Rutt - Mumba - 2022 - Pre-Service Teachers Enactment of Language - and Literacy-Integrated Science

10982736, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21739 by Frederick Talaue - Cochrane Philippines , Wiley Online Library on [14/01/2023].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 14 October 2020 Accepted: 8 November 2021
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21739
RESEARCH ARTICLE
|
Pre-service teachers enactment of

language- and literacy-integrated science
instruction in linguistically diverse science
classrooms
Alexis A. Rutt | Frackson Mumba
School of Education and Human

Development, University of Virginia,
Abstract
Charlottesville, Virginia, USA The Next Generation Science Standards and increasing
linguistic diversity of students in United States science
Correspondence
Alexis A. Rutt, College of Education, classrooms require language-focused science instruction
University of Mary Washington, 1301 for which many secondary science teachers are not pre-
College Avenue, Seacobeck Hall,
pared. To date, minimal research has addressed how to
Fredericksburg, VA 22401, USA.
Email: arutt@umw.edu best support secondary science pre-service teachers (PSTs)
in teaching in linguistically diverse classrooms despite the
fact that most PSTs will have the opportunity to teach
emergent bilinguals (EBs) at some point in their careers.
The purpose of this multiple case study was to determine
at what level and in what ways three secondary science
PSTs were able to integrate language and literacy into
their science instruction following their participation in
two language- and literacy-integrated science methods
courses. PSTs' instruction was analyzed using an observa-
tion rubric and supported by instructional materials, inter-
views, and reflections. Results indicated that, following
the intervention, PSTs were able to enact most language-
and literacy-integrated science practices at the targeted
level. However, the ways in which they did so varied and
at times led to missed opportunities for EBs' participation
in key scientific practices. Implications for teacher educa-
tors and researchers are addressed.
© 2021 National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
J Res Sci Teach. 2022;59:619–655. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea 619

|
10982736, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21739 by Frederick Talaue - Cochrane Philippines , Wiley Online Library on [14/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
620 RUTT AND MUMBA
KEYWORDS
English learners, language- and literacy-integrated science, pre-
service teacher preparation, secondary science
1 | INTRODUCTION
Recent national reforms, including the Common Core Standards (Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2010) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013),
emphasize the integration of language and literacy into all content areas at the K-12 level
(Bunch, 2013). In science, this integration takes the form of eight science and engineering prac-
tices (SEPs) that are meant to exemplify “what scientists do as they engage in scientific inquiry
and … [in part] what students must do both to learn science and to understand the nature of sci-
ence” (Lee et al., 2013). The SEPs are language-rich practices, requiring students to use lan-
guage as they ask questions, explain models, engage in argumentation, and communicate their
findings, among other tasks (Quinn et al., 2012). This increased attention to language and liter-
acy in science is advantageous for all students, but it is particularly beneficial for students classi-
fied by standardized, federally mandated English proficiency assessments as English learners.
In line with recent calls in the field to take a more asset-oriented perspective that celebrates the
linguistic skills that these students already possess (Gonzalez-Howard & Suarez, 2021), we
adopt the term emergent bilingual (EB) to describe this diverse group of students.
Research suggests that EBs show more growth in both science achievement and language
and literacy development when language, encompassing oral and written input and output, and
literacy, defined here as reading and writing, are integrated into science instruction than when
science, language, and literacy are taught separately (e.g., Lara-Alecio et al., 2012; Lee
et al., 2008; Tong et al., 2014). This might be particularly true when language- and literacy-
integrated science is taught within the context of scientific inquiry (Amaral et al., 2002; Stoddart
et al., 2002).
However, a renewed focus on language and literacy in science can also be challenging for
EBs, especially for those who are entering the United States' education system for the first time
in middle school or high school and who are faced with learning English through complex
course content in a shorter amount of time (O'Hara et al., 2016). In order to excel in these set-
tings, EBs need content teachers who are well-trained in research-based strategies for teaching
science to EBs (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). Unfortunately, requirements for content teacher prepa-
ration for teaching EBs vary by state, with some states requiring no preparation at all (National
Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2018). As a result, many teacher
education programs are not adequately preparing pre-service teachers (PSTs) to teach in science
classrooms inclusive of EBs (De Jong & Harper, 2005; Tolbert et al., 2014), leaving much of the
emerging science teacher work force unprepared for the linguistically diverse science class-
rooms (i.e., classrooms containing both EBs and non-EBs) of the 21st century, especially at the
secondary level (NASEM, 2018). This is despite research indicating that PSTs feel more pre-
pared to teach multilingual learners when they receive training to do so in their teacher prepa-
ration programs (Deng et al., 2020).
Fortunately, teacher educators and researchers are beginning to take note of this gap in sci-
ence PST preparation. Reviews of research related to preparing all content-area teachers for
teaching EBs have provided insights into the roles of field experiences, training in second
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 621
language development, attention to discipline-specific linguistic structures and vocabulary,

