In 2008, Lucas, Villegas, and Freedson-Gonzalez published a framework for linguistically responsive teacher education that Lucas and Villegas expanded in 2010 and 2011. These frameworks for linguistically responsive teaching (LRT) have been heavily cited, but not yet empirically examined (i.e., Bunch, 2013; Scanlan & López, 2012; Rueda & Stillman, 2012). This study utilized the LRT framework as an a priori coding framework to conduct a content analysis of the digital documents in-service content teachers of multilingual learners (MLLs) submitted as part of online professional learning targeted to develop LRT expertise. The research questions for this study are: • What aspects of the linguistically responsive teaching (LRT) framework are found in the online professional learning digital documents submitted by in-service content teachers? • What does the LRT related content of these digital documents reveal about participant’s understandings and competencies regarding LRT? The LRT framework has two domains: orientations and knowledge and skills. The first domain--orientations--is divided into three subdomains: sociolinguistic consciousness, value for linguistic diversity, and inclination to advocate for MLLs. The second domain--knowledge and skills--comprises four subdomains: knowledge of MLLs, identifying the language demands of classroom tasks, understanding key principles of second language acquisition, and scaffolding instruction. The digital documents that were analyzed include online postings and learning artifacts. Across ten different modules, from Spring 2013-Summer 2015, 24 groups of teachers participated (n = 160) and contributed digital documents for analysis (~600 digital documents). Participants displayed more limited engagement with the orientations aspects of the LRT framework than of those based on knowledge and skills. There was little to no connection made between language, culture and identity and a limited awareness of the sociopolitical dimensions of language use. Evidence was found of some teachers having an inclination to advocate for MLLs and most teachers did display orientations suggesting a value for linguistic diversity. In terms of knowledge and skills, the identification of language demands of classroom tasks appeared the least and seems to be the most difficult aspect of the framework for teachers to express expertise in. Overall, our findings suggest that more work is necessary to support teachers in identifying the language demands of classroom tasks, applying all of the key principles of second language learning, and scaffolding instruction to deliberately support academic language development in the content areas.

Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298-341. doi:10.3102/0091732X12461772 Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 29(4), 361-373. doi:10.1177/0022487108322110 Rueda, R., & Stillman, J. (2012). The 21st century teacher: A cultural perspective. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 245-253. doi:10.1177/0022487112446511 Scanlan, M., & López, F. (2012). Vamos! How school leaders promote equity and excellence for bilingual students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 583-625. doi:10.1177/0013161X11436270