EXPECTATION VS. PERCEIVED READINESS: USING SOCIAL SYSTEM THEORY TO UNDERSTAND CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT IN ESL EDUCATION By Robert A Randez 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 The moment preservice teachers with an English as a Second Language endorsement complete an accredited teacher certification program, they are expected to be able to provide inclusive instruction to multilingual and multicultural students addressing both subject knowledge and English-language proficiency. Preservice teachers are expected to be ready because their program’s accreditation ensures that the content covered in the program aligns with the needs of the state’s department of education. The program's content is represented by its curriculum, while the needs of the state are found in its teacher endorsement standards. However, expectations are not always reflected in the perceived readiness of preservice teachers. This conflict presents essential questions for teacher preparatory programs: What if the preservice teachers feel unprepared upon program completion? What challenges does this present to teacher preparatory programs when their graduates feel their knowledge does not meet state standards? Copyright by ROBERT A RANDEZ 2023 For June. Thank you for being there every step of the way iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I start by thanking my committee members for their support and guidance. Peter, thank you for shaping me into the scholar I am today. You have always encouraged my ambitions, yet always kept me focused and grounded. Dustin, you have always extended yourself whether it be through guidance or friendship. Your actions have shown the importance of being personable before any title. Paula, you have always supported me regardless of my need. I will always appreciate the time you gave me no matter how busy your schedule was. Patti, this dissertation would not have been possible without the insight I gained through my time teaching. An insight that would not have happened without the support you provided. I’ve become a better teacher because of you, and I am forever grateful. I would like to thank the participants of this study who were gracious enough to share their experiences and trust me to represent their stories. I will always describe my time in the SLS program by talking about the many wonderful people I am lucky to have met. The inspiration I felt being surrounded by such brilliant individuals was equal to the encouragement I felt from their support. As excited as I am about my future, I am excited to see the amazing things my friends will accomplish. Finally, I owe everything to the family and friends who have enhanced my life every step of the journey. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: THIS STUDY...................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 3: PRESERVICE TEACHER FINDINGS........................................................... 35 CHAPTER 4: COURSE INSTRUCTOR FINDINGS ............................................................. 55 CHAPTER 5: COURSE COORDINATOR FINDINGS....................................................... 100 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................................. 112 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 135 APPENDIX A: PRESERVICE TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .......................... 138 APPENDIX B: COURSE INSTRUCTOR PROTOCOL...................................................... 142 APPENDIX C: PROGRAM COORDINATOR PROTOCOL ............................................. 146 vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW The moment preservice teachers with an English as a Second Language endorsement complete an accredited teacher certification program, they are expected to be able to instruct multilingual and multicultural students both in subject knowledge and English-language proficiency. Preservice teachers in Michigan are expected to be ready because their program’s accreditation ensures that the content covered in the program aligns with the needs of the state’s department of education. The courses in its curriculum represents the program's content, while the needs of the state are found in its teacher knowledge standards. However, expectations are not always reflected in the perceived readiness of preservice teachers. This conflict presents essential questions for teacher education programs in higher education: What could be said about the effectiveness of a teacher education program if preservice teachers feel unprepared upon completion? What does this say about curriculum and state alignment when graduates feel their knowledge does not meet state standards? For this study, the focus on preservice teacher preparedness centers on a student population that has recently garnered much needed attention but lies at the crossroad of two educational disciplines, language and special education. In the fall of 2017, the state of Michigan revised its English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching preparatory standards. Among these revisions, a new standard was added under the category dictating knowledge needed in second language acquisition. The language of the new standard is as follows: Candidates for endorsement in [ESL] will demonstrate: An ability to distinguish between learning challenges and behaviors associated with language development and those associated with learning disabilities. (State Standard Document) 1 In Michigan, ESL is an endorsement which is a secondary certification preservice teachers obtain in addition to their content (e.g., mathematics; science) and grade (e.g., elementary; high school) specialty. Though not mandatory, preservice teachers seek an ESL endorsement to increase job marketability because it authorizes them to work with multilingual/multicultural students. However, the students addressed in this new standard (multilinguals with special needs) present unique considerations that historically and currently challenge public education (Paneque & Barbetta, 2006). Exceptional Language Learners (Students with Disabilities) Recent student demographics show that English learners with disabilities account for 16.1 percent of US public schools' 5.1 million English learners (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). However, the certainty of this population percentage has been a topic of contention. In the US, issues of over-classification and under-classification have been prevalent (Ortiz et. al., 2011; Sullivan, 2011), even in states with sizeable multilingual student populations like California (Maxwell & Shah, 2012; Quach & Tsai, 2017). Regardless of the exact number, these students are currently in classrooms with needs that straddle two specialties with little contact (language and special education). Thankfully, there has been growing interest in students who are both language learners and special needs students 1 (Garcia & Tyler, 2010; Kormos, 2017; Orosco & O’Connor, 2014). One topic of interest is the terminology used to refer to this population. Predominantly, these students are called English (Language) Learners with (learning) 1 The term special needs refer to a student who has been diagnosed with a condition that requires additional educational support. The diagnosis is made by a certified professional which is then reviewed by a team at the student’s school to determine if support is required. If the team determines that additional support is required, the student is enrolled in special education and designated as special needs. 2 disabilities and students with specific learning difficulties. However, there is inconsistency with the terminology used to address these learners in current research. Though I agree with the need to distinguish this community, I believe disability or difficulty is counterproductive. Such terms give them a deficient-orientated connotation through comparison to their neurotypical peers, who are seen as the norm. I offer the term Exceptional Language Learner (ExLL) as an alternative that distinguishes this population without inadvertently attaching a negative connotation to them. This term extends to learners in any country of any language, as it does not reference a specific language or context. However, though my intentions are motivated by inclusivity, I must recognize that any term used for identifying a group is susceptible to the reader’s subjective interpretation, which may result in the reader taking on a deficient-oriented perspective. I also recognize that ExLL should not be used when addressing a specific diagnosis (e.g., a learner with ASD; dyslexia). Different diagnoses (identified by a certified professional) present different needs that require explicit mention to ensure that the individual receives the proper services, and applying any general term risks losing sight of those specific needs. For example, a student who is diagnosed with dyslexia (a neurological condition affecting written information processing) may require reading-focused literacy aid while a student with dyspraxia (a neurological condition that affects fine motor skills) may need writing-focused literacy aid. However, I still advocate using ExLL as a reference for this group of learners in the context of this study. The complexity surrounding ExLLs cannot be fully captured in a single manuscript; however, what is evident is that teacher training programs are still struggling to prepare their preservice teachers with the pedagogical practices that inherently serve this group (Lopez-Reyna et al., 2021). But the issue of preparing preservice teachers extends beyond ExLLs. Vermunt et al. (2019) highlight that teacher educators/researchers must use teacher self- 3 reflection as a tool to measure pedagogical growth during training, stating that “[P]personal factors [e.g., beliefs about the profession and understanding of the training they receive in their teacher preparatory program] known to influence teacher learning are, for example, self -esteem, interest in the profession, tolerance of ambiguity, love of learning, professional agency and professional identity” (p. 7). Teaching is as much a reflection of the individual as it is of their training, and teacher education scholars should pay equal attention to how preservice teachers feel about their preparation as the content of courses they take. However, the feeling of preparedness can only speak to the overall tone of the preservice teacher’s experience. A complete analysis should thus focus on specific experiences these novice teachers encounter while in the program that contributes to their preparedness. Generally, how preservice teachers feel about their preparedness spans a spectrum. This range is understandable given the subjectivity of the topic; however, this perception influences how preservice teachers approach their preparatory program. An active approach is seen in preservice teachers who have preexisting experience in education and see their program as an opportunity to refine their skills. The passive approach is often taken by those who lack such experience and rely on the program to conceptualize the profession for them (Vermunt et al., 2019). Curricular shortcomings (e.g., content & context issues detailed later) impact both approaches, but those who have taken a passive approach are further affected due to the lack of preexisting professional experience that contextualizes information (e.g., pedagogical practices for different learner groups)in their courses. The original focus of this study was to elicit the perceived readiness of preservice teachers to meet the new standard introduced in 2017 (referred to as standard 1.5 moving forward). It was implemented in a teaching education program the preservice teachers had recently completed. 4 However, the preservice teachers' responses (Chapter 3) highlighted not only unpreparedness but curricular/state standard alignment issues. These initial findings required a shift in focus to understand the relationship between standard and curriculum. The Curriculum To receive an ESL endorsement, preservice teachers must take additional courses covering various topics centered on language and language acquisition. The curriculum at this university consists of seven courses. Five courses are mandatory, while the preservice teacher chooses the remaining two from an approved list. This study will only focus on the five compulsory courses in the following figure. Figure 1 ESL Endorsement Curriculum The figure shows that the five courses are spread across three different colleges. L College houses the Applied Linguistics program, which coordinates and staffs three courses. E College supervises the preservice teachers and houses all education majors, controlling certification and endorsements. Faculty in E College coordinates the ESL endorsement with the state department of education through accreditation (further detailed in Chapter 5). S College houses the humanities and the final mandatory course. 5 Further details about each course will be provided in Chapter 4; however, by simply looking at the structure of the curriculum, one can see its inherent complexity given the seemingly de-centralized nature. Ultimately, this curriculum structure is just one vantage point of the standard implementation process. The entire standard implementation process consists of different vantage points of individuals, each with its role and responsibilities. The curriculum must be viewed through a policy implementation framework to understand which individuals and their vantage points are needed. Language Policy & Teacher Training As a methodological construct, language policy and planning (LPP) is grounded in finding and solving issues manifesting within or as a result of policy implementation (Hornberger, 2015). Whether looking at a policy’s effect on learners, teachers, or schools, LPP (Hult & Johnson, 2015) starts with the community most affected by the policy and backtracks through structures to find faults in the implementation process or the policy itself. Hornberger (2015) explains how LPP research occurs everywhere and within any structure (e.g., governmental and private institutions); however, LPP researchers remain connected to the communities affected by the policy. Because standard 1.5 (Candidates for endorsement in [ESL] will demonstrate: An ability to distinguish between learning challenges and behaviors associated with language development and those associated with learning disabilities.) places an expectation on preservice teachers upon program completion, the preservice teachers were the initial community of focus 2 . However, in addition to the lack of perceived preparedness, the preservice teachers in this study had little knowledge of the standard. So, their lack of perceived preparedness and familiarity with standard 1.5 only points 2 It must be noted that the expectation standard 1.5 places on preservice teachers requires knowledge outside of current teacher preparatory programs. As noted in the literature review, the current educational landscape in the U.S. lacks the ability to adequately deal with ExLLs. 6 to an issue in the implementation process. To uncover the cause of the issue, all stakeholder experiences must be considered. Johnson and Johnson (2015) recognized that although individuals belong to the same implementation process, they do not always have equal agency. This recognition led the authors to construct a theoretical model (see Figure 2) that seeks to understand power and agency dynamics within and across layers of policy implementation, characterizing “how imbalances of power emerge in language policy processes and define language policy arbiters as individuals who have a disproportionate amount of impact on language policy and educational programs” (p. 222). Mapping Johnson and Johnson’s model to this context, two arbiters were found within the curriculum: 7 Figure 2 Program Model (Johnson & Johnson, 2015) Though the model proved helpful in identifying arbiters, its linear structure oversimplified the implementation process. It did not represent how the arbiters’ experiences influenced the ways the standards were implemented at each layer. Additionally, the linear structure implied that all individuals understood their role and had a direct connection to the other layers. This model immediately proved problematic, given the decentralized nature of the curriculum (Figure 1). Therefore, this study needed to expand the Johnson and Johnson (2015) model both ontologically and epistemologically to conceptualize and reflect the arbiters’ experiences accurately. 8 Justification of Study To fully understand why the preservice teachers in this study do not feel they are prepared to meet standard 1.5 (addressing ExLLs), this study uses social systems theory (Luhmann, 2013a; 2013b) and short story narrative inquiry (Barkhuizen, 2016;2017) to expand Johnson and Johnson’s 2015 model focusing on each layer separately, then comparatively. The findings of this study offer a different perspective for LPP studies generally and for teacher training specifically. As for preservice teachers, understanding their perceived readiness concerning the standards supports the argument made by Vermunt et al. (2019) that it is the individual, not the program, that ensures readiness. Additionally, the study further expands on Vermunt et al. (2019) by showing how course instructors’ actions interact with an active or passive approach. For teacher educators, this study highlights how the instructor impacts the implementation process beyond delivering the content of the courses. Finally, this study has implications for policy implementation researchers by showing the complexity associated with implementation not currently highlighted in existing models. The following research question guides this study, each one addressing the different participant groups: 1. What factors contributed to preservice teachers’ perceived readiness? 2. What factors influenced course instructor effectiveness? 3. How did the curriculum coordinator navigate their role? Manuscript Structure The following chapter further details how social systems theory (Luhmann, 2013a; 2013b) connects the theory to the Johnson and Johnson 2015 model. It explains the applicability of short story narrative inquiry (Barkhuizen 2016; 2017) as an analytical method of understanding 9 experiences. Then, three finding chapters will be presented in the following order: Preservice teachers, course instructors, and the curriculum coordinator. The implementation layers in Figure 2 will be reconceptualized in each chapter based on the findings, further expanding the existing Johnson and Johnson (2015) model. Finally, the last chapter will present the entire model, which will serve as the backdrop for the discussion around the implementation process. 10 CHAPTER 2: THIS STUDY Theoretical Framework The frameworks used to extend the Johnson and Johnson (2015) model serve two purposes. Social systems theory (Luhmann, 2013a; 2013b) establishes the ontological foundation by understanding social phenomena as a series of interwoven systems. Short story narrative inquiry is used as the methodological tool to understand how these arbiters act within their layer and what elements of their environment influence such actions (Barkhuizen, 2016). Short story narrative inquiry highlights the relationship between how an individual understands their role’s expectations and the subsequent actions that either coincide or conflict with role expectations. I expand on social systems theory (SST) first, explaining its concept of system, and then connect it to Johnson and Johnson’s (2015) framework. Social Systems Theory Social Systems Theory (SST) is attributed to Niklas Luhmann, a sociologist, who defines society as a series of embedded and interconnected systems (2012a), each characterized by their established practices and procedures. These practices and procedures are derived from the system’s contextualization of elements from the immediate environment through protocols that sustain the system’s existence. Maintaining existence makes the system unique, separating it from the environment it exists in and other systems in the environment (2013b). Generally, there are three constructs referenced in SST: environment, system, and subsystem (Figure 3). 11 Figure 3 Social Systems Theory (Luhmann, 2013a) The environment surrounds the system, and the system encompasses subsystems. What separates constructs from each other are the self-sustaining protocols constructed from information in the environment. This separation is referred to as differentiation. However, these constructs (environment, system, subsystem) are subject to observer focus. Should the focus shift to the environment, the environment becomes the system, redefining the other constructs accordingly. The same can be said should the focus narrow to a subsystem. The subsystem becomes the system, with the previously defined system becoming the environment. However, this relationship between levels should not be misinterpreted as constant influence between constructs. 12 The interconnectivity of environment, system, and subsystem does not mean that influence–exchange of information between constructs– is seamless, however, the influence between constructs results in the deconstruction of the construct to intake new information. After the new information is processed, new protocols are created, closing the system. An example of this could be seen in different responses to recent movements in the LGBTQIA+ community surrounding appropriate pronoun use. The change in perception around person pronouns is new information that is then processed by different systems to different effects. Institutions of higher education have operationalized this information both administratively (by adding choice of pronoun to documentation) and practically (establishing practices that allow pronoun choice to be shared). The opposite can be seen in other systems what are constructed with principles that conflict with the LGBTQIA+ community. SST is ideal for this study as it reconceptualizes the individual’s actions as protocols that highlight how they understand their role. Because SST is a broader sociological theory, it can be applied to any social context. SST has been used in education studies, for example. Baraldi and Corsi (2017) apply SST to education (generally in society), further elaborating on the relationship between system and environment: Systems only operate within themselves: they are the only side of the system- environment distinction that is determined. Therefore, systems cannot take anything from the environment. On the one hand, the environment is important, as it is a continuous source of ‘irritations’ for the system, which must continuously work on these irritations. (p. 13) Notably, a system only interacts with the environment through irritations resulting from a disconnect between the environment and the system. Irritations are the result of new information 13 presented in the environment, which a system can incorporate the new information through deconstruction and then reconstruction. It must be stated that the terms disconnect and irritant may elicit a negative connotation, but such is not the case. Overall, this irritation phenomenon is natural because societies constantly evolve through social progression, technological advancement, and population turnover. Regarding education, Baraldi and Corsi (2017) give an example of irritation by describing the relationship between policy and the classroom. When new policies are introduced in a school, irritations (e.g., changes in administrative procedures) are present between the environment (the school) and the systems within it (classrooms). In one case, the classroom deconstructs the procedures put into practice by the teacher and enacted by the students by eliminating preexisting protocols based on previous policy. The classroom then establishes new protocols after meaning is made of the new policy, thus ending the irritation and disconnect with the environment. Another example of this phenomenon can be seen between societal views of the purpose of education and educational institutions such as the relationship (historically) between multilingual education and political and public perception of immigrants (De Costa et. al., 2021). Baraldi and Corsi (2017) explain the role education plays within society: 14 Education may be observed in all societies. Even in the simplest societies, children are reminded that they must ‘leave the hut to pee.’ It would be inappropriate to wait for socialization; on the one hand, it would take too long, and on the other, its effects would be frequently not reproduced in other situations. In these simple societies, socialization and education are produced together, without distinction, in small groups. Nevertheless, it is possible to observe the embryonic differentiation of education. Education became more differentiated with the increasing complexity of society led to observe that it was not possible to accept socialization alone, in particular when children are expected to learn something that their parents did not know. (p. 44) As noted above, attention should be paid to two points. Education is fundamental to society as it systemically integrates younger generations in a controlled setting. Education is integral to the advancement of society through its production of a more knowledgeable population. The responsibilities of education demand trained professionals (teachers) who possess the necessary skills in the form of pedagogical practices. These practices are some of the elements the teacher uses to construct the classroom system. In the context of TESOL teacher education programs, instructors are tasked with socializing preservice teachers (often monolinguals) into the profession and educating them on pedagogical practices focused on developing English language proficiency while learning subject material (e.g., mathematics & language arts). Upon entering their classrooms, the pre- is removed, and the teacher takes the knowledge gained from their program and operationalizes it. This scenario is ideal; however, this is not often the case as it requires the preservice teacher to operationalize pedagogical practices based on the instructor’s interpretation of how those practices should manifest in the classroom. For example, preservice 15 teachers may receive instruction from an individual who has experience teaching adult language learners but themselves end up teaching elementary aged students. It may be the case that what is deemed appropriate by the instructor is not by the preservice teacher in their own classroom. Identifying misalignments between the instructor’s interpretation and the preservice teacher’s operationalization requires understanding the different systems in play. To do this, we return to the notion of differentiation. As stated earlier, differentiation (Luhmann, 2013b) is the boundary that separates systems from the environment and each other. However, this boundary exists in two realms, each attributed to different factors and, at times, does not mirror each other. Objective differentiation (paritio) is constructed through the system’s defining characteristics concerning the environment from which it was constructed (Luhmann, 2013b). In education (Biraldi & Corsi, 2017), paritio can be both spatial (e.g., the structures that designate where the school begins; the walls of the classroom that separate it from others) and temporal (e.g., roles and responsibilities associated with a position within an organization). The other side of differentiation exists within the subjective. When a paritio is not clearly understood by the individuals within a system, the individuals will establish a perceived boundary that may or may not coincide with paritio. This perceived boundary is called divisio and is vital to understanding the actions of those within a system. When defining divisio, Luhmann (2013b) describes how systems are sometimes fragmented by constructing subsystems when the paritio and divisio are drastically different. The primary cause of this difference is reflected in the protocols (actions) of the individual, which are based on their knowledge of their role and responsibility. 16 Knowledge generates the information that establishes self-sustaining protocols maintaining the system's existence (Baraldi & Corsi, 2017). Knowledge must be continuously reinforced for the system to continue, and because the system is a closed system, all of this happens internally. Knowledge is reinforced through the distinction between possibility and actuality (Baraldi & Corsi, 2017). Recognizing what is expected of an individual (paritio) needs to be complimented by what that individual think is expected of them (diviso). Regarding this study, distinguishing between possibility and actuality of the course instructors and the curriculum coordinator is the focus given their role as arbiter. What their role constitutes can be inferred with a general understanding of higher education, but it may not coincide with how the individual understands their role. Additionally, systems exist alongside other systems within the same environment, which means they were established from the same elements resulting in shared characteristics. The sharing of features (e.g., personnel, resources, goal) cannot be viewed further than a coincidence and must not be used to connect systems. The same is said should a system incorporate new information from the environment. The system must first deconstruct, make new connections, establish new knowledge, and reconstruct into a new system. When combing SST with the Johnson and Johnson (2015) model, we get a clearer picture of the university’s program. 17 Figure 4 Program Model (Johnson & Johnson with SST) The combination, shown in the figure above, starts to clarify the implementation process by shifting focus. Rather than looking at the program as the system, we turn inward to the components within, identifying each as a system. This shift now directs the study’s inquiry to each system to understand its differentiation, knowledge, and protocols. Doing so will provide an accurate representation of the intricacies of the implementation process. One notable exemption from the combined model is the arbiters. This is intentional, given the inherent friction between the LPP and SST regarding influence and connectivity. Where LPP looks at the program as 18 sequential, SST views it as a collection of systems separate from one another. This conflict makes the arbiters (i.e., course instructors and curriculum coordinator) paradoxical as it is unclear what system they exist in or if they are their system. This paradox cannot be resolved conceptually and requires understanding the arbiter’s differentiation. However, differentiation comprises divisio and paritio, and to tease them apart, we need to understand the arbiter’s experience. To do this, short story narrative inquiry (Barkhuizen, 2016; 2017) is used as an analytical method because it contextualizes individual experience through action and reaction. Understanding the actions and reactions within an individual’s experience can help separate the divisio from the paritio clarifying the boundaries between systems. Short Story Narrative Inquiry Given that this study focuses on factors that contributes to preservice teachers’ perceived readiness and course instructor effectiveness as well as how the curriculum coordinator navigates their role in a TESOL teacher education program, short story narrative inquiry is the best analytic method in terms of focusing on how the individual conceptualizes their experience. However, analyzing just the raw narrative can only provide a surface-level explanation limited to what is explicitly stated. Narratives must be structured through short stories (Barkhuizen, 2016; 2017) to contextualize the individual’s experience–within the system–to separate divisio and paritio. Barkhuizen (2016) describes short stories as, “[E]xcerpts of data extracted from a larger set of data such as conversations, interviews, written narratives, and multimodal digital stories.” (p. 660). Through the three levels of short story, the knowledge and actions of the individual are clarified through connections. Barkhuizen (2017) describes how short stories are analyzed, “Short stories are analyzed thematically in detail for both content and context, an analytical focus typical of narrative inquiry” (p. 65). 19 These connections are detailed further in the subsequent paragraphs but are made at the immediate experience, which captures how the individual acts in their role (story); then expanded to the divisio, which is how the individual’s understanding of their role (Story). Finally, the scope is extended again, comparing the divisio to the paritio, which is determined by other systems (STORY). The figure below provides a visualization of short story analysis in conjunction with SST. 20 Figure 5 Short Story Analysis within SST 21 A story is an intimate portrait of the individual’s experience as it focuses the analysis on sense-making but does not go further than explaining how one internalizes an experience. An example of a story (the first level) is found in Barkhuizen (2016), which shows how a Tongan English-language teacher formed her teacher identity around the need to help her family improve their English skills. This motivation originated internally, not through the teacher education program she was currently attending. Starting at the story level helps uncover the context individuals already have established as they engage in the experiences shared through the narrative. Understanding the preexisting context ensures that the overall tone, which sets precedence for the rest of the analysis, originates from the narrative and is not misinterpreted by the listener. I collected stories from three groups of participants: preservice teachers, course instructors, and the ESL course coordinator. For preservice teachers, the analysis guided by their ability to demonstrate their knowledge but by their perceived readiness. The purpose of a story is to determine if there is a positive connection between the curriculum (preservice teachers feel they are adequately prepared), a negative connection (preservice teachers do not feel adequately prepared), or inconclusively (a mixture of responses). For course instructors, the focus is understanding how they internalized their preparation and its effects on their instruction. Finally, the course coordinator’s story will show their understanding of their role and responsibility. Once each participant group’s narrative tone is established, the analysis can move to the second level of short stories (Story), which connects the narrative tone to external factors. Barkhuizen (2016) explains the Story level: 22 Included here are wider scale interactions with institutional members outside the classroom; consequences of decisions made by others in the work environment; and their attitudes, expectations, and prescriptions; for instance, a school’s language-in-education policies and assessment practices, and a community’s socioeconomic and cultural demographics. On this scale of Story, teachers usually have less agency to construct their practices, their identities, and their stories. Social structures are more rigid and difficult to penetrate and therefore change is less likely to be achieved. (p. 663) Though Barkhuizen refers to a language classroom, the message still applies to this study, which examines ESL teacher education. The preservice teachers are in their internship year, forcing them to enact their knowledge within a school and classroom. The course instructors are navigating multiple roles and are dependent on the onboarding process of their college to prepare them for their courses. The coordinator ensures that the university’s curriculum is aligned with the state’s standards while meeting their professional goals and milestones. However, at the Story level, we are still operating within the individual’s perception of where their role begins, ends (divisio) and the agency afforded by their role. Connecting this level to the first, the implementation process can start to explain the correlations expressed by the participants in terms of their perceived readiness. The final (STORY) level will further clarify individual experience within the broader context of Johnson and Johnson’s (2015) model. As noted by Barkhuizen (2016): 23 Last, STORY (in capital letters) refers to the broader sociopolitical contexts in which teaching and learning takes place. Here teachers have even less power to make decisions about conditions which influence their practice. Examples of STORIES include national language policies and testing regimes, curriculums imposed on schools by Ministries of Education; teaching education standards; and discourses of race, gender, immigration. (p. 663, emphasis added) At this level, the paritio of all systems is established through comparisons between another and the original Johnson and Johnson (2015) model. Discrepancies found when comparing systems could inhibit the implementation process through responsibility gaps (i.e., the misinterpretation that responsibility belongs to another party when it falls under their role). Should differences exist between an individual’s divisio and paritio, their short stories can point to what contributes to such differences. For preservice teachers, the lack of readiness may not seem like an issue if their understanding of the responsibilities of an ESL-endorsed teacher excludes ExLLs. For the instructors, guidance about what their role can and cannot do as they take over a course may influence their freedom to modify the content, which may or may not meet state standards. Finally, the ESL course coordinator's understanding of their role within their professional duties may influence how they navigate the decentralized curriculum. Social Systems Theory (Luhmann, 2013a; 2013b) further expands the Johnson and Johnson (2015) model, moving away from a top-down linear model. Instead, layers are reconceptualized as separate systems, emphasizing individual sense-making to identify discrepancies in the implementation process. These discrepancies are found by comparing how the individual’s understanding of their role (divisio) to what is understood by other systems (paritio) and the preexisting LPP model (Johnson & Johnson, 2015). Such comparisons can only 24 be made through the short story analysis levels that systematically conceptualize the individual’s experience internally and externally. Alignment of Theoretical and Analytical Framework Language policy and planning (LPP) often conceive policy implementation as a sequence of actions starting from policy initiation to the institution tasked with implementation. Johnson and Johnson (2015) further this notion by highlighting points in the implementation process facilitated by actors who are responsible for operationalizing the policy within their level of the process (i.e., the language policy arbiters). In this study, I focus on how the state standard regarding ExLLs (i.e., Standard 1.5), manifests in the curriculum through different systems (preservice teacher, course instructor, coordinator. The following figure visualizes how short stories situate within the LPP and SST model. 25 Figure 6 Theoretical & Analytical Alignment (Initial Model) University Program Coordinator Paritio (STORY) Divisio (Story) Curriculum story Instructor Paritio (STORY) Divisio (Story) Instructor story Paritio (STORY) Divisio (Story) story Instructor Paritio (STORY) Divisio (Story) story Preservice Instructor Teacher Paritio (STORY) Paritio (STORY) Divisio (Story) Divisio (Story) story story 26 Summary of Terms System: Closed mean-making ecology. Environment: Immediate level beyond and encompassing a system. Differentiation: Boundary of system. Divisio: The perceived boundary of the system. Paritio: Actual boundary of the system. Story: Level of analysis focusing on an individual’s sense-making of their own experience. Story: Level of analysis expanding to incorporate elements tied to an individual’s experience to understand the perceived role which defines divisio. STORY: Level of analysis that defines paritio through comparing the divisio and original model. The remaining sections of this chapter focus on the methodology of this study, providing further details about the participants, context, and data. Methodology This study falls within the qualitative paradigm (Phaktiti & Paltridge, 2015) by employing a narrative inquiry methodology (Barkhuizen, 2019) to understand the lived experiences of individuals recognized as pivotal parts of the policy implementation process. This section expands on this study's context, participants, and data sources. Ethics is discussed through my reflexivity statement. Context and Procedure The central focus of this study is an ESL endorsement program at a state university in the United States. This endorsement is an addition to a content specialization and was not mandatory when the participants completed the curriculum. To complete the program, preservice teachers must take seven courses (five compulsory with two electives). Only the five mandatory courses 27 are discussed in this study to establish transferability between participants. Participants (detailed below) were interviewed using internet-based conferencing software, transcribed first through third-party software, and then corrected manually. Figure 6 details the research process for the preservice teachers. The procedure for course instructors and the ESL curriculum coordinator was limited to one interview and review of transcripts due to scheduling conflicts. Figure 7 Procedure for Preservice Teachers Participants Participants are categorized into three groups: ESL curriculum coordinator, Course instructor, and Preservice Teachers. All identifying information has either been omitted or changed to a pseudonym of the participant’s choosing. Additionally, gender-neutral pronouns are used for further anonymity. 28 Preservice Teachers. Preservice teachers are allowed to complete an internship year after completing the requirements for a Bachelor of Arts. This internship year comprises a teaching practicum where they are placed in a classroom with a practicing teacher, courses held by the institution, and professional development workshops. Again, preservice teachers at this stage have completed all required courses for the ESL endorsement. Recruiting participants with this distinction ensures that their perceived readiness is tied to the past knowledge gained during their time in the endorsement curriculum and not heavily influenced by on-the-job experience. The three preservice participants in this group are Cali, Robin, and Nichole. Cali has had a nearly lifelong interest in education, specifically in urban school settings. Though they did not have an urban school background, they joined an additional program that prepares preservice teachers for the urban context. It is through this program that they were introduced to the ESL endorsement. Currently, Cali is conducting their internship in an urban school setting with a majority Hispanic student population. The classroom they are assigned to allows them to work with elementary students, most of whom are classified as multilinguals. Robin joined the teacher preparatory program to fulfill a lifelong dream of becoming a teacher. Wanting to build a sense of community, Robin joined an additional program (focusing on urban education) that grouped students for the first two years. This group was centered around preparing educators for multilingual/multicultural classrooms. They were introduced to the ESL endorsement through their guidance counselor, which allowed them to apply courses already scheduled for their content specialty to satisfy the requirements. The information they gained through their experience in the teacher preparatory program has influenced how they viewed multilingual/multicultural students. 29 Nichole is currently placed in a diverse school, with half of their class classified as multilinguals. This placement has contributed to a positive experience in the teacher education program and the internship year. Unlike Cali and Robin, Nichole did not participate in the additional programs (urban or multilingual/multicultural) but wished they would have. Nichole finds value in the ESL endorsement and views its main tenants as beneficial for all students, regardless of their linguistic background. Course Instructors. Ten course instructors were interviewed for this study, as detailed in the table below. Due to the number of participants in this category, pseudonyms were not used. Instead of pseudonyms, instructors are referred to by the course they taught with a subletter assigned for further distinction. Table 1 Complete Course Instructor Breakdown Course Instructors Course L1 Course L2 Course L3 Course E1 Course S1 Instructor A Instructor A Instructor A Instructor A Instructor B Instructor B Instructor A Instructor B Instructor B Instructor C Instructor C Instructor C Courses L1, L2, and L3 are housed in the same college each focusing on different aspects of second language acquisition. L1 focuses on general pedagogical methods for multilingual learners while L2 focuses on teaching English-language grammar. L3 is theoretically focused highlighting the historical shifts in theoretical perspectives on language learning. Course E1 is housed in the College of Education and covers a range of topics specific to multilingual education in the U.S. with the addition of a field experience component. S1 is housed in the College of 30 Sociology and covers multilingualism as a social construct. Of the twelve instructors, only two were full-time faculty (S1A & S1B), with the remaining being Ph.D. students (then) who were assigned the course through teaching assistantships. Instructors were identified based on the preservice teacher interviews to maintain continuity between policy implementation layers. Because this study focuses on identifying systems within the implementation process, it is vital to ensure that each course is connected in context and time to ensure that all elements belong to the same system. Instructors were recruited through email correspondence. However, the instructors for Course S1 did not respond and were not included in this study. Coordinator. The ESL curriculum coordinator is a tenure-track faculty member employed by E College. Their role as coordinator is not their primary duty, as they share this role with their teaching, research, and service requirements per their contract (detailed in Chapter 5). Their background is in multilingual education and curriculum/instruction development. Narrative Data My definition of narrative is based on Wengraf (2001), who defines narrative as one’s reconstruction of past events that “conveys tacit and unconscious assumptions and norms of the individual or a culture group” (p. 115). The narrative is further conceptualized through the distinction between reconstruction and remembering. “Reconstruction is based partially on memory and partially on what the participant now senses is important about the past event” (Seidman, 2019, p. 95). It is essential to make the distinction to highlight that participants’ responses are not simply recalling information from their past but instead presenting a combination of information from the past along with a consideration of the audience (e.g., the researcher) receiving the information. This understanding of narrative and what constitutes a 31 narrative led to the choice of narrative inquiry as the analysis method. Below is an example of narrative reconstruction to detail the level of influence I had on data (re)presentation. Table 2 Data Reconstruction Example Raw Data Reconstructed Date (short story) Interview Question: How much freedom were 1: I based my materials heavily on the syllabus you given in this course regarding content used by the supervising faculty covered? 2: Thinking at the time that I did not have Response: I based my materials heavily on the much liberty in what to cover and that I had to syllabus used by the supervising faculty, cover the same material thinking at the time that I did not have much 3: I was later told that I might have been liberty in what to cover and that I had to cover wrong about that the same material. I was later told that I might 4: I did not know just how much liberty I have been wrong about that actually had So, as I mentioned, I did not know just how 5: Back in my home country, you do not have ANY liberty regarding the content because the much liberty I actually had Back in my syllabus is created by the institution home country, you do not have ANY liberty 6: Even when they ask you to write the regarding the content because the syllabus is syllabus, this has to be based on the previous created by the institution. Even when they ask syllabus, with only a few changes, so still no you to write the syllabus, this has to be based liberty on the previous syllabus, with only a few changes, so still no liberty. 32 Narratives were collected through interviews following the Biographical Narrative Interpretive Method (BNIM) design (Wengraf, 2001). All participants (preservice teachers, course instructors, and ESL curriculum coordinator) were interviewed to elicit personal narratives about their experience involved in the policy implementation process. The only exception was instructor L2B who could not participate in an interview. Their narrative was collected through a written response to the interview questions. The interview protocols (see appendices) were designed following the three-interview format of the BNIM. However, not all participant groups were subject to three interview sessions. For the course instructors and coordinator, one interview session provided enough time to recall their experience and address all questions. After the narratives were collected, short stories (Barkhuizen, 2016; 2017) were constructed (detailed previously). Researcher Reflexivity My familiarity with the context of this study is a combination of professional and educational experiences. My undergraduate was in elementary education, coupled with an ESL endorsement. The teacher preparatory program I completed required me to take additional courses to achieve my ESL endorsement, similar to these preservice teachers. The ESL courses I took focused on preparation to instruct English language learners in both language and content. However, ExLLs were not a population covered in the curriculum. After completing my preparatory program and entering the profession, I encountered ExLLs but felt unprepared to instruct them properly. As a result, I relied on special education to identify their needs. This turned out to be problematic due to the lack of knowledge special educators had regarding second language instruction and development. Fortunately, the field of education has identified ExLLs as a unique student population, as have policymakers (Kangas, 2014; Randez & Cornell, 2023). 33 State standards (like the one in this study) are now in place as a response to the identification of ExLLs and their needs. However, I have seen the disconnect between teacher preparatory courses and the educational environment as a former preservice teacher myself. How I was being trained to teach was based on an ideal classroom with ideal students, which was not reflected in what was happening in the schools where I worked. Rather than comment on this disconnect between teacher preparatory and the educational environment, the negative impact it may have on preservice teacher readiness, or how the needs of ExLLs are not being met, I intend to use the findings of this study to inform (1) those responsible for the education of preservice teachers, (2) the program coordinators responsible for designing/aligning curriculum with state standards, and (3) the preservice teachers themselves. 34 CHAPTER 3: PRESERVICE TEACHER FINDINGS To answer the first research question (i.e., What factors contribute to preservice teachers’ perceived readiness to instruct ExLLs), short stories are presented from Cali, Robin, and Nichole. These stories were collected near the end of their practicum teaching year, which consists of two academic semesters. Stories will be presented individually and centered around their perceived readiness to instruct ExLLs connecting that readiness to the curriculum. The short stories of Cali, Robin, and Nichole are analyzed at all three levels (story, Story, STORY). Commentary about their immediate experiences represent the story level while connections made to the curriculum fall under the Story level. Finally, broader commentary about preservice teacher preparatory and ExLLs come from STORY level analysis. This chapter closes with a discussion connecting points found between the participants. Cali In addition to their elementary undergraduate major, and ESL minor, Cali participated in a program that helps prepare preservice teachers for urban school environments. They are currently interning in an intercity school with a large Hispanic student population. This program/internship environment has helped Cali understand the needs of multilingual students in an intercity context. Two stories from Cali address the research question and their thoughts on the demands presented to teachers who are asked to instruct an ExLL. The following story is based on standard 1.5. 35 Cali Story 1: Halfway There 1: Maybe not as much when it says, "and those associated with learning disabilities", 2: but I do feel prepared teaching students with language development needs. 3: I took [special education course] but it was a lot of definitions 4: “This is this learning disability, and it could affect this.” 5: But they didn’t really teach how to deal with those things and meet their needs 6: [W]e’ve talked about that in my placement this semester 7: a lot of teachers have been referring students for special needs services. 8: So we didn't refer anyone, at least in the beginning of the year because we realize that it's because of their language differences. 9: But I don't know how much of that was actually covered in my classes. 10: I think I've learned more about that through my placement this year, than it was like in my TESOL classes. The first two lines are the inspiration for the title Halfway There. As stated, Cali finds their training (the curriculum) has not prepared them to work with special needs students (Line 1). However, Cali’s internship experience (Lines 6-10) has aided their confidence to work with multilingual students (Line 2). Again, Cali’s internship has preservice teachers like themselves working with a large multilingual student population, but the lack of knowledge to meet standard 1.5 is not just present in Cali but in the more senior educators at her internship (Line 7). Cali’s short story highlights several points. Cali, who has completed the ESL curriculum in her teacher preparation program, does not feel that she has the knowledge required to meet standard 1.5, which requires them to have the knowledge to distinguish linguistic from special needs (Line 1). However, Cali took courses in 36 special education but found that the information was difficult to apply to real-world educational settings (Lines 3-5). So, there seems to be a disconnect between their courses and their current teaching context. Line 10 summarizes Cali’s experience around the crossover between language and special education. This shows that Cali has placed more importance on their internship, which they see as the most applicable resource to prepare them for the profession, rather than the courses they took. Line 9 supports this statement by showing an inability to connect their experience to their course content. The conversation then turned to the hypothetical, and Cali shared their thoughts about what it would be like working with ExLLs. Cali Story 2: Multiple Considerations 11: You would definitely have to be aware of their special needs, whatever it may be 12: but you can't only rely on, "Well, that's the only thing that's causing them to be behind in their learning. 13: Because it can also be because of their English as a second language. 14: So you just have to account for both of those things. 15: I’ve thought about it a little bit. 16: I don't have any special needs students. 17: I have two students that are receiving supports for speech, but that doesn't affect their ability to write or speak in class. 18: So I haven't fully thought about it. 19: I've more just thought about the ELL aspect of it. 20: But I think that could be really challenging for students especially at my school. 21: More than half, probably 80% of my students are ELLs. 37 22: If it was a student who is both ELL and has some sort of special needs or learning disability, I think that would be really challenging for them because there's two things that are seen as setbacks. When viewing a student demographic holistically, it is difficult to identify specific needs from generalized inferences about the group. However, a holistic view is what is provided when policies categorize students. This is more evident for ExLLs, who belong to two marginalized U.S. public education system groups (i.e., English-language learners and special needs students) Cali is relatively new to the profession, but as line 12 shows, they can sympathize with a group they have had no contact with (line 16) and had little thought of previously (line 15). When comparing the two short stories, one can see why Cali is confident in their language-learning pedagogical knowledge (Line 2). However, this confidence was obtained through their internship experience (Lines 10 and 21). When connecting Cali’s experience to broader contexts, it brings to attention some concerns about the preparation of preservice teachers. Again, standard 1.5 requires that teachers with an ESL endorsement possess the knowledge to distinguish between language and special needs. Cali clearly states that they do not possess the complete body of knowledge mentioned in the standard (Lines 1 & 2) but understand possible issues this knowledge gap presents. Lines 6-8 show the difficulty educators at Cali’s placement are experiencing when determining the appropriate services for students they feel are ExLLs. Cali has some experience with special education (lines 3 & 4) but not within an educational context (lines 5 & 16). This knowledge gap has forced Cali to rely solely on their language-specific pedagogy, heavily influenced by time spent outside the curriculum. For Cali, the internship and language-specific pedagogy are the two factors that contributed to their perceived readiness (RQ1) which seemed to validate one another. The information Cali drew from their TESOL 38 courses is validated by their internship because they were working with a larger English learner population. The opposite was seen regarding their special education course which was not identified as a factor because Cali had not had the same level of experience in their internship. The considerations brought forward by Cali’s stories were echoed by Robin’s. Robin Robin is currently placed in a multilingual/multicultural kindergarten classroom. Students in this school consist of immigrant and refugee students along with domestic multilingual. Overall, Robin has had a positive placement experience which they attribute to the resources available in the school. Robin’s understanding of their placement school’s resources developed from conversations they had with other preservice teachers who are placed at other schools, “I’ve heard from some interns [my school] has a lot more resources and support from administration and things like that. So, I think it’s a great school.” (Interview 1). Robin was the only one who stated they felt prepared to instruct ExLLs. The following short story was constructed when Robin tried to recall whether ExLLs were covered in their courses. The second story reflects Robin’s thoughts on what class the topic of ExLLs would fit should that be included in the curriculum. 39 Robin Story 1: One or the Other 1: I don't remember talking about like that specific population. 2: I don't remember talking about what if you have a language learner with special needs. 3: I do remember talking about the stereotype that language learners often get treated like they have a disability. 4: Or teachers view them like a student that might have a disability. 5: I know, we talked about that. I don't think we talked about like, "what if your learner actually did have a disability and was a second language learner". Like, what would you do then? 6: So I think it was mentioned, the two different populations [i.e., English-language learners and special needs students] and how to manage those two different populations and how they're not the same. 7: But we never really talked about that particular, crowd of kids that fall into both categories. And, what to do in that specific case. Robin’s knowledge of ExLLs is truncated because of the curriculum. Lines 3-5 highlight their experience discussing language and special education issues. The topics Robin could recall were an awareness of what multilinguals face in schools, both generally (Line 3) and in the classroom (Line 4). However, ExLLs are not represented in this short story (Lines 1, 2, 5, and 7). The lack of representation left Robin with the perception there is little crossover between language and special education (Lines 6 and 7). Lines 1 and 2 clarify that Robin did not encounter this topic during their time in the curriculum. Now that they know of ExLLs, they were asked to consider which course this population would fit into. 40 The following story covers Robin’s attempt to situate ExLLs within the curriculum. This exercise intended to uncover the connections Robin makes when asked to revise their past courses with present knowledge of ExLLs hypothetically. Robin Story 2: A Theoretical Consideration 8: Maybe [Course L3]. 9: I feel like there was already a lot to unpack in [Course] E1. 10: [Course L3] was probably my least favorite ESL class. 11: Every time we had the class, we had to answer something about what we read 12: which I remember thinking wasn’t very beneficial 13: So, we learned a lot about the differences between learning a first language and acquiring a second language 14: I think we learned a lot about how language is translated in the brain 15: I think it was very technical as far as I can remember. 16: So, I think my vote would be for [Course L3] to embed special needs students who are emergent bilinguals into that course L3 is a course housed in L College that focuses on the processes associated with language acquisition: Basic principles of learning a second or foreign language. Issues in first language acquisition. Theories in second language learning. Aptitude, motivation, attitude, learning grammar, age, learning in a classroom, myths, and facts about second language learning. (Course Description on University Registrars Webpage, 2022) 41 The focus of this course is where the title of this short story is drawn from, reinforced by Robin’s (Line 13). However, Robin makes presents two connections to Course L3. One connection is to themselves (Line 10), and the other to another course (Line 9). Lines 11 and 12 explain Robin’s feeling about that course (Line 10). However, they feel that the topic of ExLLs is appropriate for L3, which is more theoretical or technical. Robin’s story brings up another point when she recalls E1 (line 9). Course E1 is the only course in the curriculum with a field placement where preservice teachers interact with students in a public school. Whereas Course L3 focuses on theories associated with language learning, Course E1 is centered on applying instruction in the classroom (further explored in the next chapter). Robin’s struggle to situate ExLLs in the curriculum resulting in the topic being placed in L3 (Line 8) due to topic oversaturation in E1 (Line 9). Like Cali, Robin did not recall the topic of ExLLs covered in the curriculum. Both Cali and Robin lack the disability-associated knowledge to meet standard 1.5. Returning to the first research question (identifying factors that contributed to readiness) Robin’s factors mirror Cali’s (i.e., language- specific pedagogy and internship); however, Robin’s second short story (where they attempted to place ExLLs in the curriculum) brought to attention the relationship they had with some courses. This finding is further explored in the next chapter, but it is through Robin’s short story that the connection between preservice teacher and course was discovered. The lack of knowledge to teach ExLLs is further reflected in Nichole’s short story, but they are experiencing the effects of this knowledge gap in their internship. 42 Nichole Half of the 27 students in Nichole’s first-grade internship class are multilinguals. This ratio is reflected school-wide, similar to Robin and Cali’s internship. Nichole has emphatically embraced their placement in a multilingual/multicultural school setting which is different from their time as a student, “About half of our class are ELL students. So, they do not speak English at home, which completely amazes me.” (Interview 1). Nichole has a positive view of the curriculum, specifically the student-centered focus promoted throughout the courses. However, when it comes to ExLLs, there are concerns. When presented with standard 1.5, Nichole felt they did not have the necessary knowledge, disclosing, “Honestly, no. Which is something, when I was reading [the standard] back when you sent it, I found very interesting." (Interview 3). This perception is connected to an experience they had in their placement, detailed in the following short story. 43 Nichole Story 1: A Critical Gap 1: In my placement right now, around half of my class are English language learners. 2: There are some that my mentor and I talked about 3: it's very hard, especially in first grade, 4: whether it is a learning disability, or if it is just that language barrier. 5: I can think of one student specifically, who came in this year with very little English. 6: But now, has really excelled in the language aspect. 7: However, academically, he's still not quite there. 8: I just felt like I like really had no experience or knowledge of that. 9: So that was something that kind of surprised me, because I hadn't initially ever really thought of that. 10: And with that [ESL endorsement]; 11: I was surprised that I like hadn't learned anything about that. 12: we have another student, who is in ELL classes 13: but his language barrier is not a barrier in class. 14: He's very proficient in English, but he struggles more than other students do in school. 15: My teacher has been wanting to take him to [administration] to try and figure out what can we do to support him. 16: In kindergarten, they tried to take him to the [administration] meeting. 17: Because he is EL, I don't know if this is all schools, we have to wait until second grade or third grade, to see if it's just that. 44 Like Cali and Robin, Nichole works with multilinguals (line 1). However, they are the only one who has experienced a crossover between language and special education in their internship (Lines 3-7; 12-17). This experience has left Nichole at a self-perceived disadvantage (Line 8), placing them at odds with the curriculum (Lines 10 & 11). This experience conflicts with how they initially felt that they were prepared to work with language learners, “It’s cool to see what we are learning at [university] is what schools are implementing.” (Interview 1). The short story identifies this critical knowledge gap in education as both they and their mentor teacher are unsure how to get their suspected ExLL appropriate services (Lines 2-4; 15-17). This knowledge gap could have dire implications for their students as they might not receive the education services they need should they have a learning disability (Line 17). Nichole has two students they feel might be ExLLs (Lines 5-7; 12-14). For both students, Nichole does not feel that their struggles in the class are language-related (Lines 6 & 13). However, the knowledge gap (Lines 2-4) has disadvantaged these students, given that Nichole and their mentor teacher cannot convince the administration to assess the students for special needs (Line 17). Additionally, this is not the first time a teacher has attempted to have the student evaluated (Line 16) by the school administration. Nichole’s short story highlights that even more senior educators cannot meet standard 1.5. When asked where in the curriculum the topic of ExLLs could fit, Nichole was unable to think of a suggestion, “Honestly, I’m not sure which [course] it would fit in best. But I think it should be something that is taught.” (Interview 3). However, the following short story does highlight the disconnection between the curriculum and their internship. 45 Nichole Story 2: Application 18: I think this year I have learned, 19: I mean obviously we're in the classroom, so of course we're going to learn more. 20: I learned way more on how to implement different things. 21: Especially with my TESOL classes, a lot of that stuff I couldn't really put into my classroom. 22: How you can change your lesson plans if they speak this language at home 23: How can we bring that language into the classroom and doing that. 24: Which is great, and I would love to be able to do that. 25: But in the classroom I'm in right now, I wasn't able to do and there was like a ton of different things we are doing instead. Like Cali and Robin, Nichole found their internship (Lines 18-20) beneficial. The benefit is attributed to the applicability of teaching strategies cultivated in an actual classroom setting (Line 20). However, the applicability found in their internship was not present in the curriculum (Lines 21 & 25). Nichole could recall the broader considerations the curriculum presents (Lines 22 & 23) but failed to find the practicality behind them (Line 24). Returning to the first research question, the factors of language-specific pedagogy and internship were consistent throughout the three participants, with the internship validating the type of pedagogy that was adopted. Discussion The ESL endorsement standards are partly influenced by skills the standard committee recognizes as essential for preservice teachers to enter the profession. For standard 1.5, the following justification is provided: 46 Lastly, a new standard was added to support bilingual teachers’ ability to distinguish patterns of behavior and performance in the second language development process that may resemble patterns of behaviors exhibited by children with learning disabilities from manifestations of true learning disabilities. (State ESL Endorsement Standard Package; emphasis added) The standard expects preservice teachers who have completed the curriculum as able to distinguish between linguistic and special needs. Though a preservice teacher might not explicitly be aware of this expectation, it is applied to them upon their participation in preservice teacher training. The state education department uses endorsement as proof of knowledge because a preservice teacher is expected to have completed a curriculum based on their standards. Before the interviews, Cali, Robin, and Nichole were unaware of this expectation, however. Cali and Nichole rejected the notion that they had the knowledge necessary to meet the standard, while Robin only accepted the linguistic-oriented parts of the standard. So, to answer the first research question, what contributes to preservice teachers’ perceived readiness to instruct ExLLs, all three participants’ experiences were compared, which identified two overarching themes. Lack of Topic Coverage Between the three preservice teacher participants, it had been 1-2 academic years since they completed the ESL curriculum. However, all three struggled to remember individual courses within the curriculum but were able to recall broad concepts covered throughout: 47 Cali: So, I think [ESL] was my linguistics classes. I don’t think any of my [course E] classes were [ESL]. Maybe one of them. I get confused which ones are my [ESL] versus urban education. Robin: Sometimes I can’t quite remember which of my classes were just for [ESL] versus global education or [language arts] specialty. Nichole: Okay, I’m not going to lie. [ESL courses] all kind of get together. The lack of coverage is reflected in short stories from all participants. In Cali’s story Halfway There, they drew a connection to a special education course they took but failed to recall any knowledge specific to classroom application. It must be noted that the special education course Cali took was not a part of the curriculum, so only Cali took it. In One or the Other, Robin recalled discussing the crossover between language and special education but never fully engaged the topic beyond classification issued from the past. Robin’s recollection could point to a misunderstanding of what standard 1.5 asks of teachers. Distinguish is the verb used in the justification for the standard. Still, a lack of content specific to special education in the curriculum forces the preservice teachers to rely on their knowledge of language learning which is limited to general concepts related to multilingual learners. This segmented presentation (see Robin’s short story One or the Other lines 6 & 7) has profound implications when broadly commenting on teacher training and teachers' readiness to work with ExLLs. Nichole’s short story A Critical Gap shows the struggles educators (both novice and senior) experience when experiencing the crossover between language and special education. Through this story, we see that the lack of knowledge, as dictated in the standard, is absent from Nichole and senior educators in their placement school. Their mentor teacher and the administration were unsure how to distinguish between linguistic and special needs. This resulted 48 in a delay in the assessment for a learning disability for three grades. Furthermore, this delay was unwarranted, given that the student had demonstrated adequate English proficiency, according to Nichole. It should be stated the student in question had not been diagnosed; therefore, it should not assume that the child is an ExLL. By contrast, the scenario presented in Nichole’s story did connect to the issue raised in Ortiz (2002), which laments the types of students who are set up for failure in public education due to systemic shortcomings in the public education system’s procedures for identifying and accommodating ExLLs. Because Nichole, their mentor teacher, and the administration lacked the knowledge associated with standard 1.5, the student was not allowed to receive appropriate services, an issue that was identified twenty years ago (Ortiz, 2002). Through the short stories of Cali, Robin, and Nichole, we can see that the topic of ExLLs was not covered in the curriculum, leaving them unprepared to meet the standard. However, inserting the topic into the curriculum or increasing the saliency, if already present, does not fully solve the issue of adequate preparation, as we see in the disconnect between the curriculum and internship. Disconnect Between Curriculum and Internship Nichole’s short story Application perfectly contextualizes this consideration, “I mean obviously we're in the classroom, so, of course, we're going to learn more.” (Line 2). This line was elicited when Nichole was asked to compare the curriculum and what they experienced in their internship. Now, highlighting the disconnect between courses and actual classrooms is neither the point nor a revelation in educational research. However, when coupled with the first consideration (i.e., the lack of topic coverage in the curriculum), a systemic issue could inhibit the implementation of standard 1.5 in the curriculum. 49 In Nichole’s story Application, they highlighted the issue of the applicability of the concepts taught in the curriculum. Cali echoed this during our conversations when talking about balancing what they learned in the curriculum and the expectations placed on their multilingual students: How to make sure that they’re learning but also learning what the school requires. What they need in order to continue growing and moving to the next [grade]. I think I definitely wasn’t prepared for that, because I was like, “Oh cool. I’m gonna teach these second-grade standards, and it’s gonna go really well because they’re all gonna understand it.” And that’s not the case. (Interview 1) However, in Robin’s first interview, they reminded us that the time the preservice teacher participants went through the curriculum was during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which added another layer of complexity, “My junior and senior year were all virtual because of COVID. So, I couldn’t really even implement many lessons in person until I got to my internship year.” The difficulty connecting curriculum content and teaching contexts is a monumental task for any teaching program, but the disconnect is further exacerbated when addressing ExLLs. We return to Robin’s short story One or the Other, in which they recalled how the crossover of language and special education was discussed in the curriculum as a separate issue. Again, we must remember that standard 1.5 requires the ability to distinguish between characteristics of language proficiency and special need. In the third interview with Cali, they talked about their time taking a special education course, but the disconnect was still present: 50 I took [course], which is a special education class. But it was a lot about definitions, and even right now, I haven’t seen an [Individualized Education Plan]. In that class, they gave a lot of definitions like, “This is this learning disability, and it could affect this.” But they didn’t really teach how to deal with those [disabilities] and meet [student] needs. (Third Interview) Cali’s experience shows that knowledge of different learning disabilities without classroom context coupled with the ESL curriculum does not equate to perceived readiness t o work with ExLLs or meet standard 1.5. Cali could visualize ExLLs in the school they were conducting their internship; however, there was no immediate need for this knowledge, contrary to Nichole, who was currently facing her unpreparedness. The opposite was seen in Robin, who stated that they feel prepared to meet the linguistic-oriented portion of standard 1.5. Still, this preparedness could be attributed to the knowledge they gained while in their internship: In my internship experience we’ve had with our placement coordinator; we’ve had professional development and training and all that. We went through an [Individualized Education Plan], we followed a student to the special-needs classroom. I feel like we’ve done a lot of that in the internship year outside of just normal classes. (Third Interview) Robin saw the application that Cali was missing in their special education course (e.g., seeing an individualized education plan and observing students in the classroom). We cannot say that professional development is the sole reason for their perceived preparedness but given that Robin did not recall any mention of ExLLs while in the curriculum, it can be inferred that the 51 internship played a significant role. However, we need to expand our scope further to address the current problem: Standard 1.5 requires knowledge and skills beyond the scope of the curriculum as the topic itself is not fully understood by the educational system at both levels (public school and curriculum). Nichole was experiencing the effects of the problem by the public education system that delayed assessment for a student categorized as multilingual but was not impaired by their linguistic capabilities. Cali was able to take a special education course but could not incorporate what they learned with the ESL curriculum to envision what it would be like to work with an ExLL, even though they were working in a school with many multilinguals. Robin, who was the only one who felt somewhat prepared, could only recall the topics of language and special education being discussed separately. In sum, the disconnect between the curriculum and internship left the cultivation of knowledge to meet the standard up to chance. If preservice teachers like Nichole do not experience ExLLs, then there is little chance they will ever have the knowledge to meet the expectations of the standard because the topic is not covered in the curriculum. Even if the topic is covered, there is no continuity between the curriculum and what preservice teachers experience in their internships. Lastly, exposure to ExLLs in the internship will not substitute for the curriculum and plug in the knowledge gap because the gap is present in the educational system in which exposure happens. Closing Remarks The following figure details the system of the preservice teachers. 52 Figure 8 Preservice Teacher System In the figure above, it is understood that the preservice teachers construct their systems based on information from the curriculum, not the whole implementation process, as detailed in the Johnson and Johnson (2015) model. There is no interaction between the preservice teachers and the standard itself, and it is through the curriculum that the standard is operationalized. Cali, Robin, and Nichole were unaware of the expectations placed on them because of their ESL endorsement, specifically the expectation that they can distinguish between linguistic and special needs. Simply put, they were not ready to instruct ExLLs. Additionally, Nichole was already experiencing the consequences as they struggled to advocate for their students. At least for Cali, Robin, and Nichole, there appeared to be ineffective policy implementation. 53 An initial conclusion would be to fault the curriculum, but as we have seen in the short stories, there is a disconnect between the curriculum and internship, which added another layer of complexity. This led me to ask: Is the disconnect an inherent trait of teacher preparatory programs, or is it the product of ineffective policy implementation? This question emerged from this chapter to provide context for the next, which takes us to the curriculum system. In this system, we look at the narratives of the individuals responsible for content delivery, the course instructors. Implementation at this level was manifested through content delivery by the course instructors. How instructors understand their responsibilities; how they are prepared for their courses; how they approach their courses; and what the impact of the course on preservice teachers are considerations discussed through the short stories in the next chapter. 54 CHAPTER 4: COURSE INSTRUCTOR FINDINGS This chapter covers the short stories of instructors for four of the five mandatory courses (L1-3, E1, & S1) in the ESL curriculum. Again, these instructors were chosen because they were the instructors for either Cali, Robin, or Nichole. Figure 8 shows the participant alignment between the two groups. Figure 9 Instructor/Preservice Teacher Alignment The stories from instructors were crafted to answer the following research question: What influences course instructor effectiveness? The subsequent sections are broken down by course and instructor. Similar to the previous chapter, there are discussion sections at the end of each course section to connect instructor stories. Then a final discussion closes the chapter to relate the findings within the curriculum. Additionally, findings from this chapter will be connected to the previous chapter. This chapter starts with the L1-3 courses. These courses are housed in a different college from the one where the coordinator and preservice teachers are employed and enrolled, respectively. The L course instructors in this study were chosen from a pool of Ph.D. students, and their teaching role is a part of their program funding. Instructor choices are made by a faculty committee from the department that houses the courses in their academic catalog. 55 Students interested in teaching L courses express their interest in the prior academic year by ranking courses by preference. However, these choices do not guarantee that they will be assigned that course or an instructor role. The first course highlighted (L1) is pedagogically oriented and focused on multilingual/multicultural learners. L1 Instructors L1 is a teaching methodology course that covers “National and international approaches, methods, materials, settings, needs, and characteristics of ESL and foreign language students. Survey, evaluation, and application of major effective methods and materials.” (University Website, 2022). Further details about the instructors cannot be provided to maintain anonymity, but no two instructors taught during the same semester. This timing also applied to the preservice teachers who took L1 in different semesters. L1A LIA was the instructor of Cali who expressed a readiness to teach English language learners, but not ExLLs. They also attributed their readiness to the internship experience more than the courses they took. Because L1 is a pedagogically focused course, L1A’s experience provides further clarification of the disconnect between the curriculum and internship. L1 was the first choice of L1A, who hoped to gain experience teaching at the university level. In the following short stories, we are introduced to procedures associated with onboarding new instructors. L1A’s experiences offer insight into how instructors are prepared to take over the course through the materials and information provided. What becomes evident is the level of preparation can influence the instructor’s perceived effectiveness. This first short story covers L1A’s overall impression taking over the course. 56 L1A Story 1: Thrown into a Cage 1: I got all the materials from [previous instructor] who taught this course before. 2: I was learning the content, as I was teaching it 3: it's like you are being thrown into a cage 4: Because I did not get any training 5: So you kind of do it with zero knowledge of what you need to do 6: I really did not have any background knowledge of the educational policies and the system in the United States 7: because we don't learn this 8: If you are really, really into this, then you probably would be doing a bit more study outside of the given materials and doing some search by looking into different textbooks 9: But who has that time? No one has that time 10: So, it was a good learning experience for me. Because if I did not teach that class, I would not know all of this content about sheltered instructed language teaching, and also the K-12 American system in the US. 11: So from that aspect, I'm actually grateful that I was able to teach this course 12: But it was really challenging, because I really did not receive any guidance 13: The only guidance that I received was the PowerPoint. Line 3 encapsulates L1A’s experience, while the rest unpacks the factors contributing to this feeling. The first factor was the lack of background and understanding of the classroom context (Lines 2, 5, 6). Again, the program L1A belonged to is housed in a different college from the one that oversees the TESOL endorsement which might be why L1A lacked a connection to the content (Lines 4, 7, & 12). This lack of connection (Line 6), whether in the form of training 57 (Line 4), background information (Line 7), and guidance (Line 12), resulted in L1A having to rely on the information provided by the previous instructor in the form of materials used during their time teaching the course (Lines 1 & 13). However, L1A overcame the lack of preparedness by treating their time in the course as a learning experience (Line 2). L1A learned the content with their students (Line 10) and showed appreciation for that experience as it plugged gaps in knowledge they wouldn’t have by other means (Line 11). Interestingly, L1A provides a possible solution that would have minimized the struggle one would have when taking over this course with minimal background (Line 8). However, the solution requires the individual to take an initiative that may be outside their role's requirements (Line 9). The emphasis on personal initiative is further seen in the following short story, which covers L1A’s understanding of L1’s place in the ESL endorsement curriculum. L1A Story 2: Holistic View 1: Yeah, but that never sunk in. 2: We're so busy, and then we were asked to teach. 3: So you don't have like holistic view of what this is and what this actually means. 4: I don't think I stepped in with that mindset. 5: It was more of teaching another course. 6: So maybe after teaching this class two times, you will have a holistic view of this course. 7: But I never stepped into this class with a very good understanding of what the students actually need. 8: It was more of like checking off the To-Do list for me. 58 The initial lack of awareness of the course’s purpose of L1A, while in the instructor role, suggests that such knowledge is not vital to the curriculum – vital, in the sense that L1A was able to fulfill their role as an instructor without being aware of the purpose of their course. Line 3 furthers this notion, showing Social Systems Theory (Luhmann, 2013a; 2013b) has applicability to the instructor context. The previous short story shows a disconnect between the instructor and the course content. This short story has a disconnect between the course and the curriculum. Together, these disconnects begin to uncover the instructor system’s differentiation, but the exact boundary of role responsibility depends on the instructor. L1A developed an understanding of the course content as they taught, reiterating this point in this second story (Lines 2 & 6). However, it is left to the instructor to cultivate this understanding of student needs (Line 7). Reliance on the personal initiative of the instructor is then subject to the time the instructor has (Line 2) and how their instructor roles fit into their other obligations (Lines 5 & 8). In the end, L1A cultivated some familiarity with the needs of the students (Line 6), but the familiarity did not constitute a complete understanding of their course’s purpose (Line 1). L1A’s experience highlights the complexity of answering the research question on instructor preparation. A lot of information was missing about the course, leaving L1A having to rely on their ability to contextualize the course content (see Holistic View line 6). At the same time, they learned the content themselves (see Thrown into a Cage lines 6 & 10). L1A’s lack of preparation could have contributed to Cali’s inability to recall specific details about the course, “The one maybe with this [teaching methodology] …but I don’t remember exactly what [teaching methodology] is. But I think that we talked about that a lot in the class probably.” (Second Interview). 59 L1A’s short stories start to answer the second research question (What influences course instructor effectiveness?) by highlighting the importance of understanding the teaching context preservice teachers are training to work. Also, the events leading up to the first class meeting are important and this is the time where information about the course is passed to the incoming instructor. We now turn to L1B’s experience to see if the lack of preparedness taking over the course and lack of context associated with the course’s place in the curriculum are also present. L1B L1B was the instructor of Robin who, like Nichole, felt confident in their language- specific pedagogical skills but attributed that confidence to their internship which had them working with a high English learner population. L1B’s experience taking over the course shared similarities with L1A but with a glaring difference, “What I do remember for sure is that I got thrown into the course–which I did want to teach–a week before it was gonna start.” (Instructor L1B). Like L1A, L1B received materials from the previous course but had the additional resource to consult with faculty who had taken a supervisory role over the course. Continuing the conversation of instructors relying on personal initiative, started in L1A’s stories, we turn to L1B’s first story, which further highlights the implications associated with a lack of preparation—a lack of preparation forces instructors to establish their context from the course content. 60 L1B Story 1: Perspective 1: I definitely got the feeling that I was out of my depth 2: because the person who taught it before me was a cognitive researcher 3: So even the theory that was presented was cognitive orientation. Which is perfectly logical and makes sense, when you've got a cognitive researcher teaching a class 4: I am not suggesting even that all TAs should have been aware of their larger role as a cog in that machine. 5: I'm not suggesting that the cognitive researcher really should have had the wherewithal, or the time or the energy to say, "I'm not teaching this class the best way that would be appropriate." 6: I don't know that it's the TA's responsibility to make sure that they know how they're fitting into a broader educational structure that they have really just been thrown into 7: particularly in my case a week before they teach the course. 8: I don't know if it was because I had very little time to plan or come into the course. 9: And thus, the people who gave me the course also didn't have a lot of time. The addition of time constraints led L1B to rely entirely on the previous instructor’s materials and course structure (Line 7). However, this required L1B to learn course content from the previous instructor’s perspective, which presented another challenge given that L1B did not share the same scholarly background (Lines 2 & 3). The result left L1B further disadvantaged (Line 1) but also highlighted how the personal initiative of the instructor could be inhibited or enhanced by previous course iterations. Incoming instructors are not simply connecting to the content covered but doing so through the perspective of the previous instructor. The term instructor can reference a myriad of responsibilities depending on how the role is established. I use the term to reference the participants in this chapter because it reflects their responsibilities. 61 The actual title of the participants in this chapter is Teaching Assistant (TA), referenced in lines 4 through 6, which influences how L1B views their role’s responsibilities. Line 6 shows a point of tension within L1B, who struggled to adapt to an environment with minimal preparation, which is further conflated by misalignment between perceived role and associated responsibilities (Lines 5 and 6). It cannot be said that every individual who becomes an instructor will experience this internal strife, but it must be noted that L1B’s struggles stemmed from a lack of preparation. Furthermore, L1B questions the responsibility of the instructor to understand their course beyond what happens in the classroom. Line 4 illustrates this questioning is not a matter of unfamiliarity with the course’s purpose but of the instructor's responsibility to ensure that the course is appropriately situated within the curriculum (Lines 5 & 6). Again, L1B simply asks the question, which offers a counterpoint to the reliance on personal initiative. How the instructor perceives their role and responsibility influences how they connect to the content and the course to the curriculum. One might then ask what can be done in the instructor's preparation to activate personal initiative? A contributing factor to instructor perception is the amount of information they were given about the course regarding topic coverage and student body. The following story addresses what kind of context instructors need when taking over a course. 62 L1B Story 2: Just a Bit of Context 1: Why is my student in this class? 2: What do they need to know? 3: Who's deciding that? 4: Because [L] is teaching these courses 5: but they're fitting into an educational scheme developed by [E] 6: Someone may have explained to me how the students fit into that grander scheme. But a passing comment is not acculturation 7: Telling me a discrete item one time does not mean that I understand why the students are in my class 8: Maybe I'm being a little too idealistic about how much information someone who's just a TA 9: I felt a little bit like a peon like the foot soldier who was trudging out to do a job 10: Honestly, there should have been an orientation to the course Again, L1B struggles to fully understand their perceived role (Line 9) and associated responsibility (Line 8) within the curriculum, but understands that context is needed. L1B’s story shows the importance of context to understanding the students in the course (Lines 1-3) and the decentralized structure of the curriculum (Lines 4 & 5). L1B further elaborates on how context should be provided. Line 10 makes a call for course orientation to help incoming instructors understand the goals of the course, and students enrolled (Lines 6 & 7). Providing this context can help instructors minimize the distance between their divisio and paritio as they understand their role and responsibilities concerning the curriculum. Context aids in the connection between instructor and content (Line 1), course and curriculum (Line 2), and ultimately curriculum to standards (Line 3). Through the short stories of L1B, one can see echoes of the considerations 63 (importance of understanding where preservice teachers are training to teach & onboarding process) brought forward by L1A with additions. The reliance on the personal initiative of the instructor, due to a lack of preparation provided, is present in both L1A and L1B’s experiences. Additionally, there is a disconnect experienced by instructors both at the content level and curriculum level. The instructors eventually connected to the content while teaching but could never connect the course to the curriculum. However, L1B questions if establishing a connection between course and curriculum is the instructor’s responsibility. L1B’s second story further explains what type of preparation incoming instructors need, but the question of responsibility remains. L1B’s short stories offer another answer to Research Question 2 by highlighting the influence of perceived role responsibility. Thus far, we have seen how understanding the context preservice teachers are training for, the onboarding process, and how the instructor understands their role all influenced instructor effectiveness. We continue this thread with the final L1 instructor, who provides additional insight into internal conflicts felt by instructors. L1C L1C was the instructor of Nichole who was surprised by the expectation placed on them by standard 1.5, given the lack of topic coverage in the curriculum. Additionally, Nichole was facing the effects of the lack of preparedness as their internship had them working with a potential ExLL. L1C took over the course similar to the previous two instructors in terms of their onboarding process consisting of passing materials from the previous instructor. Still, it seemed to have a more extensive support system in the form of colleagues with experience teaching the 64 course. L1C recalls being able to call on their colleague with any questions about the content and assignments. The following story highlights L1C’s experience taking over the course, and how they reacted to the level of preparation given to them. 65 L1C Story 1: Freedom without Direction 1: At the end of the year, we have to submit this review 2: I actually wrote down the suggestion, "[L] instructors need more guidance." 3: And I remember next year, they started to give students more guidance 4: The next year [Faculty Members] at the very beginning, or even before the semester starts 5: they asked teaching assistants to have meetings and discuss what they should do 6: Before that we didn't have that kind of meeting 7: We just talk with other teaching assistants who taught this course before, and generate and share ideas and materials among ourselves 8: Of course, we also had the [University online learning platform] 9: We just added each other to our courses, and then shared the materials and downloaded the template 10: I think we had a lot of freedom. I mean, we have different research interests, right? 11: I probably placed more emphasis on the qualitative 12: Compared to other teaching assistants who come from the cognitive perspective 13: I think instructors can have their preference towards what kind of reading materials they want students to read, and what kind of class activities they want to implement. Three considerations are present in this short story, with the first being the exchange of materials from previous course iterations, like L1A and L1B (Lines 8 & 9). Again, the notable addition is access to a colleague who had previously taught the course, which aided the onboarding process (Line 7). The second consideration expands on the freedom given to the instructors (Lines 10-13). The instructors’ ability to align the course's perspective (Line 12) with their scholarly background is the reason behind the freedom. For L1C, the perspective of the 66 course dramatically influences the experience of the students enrolled (Line 13). Up to this point, it is understood that the lack of guidance provided to L1 instructors that resulted in their reliance on personal initiative to connect to the content of the course. Line 13 provides examples of how such initiatives manifest in the course. However, L1C took issue with this level of freedom to the extent that they advocated for structured preparation (Lines 1 & 2). It must be noted that the three L1 instructors were not introduced in sequence when they taught the course. So, it should not be interpreted that L1C was the last instructor to take over the course. This distinction is essential when discussing the changes made to the management of the course, seen in lines 4 & 5, but what should be taken away from those lines is that L1C’s feedback was taken into consideration. However, the changes made happened after L1C’s experience and were not reflected in the previous instructors’ experience. What was reflected was their perception of their role concerning their other obligations. L1C Story 2: Double Identity 1: When I was teaching that course, I was also a Ph.D. student 2: So I have double identities, being the instructor and also being the Ph.D. student 3: I was not sure whether I could teach other content courses at the undergrad level. 4: I thought I have to be the expert 5: I have to demonstrate that I have the ability to teach those courses 6: I actually learned from my teaching and learned from my students 7: I felt like this is a mutual learning journey. 8: So when I started to teach, I felt not well prepared even though I read the book 9: I don't know anything about that. 10: I do not have any experience in American K-12 setting 67 11: I didn't know the challenges and difficulties of English learners In lines 1 and 2, L1C mentions the two identities she navigated while teaching L1. This distinction is made in addition to the perceived characteristics associated with those roles. As a student, L1C experienced hesitation in taking over the course (Line 3). According to L1C, an instructor is a performer to some extent (Line 5) whose credibility is established by their content knowledge level (Line 4). This perception resulted in uncertainty entering the classroom even though L1C could review material ahead of time (Lines 8 & 9). This highlights the importance of an instructor minimizing the gap between themselves, content, and curriculum. The lack of background information left L1C unfamiliar with the educational context preservice teachers are training for (Line 10) and the future multilingual learners that will populate their classrooms (Line 11). L1C was able to address this by shifting the perception they had, which established their two identities (graduate student and instructor) as separate. Line 6 shows this shift as they no longer felt they had to be the expert (Line 4), resulting in better information exchanges between them and their preservice teachers. Their preservice teachers provided context, which allowed L1C to connect the course to the curriculum (Line 7). L1C’s short stories further clarify the answer to Research Question 3 highlighted by L1B (instructor perception of role) by expanding perception beyond just what instructors thought their duties were to how they felt they had to conduct themselves as instructors (i.e., being seen as an expert). In sum, the answers found across the L1 instructors generated important information about instructor system design. 68 L1 Instructor Discussion As described above, the purpose of L1 is to present language teaching methods to prepare preservice teachers to work with multilingual students. Through the short stories of the L1 instructors, two critical disconnections were uncovered between instructor/course and course/curriculum. The onboarding experiences of the L1 instructors had varying details; however, the process they went through to establish the connections had similarities. Primarily the absence of a standardized orientation provided by the department (for L1A, see short story Thrown into a Cage line 4; L1B, see Just a Bit of Context line 10; L1C, see Freedom without Direction line 6). Coupled with the lack of orientation was the freedom to construct the course to mirror their interests. This freedom allowed the instructors to make sense of the course’s content and context in all three cases. Content is defined by the material and subject manner of the course, which previous instructors passed on. Context refers to the projected educational environment the preservice teachers are training to enter. The instructors established a connection for content and context while teaching the course (L1A see Thrown into a Cage line 10; L1B see Just a Bit of Context line 7; L1C see Double Identity lines 10 & 11). Establishing this connection seems inevitable, given the direct interaction between the instructors and the preservice teachers. Consistent interaction establishes content/context cohesion in the classroom as instructors provide the content to the preservice teachers, who then provide and create the context (see L1Cs story Double Identity line 7). However, this was not the case when looking at the other connection in question, the connection between the course and the curriculum. There are no curriculum-wide practices that interact directly with the instructors, however. Again, the lack of a standardized onboarding procedure forces the instructors to identify their 69 responsibilities and enact procedures to meet those responsibilities. The first procedure is to establish the connection to content and context. Because establishing this connection is not immediate, there is little opportunity for them to broaden their scope to understand the course’s purpose within the broader curriculum. However, the instructor's short stories question whether establishing that connection is their responsibility. In lines 4 & 6 of the story Perspective, L1B is unsure that the responsibility is the instructor’s given that L1 instructors carry the title of Teaching Assistant rather than Instructor, regardless of their freedom over their course. This sentiment is echoed in L1A’s story Holistic View where they state that their priorities are found elsewhere (Lines 2 & 8), which is not surprising given that the instructors are students themselves (also see L1C’s story Double Identity). We continue to another course to see if there is theme continuity across different courses. L2 Instructors Of the three L courses highlighted, L2 has the most concise description: Teaching grammar to English-as-second language (ESL) students. Grammar lesson plan development. English grammar, error identification, common English- as-second language errors, evaluation of grammar textbooks, and role of error correlation in English-as-second language teaching. (University Website, 2022). Like the L1 instructors, the L2 instructors taught during different semesters. 70 L2A L2A was the instructor of Cali who recalled the course being useful because it helped them understand another course they were taking at the same time. As noted by Cali: I remember that one was very similar to linguistics. I was taking a linguistics class at the same time as that one, and some things I was learning alongside each other. So [L2] was helpful, because I would see something in linguistics, which didn't make any sense to me at all. But then, how the linguistics ideas were applicable to teaching I think that was helpful. Because I remember my linguistics class did not make any sense at all. (First Interview) L2A’s experience was substantially different compared to that of the L1 instructors. L2A had established rapport with faculty, familiarity with the program and university, and familiarity with the surrounding area. This prior knowledge motivated L2A to set L2 as their top preference because it covered a topic they were familiar with (English grammar) and was supervised by a faculty member they knew well. So, L2A entered the course already possessing background information about the content, which was further reinforced by the support she received from their supervisor and the previous instructor. The support from the supervisor was two-fold: The supervisor had experience teaching L2 and a graduate-level course that contained similar content, which L2A had taken. Like the L1 instructors, L2A established a content/context connection while teaching and interacting with students, but there was not a strong connection between the course and curriculum. Also, the level of preparation for L2A was extensive, though not systemic; however, the following story addresses the issue of self-perception associated with navigating multiple 71 identities while serving as an instructor. L2A Story 1: Uncertainty and Fear 1: Before the semester began, we had TA training 2: I attended that TA training and there was this mentor 3: Who said that it was going to be challenging for international TAs 4: Teaching undergrad students is itself a very challenging task. And if you're an international TA, it may be more challenging for you. 5: So that added that fear in me 6: I had already taught for several years, but I hadn't taught here in [Country]. I taught in a different setting 7: And so I was very afraid. 8: I still remember the first day of my class, I was very nervous 9: I remember that guy's sentence, right? It's going to be challenging. 10: No matter how long you have taught the first day of teaching, any new course is always uncertain. Line 10 shows the nature of teaching a course regardless of context and content. Even though L2A felt they had adequate preparation for taking over the course, a degree of uncertainty was still present (Line 6). L2A also highlights a preparatory component not mentioned previously, TA training (Line 1). For clarity, the training referenced is a series of workshops provided by the university and is compulsory for individuals taking on the role for the first time. So, these workshops are comprised of individuals from different departments with different roles associated with their position. The workshops are facilitated by mentors, which L2A references in line 2, whose own understanding of the context added additional stress because L2A was an international 72 student (Line 3). L2A already had a baseline of uncertainty tied to teaching in a new environment (Line 10) which was further conflated by the mentor whose comments fronted an identity (i.e., coming from a non U.S. origin) not previously discussed (Line 4). Whether the mentor’s comment held merit or not, it did influence L2A (Line 5), which in turn impacted how they engaged in the classroom (Lines 8 & 9). Additionally, the comment by the mentor provided a false context. False because the mentor was drawing from a general phenomenon (Lines 3 & 4) rather than the course itself. With L2A lacking a connection to context (Line 6), they internalized the one provided by the mentor (Line 9). L2A’s experience further expands on the notion of a connection to context by showing how instructors establish a temporary context (i.e., understanding of the preservice teachers’ future teaching environment) prior to the classroom. For L2A, their temporary context connection drew from experience and training. L2A’s short stories further support the notion that instructor perception influences instructional effectiveness by highlighting how instructors (who either are unaware of where preservice teachers are training to teach or lack the necessary background) hazard a guess with respect to establishing a connection to the context of the course. A crucial question that emerged from this phenomenon is, What happens if the instructor’s temporary context diverges from the actual context? We now turn to L2B, whose experience shows how a temporary context connection influences how they interact with the course. 73 L2B Robin was in L2B’s course and described the content of the course with a slight caveat at the end: I do remember we zeroed in the nitty gritty of how English works. Like, this is why grammar works. This is where you put a period where you don't put a period. Why do you stop a sentence here? Why do you say this in social situations, non- social situations? We talked about formal tones and social settings, and how that plays a role in how people think and talk in English. So it was interesting. Like I actually liked the content a lot for that class, but I think the instructor was very difficult to relate to. (First Interview) L2B’s story was created from a written narrative as mentioned in the methodology chapter. L2B shared similarities with L2A with the resources provided (materials and personnel) and having an established connection to the content. L2B also establishes a temporary connection to context based on their experience and the perceived agency tied to such experience. In the following short story, L2B’s temporary connection influences how they interacted with the course initially. 74 L1B Story 1: Content over Context 1: I based my materials heavily on the syllabus used by the supervising faculty 2: Thinking at the time that I did not have much liberty in what to cover and that I had to cover the same material 3: I was later told that I might have been wrong about that 4: I did not know just how much liberty I actually had 5: Back in my home country, you do not have ANY liberty regarding the content because the syllabus is created by the institution 6: Even when they ask you to write the syllabus, this has to be based on the previous syllabus, with only a few changes, so still no liberty 7: I guess, I may have transferred that expectation onto my teaching in [Country X] and because this was a new context and the very first course I taught. 8: I may have taken it a bit too seriously. L1B’s temporary context was tied entirely to past teaching experiences (Line 7) in a different country from the U.S., specifically, the agency associated with the role of course instructor (Lines 5 & 6). This agency was then applied to their initial engagement with L2 as L2B completely relied on what was provided by the supervisor (Lines 1 & 2). In L2B’s case, the lack of guidance during onboarding left this temporary connection unchallenged even though they had the same freedom as the L1 instructors which they discovered after they had already started their role as instructor (Line 3). The lack of liberty (Lines 2 & 4) perceived by L2B resulted in focusing on only establishing a connection to the content (Line 1) but not the context. In their written responses, L3B indicated they were unaware of L2’s place in the curriculum, leaving that connection in question. 75 The issue with using a temporary context connection is it does not reflect the current environment of the classroom or the future teaching context of the preservice teahers. When reflecting on her time in L2, Robin commented, “I just think there was maybe a cultural disconnect.” Whereas L1C (with a similar background) was able to reconnect to the context as they taught (see Double Identity line 7), L2B did not because of their perceived freedom (Line 2) which might have been what Robin interpreted as a disconnect. Establishing a temporary context connection is a naturally occurring phenomenon resulting from a lack of standardized guidance. This phenomenon has led to different experiences in the instructors discussed so far. An effect of this is inconsistency within the course between semesters. However, there are multiple sections within a semester. When thinking about RQ2, L2B’s perception about the level of control they had on their course could have contributed to the disconnect felt by Robin. Robin enjoyed the content of the course, yet did not have favorable memories of L2B. It cannot be said with certainty that L2B’s temporary content (influenced by their perception of their responsibilities) is the cause of Robin’s disconnect to L2B, but it would be fair to assume that the instructor does leave an impression, as seen next when we explore the impact that L2C had on Nichole. L2C Notably, Nichole’s recollection of L2 and L2C were almost a complete contrast from that experienced by Robin: I really liked that professor [i.e., L2C]. I yeah, I remember really liking her. A lot of like review of what we had done in the other classes, but it was all super beneficial. It was just stuff that I had heard before. (Second Interview) 76 L2C shared the same content connection as the previous L2 instructors; however, they did not have the same level of preparation. With only three weeks' notification, L2C took over the course during the summer. In addition to summer courses being shorter, instructors are not classified as teaching assistants. They are instructors both in title and practice, which did not place them under the supervision of a faculty member. L2C’s story opens, addressing this unique circumstance and its impact. The story then turns to the effect that L2C’s experience had on the continuity between their section and another. L2C Story 1: Doing Our Own Thing (Summer Teaching) 1: It was a little hazy who was actually in charge 2: I think technically [Faculty] was in charge, but she didn't have a login for the website 3: I had to contact one of the previous students to get the link to it, or I found it in their [Digital Platform] page or something 4: I was just kind of flying by the seat of my pants a little bit of that first semester, because it was summer 5: I was officially an instructor, not a TA at that point 6: The summer courses were actually hired as instructors 7: It was definitely a dump-in and just figure it out as you go kind of situation. 8: I only had like three weeks till the class started 9: I was burnt out after that 10: The faculty were off mostly 11: Someone else was teaching that summer as well. But we weren't following the same materials because she was using the previous book that the website was built for 11: I was using the book that had been used the previous three or four semesters 77 12: So we weren't really doing the same thing 13: I think even currently, the other teacher and I are not doing the same thing 14: I'm using my previous materials from when I taught it asynchronously, and I think she's doing whatever was done in the in-person classes. Lines 5 and 6 reiterate the point previously made, which was the cause of some confusion in L2C (Line 1). This confusion was brought on by sudden onboarding (Line 4) caused by the little time they had to prepare for the course (Line 8). The timing of the onboarding (Line 4) resulted in less structure than the previous instructors. Whereas previous instructors had direct access to materials, either through faculty or previous instructors, L2C had to seek those resources out (Line 3). Additionally, their title as instructor (Lines 5-7) left them without a faculty supervisor (Line 10), which was not entirely clear at the time (Line 2). Line 9 showcases the effect the onboarding experience had on L2C. What separates L2C’s story are references to other sections. L2C was not the only instructor that summer (Line 11), but this was not known to L2C during the onboarding process (Lines 3). The separation continued to the materials used in the sections (Line 11), a practice that continued beyond the semester (Lines 13 & 14). Up to this point, instructors dealt with disconnections involving content and context (which interact with the preservice teachers) and the curriculum. However, with multiple sections of the same course conducted during the same semester, another level of variability comes into focus. For L2C, there is no communication between their section and another section (Line 13). Previous instructors have commented on the freedom to align their course with their interests (see L1C’s story Freedom without Direction line 13), which has led to a lack of continuity when courses exchange instructors. Now, L2C has shown that continuity is not present within the semester which shows that even sections of the same course are individual systems. 78 L2 Instructor Discussion After reviewing the stories from the L1 instructors, two points of disconnect were uncovered at the instructor system level (course content/context; course/curriculum). These two points heavily influenced the instructor’s effectiveness because each point contains important information required to understand the purpose of the course and the reason why preservice teachers enroll in the course. The short stories of the L2 instructors further clarify the content and context connection, as shown in Figure 10. Figure 10 Content and Context Connection (Ideal) When looking at the relationship between the three components (instructor, content, and context), one can see that all interactions are bi-directional, as all elements influence one another. However, this is the ideal state based on how the instructor is onboarded. Throughout the L2 instructors’ stories, the lack of a standardized onboarding procedure forced them to rely on experience to contextualize the course before their first session. Additionally, self -perception of the agency–tied to their job title and elements of their identity–further contributed to this 79 temporary context (noted by the segmented line in Figure 10). When looking at the stories, temporary context influenced the course in two ways. L2B did not feel they had the agency to modify the course, which may have inhibited their ability to revise their temporary context as they learned about their students as L1C had. The lack of reciprocity resulted in an omnidirectional connection to the context resulting in dysfunction, as seen in the figure below. Figure 11 Content and Context Connection (Dysfunctional) The opposite is seen in L2C’s experience, who interpreted the lack of guidance as freedom along with their title simultaneously, which was only contingent on the time of year they took over the course. Like all other instructors, L2C did not understand the course context. Yet, their perceived agency established a level of responsibility that led them to establish an ideal connection to the context by learning from their students. This brings back the phrase mutual learning journey from L1C’s story Double Identity (Line 7). However, L2B did not feel they had the agency to do so. With temporary connections manifesting from experience and perception, 80 one cannot predict where the resulting connection will be ideal, dysfunctional, or somewhere in between. The lack of predictability further influences the experience of the preservice teacher taking the course, which is being prepared by the courses to meet standards. Lastly, the inconsistency of the preservice teacher experience is not limited to just between semesters but within the same semester. Two preservice teachers taking the same course in different sections could have different experiences in the same semester. As the implications of a lack of standardized onboarding become more apparent through the L2 instructors, we now turn to L3, the final course housed in L College. L3 Instructor With L1 focusing on teaching methods and L2 focusing on English-language grammar, L3 has a theoretical focus. The purpose of L3 is to inform preservice teachers of the: Basic principles of learning a second or foreign language. Issues in first language acquisition. Theories in second language learning. Aptitude, motivation, attitude, learning grammar, age, learning in a classroom, myths, and facts about second language learning. (University Website, 2022). Unlike L1 and L2 instructors, L3A taught all three preservice teachers in the same semester. L3 was the only course where this occurred and afforded the opportunity to see the impact of L3A’s content/context connection across the responses of Cali, Robin, and Nichole. The following short story discusses L3A’s onboarding experience and the nature of their content and context connection. 81 L3A Story 1: Exploring 1: I basically just talk to the people who taught it before me 2: That's the tradition, right? You share everything 3: So if you have any questions you just asked 4: We have 100% freedom 5: It’s like exploring 6: I try to see how the students react to the materials 7: In the class discussion and on the course contents 8: You will see their focus and their cause 9: I think those were different from what I anticipated 10: Not knowing the student population also contributes to the exploring aspect or approach 11: I think I tried to see how things went. L3A experienced the same onboarding process as the previous L course instructors (Lines 1 & 3). This onboarding, though not structured or standardized, had become common practice to the extent that incoming instructors could have expected it (Line 2). L3A’s familiarity with the onboarding process continues as they took over the course with an understanding of their role and associated responsibilities (Line 4). L3A’s understanding had an impact on their approach to the course. A temporary pedagogical context was constructed, yet L3A did so with the full realization that it was temporary (Lines 5-11). Fully embracing the uncertainty of the situation (Line 5), L3A sought reinforcement from their students (Line 10) through their connections to the content (Lines 6 & 7) and context (Line 8). L3A’s connection represents the ideal (Figure 10) because its reciprocal nature leads to a revision of their temporary context (Line 9). Though L3A established 82 an ideal connection, the findings seem to suggest that teacher education ought to include the preservice teachers’ recollection of the course to understand the effectiveness of L3A’s ideal connection. Cali, Robin, and Nichole’s recollection of L3 ranged from general to specific: Cali: I think we talked a lot about motivation and relating the curriculum to their home culture. Robin: I think we learned a different hypothesis about how people best learn languages. So, we learned a lot about the differences between learning a first language and acquiring a second language. Nichole: I remember in our main project we had to present how ELL students acquire language differently than our general education students. It cannot be said with certainty if L3A’s exploratory approach to the course attributed to Cali, Robin, and Nichole’s memorization of the content. Still, when looking at the ideal connection model, one can discern that the reciprocal nature's effects on the instructor may also affect the preservice teacher, as shown by their ability to recall more detailed information about course compared to the previous. With this understanding, the model is further clarified to include the preservice teacher as an active agent: 83 Figure 12 Complete Content and Context Connection Model (Ideal) This complete model indicates the mutual learning journey described by L1C (see short story Double Identities). As each agent interacts, knowledge is exchanged. However, one must remember that this cycle exists within broader cycles, and is susceptible to changes at different levels. One such change is discussed in the following short story in which L3A recalls the sudden shift in course modality caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the course. 84 L3A Story 2: Difficulty Predicting 1: The situation changed so quickly 2: We had to pull out online modules immediately 3: Switch back to the available materials that we had on our platform 4: I will say that my experience wasn't complete 5: That's why it was difficult for me to say 6: With the updated curriculum 7: I guess we could probably connect it more to their future, their perspective, work context 8: Kids, right? 9: Probably we focus more on adult second language learning 10: I think most of our students tend to be elementary and secondary school teachers. Because the course was structured entirely around a single modality (in-person instruction), the timing of the switch (Line 1) resulted in disruption as the course no longer followed its original plan (Lines 2 & 3). This disconnect left L3A unable to determine the course's impact on the preservice teachers (Lines 4-6), but they seemed to suggest that further improvements could be made to help them better connect to the content (Lines 7-10). Admittedly, the impact that events like COVID-19 have on courses cannot be predicted. However, the impact must be noted as it did influence the experience of the preservice teachers. We shift now to the course housed in E College to see if there is a difference in the onboarding process and how the difference impacts how the instructors establish content/context connections. As detailed previously, E College houses the programs the preservice teachers are a part of, the E1 course, and the curriculum coordinator. 85 E1 Instructors E1 is the only course in the curriculum housed in the same college where the coordinator (as opposed to the L and S course instructors) is employed. The course description for E1 is not as extensive as the previous: Supervised practica and/or observations in education settings. (University Website, 2022) However, PhD student instructors (also from the same college as the coordinator who taught the pre-service teachers the E1 course) provided further clarification about what E1 covers: E1A: Heavily focused on translanguaging. E1B: We give them strategies to learn about their students. How to honor all those languages, culture, and the linguistic knowledge they bring to the class. A big thing is translanguagling. E1C: Under the translanguaging and sociocultural perspective; focusing on community, culture, language, and the importance of getting to know your students. E1 also contains a field experience component where preservice teachers spend time in a classroom with multilingual learners. Another new feature that this course introduces is the co- teaching format. Two TAs typically teach E1 under the supervision of a faculty member. The only exception is the summer semester, in which only one TA is assigned, which explains the distribution of preservice teachers when looking at Figure X (at the beginning of this chapter). The team element of E1 consisted of weekly meetings between TAs and the supervisor to discuss how E1 would be conducted across all sections. This contrasts with the L courses, where there 86 was no continuity between courses. We start this section with E1A, who was part of a TA teaching team. E1A E1A co-taught Cali and Robin (along with E1B) who commented on different elements of the course in their respective interviews: Cali: Yeah, I think most of that class was a placement and then we met once a week for a few hours or something. I don't remember exactly what I learned in that class. Except for I remember the placement that was the first helpful placement that I had. (First Interview) Robin: I think we would like go in breakout rooms and discuss with other peers, which I thought was helpful. But I think that it was weird having two professors...like it seemed, might have just been the online thing, but it seemed like they were never on the same page. (Second Interview) Like L College instructors, E1A was notified about their teaching assignment before the semester starting. One difference is that E1A did not choose the course, nor did they have any prior familiarity. E1A was only provided with the textbooks when notified about their teaching assignment. In the following short story, E1A discusses their time taking over the course and their connection to the context. 87 E1A Story 1: Hazing 1: Kinda like hazing? 2: No, I learned a lot 3: I was told I would be teaching this course and I would be an elementary instructor, go out to elementary schools 4: I was really excited because I have a TESOL master's and I thought, "Oh, this is gonna be like what I learned during my TESOL program.” 5: Even though I had years of teaching experience behind me, I didn't feel like I could really contribute that much 6: You're basically pulled out of everything you know 7: Because I taught students in the [foreign] context, everything was all about [state] and I didn't have experience in the local context. 8: Everything here is so [U.S.] centered 9: Your experiences are never validated or given any kind of acknowledgement. 10: And then I get to [university] and I have a co teacher, which was great. But it wasn't at all what I expected. 11: I think [E1] really helped center me in the domestic context, more than I would have been 12: Understanding better about the [U.S.] domestic context as far as like how ESL students are positioned and different challenges of different groups 13: I don't know how much of that was only from [E1]. But I think it was just kind of like a combination of all kinds of learning and growing. If that makes sense. 88 Line 1, though made in jest, reflects the amount of growth L1A had to go through since entering their doctoral program and teaching the E1 course? (Line 2). The amount is due to the difference between their temporary pedagogical connection to the teaching context at which the preservice teachers were having their field experience (Lines 3 & 4; 7& 8). As E1A realized the difference, there was a sudden disruption in the connection cycle as they started questioning their connection to the E1 course content (Line 5). E1A’s experience shows the connection model has dependency on all elements involved, and how external influences can still impact the cycle. E1A was an educator, but their experience in a country outside the US could not be transferred to this new system, forcing them to recontextualize (Line 6) their pedagogical understanding of teaching multilinguals. However, in doing so, E1A felt they had to leave behind their past teaching credentials (Line 9). Even though E1 is housed in the same college as the coordinator, the onboarding process only provides instructors materials that help establish a connection to the content, while forcing them to construct a new pedagogical context connection. In the case of L1A, their temporary pedagogical context was quickly disproved even though they were an educator and had graduate-level specialization in the topic (Line 4), highlighting the importance of having context specific knowledge of the environment preservice teachers are training for (Lines 10-12). L1A was able to recontextualize their pedagogical understanding, but line 13 highlights that L1A was also navigating their other identities while teaching, which could have contributed to their instructional recontextualization. Returning to the second research question, E1A reiterated the same influences found in the L course instructors (instructor perception of role and onboarding), even though E1A was in a different college. We continue to E1B, who had already been a part of the same institution before taking over the course. 89 E1B E1B co-taught Cali and Robin with E1A and had teaching and graduate-level specialization working with multilingual learners. Also, E1B experienced the same onboarding procedure. In the following short story, parallels are drawn between their and E1A’s experience but with a notable difference. E1B Story 1: Transitioning 1: Everything was new to me 2: Even though it was about TESOL. [The curriculum] was a TESOL endorsement. 3: I did not feel like it was the kind of work I had been doing in [my graduate work]. 4: I was in a master's program that, again, had an international perspective. It also alienated me from, you know US education. 5: It was tough to make a mental shift. 6: Because I was taking three classes as a doctoral student, and then I was learning how to teach this class 7: So just making that shift and focusing on another population, not English as a foreign language student, but second language learners as they're called in the TESOL program but it felt like a liberating experience 8: My advisor told me, “You should take that class with me, and that's going to help you in the teaching of [E1]." 9: The content of [E1] was directly aligned with this class 10: As I was learning the content of that class, I was able to enact in my own class in a way that is more digestible, or easier to process for my preservice students. 90 The parallels between E1A and E1B start with E1B realizing that the experience they brought to the course did not connect to the context of the course (Line 1). Line 5 details the difficulty of having to shift from what E1B knew and what needed to be known about the environment for which the course was structured (Line 4), even though there was common terminology shared between their graduate education and the curriculum (Line 2). Again, E1B had a graduate-level specialization in TESOL but could not apply their knowledge to the context of E1 (Line 3). The commonalities between E1A and E1B end there, as the story highlights a resource that aided in establishing E1B’s context connection while teaching. In line 6, we see the workload E1B faced. However, this resulted in an additional resource that directly influenced E1. Though E1B had an additional resource a faculty member who was aware of what was needed to establish connections (Line 8), as there was a direct correlation between the E1 and the course they were taking as part of their Ph.D. program (Line 9). This whole experience provided scaffolding, allowing E1B to establish the appropriate connections to the context while enhancing their connection to the content (Line 10). The difference between E1B’s development, compared to instructors, is the enhancement of the content connection through external influence (the course they were taking), rather than naturally developing as they engage in the course. The result seemed to be a liberating experience for L1B (Line 7). We now turn to the final instructor, who provides an example of what happens when a temporary context is not needed when taking over a course. 91 E1C Nichole was in E1C’s course (conducted over the summer) and had positive things to say about the course and E1C: I completely remember [E1C]. They was great. They taught me so much about, I don't know if this technically goes with the TESOL minor but having difficult conversations with your students. There was a lot going on in that summer. I think also that summer specifically, it might have shifted what she would have normally taught. I can really remember the conversations that we had as a class and how we talked about, "let's say this was happening right now, with our students, what are we going to do the next day at school?" That class was very, very beneficial. (Second Interview) Nichole’s comments about that summer warrant some clarification, however. At the time of the course was being taught, in the U.S., a major civil rights movement (Blacks Lives Matter) was taking place in part because of violent acts described by Nichole: The [event] that totally sticks out to me is we had class the day after everything with George Floyd and his death, and then just talking about Black Lives Matter. And [E1C] was like, "Yeah, I'm not doing what I originally planned, because this is what happens like in real life teaching" So as a class, we first processed our thoughts and our feelings together, and have a conversation about it. Then the rest of our class we transition to, "okay, now that we were able to like talk about how we feel and what we know, how can we shift going into a classroom of elementary students who can't process these feelings on their own". (Second Interview) 92 None of the previous instructors shared the same background with E1C who had experience teaching in the U.S. As shown in the following story, we can see how E1C’s background helped them circumvent the onboarding procedure that left the other instructors at a disadvantage in that they had to construct temporary connections that had to be adjusted while teaching. E1C Story 1: A Part of Me 1: The course was really detailed and set up 2: I felt like, I didn't really need to do much to the curriculum at all, or didn't really need to ask [Previous Instructors] any questions 3: When we did want to make changes to the curriculum it was an open conversation, and we were allowed to try things. 4: We had complete freedom for how we wanted to teach each week 5: So that wasn't set in stone at all. 6: I think it really helped to that I was teaching at [School District] 7: I was fine with teaching that course, I didn't feel unprepared 8: I also have a master's in TESOL and an ESL endorsement on my teaching certificate 9: I've been a teacher for years of emergent multilinguals, it helps to be like in it right now 10: So, walking into the classroom and looking at that curriculum, it just kind of felt like part of who I am, part of my experience. On paper, E1C shared the same graduate-level TESOL academic as E1A and E1B, but their additional credentials provided the appropriate background knowledge (Line 8). This background knowledge extended beyond the course environment into the projected classrooms that the preservice teachers would eventually enter (Line 9). Furthermore, E1C’s knowledge was not just 93 situated in the past but continuously developed as they were also teaching in that environment (Line 6). Figure 13 visualizes the impact E1C’s circumstances had on the connection model. Figure 13 E1C’s Content and Context Model For E1C, the onboarding process was not needed, given their background (Line 10). Their background contained knowledge the course’s context, having gone through a similar teacher training program and had experience teaching multilingual learners in the U.S. (Line 8) and the environment in which the course is preparing preservice (Line 9). E1C entered the course embracing the freedom afforded to them (Lines 4 & 5) but chose not to revise the course extensively (Lines 1 & 2). 94 Discussion Through the short stories, the instructor pedagogical system materializes. Instructors must establish connections between the course’s content and context when taking over the course. For all instructors, course materials were provided prior to the beginning of the course. As instructors review course material, they establish a connection to the content of the course. The content of the course is what separates each course from others, ultimately reflecting the standards they address. All instructors were given the opportunity to establish a content connection, but timing became a factor. There is thus an inconsistency regarding the time instructors were notified of their assignments. Some instructors were notified months in advance, while others discovered they were taking over the course just weeks before. Ultimately, all instructors could establish content connections, given that this only required reviewing the materials. What did have a more significant impact on the instructor experience was the second connection discovered, the connection to context. Pedagogical context connections depended entirely on instructor knowledge and experience before taking over the course. Again, context represents the teaching environment preservice teachers are being prepared for by the curriculum. All but one instructor (E1C) lacked knowledge about this environment, with varying effects. This variety was attributed to the instructor's perceived agency associated with their assignment. The instructors experienced ambiguity in the context of their course and their corresponding responsibility. All instructors were given complete freedom to structure the course to fit their interests, yet this was not made explicit. In the case of L2B, they were unaware of this freedom till after the fact. Other instructors understood the freedom they had yet limited themselves because of their title as a teaching assistant rather than an instructor. 95 L1B and L2C discussed how their titles influenced how they approached their courses, showing how institutional parameters also shape perception. In L1B’s short story Perspective, they were conflicted about the responsibilities associated with their title (Lines 4 & 6). L2C discussed how taking the course over the summer changed the title, which subsequently caused some confusion in the resources available (See story Doing Our Own Thing). With faculty out of contract and being assigned an instructor title, L2C was unsure of the extent they could rely on others for help (Line 1). For E1 instructors, the onboarding process was similar regarding the passing of materials before the start. However, the support system had differences, yet there was no substantial change in how instructors established context connections. E1C was the glaring exception but provided an example of an ideal model free from being influenced by onboarding because E1C skipped having a temporary connection to the pedagogical context. Having preexisting knowledge of the course's context (having gone through a similar curriculum) and the environment preservice teachers were being trained for (through their current employment), E1C only needed to establish the content connection. Again, E1C was the only instructor with this background knowledge, which was acquired outside of the onboarding process. By contrast, the other instructors had to establish temporary pedagogical context connections, which delayed the establishment of the ideal model because a genuine connection had to be established while teaching the course. However, the connection between the course and the curriculum was nearly nonexistent. Since instructors focused on understanding their course and students, expanding their scope to contextualize their course within the curriculum was not a priority or an unknown. Returning to L1B’s first story Perception, one could infer that the instructor may not be responsible for connecting their course to the curriculum. However, in their second story, Just a 96 Bit of Context, L1B discussed the usefulness such a connection might have had on their ability to connect to the context of the course. Even in the case of E1C, whose connection model was ideal before the beginning of the course, there was no apparent connection between their course and the curriculum. This was evident by a response made during the interview, “I don’t know anything about the other courses.” (E1C Instructor Interview). So, the effect a course-to-curriculum connection may have on the instructor cannot be determined. However, given that all instructors could function without an explicit connection, it shows that it is not vital or that the current subsystem has developed without a standardized onboarding process. Closing Thoughts This chapter concludes with an updated implementation model that details the levels clarified by both the preservice teachers and instructors (see figure below). 97 Figure 14 Updated Model (Preservice Teachers & Instructors) Without a standardized onboarding procedure, instructors are thus left with the monumental task of establishing connections while teaching the course. In most cases, the lack of a context connection leads to a dysfunctional model. A dysfunctional model in turn forces preservice teachers to use their internship experiences to contextualize what they learned in their 98 courses. As seen in the preservice teachers’ responses, they heavily favored the internship experience as it placed them in the teaching context they were training for. This happened post - curriculum and was dependent on the preservice teacher’s ability to remember what their courses covered. In the case of meeting standard 1.5, the internship had not provided the information to plug the knowledge gap present in Cali, Robin, and Nichole. As seen with Nichole, more experienced teachers also lack that knowledge (to work in ExLLs). So, while the internship could help other standard-directed knowledge gaps (post-curriculum), current educational environments (where internships take place) cannot fully bridge standard 1.5 knowledge gaps. We continue to the final findings chapter and final piece of the standard implementation system, the coordinator, whose position places them as an arbiter between the standards and institution. 99 CHAPTER 5: COURSE COORDINATOR FINDINGS Similar to the course instructors described in Chapter 4, the analysis of the coordinator’s short stories in this chapter will only be at the first two levels (story & Story). This choice was made because the third research question (How does the curriculum coordinator navigate their role?) is specific to the context of the study and difficult to apply to a broader social context (STORY). As seen in the course instructors’ short stories, there were varying opinions about the responsibilities of instructors that stemmed from a lack of a standardized onboarding procedure. Additionally, the course instructors were balancing their instructor duties with their other role (as Ph.D. students). This balancing of roles was not the case with the coordinator, however. The coordinator holds a faculty position at E College and has been in that role for approximately five years at the time of this study. Designated as the ESL subject expert, their primary responsibility was the review of the ESL endorsement curriculum’s content alignment with the revised standards, which all fell under the service responsibility of their tenure-track position. Faculty that hold tenure-track positions at the institution, like the coordinator, must satisfy service requirements as dictated by their contracts, with other requirements being course instruction and keeping an active research agenda. So, the coordinator's duties are not the sole responsibilities of the coordinator. To begin answering the research question, How does the curriculum coordinator navigate their role?, the following story details the coordinator’s full obligations as a faculty member and their experience juggling those duties. 100 Coordinator Story 1: Not What I Expected 1: [The coordinator role] wasn’t in my contract. I didn’t know that I was going to be [coordinator] at the time. 2: I started that role when I got here. 3: So that was part of my service, to the department, in the [E College] 4: There are several [subject coordinators], and it has evolved this past year. 5: Administration is trying to understand their responsibilities and role. 6: In my first year ¬ I don’t know how ¬ I did a review of our teacher preparation programs. 7: I prepared all the documents since I’m the expert, but then the dean is the one that turns them into the [state department of education]. 8: I had to understand where the courses came from, then align all the courses with the new ESL standards. 9: Then just supervise instructors of classes (including E1) that I [oversee]. 10: At the beginning, I was also navigating and understanding what my role was. 11: Like I said, there was nothing written on what I need to do. 12: That’s the hardest part. How much do I focus on teacher preparation? 13: At what point does my service extend? 14: I also need to do other kinds of service. 15: How much do I focus on my research? 16: How much do I focus on my teaching? The opening two lines best show how the coordinator assumed their role. Additionally, there was a lack of understanding of the role by the coordinator (line 10) and the administration (line 5). Though there was a general understanding of how the coordinator's duties fell in the 101 overall responsibilities of the coordinator (line 3), what those duties were was left to how the coordinator interpreted their experience trying to perform those duties (lines 10-11). Overall, the burden was placed entirely on the coordinator to operationalize their role’s responsibilities (lines 12-16) along with their other career responsibilities (teaching and research). Two responsibilities are documented in the short story, showing a blending of the roles of instructor (line 9) and coordinator (lines 6-8). Because the coordinator also supervises E1 (line 9), it minimizes distance between the divisio (i.e., subjective boundary originating from individual perception) and paritio (i.e., objective boundary determined by environment) in the E1 instructors. The coordinator directly influences E1 to ensure that there is standard alignment (ensuring that instructors understand the purpose of E1). However, this alignment happened while the coordinator was making sense of their role and responsibilities. Expanded on in the following excerpt, how the coordinator engaged in sense-making encompassed many considerations: My goal was not aligning ESL. But also understanding based on [E College] mission, values, and philosophy where our students need to be. What is it that our teachers need to be prepared with as they come out? So, it’s just not aligning, but beyond. (Coordinator interview) Unpacking the first short story shows the complexity associated with the coordinator position. Though the coordinator’s system serves as the environment of E1, there is a dependency on the administration (by the coordinator) to communicate with the state department of education (line 7). However, the lack of understanding of the coordinator’s role by the administration (line 5) creates distance between the coordinator divisio and paritio within the E college environment. At this point, it is not clear where the paritio of the coordinator is because of the lack of 102 administrative data. This lack of clarity requires a more extensive understanding of the administration's role, which is the topic of the following short story. Coordinator Story 2: Administration 17: I didn’t know who was in charge at the other college [L College]. 18: I didn’t know who the instructors were. 19: When I was looking at the syllabi, there were interpretations that I was making. And that was hard 20: There’s a lot of disconnection that needs to be collaborative. 21: So I was in constant communication with my [administration]. “You need to talk to the other college and see how this works.” 22: But, of course, that wasn’t a priority. 23: We don’t know what our role is. 24: My job is not administrative. 25: I speak out a lot. I’m very vocal about what the needs are. The perceived nature of the curriculum (Line 20) makes the coordinator’s task of ensuring alignment difficult (Lines 17-19). Reiterating a point made in the previous short story, the role of the coordinator was unclear (Line 23), as was the responsibility of the administration. Line 20 can be applied to the coordinator/other colleges and coordinator/administration dynamics. However, the coordinator understood there was a disconnection (Lines 21 and 25) but depended on the administration for direction because of their understanding of the administration’s responsibility (Line 24). Returning to line 20 and the term disconnect, it is evident that the proximity between systems and environments (L courses are systems within the L college environment) with respect to the preservice teacher education curriculum depended on communication between individuals 103 of those systems. Figure 15 provides a visual of this proximity. Figure 15 Coordinator Proximity Because the coordinator did not know their counterparts at the other colleges (Line 17), there is no continuity between those systems meaning that their construction takes place in different environments and is built with different information. The coordinator assumed that there were coordinator counterparts in the other colleges because it exists in theirs. However, each college is a separate system with separate protocols. Unlike E College, where the coordinator supervises E1, the L courses exist as separate systems (as seen in Chapter 4). This structure would require the coordinator to establish connections with each instructor (Line 18) due to the 104 autonomy given by L College. The complexity of this situation is the topic of the following short story, which documents how the coordinator’s understanding of the curriculum's structure developed. Coordinator Story 3: The Bigger Picture 26: So, I was thinking why we don’t house [courses in E College]. 27: But then you think about the resources. 28: We didn’t have those [resources] here. 29: You think about the bigger picture. Then the administrative picture. 30: So, even if I said this course should be housed here. Who’s going to teach [the courses]? 31: Again, I’m not an [administrator]. So, I’m not solving this problem. Line 26 details a solution possible under the Johnson and Johnson (2015) model, given its linear flow. However, relocating courses is beyond the perceived responsibility of the coordinator (Line 31), as doing so would require finding instructors in their college (Line 30). The question posed at the end of line 30 shows that finding instructors within E College would be difficult, a notion further supported by line 28. Whether these resources (Line 27) are just personnel- or financial-related, the need for these resources shows that restructuring cannot be immediate if that is the decided course of action. Additionally, restructuring is not the sole answer as there are still issues of disconnect between what the coordinator sees as their responsibility and what they see as the administration’s (line 29). The complexities found in the coordinator's experience further show how an SST model more accurately represents this context than the Johnson and Johnson (2015) model. 105 Discussion The common thread between the short stories is the ambiguity associated with the coordinator's responsibilities. Such ambiguity is reflected in both the coordinator and administration. The bi-directional ambiguity presents a unique circumstance when comparing the coordinator’s divisio and paritio. Contrary to the instructors, whose role is inherently defined through complete autonomy3 , the coordinator has an understood supervision level (administration). With a defined structured hierarchy, one could assume that the distance between divisio and paritio in the instructors would not be seen in the coordinator system. However, the administration was unsure what the role of the coordinator should be beyond immediate duties. This uncertainty is visualized in the figure below. 3 Autonomy in this sense refers to the instructors’ ability to adjust the content, assignments, and format of the course. Instructors are still subject to the course’s objectives, administrative guidelines, and required textbook. 106 Figure 16 Coordinator/Administration Paritio Conflict The figure shows two points of consideration: 1. the coordinator system is not a subsystem of the administration because the coordinator did not establish their protocol using information from the administration but from the environment that encloses both, which makes them both systems; 2. the lack of engagement, perceived by the coordinator, indicates a considerable distance between the two systems. 107 These two points make the paritio (i.e., the objective boundary) unclear because the coordinator's role is not clearly defined (by the administration), resulting in each system relying on divisio (perception) to establish the boundary. For the coordinator, their divisio closes at the allocation of resources (review The Bigger Picture story) and intercollege communication (review the Administration story). Furthermore, the administration ultimately connects to the state education department (review the Not What I Expected story, line 7), which is a professional duty outside the coordinator system. If the administration system contains the duties of cross-college communication, then there are operations in place. However, should those in the administration system see cross- college communication as the coordinator's responsibility, those responsibilities are dropped. If this responsibility is not operationalized, there is little chance that curriculum issues will be solved even though they are known. Finding where this responsibility falls requires further exploration of the administration system, which presents an unforeseen issue within this study. This administration system is not reflected in Johnson and Johnson’s (2015) model; however, recognizing the administration as an arbiter is questionable given that the coordinator ensures standard alignment through the program evaluation. This problem further supports an SST policy implementation model since it is structured by the experiences of those involved starting at the point of impact rather than applying an a priori structure. Returning to Figure 17, the coordinator system exists alongside the administration system rather than within (subsystem), contrary to what the Johnson and Johnson (2015) model implies. The opposite can be said about the E1 course, which was constructed from information provided by the coordinator. What this information consists of is covered in the following short story. 108 Coordinator Story 4: Ideology 32: My goal was not only aligning [curriculum] to the [standards] but also understanding, based on [E college] mission, values, and philosophy, where our students need to be. 33: I think that’s the reason [coordinators] have to be on tenure track. We are the people that are in constant communication and in constant research, but we’re also the ones that are producing knowledge. 34: Nobody taught me here. I had to do it on my own. 35: I did it based on my expertise on what I have learned throughout the years as a teacher, educator, and researcher. Before addressing the short story, clarification of the title is needed. The definition of ideology has been the center of many philosophical conversations, often assigned characteristics of rigid, imposing, and dogmatic (Oh, 2021). However, its use in this dissertation reflects the opposing argument that ideologies are not inherently negative and are simply system operations. In this paper, ideology is synonymous with sense-making. Returning to the short story Ideology, the coordinator balances multiple ideologies when working with the curriculum as a course supervisor (Line 32). Navigating between standard, mission, and the college’s career projection is both a personal (Line 34) and professional task (Line 35). Finally, it is through scholarship that these ideologies grow and progress which the coordinator perceives is the reason why specific faculty (with these responsibilities) are qualified for the position (Line 33). The coordinator's awareness and proximity to E1 as the supervisor results in that course being a subsystem. However, as seen in the E1 instructor’s experiences, there is not always continuity between the contexts of the coordinator and the instructors. 109 It must be reiterated that systems are autonomous from the environment from which they originate upon their creation. Additionally, creating systems is not a conscious decision but rather the result of prolonged interactions (e.g., conducting duties associated with a position). Regarding the coordinator/instructor dynamic, the coordinator can provide information about the content and purpose of the course (context). Still, the instructor will construct their system by interpreting this information (sense-making). An example of this can be seen when comparing the experiences of instructors E1A and E1B. In Chapter 4, the fact that the coordinator was the supervisor of E1 was not explicitly mentioned This omission was intentional because Chapter 4 focused on the instructor’s experience. However, this knowledge is needed to show that even though the coordinator had relatively close proximity to E1, the operationalization of E1A and E1B was still based on their context. Though both were experienced educators, E1A and E1B were unfamiliar with the environment the preservice teachers were preparing to enter. Additionally, both had received graduate-level training in language education. However, their experience and training did not translate into an immediate connection to the ideology presented by E College. More specifically, the ideological underpinnings of the pedagogical practices taught in E1 were unknown to E1A and E1B. Both instructors established that context during their time teaching, as reflected in their short stories. But, E1B had an additional resource of taking a course that was a graduate-level E1 equivalent. So, even though the coordinator directly influenced E1, the instructors still shaped their system from their context. This finding is important because it challenges the proposed solution that the standard-curriculum alignment issues can be solved through program restructuring. A thought that the coordinator engages in their short story (review The Bigger Picture story). 110 The answer to Research Question 3 (How did the curriculum coordinator navigate their role?) is that the course coordinator, like the course instructors, relied on their understanding of the coordinator role and role responsibilities due to a lack of proper onboarding. Unlike the instructors, the presence of the administration (a potential new arbiter) appeared to provide the information needed to establish the coordinator system divisio (objective boundary), given the close relationship between the administration and the coordinator. Now that the coordinator’s system is uncovered, the SST model is completed. In the final chapter, the entire model will be presented, and connections will be made between participant groups to show the complexity associated with standard implementation. 111 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This chapter combines the findings of the three previous chapters before presenting the complete SST model allowing general commentary about the state of the curriculum. To start the chapter, a summary of the previous findings chapter will be provided, followed by the complete model. The complete model will serve as the backdrop for the discussion, focusing on each participant system in relation to others. The discussion sections will be structured around the three research questions that guided this study: 1. What factors contributed to preservice teachers’ perceived readiness? 2. What factors influenced course instructor effectiveness? 3. How did the curriculum coordinator navigate their role? The conclusion and implications section will close this chapter by offering comments on SST as a theoretical foundation for policy implementation research. These comments will cover the strengths and weaknesses of SST and the combination of short story narrative inquiry methodology. Summary of Findings Following the same sequence as the chapters, this summary of findings will start with the preservice teachers. The instructors, then the coordinator, will follow, highlighting model-relevant points identified in the original Johnson and Johnson (2015) model. I will only highlight only model-relevant points needed to explain the entire SST model, which can seem dense without direction. I start with the preservice teachers. 112 Preservice Teachers What factors contributed to preservice teachers’ perceived readiness? The short stories of Cali, Robin, and Nichole show the complexity associated with curating courses to give preservice teachers the knowledge deemed necessary by state standards. Additionally, their experiences indicate that knowledge is not internalized without direct connections to actual classrooms even if the standard-aligned content was present. This notion was shown in how Cali, Robin, and Nichole found more value in their internship than in their courses. For these three participants, value was found within the classroom and with their respective students, something that was missing from most courses. Constructing the preservice teacher system of the model, using the findings from the preservice teachers, shows how course content is equally important as providing a teaching context that aids in the internalization of content into knowledge by the preservice teachers. However, one must remember the types of approaches taken by preservice teachers (Vermunt et al., 2019). For those preservice teachers who take an active approach, they come to the course with classroom experience (context). Those taking a passive approach lack the preexisting context and rely on the curriculum to contextualize the profession. Contextualization falls on the course instructors and is dependent on their experience and knowledge of their preservice teachers’ future classrooms. As we have seen in Chapter 4 (the instructor findings chapter), the lack of experience and knowledge (i.e., the context of their course) directly influences how they conduct the course. 113 Instructors What factors influenced course instructor effectiveness? The instructors’ experiences demonstrated that a need for context did not only apply to preservice teachers. However, the context in the instructor system was two-fold. Not only does the instructor need to understand both the context of the educational environments in which their preservice teachers are situated as well as the context of the course within the curriculum. Both contexts are needed during the onboarding experience of the instructor, which is not always systematic. The lack of a standardized onboarding procedure leaves it to the instructor to make sense of their role and responsibility. How the instructor does this depends on their : 1) perception of the responsibilities associated with their title; 2) perception of the responsibilities associated with their other identities; and 3) perception of the role itself. My findings revealed that some degree of subjectivity was at play because the instructor has to rely on their perception due to a lack of onboarding, contributing to varied preservice teacher experiences. But all the information present in current onboarding procedures only speaks to one context (course content and students). How the course is situated in the curriculum was less apparent. Though this context influenced the connection between course content and students, the lack of a direct connection to what created the illusion that this context was unnecessary. However, SST shows that systems are constructed from the environment and established through internalizing environmental information through operationalization. So, if the instructor lacks a clear understanding of the course’s purpose in the curriculum, and their role and responsibility, then the environmental information for which the preservice teacher established their system is skewed to some extent to reflect that lack of understand ing. The variability of instructor understanding thus highlights the importance of comparing instructor system’s divisio and paritio 114 because it can point to factors contributing to system-environmental and system-subsystem breakdowns. However, further model clarity was needed, which brought the focus to the coordinator. Coordinator How did the curriculum coordinator navigate their role? The short stories of the coordinator clarified the curriculum coordinator role, which was ambiguous prior to our conversations, and thus highlighted another breakdown point. Though the relationship between the coordinator and the curriculum was subsequently clarified, further complexities in the implementation process were uncovered. These complexities were present in the relationship between the coordinator and the administration. The ambiguity of the coordinator role’s responsibilities and the lack of administration system data makes a complete representation of the coordinator system difficult. This difficulty resulted from the study's design being based on the Johnson and Johnson (2015) model, which details clear connections between its implementation layers. Connections that are not present when looking at the coordinator’s experience due to the disconnect between them and the instructors outside of E College. What was certain was that the coordinator had to operationalize their role and responsibilities reactively similarly to the instructors. Additionally, the coordinator was unaware that they would be in this role and that this role was not their primary professional duty. The similarities between the coordinator and instructor’s onboarding experiences were comparable. Both participant groups initially relied heavily on their understanding of the role, then modified it as they became more familiar with their role. However, their environments led to different types of operationalization. The coordinator had the administration to turn to, a known entity that was not present in the instructor environment. The 115 administration thus served as a reference point for the coordinator in terms of what their responsibilities were. Using this reference point, the coordinator closed their system at their divisio (perceived differentiation). Again, this divisio was constructed from the lack of information from the administration about their role as a component of their faculty responsibilities. As my findings suggest, the coordinator was the first individual among my different participants who was aware of the need to align the curriculum with state standards; however, they also felt that the administration need to fulfill its responsibilities so that they could complete their professional responsibilities. What is still unclear is ownership of these responsibilities. For the coordinator, there was an understanding of which responsibilities belonged to who, but this divisio was based on their understanding of their own experience. However, this understanding was constructed in haste due to a lack of onboarding. In short, even though role responsibility could not be established without understanding the administration’s experience, enough information was present to reconstruct Johnson and Johnson’s (2015) model with SST. Full Standard Implementation Models To best understand the full context of this study, we need to look at the entire model encompassing all systems and subsystems to show how standard implementation was manifested in this teacher preparatory program. The following figure shows the original Johnson and Johnson and the SST models for comparison. 116 Figure 17 Full Model Comparison 117 The most salient detail is the difference in complexity between the two models. The linear structure of the Johnson and Johnson (2015) model disappears in the SST model, which offers a more robust understanding of the curriculum. This understanding is possible because the model was crafted through the experiences of those involved in the implementation process. I say involved because the participation of those in the implementation process is not intentional but by circumstance. Looking at the Johnson and Johnson (2015) model, one can surmise that those in the implementation process are in place with intention. Whether known or unknown, they are placed with the intention of policy implementation, as dictated by the linear structure. However, the SST model shows a different situation. The curriculum is only a concept known to E College and does not encompass four out of the five mandatory courses. So, most courses exist outside of the curriculum and state standards. If that is the case, alignment with the standards is only achievable through coincidence not be design. In other words, should the L and S courses contain content that coincides with the knowledge dictated in the state standard, it is by chance. This notion can only be visualized by SST model. Put differently, the state standards are an entity that exists outside of the university and only are incorporated by E College because this college needs to demonstrate content-standard alignment in its curriculum to receive accreditation for its teaching ed ucation programs. As the model currently stands, the administration system incorporates elements from the state (standards), curriculum, and E College. However, the lack of data from the administration makes this placement conditional. As we have seen, actual system construction depends on individual experience. The omission of the administration was due to a lack of understanding of the coordinator's role. Preliminary understanding of the role included the knowledge that the coordinator was the supervisory element of the endorsement curriculum and was tasked with 118 ensuring that curriculum content aligned with the state standards. Though the task responsibility was correct, how the task was completed only came to light during the coordinator interview. On a procedural level, the coordinator completes the documentation, showing alignment, and then the administration passes that information to the department of education. However, this is the only instance where role responsibilities are known. Given this proced ure, I maintain that understanding role and responsibilities is a major point of contention in the E College system. Notably, the coordinator did not join the institution to assume the role which is not their primary duty. In this study, this individual is referred to as the coordinator, but the following figure shows their other professional responsibilities. Figure 18 The Coordinator’s Professional System 119 The coordinator role is included in the service subsystem. This position means that the coordinator's duties are subject to other (i.e., teaching and research) prioritized obligations. As we have seen in the coordinator’s short stories, the coordinator role lacked responsibility transparency. Put simply, the coordinator role was understood conceptually, but the understanding of how the role operates was cultivated through real-time experience. Because of the disjointed structure of the courses, the closest system to the coordinator was the administration. This relationship made sense as it was the administration that assigned the role. As the attempts for role direction failed, the coordinator system was constructed from only their interpretation of their responsibilities. In addition, due to this self-construction, the administration and coordinator emerged as two separate systems rather than the coordinator being a subsystem of the administration. However, this could have been by design. Returning to the coordinator’s short stories, their expertise (built through their research agenda) is a vital part of shaping course content. It could be that this is a reason behind the lack of engagement from the administration in the form of guidance on how to navigating their role. Regardless of whether it is intentional or not, the lack of engagement has placed specific responsibilities in question. The following figure, which I have titled the responsibility gap, is a revised version of the coordinator/administrator systems focusing on questionable responsibilities. 120 Figure 19 Responsibility Gap As illustrated in Figure 17, the purpose of the coordinator role does not reflect the disjointed course structure. And as stated previously, the curriculum is a construct that only exists in the E College but comprises courses housed outside the college. This fact is reflected in the full SST model (Figure 18), which shows S and L Colleges as separate systems. Further exploration of this multisystem model will be explored in the preservice teacher discussion section later, but this structure presents issues for the coordinator. 121 Figure 20 College Systems 122 Simply put, E College’s curriculum depends on the outside courses to train their ESL endorsement-seeking preservice teachers. This dependency is an issue for the coordinator tasked with monitoring content/standard alignment. Standard and curriculum are not constructs present in the operations of the other colleges, nor does the same obligation hold them as E College (accreditation). So, the coordinator is tasked with a duty that makes sense conceptually but only to those in E College. However, the context of the course structure puts the coordinator in an unclear position, further confounded by the lack of engagement by the administration as perceived by the coordinator. To the coordinator, the position (divisio) stops short of connecting with the other two colleges, with that responsibility falling on the administration. But the lack of information about the other two colleges (state colleges) provided to the coordinator by the administration implies that this had not happened. This point is reflected in the figure by the dual position of responsibility. Because we lack the administration's narratives, the responsibility of communication with the other colleges cannot be firmly placed. What can be inferred is there are two possibilities. According to the coordinator, the responsibility falls on the administration. The other could be that the administration does not accept or is unaware of the responsibility. This second possibility could explain why the responsibility has not been addressed. However, even if there was established communication between the three colleges, the fact that the curriculum is only a construct in E College highlights issues associated with ideology which, in this case, refers to an understanding of a course’s purpose and goal. As the coordinator states in their short story, the preparation of preservice teachers is a balance between standards and ideology. The standards serve as guidelines that are then operationalized by a program through the individuals in the program. This notion brings into question the amount of influence ideology has in the successful operationalization of the 123 standards. This question is necessary given that each college is distinct without a common goal. Such context can result in different ideological positions. If the coordinator's purpose is to show that course content addresses the knowledge stated in the standard, then current practices are adequate. Each college can determine which standards their courses meet, and the coordinator can compline the findings. This practice could be applied in any curriculum structure and does not require a unified goal or ideology because each party is simply exchanging information. However, this practice only addresses institutional system-level issues and does not engage in the issue we have seen with the preservice teachers who lack a sense of preparation. Preservice Teacher Preparation: Context Only through the preservice teachers' experiences does the curriculum include of all the courses. Regardless of where the course is housed, each preservice teacher is guided by the course requirement to achieve the endorsement. The following figure visualizes the preservice teacher experience. 124 Figure 21 Preservice Teacher Experience 125 The current curriculum structure has the preservice teachers complete all required courses before their internship. By this very structure, because the preservice teachers have completed their courses, they should possess the necessary knowledge, with the internship serving as an opportunity for them to use their pedagogical skills in a structured learning environment. This progression is shown in the figure above by the sequence of arrows resulting in the construction of the teacher system. The teacher system signifies the individual’s departure from the curriculum when they are no longer designated as a preservice teacher. However, as Figure 19 shows, this journey the preservice teachers go through is mapped across separate systems, each with their own ideology and associated processes. This multisystem journey is not flawed, per se, but it places the responsibility on the preservice teacher to contextualize the content from each course which has different degrees of difficulty depending on the approach (active/passive) they take. Combining elements from the preservice teacher experience and the content/context figures, the following figure shows the course system and the operations for both active and passive approaches. 126 Figure 22 Course System Approaches Preservice teachers who take an active approach typically have experience in a teaching role. This experience is the context used to filter the content they encounter in their preparatory courses. Those who lack those experiences typically take a passive approach where they depend on their teaching preparatory to help them contextualize course content. Each approach poses different demands on the instructor, and as we have seen in Chapter 4 (the instructor findings chapter), understanding the context is a contributing factor to self-perceived success. Also as shown in Chapter 4, a more detailed engagement with the instructor experience yielded an eventual understanding of the preservice teacher experience and the consideration of that experience in the shaping of course content was spoken favorably by some of the instructors in this study. However, there seemed to be a lack of long-lasting impression on the preservice teachers who struggled to distinguish courses from one another and recount specific details about course content. The inability to recount course details does not seem to influence perceived readiness, as the preservice teachers expressed readiness to meet some standards. Further exploration of why they feel they meet some standards over others is needed before any concrete 127 conclusions can be made, but the findings of this study highlight a factor in need of exploration, namely, successful implementation. This study is centered around the view that because the preservice teachers lack the perceived readiness to meet state standard 1.5, implementation is thus unsuccessful, especially given the underlining assumption associated with teacher preparation (i.e., alignment of curriculum and standards). This assumption is based on the state certification framework stated in the standard document: A teacher preparation program is comprised of multiple interdependent components that prepare candidates for certification to demonstrate proficiencies defined in several aligned sets of standards: [State]-specific content standards define the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the specific discipline(s) in which teacher candidates seek endorsement, as well as pedagogical applications of that disciplinary knowledge. A recommendation for teacher certification is an assurance on the part of the teacher preparation program that a candidate demonstrates the appropriate proficiencies specified in each of these sets of standards. (State standard document, 2017; emphasis added) Hence, the onus is on the program to ensure preservice teachers are fully prepared. However, what is lacking in this study is an understanding (by those impacted by the actual curriculum) of what being fully prepared looks like in practice. In this study, my findings revealed that the teaching internship holds the most substantial influence on the preservice teacher’s perceived readiness. Should the experiences within the internship facilitate course content connection, then that content is deemed necessary by the preservice teacher and incorporated into 128 their teacher system. If course content conflicts with the internship experience or does not materialize within it, then there is a chance that it could be excluded. The content that is deemed crucial is then operationalized as the teacher system is constructed within the internship experience. The importance of the internship can easily be explained. Preservice teachers are in the same classroom full-time, the closest representation of what they will experience post- graduation. Though the internship experience cannot be replicated in the courses, it can be represented in the context used by the instructors to explain the content. However, information about the internship experience is another missing piece not provided to instructors in their onboarding process, which leaves them at a disadvantage when assuming their role. Course Instructor Preparation: Informed Agency All instructors felt they met the obligations of their position, but when they felt comfortable varied. E1C (who had experience in U.S. K-12 ESL teaching) established a strong content/context connection. For the others, they were able to grasp the context while learning about the content of the course. This issue is that while instructors are acclimating to the course, instruction is taking place, and the level of effectiveness of the instruction is compromised. Though a lack of preparedness of the instructors did not directly translate to a lack of perceived preparedness in the candidates. Again, the candidates were no more than two academic years removed from the curriculum, yet all three preservice teachers struggled when asked to reflect on their courses. What little information was recalled referenced compatibility with the instructor and course assignments. The variability in instructor acclimation could be limited through a standardized onboarding process, but some considerations must be addressed. The first consideration is an acknowledgment of the multiple roles instructors are in and how those roles might inhibit each other. The instructors in this study were graduate students, which is 129 the primary reason they are at the institution. Clearly defining the expectations of the instructor role concerning the student role is a much needed starting point. These expectations should not simply be a reference to administration guidelines; rather, they should be grounded in the tasks associated with being an instructor (most of which are unknown to the instructor). Highlighting these expectations benefits the instructor and the department because it identifies which responsibilities fall on the instructor. Those responsibilities that cannot be met by the instructor because of timing constraints, for example, can then be turned into creating external forms of support for the instructor to tap into when needed. Such external support should start at the onboarding phase. Acclimation to the course context starts with situating the course within the curriculum. Understanding the curriculum provides the instructor with the administrative background needed to understand the purpose of their course concerning other courses and the standards their course is expected to address. Having the curriculum big picture could facilitate collaboration between instructors of different courses, which in turn could strengthen the curriculum through course continuity. Once instructors are familiar with the curriculum context, they can focus on the course context. As noted in the course system approached figure (Figure 20), the connection to course context depends on background information for both preservice teachers and instructors. I do not make the case that all instructors need a background similar to E1C, but a lack of background can be supplemented by information about: 130 • where the preservice teachers in their course are training to work; • what information gaps may exist in preservice teachers depending on classification (e.g., sophomore, junior, senior), major (e.g., elementary, secondary, world language), and field experience; • active and passive approaches used by preservice teachers. The above information would give instructors enough context to find relevant supplementary materials, adjust assignments, and establish rapport with their preservice student teachers. Furthermore, it gives instructors a strong contextual foundation that only needs adjustments throughout the semester as they learn more about their students rather than having to be built. Providing instructors with the highlighted information does not remove their existing freedom. Instructors can still conduct the course as they please, but they can now apply their expertise immediately because they have the full picture (i.e., administrative and course contexts) of their course. For the coordinator, clarity on role and responsibility is also needed. Coordinator: Balance and Role Clarity There has been a change to the coordinator role since this study was concluded, with the introduction of another faculty member taking over the curriculum alignment responsibilities. This change was initiated by the coordinator, highlighting the negative impact of the role's demands on their other responsibilities. However, splitting the coordinator's responsibilities does not solve the issue of role clarity. The administration blind spot of the study highlighted a vital breakdown point around the responsibility of cross-college communication. According to the coordinator, this responsibility falls on the administration, given the coordinator's lack of professional connections upon assuming the role. However, the lack of administrative data could not confirm the coordinator’s 131 assumptions. What can be discussed is the lack of clarity of role, which the coordinator brought up several times. This lack of clarity was evident in the coordinator and administration. Without this clarity, cross-college communication depends on individual initiative, which questions the accuracy of curriculum/standard alignment. As stated by the coordinator, they rely on the syllabi of the non-E college courses to populate the state curriculum alignment document. However, as noted through the instructor findings, courses are revised to varying degrees when taken over by a new instructor. It could be the case that the syllabi the coordinator was working with were outdated by the time they reviewed them and, most certainly, are outdated now. Without established cross-college communication through role clarity, curriculum alignment is questionable and could contribute to the preservice teachers’ perceived ability to meet the standards. Like the instructors, this breakdown point results from a lack of role clarity which is a systemic issue rather than an individual one because the individual is empowered through the system. Conclusions The preparation of teachers for a constantly changing educational environment is complex. Teacher education curricula need to balance multiple factors addressing both content and context. These curricula must also balance the expectations of accrediting bodies, like state education departments. Of course, each curriculum comprises individuals in various roles working towards multiple goals, but these individuals are only as influential as the system allows. This study identifies this fact through the onto-epistemological combination of social systems theory and short story narrative inquiry. Throughout this study, I have shown that the issue of policy implementation (i.e., curriculum alignment) is not due to individual shortcomings, even though it is through their actions that issues arise; rather, my primary point that been that it is 132 information breakdown points in the system that shaped their actions. Additionally, the structure of a system has minimal impact on implementation success. Indeed, the complexity of the structure increases potential breakdown points, but role clarity and informed individuals either avert or alleviate those breakdown points from unintentionally transpiring. In the case of this study, the decentralized nature of the curriculum can be improved by addressing the two breakdown points, namely, list the two points. Instructor breakdown can be repaired through effective onboarding while clarifying the responsibility of cross-college communication repairs the other. These solutions are practical, effective, and can easily be implemented. However, the implications of this study extend beyond its context. Implications For language in education policy implementation researchers, the methodology of this study can expand the scope beyond current models. This expanded scope could benefit those in roles similar to the coordinator who must evaluate organizational effectiveness. This methodology could also aid in the construction or restructuring of new organizations by identifying potential breakdown points. Theoretically, this study shows that postmodern thought can be applied practically. There are, however, limitations to this study. Limitations Again, the most significant limitation of this study is the lack of administrative data. This limitation is an issue because the coordinator paritio cannot be established. Also, the boundaries of the curriculum system are not certain, given the lack of und erstanding between the administration and the state department of education. Another limitation is the number of preservice teacher participants represented. Including other preservice teachers in the same courses could enrich the findings from this group by either confirming or disputing points made. 133 Next, the points I make in my discussion sections cannot be fully asserted without the solutions being implemented and their impact verified. In the final analysis, however, this study does provide a starting point and practical solutions that maintain the current curriculum structure and individual agency. 134 REFERENCES Baraldi, C. & Corsi, G. (2015). Niklas Luhmann: Education as a Social System. Springer Barkhuizen, G. (2016). A short story approach to analyzing teacher (imagined) identity over time. TESOL Quarterly, 50(3), 655-683. Barkhuizen, G. (2017). Investigating language tutor social inclusion identities. The Modern Language Journal, 101(Supplement 2017), 61-75. Barkhuizen, G. (2019). Core dimensions of narrative inquiry. In J. McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research in methods in applied linguistics (pp. 188-198). Routledge. Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning research. Routledge. De Costa, P.I., Gajasighe, K., Green-Eneix, C.A., & Randez, R.A. (2021). Enhancing equity for English language learners through the seal of biliteracy. In K. Raza, C. Coombe, & D. Reynolds (Eds.), Policy development in TESOL and multilingualism: Past, present and the way forward (pp. 107-117). Springer. Garcia, S. B., & Tyler, B. J. (2010). Meeting the needs of English language learners with learning disabilities in the general curriculum. Theory Into Practice, 49(2), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841003626585 Johnson, D. C., & Johnson, E. J. (2015). Power and agency in language policy appropriation. Language Policy, 14(3), 221-243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-014-9333-z Hornberger, N. H., Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 509-532. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00083.x Hornberger, N. H. (2015). Selecting appropriate research methods in LPP research: Methodological rich points. In F. M. Hult & D. C. Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning (pp. 9-20). John Wiley & Sons Inc. Hornberger, N. H. (2020). Reflect, revisit, reimagine: Ethnography of language policy and planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40(2020), 119-127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719052000001X Kangas, S. E. N. (2014). When special education trumps ESL: An investigation of service delivery for ELLs with disabilities. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11(4), 273-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2014.968070 Kormos, J. (2017). The second language learning processes of students with specific learning 135 difficulties. Routledge. ISBN: 9781138911796 Lopez-Reyna, N. A., Collado, C. L., Bay, M., Hseih, W. Y. (2021). Preparing teachers of young bilingual children with disabilities. In D.C. Castro & A.J. Artiles (Eds.), Language learning, and disability in the education of young bilingual children (pp. 137-162). Multilingual Matters. Luhmann, N. (2013a). Theory of society, Volume 1 (R. Barrett, Trans). Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1997) Luhmann, N. (2013a). Theory of society, Volume 1 (R. Barrett, Trans). Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1997) Maxwell, L. A., Shah, N. (2012). Evaluating ELLs for special needs a challenge. Education Week, 32(2), 1-12. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/evaluating-ells-for-special-needs-a- challenge/2012/08 Moore, S. C. K., Wiley, T. G. (2015). Interpretive policy analysis for language policy. In F. M. Hult & D. C. Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning (pp. 152-165). John Wiley & Sons Inc. National Center for Education Statistics. (2020, May). English language learners in public schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp Seidman, I. (2019). Interviewing as qualitative research. A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. (5th Edition ed.). Teachers College Press. Oh, K. (2021). Ideology critique: A Deleuzian case. The Southern Journal of Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjp.12438 Orosco, M. J., & O’Connor, R. (2014). Culturally responsive instruction for English language learners with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(6), 515-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413476553 Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., Wilkinson, C. Y., Liu, Y. J., McGhee, D., & Kushner, M. I. (2011). The role of bilingual education teachers in preventing inappropriate referrals of ELLs to special education: Implications for response to intervention. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 316-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2011.628608 Paneque, O. M., & Barbetta, P. M. (2006). A study of teacher efficacy of special education teachers of English language learners with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(1), 171-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2006.10162871 Quach, W., Tsai, P. T. (2017). Preparing future SLPs for the clinical world of culturally- linguistically diversity. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, SIG 14,2(3), 82-102. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp2.SIG14.82 136 Randez, R.A., Cornell, C. (2023). Advancing equity in language assessment for learners with disabilities. Language Testing, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231169442 Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700304 Vermunt, J. D, Vrikki, M., Warwick, P., & Mercer, N. (2019). Connecting teacher identity formation in patterns in teacher learning. In D. J. Clandinin & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 143-159). SAGE. Vetter, A., Meacham, M., Schieble, M. (2013). Leveling the field: Negotiating positions of power as a preservice teacher. Action in Teacher Education, 35(4), 230-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2013.827598 Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing. SAGE. 137 APPENDIX A: PRESERVICE TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL The following interview protocol is for the preservice teachers following the BNIM format. Interviews will be conducted on campus using one of the private conference rooms available in Wells Hall B-Wing. If the preservice teacher is unavailable to meet in person, a secure Zoom room will be set up and the teacher will be advised to find a secluded area to ensure there will be no interruptions. Interview 1 This interview elicits the full narrative with minimum guidance. The only guidance given is to focus the preservice teacher on their experience in the teacher education program rather than their entire educational experience at [university] which includes them taking general courses not specific to the teacher education program. Opening Prompt. “First of all, thank you for taking the time to sit down with me to share your experience here at [university]. The purpose of this interview is to have you reflect on your time here learning to become a teacher. Given that this is your final year, with your next step being you having your own classroom, I feel that this is a great time to have you think about your experience. This part of the interview is all about you. Start however you feel is appropriate and take all the time you need. I may take some notes, but I won’t stop you or interrupt. Again, this is just about you sharing your experience. So, if you are ready, I will ask you:” Interview Question. Tell me about your time here at [university] as part of the teacher education program, all the events and experiences which were important to you. 138 Interview 2 After the preservice teacher has shared their full narrative in interview 1, we will take a short break. Wengraf (2001) recommends a minimum of fifteen minutes before starting the second interview. However, I will offer more time should the preservice teacher require it. The themes that come up in the first interview will be expanded on, primarily focusing on their experience in the TESOL endorsement curriculum. The questions for interview two will differ based on the narratives provided in the first interview but will follow similar outlines. Opening Prompt. “Thank you for sharing your experience. Now that you have shared your whole experience, I want to ask you about the courses you took. More specifically, the courses you took for your ESL endorsement. Let’s start with your overall experience with those courses and then we can go through each one.” Interview Questions. 1. Tell me about your experience in the ESL endorsement program. 2. How would you describe the program to another student who might be interested in the ESL endorsement? 3. What would you say is the most impactful thing you’ve learned from the program? 4. Is there anything you wish you learned about or learned more of in the program? 5. Knowing what you know now, what advice would you give others who are about to start the program? 6. I’m going to say the name of each course. Please, share any experiences you had in the course that you found useful, impactful, or important. a. LLT 307 b. LLT 346 139 c. LLT 361 d. ANP 494 e. TE 494 7. Is there anything you would like to go back and address or anything else you would like to add? Interview 3 The final interview will be set up upon completion of the second but will be no sooner than a calendar week. Though this interview will incorporate some topics discussed in the first two, it will be highly structured and focus on their perceived readiness to teach ExLLs. Questions that are marked Condition A will be asked if the preservice teacher feels they are prepared with the opposite marked Condition B (unprepared). Opening Prompt. “It’s great to see you again. I hope you’ve been well. So, last time we met you told me about your experience here at [university] in the teacher education program. We then talked about your experiences regarding the ESL endorsement part of your program. For this interview, I want to narrow the focus more and talk about how you feel about your preparedness to teach English language learners who have special needs. Before we dive into the interview, I want to share this document with you. These are the ESL endorsement standards for the state. The state department of education created these standards, which identify areas of knowledge that are important for ESL endorsed teachers to have. Universities who have ESL endorsement programs have to show the state that their program addresses these standards in their curriculum. I want to draw your attention to one standard in particular. Would you read standard 1.5 aloud please? Now, that you have that standard in mind we can start.” 140 Interview Questions. 1. Looking at standard 1.5; Do you feel you have the knowledge needed to meet that standard? 2. Condition A: Can you explain more about your knowledge? a. Condition B: Why don’t you feel you have that knowledge? 3. Condition A: Which courses prepared you? How did they prepare you? a. Condition B: Which courses would have been the perfect fit to talk about this? 4. What are some teaching strategies that come to mind when you think about teaching a language learner with special needs? 5. What are some considerations that come to mind when teaching a learner with special needs compared to one that doesn’t? 6. Has this student population ever come up in any of your courses? 7. Is there anything else you would like to add or expand on? Wrap-up Upon completion of the third interview, the preservice teacher will be paid for their participation. Additionally, if they are interested in learning more about ExLLs I will provide them resources in the form of a PPT that was used in my 307 class that covers ExLLs, book recommendations about the learner population, and articles about the topic. 141 APPENDIX B: COURSE INSTRUCTOR PROTOCOL The following interview protocol is for the instructors of each of the required courses for the ESL endorsement following the BNIM format. Interviews will be conducted on campus using one of the private conference rooms available in Wells Hall B-wing. If the instructor is unavailable to meet in person, a secure Zoom room will be set up and the instructor will be advised to find a secluded area to ensure there will be no interruptions. Interview 1 This interview will elicit the instructor’s full narrative about their experience with the course of focus. There will be minimum guidance given other than asking them to focus on the semester in which they were the instructor of the preservice teachers interviewed. Opening Prompt. “Thank you again for agreeing to meet with me. I hope the semester has been going well for you especially transitioning back from the pandemic. So, we are going to start the series of interviews focusing on your time as the instructor of (course). How we’re going to go about this is to start from your general experience and narrow the focus in the subsequent interview sessions. For this interview, I just want you to tell me everything and anything about teaching (course) during (semester). Everything you feel is important or memorable. I’ll take some notes, but I won’t interrupt. Again, this interview is just about your whole experience. So, take all the time you need. With that being said, let’s start this session with the following question.” Interview Question. Tell me about your experience teaching (course) during the year of (specified). 142 Interview 2 After the instructor has shared their full narrative in interview 1, we will take a short break. Wengraf (2001) recommends a minimum of fifteen minutes before starting the second interview. However, I will offer more time should the instructor require it. The themes that arise from the first interview will be integrated into this interview, but the focus will be towards how the instructor prepared for the course prior to the start of the semester. Opening Prompt. “Thank you for sharing! Now that we have your whole experience, let’s focus on what went on prior to the start of the first semester. We are narrowing the focus, but I ask you to share everything and anything you think is important.” Interview Questions. 1. When and how did you find out you were going to teach (course)? 2. What guidance was provided to you about what content to cover? 3. What materials were provided to help you prepare for the course? 4. Who was your primary point of contact when you had questions? 5. How much freedom were you given in this course regarding content covered? a. How much freedom were you given in choosing materials? b. What about assignments? Assessments? 6. How would you describe the course and its objective to someone who is unfamiliar? 7. What is the main takeaway for students taking this course? 8. What does this course prepare students for in the future? 9. What changes did you make, or would you have made, to the course after your first time teaching it? 10. Is there anything else you want to add or elaborate on? 143 Interview 3 The final interview will be set up upon completion of the second but will be no sooner than a calendar week. Though this interview will incorporate some topics discussed in the first two, it will be highly structured and focusing on how they perceive the course’s applicability to the ESL endorsement curriculum. Also, the instructor will be asked about how their experiences prior to the start of the semester influenced how they engaged in the course. Opening Prompt. “It’s great to see you again. I hope you have been well. Last time we met you shared your experience as the instructor of (course) during the (academic year). Building of the second interview, which focused on your preparation for the first for the class and the class content, I want to focus this interview on two points: How this course fits in the curriculum in which preservice teachers earn their English as a Second Language endorsement; How your experience preparing for the course impacted how you engaged in the course. So, to give some context to the first part. This course is required for education students who are working towards their English as Second Language endorsement, or ESL. What that is, is a secondary credential that is added to their area of focus (elementary math, middle school science, high school English). This course, along with the other required courses, are supposed to prepare these students to teach students who are English language learners in public schools. Hopefully, that explanation gives you some context. Now that we have that settled, let’s start with the first question.” Interview Questions. 1. How do you think this course prepares preservice teachers to teach English language learners? 2. Were you aware that this course was part of the ESL endorsement curriculum? a. If not, do you think that information would have been helpful to you in 144 preparation for the first semester of teaching? b. If so, how was that information communicated to you? 3. What elements of your course do you think were helpful to those preservice teachers? 4. Shifting back to you and your preparation: Do you feel you were adequately prepared to teach the course? a. If so, what do you attribute that readiness to? b. If not, what was missing from your preparation that would have helped you become ready? 5. This question is a bit abstract. So please, ask me to clarify if you are unsure. What word would you use to describe your role as the instructor of this course thinking back to the level of preparedness you had prior to the first day? 6. Is there anything you would like to add or expand on? Wrap-up Upon completion of the third interview the instructor will be thanked for their participation and given more context about the study should they be interested. For those who were promised compensation, they will be paid at this time. 145 APPENDIX C: PROGRAM COORDINATOR PROTOCOL The following interview protocol is for the ESL endorsement program coordinator following the BNIM format. Interviews will be conducted on campus using one of the private conference rooms available in Wells Hall B-wing or Erickson Hall. If the coordinator is unavailable to meet in person, a secure Zoom room will be set up and the coordinator will be advised to find a secluded area to ensure there will be no interruptions. Interview 1 This interview will elicit the full narrative of the coordinator about their experience as the ESL coordinator. There will be minimal guidance given, but the coordinator will be asked about how they came into the position and the responsibilities associated with it. Opening Prompt. “Thank you for agreeing to meet with me and taking the time out of your schedule. So, this is the first of three interviews focusing on your role as the ESL endorsement program coordinator. Each interview will build on one another, starting from your general experience and narrowing down in subsequent sessions. For this interview, we will just focus on your entire experience as the ESL endorsement program coordinator. Take as much time as you need, and I won’t interrupt. I’ll just take some notes. So with that being said, let us start with the following question.” Interview Question. Tell me about your experience as the ESL program coordinator. Interview 2 After the coordinator has shared their full narrative in interview 1, we will take a short break. Wengraf (2001) recommends a minimum of fifteen minutes before starting the second interview. However, I will offer more time should the coordinator require it. The themes that arise from the first interview will be integrated into this interview, but the focus will be shifted towards 146 how the coordinator interacts with the MDE ESL standards and their experience with the required courses in the curriculum. Opening Prompt. “Thank you for sharing! Now that we have your whole experience, let’s focus a bit on your experience working with MDE and the curriculum itself.” Interview Questions. 1. What does communication with MDE usually look like? 2. Is there a main point of contact that you usually correspond with? 3. How available would you say MDE is when you have a question? 4. When the ESL standards were changed in 2016, how were you notified about the changes? 5. What guidance was given, from MDE, about aligning [university]’s endorsement program with the new standards? 6. What is a word, or phrase, you would use to describe [university]’s endorsement program? a. Would you elaborate on that choice, please? 7. How would you describe your job as a program coordinator to someone who is unfamiliar with the position? 8. Is there anything else you want to add or elaborate on? Interview 3 The final interview will be set up upon completion of the second but will be no sooner than a calendar week. Though this interview will incorporate some topics discussed in the first two, it will be highly structured and focus on how the course coordinator manages their role as the bridge between MDE and the university. Also, the coordinator will be asked about their 147 experiences trying to ensure that the endorsement curriculum is following the MDE standards. Opening Prompt. “It’s great to see you again. I hope you have been well. The last time we spoke, you shared your experience as the endorsement program coordinator. You talked about dealing with MDE and a little bit about the program itself. I was hoping we could expand on some points you made as well as some questions focused on how the curriculum is currently structured. So, with that being said, let us start.” Interview Questions. 1. What is expected of the program coordinator position? a. To whom do you attribute those expectations? 2. Thinking of the structure of the program, what are some obstacles that make meeting those expectations difficult? 3. How are you addressing those obstacles currently or plan to in the future? 4. If you would, please look at standard 1.5; After read ing that standard, could you describe how [university]’s endorsement program addresses it? a. Was that topic always covered, or was it a recent addition? 5. How realistic is it for an ESL endorsement program to adequately meet all standards set by the state? 6. In your opinion, is there anything missing from the current standards that are needed in public schools? 7. What are some future goals or improvements you hope to make for the program? 8. Is there anything you would like to add or elaborate on? 148 Wrap-up Upon completion of the third interview the instructor will be thanked for their participation and given more context about the study should they be interested. 149