familiarity with students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and interactions in authentic
learning contexts with EBs as beneficial components of preparing PSTs to teach EBs
(Janzen, 2008; Villegas et al., 2018). More recent research has considered PSTs' diverse language
ideologies and how teacher educators might foster PSTs' understanding of inclusive and non-
inclusive language ideologies (e.g., Lemmi et al., 2019), as well as the impact of those ideologies
on instruction (e.g., Deroo et al., 2020).
However, while these broader findings are important, attention to science-specific prepara-
tion is also necessary because PSTs will need to be prepared to engage and support students in
practices that are unique to the science discipline and carry their own linguistic complexities
(Solís & Bunch, 2016). Fortunately, research has emerged in the past decade addressing teacher
education programs designed to prepare PSTs for language- and literacy-integrated science
instruction (i.e., instruction in which language and literacy are positioned as key components of
learning and doing science) for linguistically diverse classrooms (see Rutt et al., 2021). These
initial studies, which we review next, are providing some insight into how science teacher prep-
aration programs can prepare science PSTs for classrooms inclusive of EBs. However, the small
number of studies at the secondary level means more needs to be done to understand the com-
plexities of how PSTs learn to integrate language and literacy into their instruction. In particu-
lar, few studies (e.g., Lyon et al., 2018; Meier et al., 2020) have investigated how secondary
science PST training for language- and literacy-integrated science translates into PSTs' instruc-
tion in the classroom, a shortcoming echoed in research on teacher preparation for linguisti-
cally diverse classrooms more broadly (Villegas et al., 2018). Given the complexities of science
classrooms, this is a critical oversight (Viesca et al., 2019), especially because research suggests
that the translation from conceptual understanding to practice can be challenging for PSTs
(Rutt et al., 2021).
Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine at what level of proficiency and in what
ways three secondary science PSTs were able to translate their training in language- and
literacy-integrated science into instruction for linguistically diverse science classrooms. In par-
ticular, this study addressed two research questions: (1) to what level of proficiency and (2) in
what ways do secondary science PSTs enact language- and literacy-integrated science instruc-
tion in their linguistically diverse student teaching classrooms following a two-semester
intervention?
2 | REVIEW OF LITERATURE
As noted above, research specifically addressing preparing science PSTs to teach in linguis-
tically diverse science classrooms is growing. While much of this research has occurred at
the elementary level (e.g., Bravo et al., 2014; Jung & Brown, 2016; Stoddart et al., 2013),
recent research on secondary-level interventions has emerged. These studies vary in focus,
ranging from studies addressing PST preparation for equitable assessment in linguistically
diverse classrooms (i.e., Lyon, 2013a, 2013b; Siegel, 2014) to interventions focused on
language- and literacy-integrated science instruction more generally (i.e., Heineke
et al., 2019; Lyon et al., 2018; Meier et al., 2020; Roberts et al., 2016; Rutt & Mumba, 2020;
Tolbert et al., 2019). Because of the focus of this paper on PSTs' implementation of
language- and literacy-integrated science instruction generally, this review addresses the
latter group of studies.
|
622 RUTT AND MUMBA
The studies that address preparing secondary science PSTs for language- and literacy-
integrated science instruction vary in scope, from a single case study (i.e., Heineke et al., 2019)
to a quasi-experimental, multisite study (Lyon et al., 2018). Interventions in these studies
ranged in duration from 10 weeks (i.e., Roberts et al., 2016) to 2 years (i.e., Heineke
et al., 2019). All interventions ran in conjunction with field placements.
In Roberts et al.'s (2016) STEM Teachers for English Language Learners: Excellence and
Retention (STELLER) program, PSTs participated in a capstone science methods course that
applied theories of second language acquisition to science instruction. The capstone course was
structured around three key principles (i.e., building on and using students' funds of knowledge
and resources, providing students with cognitively demanding work, and providing students oppor-
tunities for rich language and literacy exposure and practice [pp. 83–84]) designed to support
PSTs in developing “adaptive dispositions” to guide their planning and instruction for EBs
(p. 82). During the course, PSTs read about, discussed, implemented, and reflected on each
principle.
Roberts and colleagues used interviews to investigate 10 PSTs' understanding of the three
principles at the conclusion of the capstone course. They found that, while PSTs demonstrated
a basic understanding of each principle, they struggled to understand how to implement them
at a high level. For example, in their descriptions of the language and literacy and cognitively
demanding science work principles, PSTs made no reference to language-rich science practices
such as arguing from evidence or explaining models, instead focusing on vocabulary and cogni-
tively demanding science tasks that did not require rich opportunities for language use, such as
asking students to build an electromagnet as an introduction to electromagnetism (Roberts
et al., 2016). Building on and using students' funds of knowledge (i.e., the cultural, linguistic, and
intellectual resources students bring to the classroom; Gonzalez et al., 2005), was especially
challenging for PSTs, despite their acknowledgement of its importance. In particular, PSTs
seemed unsure of how to identify and integrate students' funds of knowledge into their instruc-
tion. Roberts and colleagues highlight more opportunities for PSTs to engage in instructional
planning and implementation of the focal strategies as a possible remedy to their disappointing
results.
One intervention that showed more success with contextualizing learning, defined in this
paper as connecting learning to real-life phenomena and students' lived experiences and inter-
ests, was Heineke et al.'s (2019) Teach for Change (TFC) undergraduate and graduate education
program. The TFC program was unique in its heavy emphasis on field experiences, through
which PSTs spent a majority of the program in school or community-based field placements
working with EBs. PSTs began by first learning foundational principles of second language
acquisition and instruction for EBs before applying their learning to science-specific instruction.
Throughout the program, PSTs moved through eight sequences with different foci and experi-
ences to prepare them for teaching EBs, including a sequence where PSTs worked one-on-one
with EBs to discern their funds of knowledge and assess their current linguistic abilities, and to
then suggest appropriate instructional methods based on identified strengths and areas for
growth. In their exploratory case study of one secondary science PST, Heineke and colleagues
found that by the conclusion of the program, their participant professed a more asset-oriented
mindset when considering EBs and took steps in his instructional planning to identify and inte-
grate his students' linguistic resources. They also found that the PST consistently developed les-
sons through a language lens, identifying himself as both a science and language teacher and
acknowledging the value of authentic and collaborative instruction for supporting language
development. Despite these findings, the participant still struggled to identify the limitations of
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 623
using labels such as “regular kids” to compare EBs to other students, which the researchers sug-
gest might be attributed to the “institutional practices and discourses” that were extant in the
PST's school-based field experiences (p. 93). They highlight the possible disconnect between
teacher preparation programs and K-12 school field experiences as an area for growth.
In another study related to the current one, Rutt and Mumba (2020) investigated PSTs'
implementation of language- and literacy-integrated science in their instructional planning.
Like in the current study, PSTs participated in two language- and literacy-integrated science
methods courses that were guided by the researcher-created Teaching English Learners
Language- and Literacy-Integrated Science (TELLIS) instructional framework. The framework
included five key instructional practices to support language- and literacy-integrated science
instruction that were integrated into the science instructional methods taught during the
methods course (e.g., the 5E model, engineering design integrated science, problem-based
learning, etc.). These TELLIS practices included integrating opportunities for experiencing and
using discourse inherent to science, creating opportunities for literacy development, implementing
strategies for language understanding and use, using students' multilingual repertoires as instruc-
tional supports, and contextualizing science learning (see descriptions of each practice in
Section 4). During the science methods courses, PSTs read about, experienced as students,
reflected on, and developed lesson plans for the TELLIS-integrated science instructional
methods. Using two PST-developed lesson plans, pre-intervention surveys, and post-
intervention interviews, the researchers found that following the intervention, more PSTs inte-
grated language- and literacy-integrated science instructional practices into their instructional
planning than prior to the intervention. In particular, PSTs included more opportunities for stu-
dent discourse and literacy development through student engagement in language-heavy scien-
tific practices such as argumentation, and a greater diversity of instructional supports to help
EBs participate in those practices. PSTs also contextualized their instruction more often, creat-
ing connections between course content and relevant topics to students' lives. Despite these
gains, PSTs still struggled to integrate students' home languages into instruction, citing that task
as one of the most daunting.
Only two studies focused on PST implementation of language-focused science instruction
(Lyon et al., 2018; Meier et al., 2020). In their study, Meier et al. (2020) addressed PSTs' under-
standing and use of academic language by drawing PSTs' attention to the syntactic, lexical, and
discursive levels of language use through a 13-month, EB-focused secondary science prepara-
tion program that included one language- and literacy-integrated science methods course and
numerous other courses focused on academic language. Using interviews, PSTs' performance
assessment portfolios, and video of PST instruction, Meier and colleagues found that over the
course of the intervention, PSTs' understanding of academic language evolved from mostly
vocabulary-focused to inclusive of all levels of language use. Furthermore, PSTs were able to
identify and enact in their instruction supports for language use at all levels, and highlighted
the importance of attending to language in science instruction. Meier et al. found that these
changes lasted through the end of the study, which they attributed in part to the close align-
ment between PSTs' and mentor teachers' (MTs') understandings of academic language.
Lyon et al.'s (2018) proof of concept study was both the largest study and the only other
study that included observations of PSTs' instructional implementation in secondary class-
rooms. Lyon and colleagues sought to determine the extent to which secondary science PSTs
from six teacher preparation programs across three different states implemented targeted
instructional practices during their field placements. Researchers trained participants using
their researcher-created Secondary Science Teaching with English Language and Literacy
|
624 RUTT AND MUMBA
Acquisition (SSTELLA) framework, which includes four dimensions (i.e., scientific sense-mak-
ing, scientific discourse, language and discipline literacy, and contextualized science activity) that
are further divided into nine instructional practices. During the intervention, PSTs experienced,
analyzed, discussed, and rehearsed the targeted practices.
PSTs' instruction, which occurred during their field placements in classrooms with
SSTELLA-trained MTs, was observed using a researcher-created observation rubric. Results
indicated that, in aggregate, PSTs receiving SSTELLA training performed significantly better on
three practices, student interaction, science talk, and adapting and applying contextualization
than PSTs in the control group who did not receive the SSTELLA training, though overall
scores for both groups were low, particularly for contextualization.
Looking at results by program, researchers found that a majority of participants enacted
three of the practices, student interaction, student talk, and literacy, at the targeted implementing
or elaborating levels of enactment. However, they also found that in multiple programs PSTs
who received the SSTELLA training showed limited or negative growth on three practices
related to scientific activity and reasoning: engaging students in scientific and engineering prac-
tices, communicating big ideas, and pressing for evidence-based explanations and arguments. Like
Heineke et al. (2019), Lyon and colleagues suggest this disconnect could be attributed in part to
expectations in field placement classrooms, in which activities encouraged by MTs may reflect
more teacher-directed, “cookbook” investigations that do not align with student engagement in
reform-oriented SEPs.
Though few in number, the studies reviewed above provide some insights into PST prepa-
ration for language- and literacy-integrated science instruction. In all of the studies, PSTs
showed conceptual or practical growth following interventions focused on language- and
literacy-integrated science instruction. However, results from the studies also indicated that,
though there was growth, it was often uneven or limited, so that even when PSTs were
enacting targeted instructional practices at a higher level than PSTs who did not receive train-
ing in language- and literacy-integrated science instruction (i.e., Lyon et al., 2018), the level of
implementation for some practices failed to reach targeted levels of implementation.
Researchers highlighted possible reasons for these shortcomings, including a disconnect
between university and field placement contexts (e.g., Heineke et al., 2019; Lyon et al., 2018)
and not enough time interacting with the targeted instructional practices (e.g., Roberts
et al., 2016).
In addition to these findings, it is also important to note that only two studies (i.e., Lyon
et al., 2018; Meier et al., 2020) specifically investigated PSTs' implementation of targeted prac-
tices in science classrooms. This is a critical area for future research, particularly because PSTs
can struggle to translate what they have learned in university methods courses into their own
instruction (Rutt et al., 2021). Indeed, determining how science teacher preparation programs
can increase PSTs' knowledge about and use of STEM language and discourse and culturally
sustaining pedagogies to support EBs' learning in the science classroom is considered one of the
top research agendas for science teacher educators (NASEM, 2018). Investigating to what extent
and in what ways PSTs are able to transfer their learning to classroom instruction is critical for
developing programs that provide PSTs with the tools to enact targeted instructional strategies
in linguistically diverse classrooms.
Thus, the significance of this study comes in a large part from its contribution to a field of
science teacher education research that is urgently needed yet is still largely underdeveloped
(Rutt et al., 2021). Through the use of a multiple case study design, this study also provides a
more nuanced picture of PSTs' implementation of language- and literacy-integrated science
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 625
instruction that can complement larger, quantitative studies (i.e., Lyon et al., 2018) and provide
insight for future interventions.
3 | THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Our study was guided by the situated cognition theory of learning (Brown et al., 1989). Situated
cognition suggests that knowledge is most effectively acquired when the learner is able to learn
and apply new knowledge within the socially and culturally situated contexts in which it will
be utilized. In their seminal article on situated cognition theory, Brown et al. (1989) likened the
conceptual knowledge learners acquire to a set of tools, suggesting that it is not enough to know
about a tool and its general use if one is unable to use the tool for the purpose it is intended. In
the realm of science teacher education, this suggests that PSTs need to not only learn theories
and methods for teaching and learning science, but also need to engage in and implement these
theories and methods within the contexts in which they will be used, that is, in science class-
rooms. Situated cognition suggests that it is through the use of knowledge and practice, within
authentic contexts, that a learner truly develops an understanding and ultimate mastery of a
teaching concept or method.
A key component of situated cognition theory is the role of cognitive apprenticeship. In a cog-
nitive apprenticeship, students are given the opportunity to “observe, engage in, and invent or dis-
cover expert strategies in contexts” (Collins et al., 1987, p. 16) through a modeling, coaching, and
fading relationship with a teacher or mentor. In this approach, the teacher first exposes students
to the targeted knowledge or practices by modeling and making explicit otherwise implicit knowl-
edge in an authentic way. In science teacher education, this might occur as a teacher educator
models instruction using a targeted science teaching model such as the 5E teaching model and
then engages PSTs in conversation about how the model was implemented, drawing PSTs' atten-
tion to particular actions that might otherwise go unnoticed and discussing the implicit reasoning
behind them. This is an important initial step because it provides a “conceptual model” that PSTs
can use to guide their own implementation of the instructional strategy (Collins et al., 1987,
p. 19). Indeed, modeling has been found to be a powerful tool for teacher education, with explicit
and consistent modeling of targeted practices linked to increased implementation of those prac-
tices in PSTs' instructional planning and teaching (e.g., Jung & Brown, 2016; Lyon, 2013a; Lyon
et al., 2018; Stoddart et al., 2013). In addition to modeling by methods instructors, MTs can be a
strong source of modeled instructional activity in PSTs' learning-to-teach field placements, espe-
cially if their instruction aligns with the conceptual knowledge and skills presented in the
methods courses (Deroo et al., 2020; Meier et al., 2020).
In the next stage of cognitive apprenticeship, called coaching, students are supported by the
teacher in their attempts to implement the targeted practice. An example of this type of
coaching is evident in Hernandez (2016), where PSTs worked closely with their methods
instructor to design and integrate language-focused science curriculum in an elementary bilin-
gual classroom. During their planning and implementation, the methods teacher served as a
guide, inviting PSTs to engage with and practice lesson development and implementation under
her watchful eye with significant feedback. Hernandez found this structure helped PSTs to
apply their theoretical knowledge to authentic contexts and identify and respond to challenges
that arose during their teaching of the targeted strategies in a linguistically diverse classroom.
Other options for this coaching stage might include PSTs developing lesson plans using
modeled instructional methods and receiving feedback from their instructor (and possibly MT)
|
626 RUTT AND MUMBA
on the lessons, or teaching practice lessons to peers in a microteaching setting with significant
peer and instructor feedback. A key to this stage is numerous opportunities to engage in the
practice with timely and thorough feedback from the teacher to ensure the student is learning
the targeted knowledge or practice (Collins et al., 1987).
Finally, in the last stage of cognitive apprenticeship, students are given the opportunity to
independently enact the targeted practices in authentic situations. During this stage, students
move from their roles as students to become practitioners as they further develop their concep-
tual understanding by “recogniz[ing] and resolv[ing] the ill-defined problems that issue out of
authentic activity” (Brown et al., 1989, p. 40). In teacher education, this can occur through
learning-to-teach contexts such as practicum or student-teaching placements, where PSTs are
given the opportunity to enact key instructional strategies and theories they have learned in the
context of dynamic, diverse classrooms. These opportunities are often accompanied by concur-
rent university courses where PSTs can articulate their understanding of the practices in context
and reflect on their implementation of the practice (Collins et al., 1987) in collaborative ways
(Brown et al., 1987). However, during this stage PSTs experience more independence in their
use of the targeted conceptual knowledge and practices.
The cognitive apprenticeship model for teacher preparation is a way for PSTs to observe,
engage in, and practice with the language-heavy SEPs outlined in the NGSS. This is useful not
only from a language standpoint, but also because many PSTs are working with the NGSS and
SEPs for the first time as PSTs. This model gives PSTs opportunities to apprentice into
language- and literacy-integrated science instruction in a way that can foster understanding of
the nuances of each practice, particularly those like argumentation that may be less familiar to
PSTs and are especially language-dense.
Though our intervention included all parts of the cognitive apprenticeship model, in this
manuscript we take a closer look at the final component of the model by determining to what
level and in what ways PSTs are able to integrate language- and literacy-integrated science
instruction in authentic, complex, linguistically diverse classrooms. In doing so, we attend to
how the highly contextualized nature of learning-to-teach classrooms can inform PSTs imple-
mentation of targeted instructional practices.
4 | METHOD
This study sought to determine at what level of proficiency and in what ways secondary science
PSTs enacted language- and literacy-integrated science instruction in their linguistically diverse
student teaching classrooms following a two-semester intervention guided by the situated cog-
nition framework. Central to our research questions is the concept of enactment, which we
defined as PSTs' implementation of the TELLIS practices during their instruction in linguisti-
cally diverse classrooms. While implementation is certainly influenced by PSTs' beliefs and
values and instructional planning, our focus in considering PSTs' extent of enactment was on
what was observed in the classroom.
4.1 | Research design
We used a mixed-method design to investigate at what level PSTs integrated language- and
literacy-integrated science instruction into their teaching, as well as to provide a more nuanced
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 627
picture detailing the ways in which they did so. This design was chosen because it provides a
fuller understanding of the phenomenon under investigation than either quantitative or quali-
tative methods could alone (Creswell, 2014). Within the mixed methods approach, a multiple
case study design was chosen for its ability to provide insight into how a phenomenon, in this
case PSTs' implementation of language- and literacy-integrated science instruction, is expressed
across a variety of settings, looking at both the commonalities and differences to better under-
stand the phenomenon as a whole (Stake, 2013).
4.2 | Study context
The context for this study was two language- and literacy-integrated secondary science teaching
methods courses and a student teaching field experience that occurred as part of a 1-year sec-
ondary science teacher education program at a large, mid-Atlantic university in the
United States. The one-year secondary science teacher preparation program resulted in a teach-
ing license with endorsement for teaching in grades 6–12 in a chosen discipline (biology, chem-
istry, earth science, or physics).
As part of the program, the language- and literacy-integrated secondary science courses
were taught consecutively in the second and third semesters of the three-semester program and
ran concurrently with the program's field experiences in local middle and high schools. Each
course met once weekly for two and a half hours. The courses introduced PSTs to the nature of
science, foundational learning theories (e.g., constructivism), and several research-based and
active-learning instructional methods (e.g., inquiry, the Predict-Observe-Explain model, argu-
mentation, case-based learning, engineering design integrated science instruction, etc.), and
were designed to engage students in the NGSS SEPs (NGSS Lead States, 2013).
4.3 | The TELLIS instructional framework
To emphasize the connected nature of language, literacy, and science learning, the methods
courses were guided by the TELLIS instructional framework (see Figure 1), developed by the
first author. The TELLIS framework was designed to support PSTs in meeting the needs and
highlighting the assets of their EBs within the context of rigorous, age-appropriate secondary
science instruction.
Grounded in sociocultural perspectives of learning (Duff, 2007; Duff & Talmy, 2011;
Vygotsky, 1978) and informed by research on strategies for language and science integration
(e.g., Lee & Buxton, 2013) and similar instructional frameworks (e.g., Lyon et al., 2018; Stoddart
et al., 2013), the TELLIS framework includes five instructional practices meant to support
language- and literacy-integrated science instruction (see Figure 1). The TELLIS practices
include integrating opportunities for experiencing and using discourse inherent to science, creating
opportunities for literacy development, implementing strategies for language understanding and
use, using students' multilingual repertoires as instructional supports, and contextualizing science
learning. To ensure that language development occurs in the act of doing science (Valdés
et al., 2018) rather than in isolation, all five practices are situated within an overarching expec-
tation that students are developing language and content knowledge by engaging in rigorous,
age-appropriate SEPs for learning and doing science. It is through this engagement in scientific
|
628 RUTT AND MUMBA
F I G U R E 1 Teaching English Learners Language- and Literacy-Integrated Science (TELLIS) instructional

framework
practices in social contexts that students can begin to appropriate the linguistic structures com-
mon in science.
We provide detailed descriptions of each TELLIS practice, and the research supporting
them, in another manuscript (see Rutt & Mumba, 2020). However, we briefly describe each
practice, next.
4.3.1 | Opportunities for experiencing and using discourse inherent to

science
The communicative and collaborative nature of science (National Research Council

[NRC], 2012), as exemplified in the NGSS SEPs (e.g., arguing from evidence, communicating
findings), provides significant opportunities for language development (Valdés et al., 2018)
through substantive conversations that are situated within science activity. That is, as students
engage in common scientific practices, teachers are afforded opportunities to draw students'
attention to how language is being used for doing science (Valdés et al., 2018) and to provide
further opportunities for students to practice the discourses necessary for engaging in scientific
investigation. In this way, language is positioned as a tool necessary for scientific activity, rather
than as a task to be practiced in isolation (Lyon & Solís, 2016). One important way to do this is
to ensure that all students, but particularly EBs, have multiple opportunities to observe, engage
with, and pay attention to language as it is used to make and communicate scientific meaning
(Quinn et al., 2012). In particular, students should have multiple opportunities to collaborate
with one another as they engage in scientific activities that center around language-rich SEPs.
By doing so, students can develop both their linguistic and scientific understandings in authen-
tic contexts.
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 629
4.3.2 | Opportunities for literacy development
Language development is fostered not only through discourse, but also through opportunities for
students to develop their literacy skills, defined here as reading and writing. Like discourse, opportu-
nities for literacy development should be embedded within the context of students' engagement in
SEPs. In the science classroom, literacy includes both opportunities to read and write in the tradi-
tional sense (e.g., reading scientific research or writing scientific explanations) as well as the ability
to decipher and develop charts, graphs, and models, or read and write experimental procedures
(Lee & Buxton, 2013). Teachers should identify how reading and writing are used to engage in scien-
tific practices and meaning making in the science classroom, and then use teacher modeling and
intentional planning to ensure that students have opportunities to observe and engage with the
targeted literacy practices (Gibbons, 2015; Valdés et al., 2018). In doing so, students can better under-
stand the role of literacy in science and approximate practices exemplifying scientific literacy use.
4.3.3 | Strategies for language understanding and use
At the secondary level, students will face scientific discourses and literacies that might be new to
them. While this unique form of speaking, reading, and writing can be challenging for all stu-
dents, EBs face an additional challenge in that they are still developing the language through
which they are learning these new discourses and literacies (Goldenberg, 2013; Lyon et al., 2018).
It becomes imperative, then, that as teachers integrate opportunities for literacy and discourse in
their classrooms, they also provide appropriate supports to ensure that EBs can engage in these
language-heavy scientific practices, even as they are learning the language to do so.
Given the diversity of students who are labeled EBs, teachers need to be familiar with a variety
of language support strategies, commonly called English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)
strategies, so that they have a large toolkit to pull from when providing support for individual stu-
dents. Strategies such as using graphic organizers, modeling, providing extended wait time, and
including opportunities for hands-on learning (Echevarria et al., 2016; Goldenberg, 2013) can sup-
port EBs as they engage in rigorous, age-appropriate science instruction. Literacy strategies, such as
incorporating before, during, and after reading activities (Gibbons, 2015) or providing thorough
modeling of how to write in various scientific genres in meaningful contexts, can support students
in “noticing” and ultimately producing the structures common to scientific reading and writing,
making opportunities for literacy development more accessible to EBs (Quinn et al., 2012).
However, because recent critiques suggest that indiscriminate use of ESOL strategies can actu-
ally hinder language and content development (Grapin et al., 2021), teachers must also be attuned
to how to appropriately integrate ESOL strategies so that they support, rather than stifle, their stu-
dents' engagement in scientific meaning-making and discourse. Thus, it is critical that teachers
are familiar with a variety of ESOL and literacy strategies that can build on the language and liter-
acy strategies EBs bring to the classroom, as well as how to employ those strategies to support EB
engagement in the language-rich practices common to science classrooms.
4.3.4 | Contextualized science learning
In order for science instruction to be meaningful, it should be connected to students' life experi-
ences and interests (NRC, 2012). Science teachers contextualize learning when they create
|
630 RUTT AND MUMBA
authentic and recurring connections between the scientific content and practices learned in the
classroom and students' experiences, interests, and sociocultural contexts outside of the class-
room (Tolbert, 2016). Given that science as a discipline is centered around human explanation
of the natural world, connections between real-world occurrences and problems relevant to stu-
dents' lives are an important way to contextualize learning and to create authentic contexts for
language use. However, while this type of contextualization can be effective, it is also important
that teachers recognize the unique cultural, intellectual, and linguistic experiences and
resources, or funds of knowledge (Gonzalez et al., 2005), that EBs bring to the classroom, and
to consider in what ways these experiences and resources might not align with Western science
classroom practices or norms (Buxton & Lee, 2014; Lee & Fradd, 1998). This is particularly true
because research on culturally responsive pedagogy suggests that students learn best when their
funds of knowledge are identified and utilized to promote student engagement (Richards
et al., 2007). By doing so, teachers can create connections between content and students' lives
that encourage active engagement and provide different avenues to access science content
(Tolbert, 2016).
4.3.5 | Multilingual repertoires as instructional supports
One unique resource for learning that many EBs bring to the science classroom is faculty with
languages other than English. This ability to translanguage, or use multiple languages to con-
struct meaning during complex linguistic interactions (García, 2009), has been found in emerg-
ing research to support students' linguistic and science concept development (Charamba, 2020;
Karlsson et al., 2018; Poza, 2018) while also supporting students' cultural and linguistic identi-
ties (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). Furthermore, in addition to the many cognitive benefits, such
as improved problem-solving skills, attributed to multilingualism (see Adescope et al., 2010),
research also suggests that multilingual children may have better metalinguistic awareness than
monolingual peers (Bialystok, 2001), which can support students' learning of additional lan-
guages. Students who are literate in other languages might also be able to transfer their literacy
skills to support language development in English (Genesee et al., 2005), particularly when stu-
dents' home languages are spoken in the classroom (NASEM, 2017).
While it is important to recognize that not all students who share a home language speak
that language outside of the classroom (Braden et al., 2016), teachers can tap into EBs' linguistic
resources by drawing connections between scientific terminology and students' other languages
(Quinn et al., 2012), providing and actively integrating multilingual resources into classroom
instruction, and encouraging and (if possible) modeling the use of preferred languages to make
meaning during authentic science activities. In doing so, students' multilingualism can not only
support improved content understanding but also encourage more active participation, particu-
larly as students engage in complex and linguistically demanding science practices such as
argumentation (Gonzalez-Howard & McNeill, 2016; Swanson et al., 2014).
Though developed with EBs in mind, the TELLIS framework includes instructional prac-
tices that are beneficial to all students and are mirrored in high-leverage practices identified for
science teacher preparation generally (e.g., Windschitl et al., 2012), including a focus on dis-
course and contextualizing learning. Thus, we believe the practices outlined in the framework
are beneficial for the content and language development of all students, particularly as they
learn to engage in the language-rich practices outlined in the NGSS.
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 631
4.4 | Language- and literacy-integrated science teaching methods

courses
TELLIS framework was integrated into the instruction and assignments of both science teach-
ing methods courses using a cognitive apprenticeship model. PSTs were introduced to the
TELLIS framework at the beginning of the first methods course. During the introductory lesson,
PSTs worked in small groups to describe their understandings of each TELLIS instructional
practice. These initial understandings were then used as a catalyst for an instructor-led, whole
class discussion about what each practice meant, the research to support it, and examples of
what each might look like in a secondary science classroom. After this initial introduction, and
in line with our cognitive apprenticeship framework, the methods instructor (first author)
modeled the TELLIS strategies in conjunction with each week's science instructional methods.
Oftentimes, one practice from the TELLIS framework would be highlighted for a particular
method. For example, for the Predict-Observe-Explain model, discourse was the focal TELLIS
practice (see Supplementary Materials for example lesson). However, because PSTs tend to inte-
grate into their own instruction the practices they see modeled most often (Lyon et al., 2016;
Stoddart et al., 2013), care was taken to address all five practices during each lesson.
Following the first author's modeling of a language- and literacy-integrated science lesson,
PSTs were given time to engage in small-group and whole-class meta-pedagogical discussions
about the science instructional method and the TELLIS strategies used, addressing how the les-
son as a whole provided opportunities for science and language development, and highlighting
and responding to the challenges that might arise when using the methods and practices in sec-
ondary science classrooms. During this time, the methods instructor highlighted instructional
moves relevant to enactment of the TELLIS practices that might not have been explicit to the
PSTs and engaged PSTs in discussions about the reasons for these key instructional decisions.
Because the student-centered nature of the science instructional methods provided rich grounds
for discussions about how language was being used to do science (Valdés et al., 2018), the inte-
gration of language, literacy, and science was consistently reinforced.
After experiencing and discussing each modeled lesson, PSTs moved into the coaching stage
of the apprenticeship where they were required to develop their own language- and literacy-
integrated lesson plans, activities, or units that exemplified the targeted science instructional
method and the TELLIS practices. To support PSTs in this initial lesson development, we pro-
vided lesson plan templates structured to highlight the targeted science instructional method
and to call PSTs' attention to how they would integrate language and literacy into their lessons.
All lesson plans received extensive feedback from the instructor on both the science method
and TELLIS integration.
Finally, PSTs were given the opportunity to try out the science instructional methods and
TELLIS practices learned in the methods courses during their field placements that ran concur-
rently with their methods courses (fading). By implementing these instructional strategies in
linguistically diverse classrooms, PSTs were able to practice the strategies in the authentic con-
texts called for in the situated cognition framework. Structured opportunities to discuss and
reflect on their attempts to integrate these methods and practices were provided through both
written reflections and small and whole group discussions.
It is important to note that in addition to science methods courses and the field placements
running concurrently with the methods courses, PSTs also participated in a languages and liter-
acies course in the fall semester focused on integrating literacy into secondary classrooms (but
not with a focus on EL-classified students). In the summer semester prior to the first science
|
632 RUTT AND MUMBA
methods course, PSTs also took a multilingual methods course in which they learned about the-
ories of second language acquisition and strategies for supporting EBs' language and literacy
development in secondary classrooms. This course was inclusive of all content areas
(i.e., English language arts, social studies, science, and math) and was also taught by the first
author of this paper. While neither of these courses were structured using the TELLIS frame-
work, they echoed components of the framework (e.g., literacy integration for the language and
literacies course and strategies for language understanding and use and multilingualism as an
instructional support for the multilingual methods course) and therefore may have helped to
reinforce key ideas of the framework.
4.5 | Participants
The three case study participants for this study were purposefully selected from a larger sample
of 11 PSTs because, due to MT availability, they were the only PSTs in the sample who had stu-
dent teaching placements in linguistically diverse science classrooms (i.e., classrooms with at
least one EB). All three participants were female and had bachelor's degrees in a science field
prior to enrolling in the teacher preparation program. Each participant is described in more
detail, next.
4.5.1 | Ana
Ana described herself as a Hispanic, English-Spanish bilingual 24-year-old who was seeking a
biology teaching license at the time of the study. Prior to enrolling in the teacher education pro-
gram, she worked in a local high school as an aid in a classroom for autistic students and as a
translator at a medical clinic. Her student teaching placement was at a large, diverse high
school where she taught biology and anatomy and physiology classes. All classes were tracked.
One of Ana's biology classes was the focus of this study and included linguistically, socioeco-
nomically, and racially diverse learners in grades 9–11. According to the annual World-class
Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) English proficiency assessment, EBs in Ana's
class tested between levels 2 (beginning) and 4 (expanding) for English proficiency. Ana's MT
was Ms. Johnson, who had 22 years of experience teaching biology and anatomy and physiol-
ogy, and 21 years of experience teaching EBs.
4.5.2 | Erin
Erin described herself as a White, monolingual, English-speaking 27-year-old with novice abili-
ties in French and German. At the time of the study, she was seeking an Earth science teaching
license. Her previous teaching experiences centered around teaching K-12 students and adults
in environmental education settings, with a heavy emphasis on experiential and field-based
learning. Her student teaching placement occurred at a diverse middle school where she taught
sixth-grade general science courses. Her classes were heterogeneous and included students clas-
sified as EBs (WIDA levels 5–6), students receiving special education services, and students
identified as gifted. Erin's MT was Ms. Smith, who was in her 12th year of teaching mostly sixth
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 633
grade science, but had also taught 1 year of seventh grade science and a few semesters of sixth
grade social studies. Ms. Smith had EBs in her classroom every year.
4.5.3 | Rachel
Rachel described herself as a White, 22-year-old English-Spanish bilingual with some knowl-
edge of American Sign Language. At the time of the study she was seeking a biology teaching
license. She enrolled in the teacher preparation program immediately following completion of
her undergraduate work at another university. Her student teaching placement was at the same
diverse middle school as Erin's, where Rachel taught heterogeneous, seventh-grade life science
classes. Like Erin's classes, Rachel's classes included students classified as EBs (WIDA levels 2–
3), as well as students receiving special education and gifted services. Rachel's MT was
Ms. Raymond, who had taught for 25 years and who had EBs in her classroom for 13 years.
Ms. Raymond had experience teaching language arts, biology, life science, special education,
and Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) course at the middle school and high
school levels. Unlike the other PSTs, Rachel had also spent the previous semester with
Ms. Raymond as part of a different practicum expectation.
4.6 | Data collection
In an effort to provide credibility to the study through triangulation (Denzin, 1978; Rossman &
Rallis, 2017), multiple data sources were used to answer the research questions. The primary
data source to determine to what extent and in what ways the PSTs enacted language- and
literacy-integrated science instruction during their student teaching experiences were partici-
pants' program-required, summative teaching performance assessments (TPAs). For the TPA
assessment, PSTs were required to develop and teach in their student teaching classrooms an
instructional mini-unit of approximately 3–5 lessons in length (see Table 1 for descriptions of
PSTs' units). Units were required to include clear learning targets aligned with state and
national standards, high quality lesson plans and instructional materials, and plans and instru-
ments for formative and summative student assessment. PSTs video-recorded the implementa-
tion of their units and used the video to reflect on their teaching efficacy. As such, TPA data
sources included PSTs' instructional units (including lesson plans and related instructional
materials), video recordings of each day's lesson implementation, and the reflection and analy-
sis work PSTs completed after their instruction. TPAs were chosen to analyze participants'
instructional abilities for two reasons. First, because the TPAs were summative and passing was
required to graduate, it was assumed that the TPAs were exemplars of participants' “best work”
with their students. Thus, the lesson plans, instructional materials, assessments, implementa-
tion, and reflection were expected to highlight PSTs' syntheses of what they had learned,
applied in the context of authentic teaching situations. Second, because the TPAs required PSTs
to design and implement a unit, lesson planning and instruction occurred over multiple days,
providing multiple representations of PSTs' work.
PSTs' TPAs were triangulated (Denzin, 1978) by two semi-structured interviews
(Brenner, 2006) with the PSTs that occurred approximately 1 week apart at the conclusion of
their student teaching experiences. The first interview focused on PSTs' understanding of the
TELLIS framework and their ideas about language- and literacy-integrated science planning
|
634 RUTT AND MUMBA
T A B L E 1 Overview of PSTs' teaching performance assessment (TPA) units
Ana Erin Rachel

Unit topic Evolution Hurricanes Cell processes
Lesson 1 Introduction to the theory of Introduction to hurricanes; Introduction to cell
evolution hurricane characteristics processes; mitosis
Lesson 2 Evidence of evolution and Hurricane formation/ Diffusion
genetic drift characteristics; initial
design and rationale
Lesson 3 Cladograms and fossils Hurricane structure redesign, Photosynthesis
build, and test
Lesson 4 Fossils and final project work Reflection and redesign Cellular respiration and
homeostasis
Assessment Create a timeline of a chosen Design a house to withstand Analyze a real-life scenario
species outlining, with hurricane force winds. and identify how different
evidence, its evolutionary Provide rationale for design cell processes contribute
history and highlighting choices highlighting to supporting life and life
key evolutionary concepts relevant hurricane functions
characteristics
and instruction. The second interview focused more specifically on the PSTs' perspectives of
their student teaching experiences and their implementation of language- and literacy-
integrated science instruction in those settings. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted
with each PST's MT at the beginning of the following school year and focused on PSTs' imple-
mentation of language- and literacy-integrated science instruction during their student teaching
experiences. All interview protocols were reviewed by experts in science and English Language
Development (ELD) and served to provide a broader picture of the PSTs' implementation of
language- and literacy-integrated science instruction, as operationalized by the TELLIS frame-
work, both during their TPA units and across their student teaching experiences.
4.7 | Data analysis
Data were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively in two waves of analysis as guided by
the research questions. The first phase of analysis addressed the level to which each TELLIS
practice was integrated into PSTs' instruction using a rubric. During the second phase of analy-
sis, qualitative analyses were used to better understand in what ways PSTs enacted language-
and literacy-integrated science instruction in their student teaching classrooms.
To analyze PSTs' TPAs for evidence of TELLIS implementation, video footage from each
PST's unit was reviewed. While viewing each video-recorded lesson, field notes were recorded
and then coded for the TELLIS framework strategies. The resulting chunks of data for each
TELLIS practice were then re-reviewed and scored using the researcher-created TELLIS
Instructional Integration scoring rubric to produce an overall score for each practice of the
TELLIS framework (see Table 2 for an excerpt and Supplementary Materials for the full scoring
rubric).
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 635
Informed by rubrics from similar studies designed to assess PSTs' implementation of science
instruction for EBs (e.g., Lyon et al., 2018; Stoddart et al., 2013), the TELLIS Instructional Inte-
gration scoring rubric was developed by the first author with input from experts in science and
ELD to capture the extent to which PSTs integrated each practice of the TELLIS framework, as
well as the overarching expectation of rigorous and age-appropriate instruction, into their
instruction. Like the scoring rubrics from which the TELLIS Instructional Integration scoring
rubric was adapted, the scoring scale included four enactment levels, ranging from 0: Not
present, in which there was no evidence of the TELLIS practice in the PST's instruction, to 3:
Extending, in which the PST moved beyond targeted implementation of a practice to engage at
a level that was above and beyond the targeted expectations. Criteria for each level of enact-
ment were developed based on the goals of each TELLIS practice as described in the frame-
work, and examples were identified for each level of enactment for each TELLIS practice (see
Table 2 and Supplementary Materials). The targeted level of implementation for PSTs was a
Level 2 (Implementing) or 3 (Extending) for each practice. To ensure that the rubric criteria were
observable with clear distinctions among enactments levels, the first author used the rubric to
score video footage of a lesson that was not part of the study. Results from this initial trial run
led to minor changes for clarity (e.g., clearer distinctions between levels) and refined examples
for each TELLIS practice enactment level to further highlight differences among levels.
To support validity and reliability of the scoring rubric, one video-recorded lesson for each
participant was coded by both the primary researcher and a secondary researcher. The
researchers independently analyzed the videos as described above, using time stamps in their
field notes for easy reference. After this initial analysis, the researchers compared their results
and found an interrater agreement (Tinsley & Weiss, 1975) of 0.67. The researchers discussed
their results and used evidence from time-stamped notes and second viewings of the recorded
lessons to come to a consensus rating for each lesson. During this iterative analysis, the scoring
rubric was further refined for clarity and discernibility. In particular, descriptions and examples
of each rubric point were tightened to ensure that criteria were observable. Furthermore, the
researchers noted that at times a PSTs' instruction straddled two levels of enactment (e.g., PSTs
have structures in place to determine that all students are participating in scientific discourse
[Level 3] but do not foster students' metalinguistic awareness of this discourse [Level 2]). To
appropriately capture this straddling to its fullest extent, the researchers agreed to integrate 0.5
scoring points to be employed when PSTs' instruction appeared to fall equally across two levels.
The revised rubric was reapplied to each of the three lessons to ensure that all lessons were ana-
lyzed using the most current rubric.
The primary researcher then followed the same cycle of analysis for each of the PSTs'
remaining lessons using the updated rubric. Because instruction naturally fluctuates based on
learning objectives and activities, and in line with similar scoring rubrics (e.g., Lyon
et al., 2018), the highest score for each practice was retained to indicate a clearer picture of what
the PSTs could do overall. Thus, if for one lesson contextualization was scored at a 1, but in
another lesson it was scored at a 2, the higher score was retained. The results of this analysis
were overall scores for each TELLIS practice that were inclusive of all of the participant's les-
sons in their units. These scores were paired with average scores that were calculated to address
sustained implementation of each TELLIS practice across the entirety of the unit.
Finally, to provide a more nuanced view of how PSTs integrated the TELLIS instructional
practices into their instruction, PST and MT interviews were coded using the TELLIS practices
as a priori codes (Saldaña, 2013). The resulting data chunks (Miles et al., 2014) for each practice
from this analysis and from the analysis of the TPA video footage were then inductively
|
636 RUTT AND MUMBA
T A B L E 2 Excerpt from TELLIS instructional integration scoring rubric
Practice 0: Not present 1: Beginning 2: Implementing 3: Extending

Opportunities for Teacher does not Teacher provides Teacher Teacher incorporates
literacy provide students students incorporates and supports
development with opportunities to read authentic reading students'
Score: ___ opportunities to or write but not in and writing tasks metalinguistic
Teacher provides engage in reading the service of that engage awareness of
opportunities or writing in the authentic scientific students in linguistic features
for students to science classroom tasks scientific during authentic
read and write Examples: writing practices and reading and
for scientific lecture notes or meaning-making writing tasks that
purposes reading test Examples: writing a engage students in
questions scientific scientific practices
explanation, and meaning-
argument, making
procedure, etc.; Examples: Same as
reading a Implementing but
scientific article, with highlighting
procedure, of linguistic
conclusion, etc. features of a
reading or writing
(e.g., structure of
an argument or
science article,
attention to passive
voice, etc.) that
supports students'
understanding of
the genre
reviewed and coded using in vivo (Saldaña, 2013) and descriptive codes to more fully under-
stand in what ways PSTs were integrating each TELLIS practice. Case narratives (Way, 1998)
were built for each PST describing their enactment of each practice. These narratives were then
compared across PSTs to look for themes across PST enactment of the TELLIS practices, as well
as for areas of difference, to further support themes that emerged from the TPA video analysis.
5 | R E SUL T S
Analysis of instructional video, TPA documents, interviews, and reflections suggests that PSTs
were able to enact most TELLIS strategies at the targeted Implementing level (or close to it) at
least once during their TPA units, though scores varied across lessons (see Table 3). The average
enactment score for each TELLIS strategy by PST fell mostly at the Beginning level of enact-
ment, but nearing Implementing, and in no single lesson did any PST reach Implementing for all
TELLIS instructional strategies. However, given that particular lesson structures lend them-
selves to some TELLIS strategies more than others, this was not surprising nor necessarily dis-
couraging. Indeed, in line with similar studies (i.e., Lyon et al., 2018), the highest possible
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 637
T A B L E 3 Extent to which PSTs enacted TELLIS instruction
Discourse Literacy Multilingualism Contextualization Strategies Rigor

Ana
Lesson 1a 1 2 2 0 1 2
Lesson 2 1.5 2 2.5 1 1.5 1
Lesson 3 1.5 1.5 2 2 1 2
Lesson 4 1 2 2 1 1 2
Average 1.3 1.9 2.1 1 1.1 1.8
Highest score 1.5 2 2.5 2 1.5 2
Erin
Lesson 1 1.5 1.5 0 2 2 1
a
Lesson 2 2 1.5 0 2 1 2
Lesson 3 2 0 0 2 2 2
Lesson 4 2 2 0 1 1.5 2
Average 1.9 1.3 0 1.8 1.6 1.8
Highest score 2 2 0 2 2 2
Rachel
Lesson 1 2 1.5 0 2 2 2
Lesson 2 1 1.5 0 2.5 2 1
Lesson 3 1.5 2 0 1 1.5 2
Lesson 4 1 1 0 2 1.5 0.5
Average 1.4 1.5 0 1.9 1.8 1.4
Highest score 2 2 0 2.5 2 2
Note: 0 = not present; 1 = beginning; 2 = implementing; 3 = extending.

a
The lesson recording was incomplete due to technical issues.
scores for each strategy were considered most indicative of what PSTs were able to do through
their instruction.
It is heartening to note that all three PSTs were able to integrate most of the TELLIS prac-
tices at the targeted Implementing level over the course of their TPA units. However, while this
quantitative analysis provides a broad picture of what PSTs were able to do during their instruc-
tion, it fails to highlight the ways in which PSTs integrated the TELLIS practices into their
instruction in contextualized settings. Thus, in line with our mixed methods approach, we use
qualitative analyses to provide a more complete picture of PSTs' TELLIS enactment in the sec-
tions that follow. In particular, there were similarities that emerged across participants, as well
as distinct differences, that warrant attention. We address these themes by practice, next.
5.1 | Rigorous, age-appropriate science instruction
One important finding across all participants, and in contrast to PSTs' struggles in other studies
(e.g., Lyon et al., 2018), was the consistent integration of rigorous, age-appropriate science
|
638 RUTT AND MUMBA
practices (the framing component of the TELLIS framework) at the Implementing level. All three
PSTs engaged students in language-focused NGSS science and/or engineering practices during
their units. For example, Erin integrated engineering design and its related practices of designing,
constructing, analyzing, and redesigning models to solve a real-world problem. Both Ana and
Rachel engaged students in analyzing data and developing graphs, and all three PSTs required
students to use evidence to justify their explanations of scientific phenomena. As a result of these
instructional moves, students were provided opportunities to engage in key scientific practices
and use language in authentic ways both orally and in writing, two themes that we explore next.
5.2 | Discourse inherent to science
The three PSTs integrated opportunities for experiencing and using discourse inherent to science
to varying degrees. Rachel and Erin enacted this practice at the Implementing level for at least
one lesson (and for Erin, many), while Ana implemented the practice at the Beginning level
across all of her lessons.
For Erin, discourse inherent to science was a strength. In her lessons, she provided numerous
opportunities for meaning-making through whole-class and small-group discourse, often asking
prompting questions to elicit student reasoning and encouraging students to justify their answers
or design choices, both key scientific practices, in whole group and small group interactions. An
example of this occurred during a whole group discussion reviewing the water cycle in Erin's first
TPA lesson, where a student asked Erin if rain was polluted because water evaporated from pol-
luted water sources. Rather than providing the answer, Erin posed the question to the class and
asked them to weigh in first nonverbally using the “thumb-o-meter” (i.e., thumbs up for yes,
thumbs down for no, thumbs in the middle for unsure), and then asked students to explain the
reasoning behind their answers. What ensued was a whole class conversation (and many on-
topic, small-group side conversations) in which students heard from multiple perspectives and
were able to build on one another's reasoning to come to a conclusion based on their collective
knowledge, a skill that Erin acknowledged and praised at the end of the conversation.
Erin similarly excelled at encouraging small-group discourse in her classroom, posing scien-
tific questions for students to discuss in their groups before reporting to the whole class. Erin
moved around the room during these small group activities, furthering thinking with probing
questions and ensuring that all students had an opportunity to share their ideas, with a particu-
lar focus on prompting responses from her EBs.
Rachel also provided opportunities for students to engage in scientific discourse, though
more often in whole class settings and usually focused around students justifying their reason-
ing using evidence from observations. For example, in her lesson on mitosis Rachel used a
time-lapse video of a lizard regenerating its tail as an anchoring phenomenon. After showing
the video and asking for students' observations, she posed the following question to the class: “I
have a question. Think about if for a second before you answer … (writes question on board as
talks) do you think there were more cells on day 3 or day 60 for this lizard?” As students pro-
vided answers, Rachel asked them to support their answers using evidence from the lizard tail
regeneration video and previous learning, consistently drawing them back to what they had
observed. In this way, she was asking students to engage in a common scientific practice of
using evidence to support their claims and encouraging discourse beyond a simple, one-word
response. She also encouraged her students to build on one another's ideas, moving away from
a direct “initiate-response-evaluate” (IRE) sequence and toward a more conversational one.
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 639
However, unlike Erin, who provided numerous, structured opportunities for her students to
engage in scientific discourse in small groups, Rachel's preference was for whole-class dis-
course. Part of the reason for this instructional move might have been her challenges managing
small-group discourse, where her students would sometimes get off-topic or be hard to redirect
back to a whole group setting. Despite her attention to calling on a variety of students, EBs
included, during whole-class discussions, Rachel's focus on this type of interaction might have
limited the number of opportunities students had to participate in discourse.
Compared to Erin and Rachel, Ana struggled with discourse inherent to science, which she
only integrated at the Beginning level. This was surprising because Ana's sociocultural perspec-
tives on learning encouraged a discourse-heavy classroom. In practice, however, whole-class con-
versations tended to follow the IRE sequence of communication, but unlike in Rachel's
classroom, few students (and no EBs) participated. Like Erin, Ana's purposeful and consistent use
of small group work provided opportunities for more student interaction around scientific topics,
and during these times Ana would interact directly with a greater number of students, asking crit-
ical thinking questions to help students reason to their answers. However, lack of structure and
trouble with behavior management led to rare instances of meaningful interaction among stu-
dents when Ana was not directly working with their groups. In observations of her TPA video
footage, one or two students often completed most of the work in these small group settings with
minimal content-specific interaction and conversation remaining relatively off-topic. This inabil-
ity to engage in meaningful small-group discourse was an important shortcoming, particularly
because Ana perceived her consistent integration of group work as important for engaging stu-
dents in discourse, describing group work as “socialized learning.”
Ana recognized the challenges she was experiencing with small group work, explaining in
her interview,
I think half of it is probably my fault from a behavior management standpoint,

where it's like, I let them have a lot of fun back there, so it's like they're excited to
go chat with their friends, then it's me usually reeling them back in. I think I
could've set clear expectations of what we're doing when we're in groups.
It is important to note that context might have played an important role here, in particular
the context of a high school science classroom in which students were unaccustomed to speaking
with one another. Given this context, Ana saw her students' off-task group interaction as a posi-
tive change from the refusals she met early on when asking her students to work in groups,
adding, “I do like how it's shifted from, ‘I don't want to talk to these people,’ to now, like, ‘Can
we go sit in the back and hang out?’, and I'm like, ‘Okay’.” In this way, Ana felt that the class as
a whole was moving in the right direction, despite sometimes off-task behavior, and felt that in
future instructional situations, explicit attention to discourse norms and expectations would sup-
port more on-task discussion. However, these findings highlight the need for teacher educators to
consider how language-heavy SEPs, which encourage more “floor time” for students, will necessi-
tate training for stronger classroom management skills.
5.3 | Opportunities for literacy development
In addition to opportunities for language use through scientific discourse, all three PSTs also
found opportunities to engage their students in scientifically focused literacy activities,
|
640 RUTT AND MUMBA
integrating opportunities for literacy development at the Implementing level at least once during
their TPA units. For Ana, this was an area of strength and something she identified as key to
effective science instruction and learning. In her interview when asked about literacy integra-
tion, she reflected on her own educational experiences, explaining,
The only reason I have done well in college and in my academics in general is
because I had a high school experience that was super focused in literacy. I wrote
papers in biology. I did research projects … We need to be preparing students to be
literate in every content area, including science … because it is a huge, weird way
of writing and learning how to read and stuff.
Ana mentioned in her interviews that she was constantly considering how she was building up
her students' literacy, attempting to create a classroom context in which literacy was a normal part
of the classroom routine. In her instruction, Ana made intentional and frequent attempts to engage
her students in scientifically focused reading and writing such as asking students to develop conclu-
sions and arguments based on interpretations of written or graphical evidence. This was evident in
the culminating project for her TPA unit where Ana asked her students to research the evolutionary
history of a chosen animal and use their findings to make claims about the reasons for the animal's
evolution from past to present-day forms. This engaged students in reading for evidence and writing
claims supported by evidence, two language-focused scientific practices.
Though they did not harbor as great a sense of urgency as Ana did about the importance of
literacy integration, and at times questioned its importance altogether, Rachel and Erin also
incorporated literacy into their lessons by providing opportunities for students to engage in sci-
entific practices through writing and, to a much lesser extent, through reading. For example,
Rachel asked students to use their understanding of mitosis to explain in writing the lizard tail
regeneration phenomenon, and in Erin's engineering-focused TPA unit students were required
to justify their design decisions using information they had gleaned from class instruction on
the characteristics of hurricanes.
Despite their efforts to integrate literacy, however, all three PSTs expressed frustration and
concern about how to integrate literacy with students whom they perceived as struggling and
below-grade level readers and writers. For example, in reflecting on the writing incorporated in
her TPA, Erin noted,
I … noticed that many of the students who failed to provide adequate written
responses were students who shy away from writing on all assignments. One of the
struggles I was not anticipating with sixth grade is the number of students for
whom the physical act of writing is a challenge. This may be one of the areas that I
struggle most with as a teacher, as it makes differentiating even more challenging.
Rachel agreed, questioning her role as a literacy teacher for struggling students when she
already had a significant amount of science content to cover. Even Ana acknowledged that she
had to temper her literacy goals during her student teaching, in part because of her students'
pushback to more literacy-focused opportunities and, again, because of her struggles with
behavior management. As she explained in her interview,
I think most of my explicit [literacy] goals have been vocab acquisition and how to
look at vocab. I think in the future I'd want to add more to bigger literacy goals,
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 641
and I've tried reading passages with [my students]. My biggest issue is behavior,
where they just don't read and then get on their phones.
Thus, though all PSTs were able to integrate literacy into their lessons at the Implementing
level, all three encountered struggles in their attempts to do so. This struggle might have been
related in part to the support (or lack thereof) that the PSTs provided to their students to engage
in these language-focused activities. We address these findings, next.
5.4 | Strategies for language understanding and use
It is clear from the preceding results that all three PSTs were able to integrate into their
instruction linguistically rigorous and scientifically focused activities that provided oppor-
tunities for scientific discourse and/or literacy development. However, the effectiveness of
these instructional decisions for their EBs in particular might have been tempered by the
ways in which PSTs integrated a third TELLIS practice, strategies for language understand-
ing and use, into their instruction. While all three PSTs were familiar with and integrated
numerous instructional strategies, most often centered around message abundancy
(i.e., providing information in many different modalities; Gibbons, 2015), to support their
students' understanding of what they were hearing or reading, other than the occasional
use of sentence stems or allowing students to use visuals in their written assignments, few
supports for output were included. This was despite PSTs offering numerous opportunities
for students to use language orally and in writing. Thus, though both Erin and Rachel inte-
grated strategies for language understanding and use at the Implementing level (and Ana at
the Beginning level), a closer look at the ways in which they did so paints a more compli-
cated picture.
For Erin, the reduced support for language output was clear. When asked in her interview
how she integrated strategies for language understanding and use into her instruction, she
explained, “Not as much support for language use … because understanding was the bigger
fire at that point.” Perceiving student comprehension as the greater area of importance, Erin
focused much of her instructional design around input supports, providing a significant
amount of multimodal input and opportunities to revisit content in many ways that were ben-
eficial to her EBs' language and content understanding. However, this left less time for Erin to
focus on supports for language use. Though Erin did include structural components such as
bullet points and graphic organizers in her instructional materials to support student output,
the lack of additional supports, particularly in writing, might be in part why some of her stu-
dents struggled to write effectively, as noted above. Indeed, it is possible that the lack of sup-
port for language output limited the extent to which Erin's students felt comfortable or able to
express their ideas in writing and during whole group discussions, where few of her EBs
participated.
Ana encountered similar struggles to get her EBs (and many other students) to participate,
especially during whole-group discussions where a small number of non-EB students domi-
nated the conversation. This was not, however, due to a lack of awareness of strategies to use.
In her interviews, Ana described numerous strategies to support her EBs' language understand-
ing, including breaking down words, using visuals, and providing opportunities to revisit con-
tent numerous times and in different ways. In practice, however, while Ana did include many
of these supports, she missed opportunities for others, especially those related to language
|
642 RUTT AND MUMBA
T A B L E 4 Rachel's strategies for language understanding and use: Lesson 1
Strategies for language understanding (input) Strategies for language use (student output)
• Connections to prior learning • Wait time
• Prefaces all activities (i.e., videos) with explanations of • Graphic organizers
what students will see/do • Opportunities for small group discourse
• Frequent check-ins during group work • Intentional calling on variety of students
• Message abundance
Visuals
Modeling/acting out
Written with oral
• Repetition of content
• Pausing videos to explain content in a different way
• Highlights and explains academic vocabulary use (i.e.,
“opposite”)
• Connections between content-specific and everyday
language/meaning
• Color coded notes
• Graphic organizer
• Captions on videos
output. This was particularly the case during the daily whole group discussions and lectures she
held, where she included visuals and vocabulary support to provide meaningful input, but did
not provide structures, such as sentence frames or a variety of methods for output, to support
her EBs' language use. Furthermore, though Ana excelled at integrating meaningful and scien-
tifically authentic opportunities for literacy development, she neglected to provide linguistic
supports that might have been necessary for EBs to fully express their understanding and
engage in those scientific practices. It was perhaps due to this lack of support that EBs were not
observed volunteering answers or engaging in whole class discussions or literacy opportunities.
Of the three PSTs, Rachel appeared to be most cognizant of providing supports for language
understanding and use (see Table 4), though like Ana and Erin, she was more effective at scaf-
folding input than output. In her interviews, Rachel described numerous strategies that she
used during her instruction to help her EBs (and all of her students) understand key scientific
concepts, including word walls, visuals, and frequent check-ins. While she also mentioned scaf-
folding student output with strategies such as sentence starters, these were less common in the
observations of her TPA lessons, though more common than in either Ana's or Erin's lessons.
This additional, if infrequent, support might be one reason why the EBs in Rachel's class were
more comfortable in participating. In contrast to Erin and Ana's classes, where EBs rarely if
ever volunteered to participate during whole-class discussions, two of the three EBs in Rachel's
class were constant participants, not only providing answers but also asking questions.
Ms. Raymond, Rachel's MT, noted one exception, which was when students were required to
use science-specific language in their answers. During these times, Ms. Raymond reported, the
EBs in the classroom often remained quiet. This suggests that Rachel's EBs might have felt
more comfortable in sharing their ideas when they were able to contextualize their findings
using the linguistic representations with which they felt most comfortable, but also highlights
the need to provide more exposure and interaction with scientific ways of speaking to make this
type of discourse fully accessible to students.
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 643
5.5 | Contextualized learning
Another cross-case finding of great interest was the level to which PSTs were able to contextual-
ize students' learning, particularly given how challenging this strategy can be for teachers
(Bravo et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2007; Lyon et al., 2018). In at least one lesson per unit, PSTs
framed their instruction in real-life situations to provide relevant contexts for student learning
of scientific phenomenon. For Erin, this took the form of a unit-framing engineering design
challenge in which students designed houses to withstand hurricane-force winds. Throughout
the unit, students learned about the characteristics of hurricanes and then took on the role of
city planners, using their newly learned knowledge to research strategies for mitigating hurri-
cane effects before ultimately putting their designs to the test in the final lesson. In addition to
this authentic contextualization of learning, Erin used student input and experiences to guide
discussion. For example, when reading a non-fictional picture book to students on hurricanes
and their on-land effects, a student made a connection to a hurricane evacuation she had
observed on a reality television show. Rather than simply acknowledging the comment and
moving on, Erin chose to build on it, talking about where the show was taking place and
linking it back to what they had read about warmer water near the equator providing more
energy for hurricanes. This was a common occurrence for Erin: she rarely cut off or glossed
over student questions or comments, unless directly prompted by her MT to do so (see Rutt &
Mumba, under review).
Rachel also excelled at contextualizing her TPA science lessons, identifying contextuali-
zation in her interview as one of the easiest TELLIS practices to integrate into her teaching.
During her TPA unit, Rachel used skills she had honed during her undergraduate work
focused on Ambitious Science Teaching practices (Windschitl et al., 2018) to develop essen-
tial questions for each of her lessons on cell processes that were grounded in real-life phe-
nomena. For example, as noted earlier, during her lesson on mitosis she started the lesson
by showing students a video of a lizard's tail regenerating. Then, she introduced the essen-
tial question, “How do cells allow our bodies to grow?” This question framed the entire les-
son as students dug into the concept of mitosis in an inductive manner and provided
opportunities for authentic scientific writing as students applied their learning to explain
that day's real-life phenomenon.
Rachel also elicited students' input related to examples of scientific phenomena in their own
lives and used these examples as contexts to explain the phenomena. For example, in her third
lesson on photosynthesis and cellular respiration, Rachel asked students to identify a food they
commonly eat, and then walked her students back the food chain to help them come to the con-
clusion that all food (in this case, a pepperoni) comes from plants, and the energy in those foods
originates from photosynthesis.
Rachel's use of contextualization might have been reinforced by her MT Ms. Raymond's
own use of contextualization. Indeed, during her interview Ms. Raymond identified contextuali-
zation as one of the TELLIS practices that she personally integrated most frequently into her
classroom instruction, a sentiment confirmed by Rachel. This alignment of instructional per-
spectives might have made it easier for Rachel to implement contextualization when she started
taking the lead on planning instruction.
Finally, while Ana most often used isolated contextual examples to help connect content to
students' lives (i.e., relating biotechnology to crime shows students might have seen), she also
grounded her instruction on antibiotic resistance in students' interactions with the flu and anti-
biotics, a timely and engaging topic given the recent flu season. This added context not only
|
644 RUTT AND MUMBA
made the content more relevant, but also more understandable, as students could apply their
understanding of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance to their own lives.
By contextualizing learning with authentic life experiences, all three PSTs highlighted con-
texts students could use to better understand scientific concepts and the relevance to their own
lives. At the same time, it is important to note that all three of the PSTs' framing contexts were
related to general experiences students might have had (i.e., using antibiotics, eating or grow-
ing) or might not have had (i.e., designing houses to withstand hurricanes) in daily life. While
these types of scenarios are important for contextualizing content to make it more meaningful,
they assume that students have experienced certain life events in similar ways, despite the fact
that EBs often have unique life experiences that do not necessarily align with western scientific
events or ideologies (Buxton & Lee, 2014; Lee & Fradd, 1998). Though PSTs were occasionally
attuned to connecting to students' individual lives when asking for and building off of student
input, such as when Rachel asked students to name a food they commonly eat to review food
chains, or when Erin opened up the floor during a whole-class discussion for students to weigh
in with what they know about hurricanes, these situations required students to feel comfortable
providing input, often in a whole class setting. As noted above, PSTs were inconsistent in pro-
viding the supports for language output that EBs might have needed to fully participate, which
might have further exacerbated a cultural division of understanding.
5.6 | Multilingualism as an instructional support
Finally, the TELLIS practice that showed the greatest variability in implementation across PSTs
was using multilingual repertoires as an instructional support. While this was Ana's strongest
area of implementation, neither Erin nor Rachel capitalized on their students' multilingualism
at all, garnering the only Not Present scores for all PSTs across all TELLIS practices. For this
practice in particular, the classroom context and PSTs' responses to it appeared to play a
large role.
For Erin, the lack of multilingualism might have stemmed from her perception that English
was expected in her classroom and the wider school community, and to a lesser extent from her
own mostly-monolingual language abilities. Despite having EBs in her classroom and noting in
her interview that she would sometimes try to include cognates or make other connections
between science vocabulary and students' home languages (mostly in Spanish), she also per-
ceived the expectation of the classroom to be that students would speak English. This under-
standing of monolingualism as the norm was reinforced by Erin's MT Ms. Smith during her
interview, where she noted that she often did not use students' home languages in the class-
room because she was monolingual in English. Ms. Smith did mention that the school was
involved in professional development related to culturally responsive teaching, and as a result
allowing students' home languages in the classroom was becoming more, though not univer-
sally, accepted among the faculty. However, while it appeared as though Ms. Smith was open to
the idea of multilingualism in the classroom, she did not actively integrate it into her instruc-
tion, perceiving her own monolingualism as a barrier to doing so. Erin was very concerned
throughout her student teaching experience about not stepping on her MT's toes and so fell in
line with this expectation, though she noted she “never reprimanded my kids for speaking in
their own language.”
For Rachel, it was pushback from students that led her to avoid using her bilingualism to
support student learning, even despite the fact that Rachel spoke the home language of most of
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 645
her EBs (i.e., Spanish) and felt confident integrating Spanish-English bilingualism into the
classroom. Simply put, Rachel reported choosing not to use Spanish with her students
because they requested that she not. In her interview, she explained, “I asked a couple kids if
they wanted me to [explain things in Spanish] and they said no, and obviously I'm not going
to push them if they say no.” This was reflected in Rachel's TPA, where there was no evidence
of Rachel using Spanish with her students. Interestingly, in her interviews Rachel reported
using Spanish with students during the prior semester (during which she was also paired with
Ms. Raymond but taught a different group of students) quite often, and that during the previ-
ous semester Ms. Raymond even allowed students to complete certain written assignments in
Spanish. This suggests that both Rachel and Ms. Raymond were open to Spanish-English
bilingualism in the classroom in the past if that was something their students wanted and
advocated for. However, when Rachel brought up the option of allowing students to write in
Spanish during her student teaching semester (i.e., the second semester she was teaching with
Ms. Raymond), Rachel reported that Ms. Raymond no longer allowed students to write in
Spanish for reasons that were unclear to Rachel and contradicted Ms. Raymond's own
espoused views that multilingualism was welcomed in the classroom. This was despite
Ms. Raymond highlighting Rachel's ability to engage with her students in Spanish as an
important tool for their classroom. In line with her students' resistance and Ms. Raymond's
instruction decisions, Rachel reported only using Spanish for occasional behavior manage-
ment during the semester during which her TPA took place, though even this was not evident
during observed TPA instruction.
Thus, it was only Ana who consistently integrated opportunities for students to use their
multilingualism as a learning resource, and it was this TELLIS practice that was Ana's strongest
area of implementation, both overall and on average. Indeed, it was the only instructional prac-
tice that any PST enacted at an Implementing level on average. Throughout all of Ana's lessons,
she worked closely with her Spanish-speaking students, translanguaging in English and Span-
ish to help them make meaning of what they were learning, to clarify directions, to manage
behavior, or to just converse socially. Though she only once used Spanish as part of whole class
instruction during her TPA (i.e., when giving directions for an activity in Lesson 2), she wel-
comed, encouraged, and participated in students' Spanish use often during small group work or
individual check-ins, which constituted a significant portion of her class. For example, during
one small group activity where students were working to identify evidence supporting the the-
ory of evolution, Ana supplemented explanations in English with those in Spanish as she
worked with a group of Spanish speakers who were struggling. When asked how she deter-
mined which language to use when, Ana noted,
Usually I'll try in English first and be like, ‘All right, let's look at this’ and kind of
walk them through it. And then if I can tell it's not clicking, I'll kind of switch and
be like, ‘Okay, let's try Spanish instead’ …. And then usually if they start in Spanish
with me, I will continue in Spanish … until a point of, I feel like I can switch over
to English.
However, in line with the concept of translanguaging for meaning-making, Ana also called
her decisions to use one language or the other “spirit-driven” based on how she and her stu-
dents were feeling, and based on if her students seemed to be comprehending what she was try-
ing to say in a given language.
|
646 RUTT AND MUMBA
As noted above and in contrast to Rachel, Ana pursued the use of Spanish even despite
students' initial hesitation for her to do so, describing how she had to negotiate with her
students to use both English and Spanish in the classroom. In her interview, she
explained,
Kids started off like that, where they were like, ‘No, we just have to speak in
English.’ I was like, ‘No, let's practice Spanish.’ They're like, ‘We'll also have time
to practice English. We'll do both.’ I always think that's fine, and I think the kids
know I'm fine with it, so it's never like a weird thing.
This seemed to be a positive move for Ana and her Spanish-speaking students. Indeed,
Ms. Johnson, Ana's MT, highlighted Ana's Spanish use as a positive and important component
of Ana's instruction. When asked how well-prepared Ana was to meet the needs of her EBs,
Ms. Johnson responded, “The ones that were Spanish speakers, I mean, she got those right
away.” Ana agreed noting,
I think I've reached some of my [EBs] in a way better way than they have been
before … my Spanish-speaking students were pretty much failing prior to when I
was there, and now they're all passing. There's [sic] tons of factors that could affect
that, right? But I think just even from talking to some of the students I'm like, ‘So,
is this making sense?’ They're like, ‘Yeah, this is making more sense than it's ever
made sense before.’
Despite these positive gains, it is important to note that Ana's use of students' multilingual-
ism was only inclusive of Spanish speakers. Ana also had students who spoke Nepalese, Arabic,
and a Jamaican dialect, and she seemed unsure of how to support them. This was evident dur-
ing Ana's TPA lessons, where she was never observed trying to integrate the home languages of
her non-Spanish-speaking EBs, though she noted in her interview that her Arabic-speaking stu-
dent would often use Google translate for written assignments, which Ana encouraged. Ana
recognized her struggles to use non-Spanish-speaking students' multilingual resources as a
shortcoming in her instruction, explaining in her interview when she was asked how well-
prepared she felt to teach EBs in a linguistically diverse classroom,
I definitely think I need more work with students who don't speak Spanish,
because I have that comfort like I can just code switch and it's pretty easy for me to
be like, ‘Alright, you're not getting it in English. Let's switch. Let's talk in Spanish.’
But working with kids who don't share a language with me, I think I would want
to practice more and see, because I feel like even if I'm like, ‘That makes sense?’
And they're like, ‘Yeah,’ and I'm like, ‘They don't get it.’
Rachel also reported an inability to integrate multilingual repertoires as an instructional sup-

port for students who were bi- or multilingual in languages other than Spanish. Though she felt
confident integrating multilingualism when working with Spanish speakers, she commented in
her interview, “If I can't speak Urdu or Pashto or whatever, I can't use [multilingualism as an
instructional support].” This has important implications for even bilingual teachers in multilin-
gual classrooms, which we explore next.
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 647
6 | DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to better understand to what level and in what ways PSTs were
able to integrate language- and literacy-integrated science into their instruction following par-
ticipation in two language- and literacy-integrated science teaching methods courses. Using a
situated cognition perspective and a cognitive apprenticeship structure, we inducted our PSTs
into teaching language- and literacy-integrated science through numerous opportunities to
experience, discuss and analyze, create, and implement language- and literacy-integrated sci-
ence instruction. Our mixed methods approach allowed us to move beyond simplified checklists
to better understand the nature of PSTs' language and literacy integration and helped us to
“observe and engage with the complexity of practice” as called for by other researchers
(e.g., Viesca et al., 2019, p. 324).
Our results showed that, following the modeling, discussion, and practice of TELLIS-
focused science instruction, all three PSTs were able to implement most of the TELLIS instruc-
tional strategies at the targeted Implementing level during at least one of their four unit lessons,
with average implementation falling at the mid- to high-Beginning level for most practices. To
some extent, these findings reflect those of similar studies (i.e., Lyon et al., 2018) and suggest
that PSTs can adopt targeted levels of reform-based, language- and literacy-integrated science
instructional practices when exposed to “a set of core practices, supported by tools and routines
over time” (Thompson et al., 2013, p. 609). However, we believe our results suggest that, for our
PSTs, a situated cognition approach to preparing PSTs for linguistically diverse classrooms was
particularly useful in the uptake of language- and literacy-integrated science instruction, and
that our findings support extending the use of a situated cognitive theory perspective, particu-
larly with attention to cognitive apprenticeship, to preparing PSTs for linguistically diverse
classrooms. In particular, we believe that because many PSTs have not had experience working
with EBs or teaching using the language-rich NGSS SEPs, the use of apprenticeship, where
PSTs observe, reflect, and engage in targeted instruction in authentic contexts (i.e., classrooms
with EBs), can be very beneficial for developing PSTs' instruction for the unique circumstances
of linguistically diverse classrooms. For our PSTs, it was in their learning-to-teach experiences
that they were able to grapple with the complexities of instruction and consider how to apply
what they understood as best practice to authentic, multifaceted classroom contexts. In some
cases, these contexts provided challenges to PSTs' implementation of TELLIS practices, such as
their struggles to provide meaningful literacy opportunities in the midst of student pushback
and struggle. However, in many ways, they were successful. We review these areas of success
next and consider implications for teacher educators and researchers.
Of the successes evident among the PSTs, it is notable that all three PSTs excelled at inte-
grating language and literacy into science through their use of language-focused, authentic sci-
entific practices, such as justifying claims, analyzing evidence, and drawing conclusions, during
their units. This is noteworthy because other studies have highlighted PSTs' struggles to provide
opportunities for literacy development that are grounded in language-rich scientific practices
and reasoning (i.e., Lyon et al., 2018; Roberts et al., 2016), and because the NGSS's heavy
emphasis on language-focused practices like argumentation (NRC, 2012) make these types of
instructional decisions critically important for ensuring all students have access to standards-
aligned science education. We believe that the repeated opportunities the cognitive apprentice-
ship model provided for PSTs to observe, reflect on, and practice the TELLIS framework's prac-
tices and framing expectation that students engage in rigorous, age-appropriate SEPs helped to
create a greater focus on the cohesiveness across language and science practices, making it feel
|
648 RUTT AND MUMBA
more natural for PSTs to engage students in language use for scientific purposes during their
instruction. Because growth in both science content and language is critical for EBs, we suggest
that more research should investigate how highly integrated instructional models like TELLIS,
presented in a cognitive apprenticeship manner, can support this kind of instruction, particu-
larly with larger numbers of participants.
Another positive finding in our study was PSTs' integration of contextualized learning into
their instruction. This is important, because science instruction is more meaningful when con-
tent is relevant to students' lives (NRC, 2012). Unlike in previous studies, where contextualiza-
tion seemed to be more peripheral (Lyon et al., 2018; Tolbert et al., 2019), all three PSTs in at
least one of their TPA lessons (and for Erin and Rachel, in many) framed their lessons with a
relevant contextualizing event. Framing lessons in real-life events can support students' engage-
ment and understanding of key scientific principles by making connections to authentic events
that they experience in their own lives (Tolbert, 2016). Thus, PSTs' ability to frame their lessons
in broader contextualized themes is an important finding, particularly given that even in-service
teachers' struggle with contextualization (Lee et al., 2007).
Despite PSTs' attention to contextualization in their lessons, more work is needed to support
PSTs in identifying and incorporating their students' unique, socially and culturally embedded
life experiences and resources, particularly because experiences and resources of culturally and
linguistically diverse students might not align with Western science classroom practices or
norms (Buxton & Lee, 2014; Lee & Fradd, 1998). