, Skyler, and Steve were prescribed practices (e.g., culturally sustaining pedagogy and SIOP) that constituted the act of teaching so that they could subsequently and faithfully take on the role of a teacher within the US. This process where pre-service teachers are expected to learn to act (e.g., how to teach and understand the theory of learning) and transform from a student to a teacher has been highlighted in multiple studies (e.g., Kanno & Stuart, 2011; Norton, 2013; Yazan & Lindahl, 2020); however, I build on these findings to argue the professional (i.e., K-12 content teacher) identity is an object identity that becomes embodied (also see Zhang, 2022) as pre-service teachers, such as Mike, Jeff, Skyler, and Steve, perceived and interpreted what it meant to learn, to teach, and to be a teacher at ESU. This object identity also included how language fit in the classroom, as I found within the findings. Skyler, Jeff, Steve, and Mike’s training presented them with an initial teacher identity they individualized through their personal experiences. While many of the courses my participants took emphasized equitable education in order to provide their future learners with meaningful access to learning opportunities (see Figures 5 and 6), the technical knowledge taught did not always translate into practice for my participants. Many of my participants were unsure how to incorporate students’ multilingual resources within their classroom resulting in them feeling they had to figure out how to apply this knowledge on their own (Steve, excerpt 5, 9, 11; Skyler, excerpt 10; Jeff, excerpt 21). This finding is not unheard of as prior studies (e.g., Banes et al., 2016; Pettit, 2011) has reported that many teachers complete their training with a scant understanding of how languages are learned, taught, or should be leveraged to support students’ content knowledge acquisition. This disturbing lack of necessity to learn about language acquisition or approaches to support language was also seen in ESU’s teacher education program, where TESOL 302 was one of the very few, if not only, courses Jeff, Mike, 141 and Steve took due to it being required as part of their Spanish minor or other perceived incentives. Moreover, educational linguists have argued that teachers who have experienced learning an additional language better understand the importance of supporting CLD within the content classroom and combat monolingual ideologies (e.g., Fitzsimmons-Doolan, 2014; De Roo et al., 2020; Lee & Oxelson, 2006; Pettit, 2011). Outside of Skyler, my participants were bilingual, many pointing to their language learning experiences as they shared with me why it is important to support language learners. However, my participants expressed similar monolingual ideals found in prior studies, such as CLD students needing to be at a certain English proficiency level (e.g., Bacon, 2022), or having to acquire ‘appropriate’ English in order to be successful both inside and outside of school (Metz & Knight, 2021; Mitchell, 2013). Furthermore, when they had to consider the possibility they would have CLD students in their future classroom who needed linguistic support, my participants often expressed what I call a linguistic affiliation ideology. This type of ideology was best expressed by Steve, who felt the only way he could support CLD students was to have the same linguistic resources, i.e., Spanish, to teach them English. However, this focus on monolingual ideas or the focus on making sure students acquire academic “proper” English – despite having another home language – underscores that the experiences of learning a language are not enough to disrupt or combat monolingual or standard English ideologies (Bacon, 2020; Banes, 2016). This is because, I argue, learning a language for my participants was shaped by different lived experiences and the ongoing relationship they had with language. While related research on pre-service teachers’ ideologies might interpret my participants as being ideologically unclear (Alfaro & Bartolomé, 2017; Sah & Uysal, 2022), I argue Mike, Jeff, Skyler, and Steve’s seemingly inconsistent ideologies were rather contextually- 142 bounded as my participants learned to perform teacher identities at ESU (Bacon, 2020). In comparing my findings with Bacon (2020), my participants similarly filtered their ideologies as evidenced in my participants’ stories about learning a language, their coursework, and their teaching experience. These filtering categories are best illustrated with Jeff. Beginning with Jeff, he shared several stories that urged him to problematize his ideologies about language and teaching in chapters 4 and 5. In Chapter 4, we learn that Jeff came from a rural midwestern town where English was valued over Spanish (Chapter 4: excerpt 4). As Jeff entered ESU, his coursework and personal experience (Chapter 4: excerpt 9; Chapter 5: excerpt 19) filtered his general beliefs about Spanish and its value as a resource of employment (De Costa et al., 2016; Kubota, 2011; 2016). These beliefs, in turn, helped frame his teacher identity as someone who would leverage his linguistic resource, specifically Spanish, to provide his English language learners equitable learning opportunities. As Jeff mobilized and practiced his teacher identity in the classroom (Kanno & Stuart, 2011), the ideologies and lived experiences he had in learning at ESU (e.g., learning and wanting to use translanguaging, see Chapter 5: excerpts 21, 22, 23) did not carry over to his teaching context (e.g., his mentor saying “that is not a thing”). A potential reason is that the two spaces are different contexts that have different linguistic ideologies. Specifically, despite ESU and the school Jeff was doing his practicum being similar in that they are educational spaces, they differ from one another concerning how language should be leveraged to foster the CLD students learning. This would make sense as even Bacon (2022), along with other researchers (Hinton, 2016; Wiley, 2014), have noted that teaching approaches such as SIOP still emphasize hegemonic language practices that become localized (Kangas, 2020). 143 6.3 Limitations In conducting this study and learning how language ideologies are within a context and engaged with based on an individual’s identity, this study is not without limitations. Specifically, my study had two key limitations. As the study set out how my participants viewed their training before going into their practicum, the first limitation relates to the duration of the study. This study is relatively short as it was done over the course of one semester. An extended investigation that followed Mike, Skyler, and Steve into their practicum could have provided richer insight into potentially how their interpretations, conceptualizations, and partial understandings would change as they attempted to implement the theoretical knowledge and training they acquired in their classes at ESU. Part of this insight could be seen with the findings on Jeff; he was able to reflect and engage with his training, notably different from the rest of my participants as he was doing his practicum. In this way, an extension of the study into investigating his practicum experience could have also provided a further and richer understanding as to how a contextual filter of ideologies embedded within teacher training programs at universities, such as ESU. The second limitation, building upon the first, is diversifying the data collected. As seen in my findings chapters, semi-structured interviews and guided reflective logs were the main vehicle of my data collection process. As scholars have argued ideology research needs to complicate the methods used to understand language ideologies (Anderson et al., 2022; Bacon, 2020; Metz, 2019), I could have used or developed alternative approaches to further complicate and elicit the embodied and intersectional subjectivity of my participants through material- discursive data (see, Clark/Keefe, 2014; Højgaard & Søndergaard, 2011). To extrapolate, material-discursive data, as I currently understand it, is data (e.g., mapping-storytelling, see 144 Zhang, 2022) that supports sensemaking through the use of both semiotic and material resources in order to understand how individuals embody their intersectional subjectivities and perform their ideologies within the contextual affordances they find themselves within. Using these other approaches, the findings could have been further understood from varying vantage points beyond interviews and guided reflective logs. 6.4 Future Directions In noting the limitations of this study, the findings from this study offer rich insights for future investigation into language ideologies. Beyond the immediate setting of this study, this dissertation contributes to further developing the conceptualization of language ideologies that are contextually bounded and performed through material practices. Just as educational linguists have noted that language ideologies interact with each other (De Costa, 2016), I further this point in that language ideologies intersect with one another and are employed at a specific time and place that is unique to that occurrence. Additionally, individuals draw on these varying and intersecting ideologies as they make sense of day-to-day events and interactions through their performance within their contexts in relation to their personal and object identities. Through this understanding, there is a need to further understand how the environment, whether physical, virtual, or hybrid, is embedded with varying and intersectional ideologies through the material (e.g., curriculum, the physical classroom, and subsequent resources) and the immaterial conditions (e.g., policies and/or rules enforced within the context; the narrative of the place) restrain or (re)create possibilities for pre-service teachers to be a teacher. Future research should further consider the ecological dimensions (e.g., educational institutions within a community) that inform language ideologies to better understand how this filtering process occurs. One potential study is to follow a series of undergraduate pre-service 145 teachers from their initial years till their second year as a professional. While this would be quite the undertaking, it would provide rich insight into how ideologies shift, filter, and evolve. Another potential avenue is to further investigate this narrative of education (Metz, 2019; Metz & Knight, 2021) in multiple and varying kinds of institutions and how this narrative is realized, contested, or reimagined. One potential avenue of investigation is transnational higher education universities –which are defined as “institutions that deliver distant partner support to an overseas branch campus that enrolls students from a country other than the one in which the awarding institution is based” (De Costa et al., 2020, p. 4). As these institutions are part of an evolving global education landscape, many of these institutions that train pre-service teachers to be language specialists and/or general practitioners around the world implement English medium of instruction policies that materialize the linguistic ideologies into the physical space of the university (De Costa et al., 2021; Hillman et al., 2023). These would be prime areas to further our understanding of how pre-service teachers who come from diverse linguistic, national, gender, and socioeconomic backgrounds transverse the ideological space to become a language teaching professional. Another future area of research pertains to personal and objective identities. As I have highlighted, Mike, Jeff, Skyler, and Steve engaged with many and varying language ideologies as they engaged in sensemaking processes related to becoming a K-12 content teacher in the US. As ESU provided two possibilities to interpret and be a K-12 content teacher, my participants’ intersectional (e.g., racial, socioeconomic, national) identities were leveraged in order to personalize and embody their emerging teacher identity that still achieved what it meant to be a “true” teacher at ESU and, for Jeff, in their practicum. While research has focused on how pre- service and in-service teachers’ racial identities potentially inform how language is treated within 146 the classroom (Baker-Bell, 2020; Chaparro, 2019; Von Esch et al., 2020), I recommend an investigation to explore how pre-service and in-service teachers’ race and social class shape their pedagogical decisions within the classroom over a span of multiple semesters if not years. As we saw in Chapters 4 and 5, raciolinguistic ideologies, as well as ideologies surrounding socioeconomic position and language, were evident in and shaped my participants’ understanding concerning their role in providing linguistic support to CLD students. While studies such as Sayer (2019) highlight how social class affects language teaching, there is a notable dearth of empirical research concerning social class and teaching English as a second language (TESOL), especially how educator’s socioeconomic position and racial identity shape not only their pedagogical practices but their students’ opportunity to learn (Alfaro & Bartolomé, 2017; Kanno, 2011) as well. Further research should set out to investigate how socioeconomic position and race changes and melds as pre-service teachers learn to become a teacher while taking teacher education courses. Additionally, research concerning Socioeconomic identity and language is an area, which has been underexplored within multiple fields, such as applied linguistics (Glodjo, 2017) and education (Hunt & Seiver, 2018), needs to be revisited, especially during this time when economic inequality is at an all-time high in the US (Sommeiller & Price, 2018). 6.5 Practical Implication Just as scholars have expressed a need to explore ways to include the life experiences, ideologies, and insights pre-service teachers bring to their teacher training programs, educational linguists have urged teacher education programs to go beyond teaching the best methods to provide opportunities to develop “ideological clarity” (Alfaro & Bartolome, 2017; Sah & Uysal, 2022). Discussions around these approaches that include participants’ lived experiences with 147 their technical training have been fruitful in considering approaches and activities to facilitate practitioner reflexivity (Banes, 2016; Wong et al., 2020) so that future teachers do not perform deficit ideologies that justify a failure or shortcomings attached to a group of people (Gorski, 2012; Krzyżanowski, 2020). However, based on the theoretical stance on ideology I take in this study, my findings, and my interactions with my participants, teacher education programs should assist pre-service teachers in reevaluating their trained gaze and assumptions to spur critical reflection as a means to develop new forms of knowledge that is appropriate for their local situation while still creating meaningful opportunities to learn for students still developing their English (Cochran-Smith, 2003; Carter Andrews, 2021; Groski, 2012; Shandomo, 2010). Critical reflection, according to Shandomo (2010), is the act of “identifying the assumptions governing their actions, locating the historical and cultural origins of the assumptions, questioning the meaning of assumptions, and developing alternative ways of acting” (p. 101). Shandomo, who is a teacher educator, further explains that the goal of this process is to blend the knowledge they receive from their lived experiences with the “theoretical and technical learning to form new knowledge constructions and new behaviors or insights” (p. 101). While activities such as reflective journaling and written reflections on developed lessons are noted as common ways to engage with critical reflection, vignettes along with guided reflective logs I used for this study are also invaluable because they offered insight into how their lived experiences informed their beliefs concerning the role language plays in their future content classroom. Additionally, these tools provided a context-focused bridge to provide my participants to apply their (developing) knowledge of supporting CLD students in their classroom (Jenkins, 2005; Skilling & Stylinides, 2020). 148 The use of both of these tools provided a space to engage with my participants’ understanding of the theoretical and technical knowledge they learned at ESU as well as the ideologies surrounding language and education. I was surprised all of my participants were eager to engage with both the vignette and the guided reflective logs. Unprompted, they (with the notable exception of Steve), expressed to me how they felt going through the research study and their opinion about the guided reflective logs and the vignettes I used: Excerpt 1: Refocusing their learning and beliefs about teaching CLD students SKYLER: [The vignette] made me think about a situation that I hadn't ever thought about and even though I wasn't actually in it, I at least got to think about what I might try to do. And it's just about having those chances to actually do the teaching stuff that we keep being told. (Skyler, interview 3) JEFF: Participating in this research study has been incredibly impactful on the ways in which I view not only my students but also myself, as well as my ethical duties and responsibilities as an ESL educator. Through engaging in often difficult and thought- provoking verbal conversations and reflective logs, I found myself taking a backseat view of how I do/do not effectively create safe, positive learning opportunities for all my students, no matter the social categories to which they belong. (Jeff, Guided Reflective log 4) MIKE: been really refocusing my attention on different aspects of what I've been learning and pulling ideas and messages from different classes that I've had and pulling them together into different thoughts that maybe weren't fully touched upon in any of my classes on their own. And I think that if, if nothing else, this will be a great experience and memory for me to draw from in my early years of teaching. (Mike, Interview 3) Based on the above comments, the vignettes, and guided reflective logs were a space for my participants to delve deeper into their learning and beliefs, which in turn allowed them to be challenged about their prior knowledge. This point can be seen when Jeff noted that he took a “backseat view” of how he does or does not provide “learning opportunities for all of [his] students” as he engaged in “difficult and thought-provoking verbal conversations and reflective logs.” Additionally, these provided a contextual bridge between the content they learned with 149 their beliefs. Just as my participants had to structure their responses to the situation presented to them, they had to apply and alter the knowledge they learned to resolve the scenario for them. In presenting and further exploring vignettes within teacher education, teacher educators can provide a space for pre-service teachers to apply what they are learning while receiving constructive feedback within an educational space. Through this response, teacher education programs should further explore and implement the use of vignettes and guided reflective logs to assist learners in understanding their experiences that shape their relationship with language and who a language learner is within their classroom. In doing so, pre-service teachers can also begin practicing their teaching in a safe environment before going into the physical classroom. These activities would potentially be beneficial in their initial years of training as a form of scaffolding to apply the new knowledge (e.g., approaches and strategies to support ELL students) through more hands-on experience often focused on the later, if not final, stages of their training. This way, they do not perceive their training as a dialectical relationship between the theoretical and the practical but one where theory and practice work together to assist them in understanding, interpreting, and shaping their teaching in an increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse classroom they eventually find themselves within. 150 REFERENCES Adler, N. E., & Stewart, J. (2007). The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status. In Psychosocial Research Notebook. Retrieved April 30, 2021, from https://www.macses.ucsf.edu/research/psychosocial/subjective.php Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Brekelmans, M., & Oost, H. (2006). Auditing quality of research in social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 42(2), 257-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006- 9044-4 Alfaro, C., & Bartolomé, L. (2017). Preparing ideologically clear bilingual teachers: Honoring working-class non-standard language use in the bilingual education classroom. Issues in Teacher Education, 26(2), 11-34. Althusser, L. (1969). For Marx. Pantheon Books. Althusser, L. (2014). On the reproduction of capitalism: Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. Verso. Anderson, K. T., Ambroso, E., Cruz, J., Zuiker, S. J., & Rodríguez-Martínez, S. (2022). Complicating methods for understanding educators’ language ideologies: transformative approaches for mixing methods. Language and Education, 36(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1931296 Anthias, F. (2012). Intersectional what? Social divisions, intersectionality and levels of analysis. Ethnicities, 13(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796812463547 Appleby, R. (2016). Researching privilege in language teacher identity. TESOL Quarterly, 50(3), 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.321 Ashton, P. T. (2014). Historical overview and theoretical perspectives of research on teachers’ beliefs. In, H.-R. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp.31-47. Routledge. Attia, M., & Edge, J. (2016). Be(com)ing a reflexive researcher: A developmental approach to research methodology. Open Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 33-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2017.1300068 Backer, D. (2020). Ideology and education. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1252 Bacon-Chang, C. K. (2020). “It’s not really my job”: A mixed methods framework for language ideologies, monolingualism, and teaching emergent bilingual learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 7(2), 172-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118783188 151 Bacon-Chang, C.K. (2022). Who’s being ‘sheltered?’: How monolingual language ideologies are produced within education policy discourse and sheltered English immersion. Critical Studies in Education, 63(2), 212-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1720259 Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. Routledge. Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28(3), 377-396. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.018 Banes, L.C., Martínez, D. C., Athanases, S. Z., & Wong, J. W. (2016). Self-reflexive inquiry into language use and beliefs: Toward more expansive language ideologies. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(3), 168-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1185906 Barakos, E., & Selleck, C. (2019). Elite multilingualism: Discourses, practices, and debates. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(5), 362-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1543691 Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 45(3), 391-414. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.261888 Barkhuizen, G. (2015). Narrative inquiry. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 169 – 185). London: Bloomsbury Academic Barkhuizen, G. (2016). A short story approach to analyzing teacher (imagined) identities over time. TESOL Quarterly, 50(3), 655-683. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.311 Barkhuizen, G. (2019). Core dimensions of narrative inquiry. In J. McKinley, & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 188-198). London: Routledge. Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 243-272. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.243 Baugh, J. (2021). Linguistics, education, and the law: Educational reform for African-American language minority students. In, S. S. Mufwene, J. R. Rickford, G. Baley, and J. Baugh (Eds.), African-American English: Structure, history, and use (pp. 313-334). Routledge. Benson, P. (2014). Narrative inquiry in applied linguistics research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 154-170. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000099 Benson, P. (2018). Narrative analysis. In, A. Phakiti, P. De Costa, L. Plonsky & S. Starfield (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of applied linguistics research methodology (pp. 595- 614). Palgrave Macmillan. 152 Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.582 Bernstein, K. A., Anderson, K. T., Close, K., & Martinez, S. R. (2023). Teacher beliefs about multilingual learners: How language ideologies shape teachers’ hypothetical policymaking. International Multilingual Research Journal, 17(3), 191-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2023.2182094 Berube, A., Singer, A., Wilson, J.H., & Frey, W.H. (2006). Finding exurbia: America’s fastest- growing communities at the metropolitan fringe. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Block, D., Gray, J., & Holborow, M. (2012). Neoliberalism and applied linguistics. Taylor & Francis. Block, N. & Vidaurre, L. (2019). Comparing attitudes of first-grade dual language immersion versus mainstream English students. Bilingual Research Journal, 42(2), 129-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2019.1604452 Borden, R.S. (2014). The English only movement: Revisiting cultural hegemony. Multicultural perspectives, 16(4), 229-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2014.956607 Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education. Continuum. Borg, S. (2019). Language teacher cognition: Perspectives and debates. In, X. Gao (ed.)., Second Handbook of English language teaching (pp. 1149 – 1170). Springer Nature. Bowman, C., & Bair, J. (2017). From cultural sojourner to guestworker? The historical transformation and contemporary significance of the J-1 visa Summer Work Travel Program. Labor History, 58(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2017.1239889 Bradbury-Jones, C., Taylor, J., & Herber, O.R. (2014). Vignette development and administration: a framework for protecting research participants. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17(4), 427-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2012.750833 Bui, Q., & Dougherty, C. (2017). Good schools, affordable homes: Finding suburban sweet spots. The New York Times: The Upshot. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/30/upshot/good -schools-affordable-homes- suburban-sweet-spots.html?_r=0 153 Chaparro, S. E. (2019). But mom! I’m not a Spanish boy: Raciolinguistic socialization in a two- way immersion bilingual program. Linguistics and Education, 50, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.01.003 Carter Andrews, D. J. (2021). Preparing teachers to be culturally multidimensional: Designing and implementing teacher preparation programs for pedagogical relevance, responsiveness, and substance. The Educational Forum, 85(4), 416-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2021.1957638 Clark/Keefe, K. (2014). Suspended Animation: Attuning to material-discursive data and attending via poesis during somatographic inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 790-800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414530263 Coady, M. R., Harper, C., & De Jong, E. J. (2016). Aiming for equity: Preparing mainstream teachers for inclusion or inclusive classrooms? TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 340-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.223 Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742- 051X(02)00091-4 Collins, J. (1999). The Ebonics controversy in context: Literacies, subjectivities, and language ideologies in the United States. In, J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language ideological debates (pp. 201-234). Mouton de Gruyter. Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2020). Intersectionality (2nd edn). U.K.: Polity Press. Connelly, R., Gayle, V., & Playford, C. (2020). Social class inequalities in education attainment: Measuring social class using capitals, assets and resources. Contemporary Social Science, 16(3), 280-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2020.1805506 Consoli, S. (2021). Uncovering the hidden face of narrative analysis: A reflexive perspective through MAXQDA. System, 102, 102611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102611 Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139-168. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage. Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000191 154 de Brey, C. Musu, L., McFarland, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Diliberti, M., Zhang, A., Branstetter, C., & Wang, X. (2019). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ De Costa, P. I. (2010). Language ideologies and standard English language policy in Singapore: Responses of a ‘designer immigrant’ student. Language Policy, 9, 217-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-010-9176-1 De Costa, P. I. (2016). The power of identity and ideology in language learning: Designer immigrants learning English in Singapore. Springer. De Costa, P. I., Green-Eneix, C., & Li, W. (2021d). Embracing diversity, inclusion, equity and access in EMI-TNHE: Towards a social justice-centered reframing of English language teaching. RELC Journal, 52(2), 227-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211018540 De Costa, P. I., Green-Eneix, C., Li, W., & Rawal, H. (2021c). Interrogating race in the NEST/NNEST ideological dichotomy: Insights from raciolinguistics, culturally sustaining pedagogy and translanguaging. In, R. Rubdy, R. Tupas, and M. Saraceni (Eds.), World Englishes: Ideologies (v2) (pp. 127-140). London: Bloomsbury. De Costa, P. I., Randez, R. A., Her, L., Green-Eneix, C. A. (2021a). Navigating ethical challenges in second language narrative inquiry research. System, 102, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102599 De Costa, P. I., Sterling, S., Lee, J., Li, W., & Rawal, H. (2021b). Research tasks on ethics in applied linguistics. Language Teaching, 54, 58-70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000257 De Costa, P., Park, J., & Wee, L. (2016). Language learning as linguistic entrepreneurship: Implications for language education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25, 695- 702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0302-5 de Kleijn, R. & Van Leeuwen, A. (2018). Reflections and review on the audit procedure: Guidelines for more transparency. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1- 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918763214 Deroo, M. R., & Ponzio, C. (2019). Confronting ideologies: A discourse analysis of in-service teachers’ translanguaging stance through an ecological lens. Bilingual Research Journal, 42(2), 214-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2019.1589604 Deroo, M. R., Ponzio, C. M., & De Costa, P. I. (2020). Reenvisioning second language teacher education through translanguaging praxis. In Z. Tian, L. Aghai, P. Sayer, & J. L. Schissel (Eds.), Envisioning TESOL through a translanguaging lens (pp. 111-134). Springer Nature. 155 Douglas Fir Group (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301 Dos Santos, G. N., & Windle, J. (2020). The nexus of race and class in ELT: From interaction orders to orders of being. Applied Linguistics, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa031 Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Duff, P. (2012). How to carry out case study research. In, Macky, A. & S. Gass (eds.) Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 95-116). Wiley- Blackwell. Duff, P. (2020). Case study research: Making language learning complexities visible. In, J. McKinely & H. Rose (eds), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp.144-153). Routledge. Eagleton, T. (1994). Ideology. Longman. Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2016). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. New York, NY: Pearson. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 8101 (1965). Washington, DC. Emerick, M. R., & Goldberg, J. L. (2022). “I would purposely try to keep them separated”: Language ideologies, language policy, and beliefs about emergent bilinguals in career and technical education. TESOL Quarterly, 0(00). https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3196 Faber, J. W. (2019). On the street during the Great Recession: Exploring the relationship between foreclosures and homelessness. Housing Policy Debate, 29(4), 588-606. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2018.1554595 Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S. (2014). Language ideologies of Arizona voters, language managers, and teachers. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 13(1), 34-52. Https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2014.864211 Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S., Palmer, D., & Henderson, K. (2017). Educator language ideologies and a top-down dual language program. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(6), 704-721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1071776 Fives, H., & Gill, M. G. (Eds.). (2015). International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ beliefs. Routledge. Flores, N. (2020). From academic language to language architecture: Challenging raciolinguistic ideologies in research and practice. Theory Into Practice, 59(1), 22-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1665411 156 Flores, N., & García, O. (2013). Linguistic third spaces in education: Teachers’ translanguaging across the bilingual continuum. In D. Little, C. Leung, & P. V. Avermaet (Eds.), Managing diversity in education: Key issues and some responses (pp. 243–256). Multilingual Matters. Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review 85(2): 149–171. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149 Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2019). Bringing race into second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 145-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12523 Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588114 Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th anniversary edition. Bloomsbury. Gal, S., & Irvine, J. T., (1995). The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social Research, 62(4), 967-1001. Gal, S., & Irvine, J. T., (2019). Signs of difference: Language and ideology in social life. Cambridge University Press. García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging theory in education. In O. García & K. Tatyana (Eds.), Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments (pp. 9–33). New York, NY: Routledge. Garrity, S., Aquino-Sterling, C. R., Liew, C. V., & Day, A. (2018). Beliefs about bilingualism, bilingual education, and dual language development of early childhood preservice teachers raised in a Prop 227 environment. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1148113 Glodjo, T. (2017). Deconstructing social class identity and teacher privilege in the second language classroom. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 342-366. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.273 Goodwin, A. L., (2017). Who is in the classroom now? Teacher preparation and the education of immigrant children. Education Studies, 53(5), 433-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2016.1261028 Graus, J, & Coppen, P-.A. (2017). The interface between student teacher grammar cognitions and learner-oriented cognitions. The Modern Language Journal, 101(4), 643-668. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12427 Green-Eneix, C. A., & De Costa, P. I. (2022). Sharing stories around the digital campfire: In- service teachers, cognition/emotion dissonance, and the asynchronous online classroom. 157 In H. Kayi-Aydar, & J. Reinhardt (Eds.), Language teacher development in digital contexts (pp. 115-134). John Benjamins. Greene, D. M. (2021). ‘It’s just how we articulate the Blackness in us’: African American teachers, Black students, and African American language. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2021.1969905 Groski, P. C. (2011). Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on authenticating the class discourse in education. Counterpoints, 402, 152-173. Guerrettaz, A. M., & Zahler, T. (2017). Black Lives Matter in TESOL: De-silencing race in a second language academic literacy course. TESOL Quarterly, 51(1), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.331 Hall, C. J., & Cunningham, C. (2020). Educators’ beliefs about English and languages beyond English: From ideology to ontology and back again. Linguistics and Education, 57, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100817 Henderson, K. I., & Palmer, D. K. (2015). Teacher and student language practices and ideologies in a third-grade two-way dual language program implementation. International Multilingual Research Journal, 9(2), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2015.1016827 Hillman, S., Li, W., Green-Eneix, C., & De Costa, P. I. (2023). The emotional landscape of English medium instruction (EMI) in higher education. Linguistics and Education, 75, Article e101178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2023.101178 Hinton, K. A. (2016). Call it what it is: Monolingual education in U.S. schools. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13(1), 20-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2015.1124021 Højgaard, L., & Søndergaard, D. M. (2011). Theorizing the complexities of discursive and material subjectivity: Agential realism and poststructural analyses. Theory & Psychology, 21, 338-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309359965 Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2004). The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social research. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 11(1), 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1921/swssr.v11i1.428 Hunt, C.S., & Seiver, M. (2018). Social class matters: class identities and discourses in educational contexts. Educational Review, 70(3), 342-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1316240 Irvine, J. T. (1989). When talk isn’t cheap: Language and political economy. American Ethnologist, 16(2), 248-267. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1989.16.2.02a00040 158 Irvine, J. T., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 35-84). School of American Research Press. Irwin, V., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., York, C., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., Dilig, R., and 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. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr Jaffe, A. (2009). The production and reproduction of language ideologies in practice. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), The new sociolinguistics reader (pp. 390-404). Palgrave Macmillan. Jayakumar, U. M. (2015). The shaping of postcollege colorblind orientation among whites: Residential segregation and campus diversity experiences. Harvard Educational Review, 85(4), 609-645,684. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.4.609 Jeffires, C., & Maeder, D. (2005). Using vignettes to build and assess teacher understanding of instructional strategies. The Professional Educator, 27, 17-28 Jenkins, N., Bloor, M., Fischer, J., Berney, L., & Nele, J. (2010). Putting it in context: The use of vignettes in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research, 10(2), 175-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109356737 Jenks, C, and Lee J (2020) Native Speaker Saviorism: A racialized teaching ideology. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 17(3): 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2019.1664904 Jenks, C., & Bhatia, A. (2020). Infesting our country: Discursive illusions in anti-immigration border talk. Language and Intercultural Communication, 2, 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2020.1722144 Johnson, D. C., & Johnson, E. J. (2022). The language gap: Normalizing deficit ideologies. New York, NY: Routledge. Johnson, D. C., Johnson, E. J., & Hetrick, D. (2020). Normalization of language deficit ideology for a new generation of minoritized U.S. youth. Social Semiotics, 30(4), 591-606. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2020.1766210 Johnson, E. J. & Zentella, A. C. (2017). Introducing the language gap. International Multilingual Research Journal, 11(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1258184 Kangas, S. E. (2020). Breaking one law to uphold another: How schools provide services to English learners with disabilities. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 877-910. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.431 159 Kanno, Y. (2018). Non-college-bound English learners as the underserved third: How students graduate from high school neither college- nor career-ready. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 23(4), 336-358. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2018.1516554 Kanno, Y. & Stuart, C. (2011). Learning to become a second language teacher: Identities-in- practice. Modern Language Journal, 95, 236-252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2011.01178.x Kayi-Aydar, H., & Green-Eneix, C. A. (2019). Shared identities through translanguaging practices in the multilingual mariachi classroom. TESOL Journal, 10(4), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.502 Kroskrity, P. (2004). Language ideologies. In, A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 496-517). Blackwell. Kroskrity, P. (2010). Language ideologies – Evolving perspectives. In J. Jaspers, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Society and Language Use (pp. 192-205). John Benjamins. Krzyżanowski, M. (2020). Normalization and discursive construction of “new” norms and “new” normality: Discourse in the paradoxes of populism and neoliberalism. Social Semiotics, 30(4), 431-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2020.1766193 Kubanyiova, M. (2008). Rethinking research ethics in contemporary applied linguistics: The tension between macroethical and microethical perspectives in situated research. Modern Language Journal, 22, 503-518. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00784.x Kubanyiova, M., & Feryok, A. (2015). Language teacher cognition in applied linguistics research: Revisiting the territory, redrawing the boundaries, reclaiming the relevance. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 435-449. https://doi.org/10.111/modl.12239 Kubota, R. (2011). Questioning linguistic instrumentalism: English, neoliberalism, and language tests in Japan. Linguistics and Education, 22(3), 248-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.02.002 Kubota, R. (2016). The multi/plural turn, postcolonial theory, and neoliberal multiculturalism: Complicates and implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 474-494. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu045 Kubota, R., & Miller, E. R. (2017). Re-examining and re-envisioning criticality in language studies: Theories and praxis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 14(2-3), 129-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2017.1290500 Kumar, R., & Hamer, L. (2013). Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Student Diversity and Proposed Instructional Practices: A Sequential Design Study. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112466899 160 Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Yale University Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264511 Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465 – 491. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163320 Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). It’s not the culture of poverty, it’s the poverty of culture: The problem with teacher education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37(2), 104-109. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2006.37.2.104 Ladson-Billings, G. (2017). “Makes me wanna holler”: “Culture of poverty” discourse in urban schooling. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 673(1), 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0002716217718793 Lanehart, S. (Ed.) (2015). The Oxford Handbook of African American language. Oxford University Press. Lanehart, S., & Malik, A. M. (2015). Language use in African American communities: An introduction. In S. Lanehart (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of African American language (pp. 23-34). Oxford University Press. Lee, B. A., Shinn, M., & Culhane, D. P. (2021). Homelessness as a moving target. The Annals of the American Academy, 693, 8-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716221997038 Lee, S. L., & Oxelson, E. (2006). “It’s not my job”: K-12 teacher attitudes toward students’ heritage language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 453-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2006.10162885 Li, G. & Sah, P. K. (2020). Critical pedagogy for preservice teacher education in the US: An agenda for a plurilingual reality of superdiversity. In S. R. Steinberg & B. Down (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Critical Pedagogies (pp. 884-898). Sage. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage. Lippi-Green, R. (2010). That’s not my language: The struggle to (re)define African American English. In, R. Dueñas González & I. Melis (Eds.), Language Ideologies: Critical perspectives of the official English movement (pp. 230-247). Routledge. Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States (2nd edn). Routledge. 161 Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2011). A framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers. In T. Lucas (Ed.) Teacher preparation for Linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 55–72). Routledge. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in pre-service teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 98-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770327 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818777540 Mao, J., & Feldman, E. (2019). Class matters: interviewing across social class boundaries. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(2), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1535879 Martín, A. (2021). What is white ignorance? The Philosophical Quarterly, 71(4), pqaa073. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqaa073 Marx, K., & Simon, L. H. (1994). Selected writings. Hackett. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771-1800. https://doi.org/10.1086/426800 McKinney, C. (2017). Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language. Routledge. McKinney, C. & Tyler, R. (2019). Disinventing and reconstituting language learning in school science. Language And Education, 33(2), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1516779 Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Multilingual Matters. Menken, K. (2010). NCLB and English language learners: Challenges and consequences. Theory into Practice, 49(2), 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841003626619 Metz, M. (2019) Accommodating linguistic prejudice? Examining English teachers language ideologies. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 18(1): 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-09-2018-0081 Metz, M., & Knight, H. (2021). The dominant school language narrative: Unpacking English teachers’ language ideologies. Language, 97(3), 238-256. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0041 162 Mitchell, K. (2013). Race, difference, meritocracy, and English: Majoritarian stories in the education of secondary multilingual learners. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(3), 339- 364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2011.645569 Moore, S.C.K. (2021). A history of bilingual education in the US: Examining the politics of language policymaking. Multilingual Matters. Motha, S. (2020). Is an antiracist and decolonizing applied linguistics possible? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190520000100 Mueller, R. A. (2019). Episodic narrative interview: Capturing stories of experience with a methods fusion. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919866044 National Center for Education Statistics, (2023). Characteristics of Public School Teachers. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved June 12, 2023, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr/public- school-teachers Norton, B. (2013). Identity and Language Learning: Extending the conversation (2 edn). USA: Multilingual Matters. O’Dell, L., Crafter, S. Abreu, G. de, & Cline, T. (2012). The problem of interpretation in vignette methodology in research with young people. Qualitative Research, 12(6), 702-714. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439003 Oswald, A. G. (2017). Improving outcomes with qualitative data analysis software: A reflective journey. Qualitative Social Work, 16, 845-852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325017744860 Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-322. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307 Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244 Paris, D. & Alim, S. A. (Eds.) (2017). Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press. Park, Y. (2022). ‘Your pronunciation is really good’: The construction of linguistic identities in ELF interactions among mulitilingual speakers. International Journal of Mulitlingualism, 19(4), 583-604. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2020.1781131 Paulus, T., Lester, J., & Dempster, P. (2013). Digital tools for qualitative research. London: Sage. 163 Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 163-188. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm008 Peregoy, S. F. & Boyle, O. (2017). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for K-12 teachers (7th Ed.). Pearson. Pérez, R. (2017). Racism without hatred? Racist humor and the myth of “color-blindness”. Sociological Perspectives, 60(5), 956-974. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121417719699 Pettit, S. K. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about English language learners in the mainstream classroom: A review of the literature. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(2), 123-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2011.594357 Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839950080103 Poza, L. (2017). Translanguaging: Definitions, implications, and further needs in burgeoning inquiry. Berekeley Review of Education, 6(2), 101-128. https://doi.org/10.5070/B86110060 Prior, M. T. (2018). Interviews and focus groups. In A. Phakiti, P. De Costa, L. Plonsky, & S. Starfield, The Palgrave Handbook of applied linguistics research methods (pp. 225-248). Palgrave Macmillan. Razfar, A. (2012). Narrating beliefs: A language ideologies approach to teacher beliefs. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 43(1), 61-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548- 1492.2011.01157.x. Rehmann, J. (2013). Theories of ideology: The powers of alienation and subjection. Brill. Rosa, J., & Burdick, C. (2016). Language ideologies. In, O. García, N. Flores and M. Spotti (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Language in Society (pp. 103-123). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rubin, M. (2012). Social class differences in social integration among students in higher education: A meta-analysis and recommendations for future research. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(1), 22-38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026162 Rubin, M., Denson, N., Kilpatrick, S., Matthews, K. E., Stehlik, T., & Zyngier, D. (2014). “I am working-class”: Subjective self-definition as a missing measure of social class and socioeconomic status in higher education research. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 196- 200. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528373 Rumsey, A. (1990). Wording, meaning, and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist, 92(2), 346-361. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1990.92.2.02a00060 164 Sah, P. K., & Uysal, H. (2022). Unbiased but ideologically unclear: Teacher beliefs about languagepractices of emergent bilingual students in the U.S. Linguistics & Education, 72, Article e101126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2022.101126 Saldana, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3 edn.). Sage. Sayer, P. (2019). The hidden curriculum of work in English language education: Neoliberalism and early English programs in public schooling. AILA Review, 32(1), 36-63. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.00020.say Schwandt, T. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Sage. Shandomo, H. M. (2010). The role of critical reflection in teacher education. School-University Partnerships, 4(1), 101-113. Shenk, P. S. (2007). ‘I’m Mexican, remember?’ Constructing ethnic identities via authenticating discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(2), 194-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9841.2007.00318.x Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot “standard” in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In D. Brenneix & R. S. Macaulay (Eds.), The Matrix of Language (pp. 284-306). Westview. Skilling, K., & Stylinides, G.J. (2020). Using vignettes in educational research: A framework for vignette construction. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 43(5), 541-556. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1704243 Snow, C.E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In Olson, D.R., & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112-133). Cambridge University Press. Sommeiller, E. & Price, M. (2018). The new gilded age: Income inequality in the U.S. by state, metropolitan area, and county. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1409690/the-new-gilded-age/2023953/ Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443–466). Sage Publications. Storms, S. B. (2014). Using social justice vignettes to prepare students for social action engagement. Multicultural Perspectives, 16(1), 43-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2014.872939 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. P.L. 107-110. (2001). Washington, DC. 165 U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. P.L. 107-110. Washington, DC. U.S. HUD (2008). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. A guide to Counting Unsheltered Homeless People, Second Revision. Accessed on September 15, 2022 at https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/counting_unsheltered.pdf U.S. HUD. (2010, June 10). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD issues 2009 annual homeless assessment report to congress [Press Release]. Retrieved from https://archives.hud.gov/news/2010/pr10-124.cfm US Department of State. (2022). Au pair program, https://j1visa.state.gov/programs/au-pair (accessed 27 October, 2022) van Dijk, J. (2019). The digital divide. Polity van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage Publications. Vasquez, J. M. & Wetzel, C. (2009). Tradition and the invention of racial selves: Symbolic boundaries, collective authenticity, and contemporary struggles for racial equality. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(9), 1557-1575. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870802684232 Vincent, A. (2010). Modern Political Ideologies (3rd edn). Wiley-Blackwell. Von Esch, K. S., Motha, S., & Kubota, R. (2020). Race and language teaching. Language Teaching, 53(4): 391–421. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000269 Wang, K., Rathbun, A., & Musu, L. (2019). School choice in the United States: 2019 (NCES 2019-106). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved Oct. 10, 2022 from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch Warhol, L., & Mayer, A. (2012). Misinterpreting school reform: The dissolution of a dual- immersion bilingual program in an urban New England elementary school. Bilingual Research Journal, 35(2), 145-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2012.703636 Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semi-structured methods. Sage. Wiley, T. G. (2014). Diversity, super-diversity, and monolingual language ideology in the United States: Tolerance or intolerance? Review of Research in Education, 38(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X13511047 Wiley, T. G., & Lukes, M. (1996). English-Only and standard English ideologies in the U.S. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 511-535. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587696 166 Wilks, T. (2004). The use of vignettes in qualitative research into social work values. Qualitative Social Work, 3(1), 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325004041133 Wolfram, W. (1998). Language ideology and dialect: Understanding the Oakland Ebonics controversy. Journal of English Linguistics, 26(2), 108-121. Wolfram, W. (2018). The (in)significance of facts in sociolinguistic engagement. Language in Society, 47(3), 374-377. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404518000325 Wong, J. W., Athanases, S. Z., Banes, L. C. (2020). Developing as an agentive bilingual teacher: self-reflexive and student-learning inquiry as teacher education resources. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(2), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1345850 Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55-82. Wortham, S. (2001). Language ideology and educational research. Linguistics and Education, 12(3), 253-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(01)00055-9 Yazan, B., & Lindahl, K. (2020). Language teacher learning and practice as identity work. In, B. Yazan & K. Lindahl (Eds.), Language teacher identity in TESOL (pp. 1-10). Routledge. Zhang, M. (2022). Embodiment in action: Engaging with the doing and be(com)ing. Linguistics and Education, 71, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2022.101082 Zizek, J. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. Verso. 167 APPENDIX A: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS Interview #1 Objective The goal of this interview is to understand my student participant’s background concerning how they got into teaching and taking a class on language education. Information for interviewee For this interview, I would like to learn more about you and your personal life history. I do have a few questions, but please feel free to take as much time and provide as much information you can. Interview Questions 1. [based on the survey results] Within the survey, you were asked to place yourself in your community. How did you define community? a. Can you share a story or an experience that highlights the role of community in your life? b. [If different from participants home community] how is this community different compared to the community you were part of growing up? 2. What does being a teacher mean to you? a. Can you share an experience that informed your view of a teacher? b. For you, how does this view connect with teaching English language learners? 3. You are studying ESL endorsement. How has your journey so far led you to become a teacher? a. [potential follow-up] why did you decide to become a teacher at MSU? b. What class or experience influenced you in your journey? i. Can you share a moment that really impacted you in as much detail as possible? 4. How did you get interested in including language into your teaching? a. Can you share a particular moment? 5. Were other languages outside of your first language a part of your home growing up? a. What other languages have you studied? b. What was your experience with language like growing up? Interview #2 Objective The objective of this interview is to further understand their community as well as get a tentative sense of how their beliefs on race shape their view understanding of teaching practices they are learning within the United States. Interview questions 1. Can you tell me how you would describe race? a. Can you tell me an experience that shaped your understanding of race? b. Can you tell me another story about race while attending school either here at [Evergreen University] or in your hometown of [participant’s community]? i. How did you make sense of the situation during this time? 168 ii. Did you talk about this instance with anyone afterwards? c. How did (if at all) race fit into your training to becoming a teacher? i. Can you share a story of class that impacted how you viewed race in the classroom? 2. Does issues of race apply to English language learners? a. Can you explain? 3. I ask about race because in the last few years there have been a lot of events in the news revolving around race and education. a. As a future educator, what do you feel when discussions such as this come up? i. Can you share a time or situation that illustrated this? b. Are these concerns prevalent in your community? i. Can you share a prominent experience that captures these concerns? c. Should public schools teach historical events that might make students feel uncomfortable? Why? 4. How would you approach dealing with discussions about potentially difficult topics, such as race, in your class? 5. Based on the classes you have taken or currently taking focused on teaching; do you feel prepared to teach linguistically and culturally diverse students? a. Can you share what makes or does not make you feel prepared? 6. If an emergent bilingual was in your math class, would you feel prepared to support them? a. Why? 7. Was there a time in your life where you experienced a misunderstand surrounding race? a. What was that misunderstanding? b. When did you realize it was a misunderstanding? c. How did it impact your perception about race? Interview #3 Objective The objective for this interview is to better understand participants’ language ideology within education. Interview questions 1. When you took the survey a while ago you were asked several questions concerning your thoughts of Standard English in the classroom. What comes to mind when you hear “Standard English”? a. Can you share a story or an experience that shaped your view of English? 2. In the survey you were asked if you agreed that Standard English is necessary for academic settings. a. Can you share your thoughts when you said you somewhat agreed to this statement? b. In what ways does this view inform the ways you would teach students who speak a language other than English in your classroom? 3. [Question related to participants 2nd reflective log response] 4. How might your own social background affected your mindset about teaching and learning? 169 a. Based on the Survey on if you felt nervous about having an emergent bilingual in your classroom, you said you were somewhat nervous. Can you explain this response? b. How might your mindset about teaching and learning affect how you treat students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds? 5. Have you had experience working with people who are learning English? a. How would you go about supporting students who do not speak English as their first language in your classroom? 6. what do you feel you need to learn more about concerning issues surrounding teaching students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds? Interview #4 Objective The objective of this interview is to address the last research question concerning participants role in making education more equitable. Interview questions 1. How do you balance the personal needs of your students and their instructional needs? 2. How do you be an advocate for your students? a. Can you share a time or situation that illustrated this? 3. How do you view your role as a teacher? a. How do you view this role in relation to teaching English language learners? 4. There is a lot of discussion about making the classroom more equitable, how, as a teacher, do you interpret an equitable classroom? What classroom inequities exist? a. how do you view your role in making the classroom more equitable? b. Does this apply to language? Why or why not? 5. How comfortable are you with working closely with others who have different beliefs concerning teaching and learning? 170 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW VIGNETTES WITH QUESTIONS Vignette #1 You walk into the teachers’ lounge and where you hear Mr. Hurst and Mrs. Smith having a conversation concerning a student in your math course, Xavier. Xavier is a 7 year old in the 3 rd Grade who just moved to the rural elementary school you teach at from Chicago. He is currently learning English since his first language is French where he speaks it at home with his mother and father. After taking a few tests, Mr. Hurst notice there is a notable gap between Xavier’s reading and writing ability and the rest of his English language arts class. Mrs. Smith explains to Mr. Hurst that she had similar students like Xavier. She provides Mr. Hurst some advice by saying, “students who are like Xavier typically have parents who have a difficult time helping them since the parents’ didn’t go to school very much themselves, and they have limitations with language to help their child, particularly in reading and writing. When the vocabulary is limited or when parents don’t have a high level of education, literacy takes longer to develop.” After saying this, Mrs. Smith apologizes since she is not sure how to assist Mr. Hurst with the student and leaves to teach his class. • What do you think about this situation? • Would you agree with Mrs. Smith? Why? • What advice would you provide Mr. Hurst concerning supporting Xavier in his class? • What are some strategies or ways you would go about assisting Xavier in your class? Vignette #2 Mr. Smith teaches English language arts in a rural elementary school in the Midwest. Sofía is a 12-year-old who is in the 7th grade and learning English as her second language. Sofía has been improving her spoken English but struggling with her reading and writing in Mr. Smith’s English language arts class. Due to COVID-19, Mr. Smith had to transition to distance learning with every student receiving a Chromebook. Mr. Smith notices in his first Zoom class all of his students are present, except for Sofía. After three weeks, Mr. Smith looks into the Google Classroom notices she has not logged on at all or completed any assignments. He tries to contact Sofía’s mom, a single mother who works in a warehouse in the next town over, but gets no reply. Another couple of weeks pass by, Sofía then attends the class, but Mr. Smith realizes her English seems to have gotten worse when he asked her to read aloud for the class. He also notices Sofía’s background resembles a McDonald’s parking lot. • What is your initial impression about this situation as a future educator? • Should teachers prioritize supporting students like Sofía compared to the rest of the class? Please explain. • If you were Mr. Smith, how would you go about assisting Sofía in supporting her in your classroom? Vignette #3 Monica is an 8 year old in the 4th grade who immigrated to the United States and is in Ms. Carter’s science class. Today, Ms. Carter is teaching a lesson on how objects exert force. After finishing the lesson, Ms. Carter groups the class into groups of three and Monica is grouped with Harold and Jasmine, both of whom were born and raised in in the US. As the class does the science activity together, Monica tries to assist Harold and Jasmine. However, they both talk between themselves. After a few minutes, Monica musters up the courage to say “I help ciencia?” Harold and Jasmine both look at Monica with Jasmine saying “We don’t understand 171 you. You need to speak English!” After saying this, Monica, feeling embarrassed, goes quiet and looks at her notebook. • What do you think about this situation? • If you were Ms. Carter, and it seemed your student felt their home or heritage language was beneath the language used in school, how would you handle this situation? • What are some strategies or ways you could assist your learners would go about assisting Xavier in your class? 172 APPENDIX C: BACKGROUND SURVEY Consent to participate in research Explanation of the research and what you will do: You are being asked to participate in a research study that investigates how teacher learners engage with issues of race and class within a teacher training classroom. The study will last for about a semester. To complete the study, • You will be asked a 10- to 15-minute survey about your demographic information and opinion on several statements • You will be asked to participate in 4 interviews. These interviews will occur throughout the semester and over Zoom and will last for about an hour to an hour and a half (max). • You will be asked to complete 4 guided reflective logs. • You must be at least 18 years old to participate in this research. 2. Privacy and Confidentiality In consenting to the research project, all data collected will be de-identified (removing names of people, places, and other aspects that may identify your participation in this study) and kept a password protected computer that only the members of the research team will have access to. Additionally, audio-recorded interviews and reflective logs will be used for research purposes with de-identified written excerpts being used in presentation purposes. Interview recordings will be kept on a password protected computer for at least 3 years after the completion of the research study. 3. Potential risks There are no foreseeable risks in participating in this research study outside of feeling moments of discomfort due to discussing about sensitive issues surrounding race and social class. 4. Your rights to participate, say no, or withdraw: Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific questions in the survey or interviews, or to stop participating at any time. Whether you choose to participate or not will have no effect on your grade or evaluation. 5. Costs and compensation for being in the study: You will be compensated for your time in the shape of receiving 200 dollars. • 100 dollars will be paid after completing the survey and in participating in all 4 interviews. • The other 100 dollars will be paid out after completing all four reflective logs. 4. Contact Information for Questions and Concerns: If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researchers: • Curtis Green-Eneix, Wells Hall B220, MSU, greenen5@msu.edu, [redacted]; • Dr. Peter De Costa, pdecosta@msu.edu, [redacted] If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. 5. Documentation of Informed consent. 173 If you consent to take part in this research study, please type your first name and an email you regularly access below: [type name] [type email] -------------------section break------------------ Questions focusing on background information 1. What is your gender? - Male - Female - Other - Prefer not to say 2. What is your age? [type age] 3. What is your race/ethnicity? [type response] 4. What is your home country? [drop down menu of countries] 5. What is your first language? [type response] 6. Would you consider yourself bilingual or multilingual? If yes, list what other language you are a speaker in. [type response] 7. How many courses related to teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) have you taken or currently taking up to this point? a. 0 b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 g. 6 8. Please list the courses you have taken or currently taking up to this point. [type response] 9. What is your mother’s highest level of education (if applicable)? a. Did not complete high school b. High school diploma/ GED or equivalent (e.g., Maturity certificate) c. Postsecondary vocational certificate d. Associate’s degree e. Bachelor’s degree 174 f. Master’s degree g. Doctoral or professional degree (Ph.D., JD., MD) 10. What is your father’s highest level of education (if applicable)? a. Did not complete high school b. Received a High school diploma/ GED or equivalent (e.g., Maturity certificate) c. Postsecondary vocational certificate d. Associate’s degree e. Bachelor’s degree f. Master’s degree g. Doctoral or professional degree (Ph.D., JD., MD) 11. Approximately what is your family’s combined annual income (before taxes)? a. Less than $25,000 b. $25,000 – $49,999 c. $50,000 – $74,999 d. $75,000 – $99,999 e. $100,000 – $149,999 f. $150,000 – $174,999 g. $175,000 – $199,999 h. $200,000+ 12. How would you consider your (family) income compared to others in your community? 10 (Far above average) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (Far Below Average) 13. How would you consider your (family) income compared to the rest of the United States? 10 (Far above average) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (Far Below Average) 14. Check the boxes that apply to your parent(s) or guardians… a. Own your home b. Rent your home c. Live with family or friends and not pay rent 175 d. Live with family/friends; contribute part of rent e. Live in a group shelter, or, f. Live in some other housing arrangement? (Please specify) Please provide any notes or comments: 15. Check the boxes that apply to you while you are taking classes at MSU right now. a. I am living at home with my parents or guardians. b. I am living with my parents/guardians and paying rent to them. c. I am living with relatives other than my parents/guardians. d. I am living with relatives other than my parents/guardians and paying rent to them. e. I am living in a dorm on campus. f. I am living in an apartment by myself. g. I am living in an apartment that I and one or more peers are renting. h. I am renting a room in a house someone else owns. Please provide any notes or comments: 16. Who covers your housing costs? Please indicate the approximate percentage if more than one person. Totals must equal 100. i. Parents/guardians j. Other relatives k. Federal aid/government l. Myself m. Other notable individual(s)/entities (please specify) 17. Think of the scale below as a ladder representing where people stand in your community. Imagine everyone in your community is standing somewhere on this ladder. At the TOP (Score = 10) of the ladder are the people who are “the best off”—those who have the most money, the most education, and the most respected jobs in your community. At the Bottom (Score = 1) are the people who are “the worst off”—who have the least money, least education, and the least respected jobs or no job in your community. Where would you place yourself from 1-10 on this ladder, compared to others in your community? Please select the number where you think you stand. (TOP) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 (Bottom) 1 18. Think of the scale below as a ladder representing where people stand in the United States. Imagine everyone in your community is standing somewhere on this ladder. At the TOP (Score = 10) of the ladder are the people who are “the best off”—those who have the most money, the most education, and the most respected jobs in the United States. At the Bottom (Score = 1) are the people who are “the worst off”—who have the least money, least education, and the least respected jobs or no job in the United States. 176 Where would you place yourself from 1-10 on this ladder, compared to others in the United States? Please select the number where you think you stand. (TOP) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 (Bottom) 1 --------------------Section break----------------------- Language ideology questions1 19. Standard English is the correct form of English 20. Other varieties of English are valued in society 21. Standard English is necessary for academic settings 22. Emergent bilinguals’ use of their home language in the classroom supports their learning of the content 23. Emergent bilinguals can learn academic content sufficiently in English-only classrooms. 24. People who speak Standard English are treated better in American society 25. English teachers should help students use Standard English instead of other varieties of English 26. In the U.S., using English is important for gaining material wealth 27. In the U.S., using standard English helps you gain even more material wealth 28. In the U.S., the use of multiple language is an economic asset 29. In the U.S., using English is important to move up in social standing 30. English teachers should teach students to understand and appreciate many varieties of English 31. Content teachers don’t have time to effectively support the English language development of emergent bilinguals. 32. Teachers should not adapt assignments for emergent bilinguals 33. If I could choose, I would prefer to teach in a classroom where all students speak English proficiently. 34. I am nervous about having emergent bilinguals in my classroom 1 The following questions were adopted from Bacon (2020); Fitzsimmons-Doolan (2014); Metz (2019). 177 APPENDIX D: GUIDED REFLECTION LOGS Guided Reflection Log #1 For this first log, write a first-person narrative where you reflect on the history of your relationship with language. Describe how your language experiences shaped you as a learner and as an educator. You are free to insert pictures and videos as you write your narrative. Below are a few questions to help you think of some ideas, but you do not need to answer all or any of the questions: 1. Where are you from? Where have you lived? To whom have you lived? Which of these social details has influenced your use of language? 2. Do you remember particular comments or instances where your or someone else’s language, either spoken or written, was commented on? What was said about your or someone else’s language, and how did you feel and respond? 3. In what ways do you see language as a part of your identity? Does this view connect with how you view yourself as an educator? Try to write around 500 words or at least spend 75 minutes for your response. Feel free to use this Google Doc to write your narrative. Guided Reflection Log #2 For this second log, I would like you to reflect on what academic achievement is, what it entails, and what it means for language learners. For this log, you are welcome to structure your response in anyway you choose. For example, you may answer the questions one-by-one or you may write a first-person narrative describing how your experiences shaped your understanding of academic achievement as a learner and as an educator. In order to address the overarching goal of this reflective log, I would like you to organize your response around the following questions. 1. How would you define being successful in school and how does this relate to your role as a teacher? • Who plays a role in students' school success and why? 2. What was a compelling event from your life that shaped your understanding of being successful in school? This event could be from your experience as a student or as a teacher. Please describe what occurred during this event. 3. In defining what school success is, how does language play a role in students’ success or struggle in school? • What are the characteristics of successful students in school compared to unsuccessful students? 4. Was there a compelling event(s) where language played a role in your understanding of being successful or unsuccessful in school? This event could be from your experience as a student or as a teacher. Please describe what occurred during this event. For this log, please write around 1000 words for this response. You are welcome to go over 1000 words. You are welcome to insert pictures, videos, or other types of modes as you write your reo use this Google Doc to write your narrative. 178 Guided Reflection Log #3 or this third log, I would like you to engage with how does our social class and linguistic background shape our mindset about supporting English language learners in our classroom. You are welcome to structure your response in any way you choose. For example, you may answer the questions one-by-one or you may write a first-person narrative describing how your experiences shaped your understanding as a learner and as an educator. In order to address the overarching question of this reflective log, I have created the following questions. When answering the questions please try to provide stories of your experiences that shaped your response in as much detail as possible. • How would you define social class – what characteristics inform someone’s social class? What is an event or two from your life that related to your understanding of class? Describe a compelling event and what occurred. • How (if at all) does language fit into your understanding of social class? Can you share any examples, events, or anything else that illustrates your understanding? • In thinking about what social class is, does social class matter in the classroom? Does it matter for students who are learning English as another language? Why or why not? o Can you share a story of a time that shaped your response? • How would you define a student who is learning English? What backgrounds and characteristics do they have? What term would you use to describe these learners? Why? • What pressures and obstacles might affect students who are learning English in and outside of the classroom? Should teachers be considered students’ pressures and obstacles and if so to what extent? Which of these obstacles may be beyond the scope of formal education? For this log, please write as much as you want but please do not write less than 1000 words for this response. You are welcome to insert pictures, videos, or other types of modes as you write your response. Please use this Google Doc to write your narrative. Guided Reflection Log #4 For this last log, I want you to reflect on your experience participating in these interviews and reflective logs and your role in your future classroom. You are welcome to structure your response in any way you choose. To assist you in addressing the overarching goal of this reflective log, I have created a word cloud based on the last few reflective logs you have completed which you can see below: 179 Wordcloud was created using tagcrowd.com What words are you surprised to see and why? What words are missing or need to be added to this cloud? Why? What are you still nervous about as you enter the profession and why? What are you excited about as you enter the profession and why? What are you going to further explore as you enter the profession? For this log, please write as much as you want but please do not write less than 500 words for this response. You are welcome to insert pictures, videos, or other types of modes as you write your response. Please use this Google Doc to write your reflection. 180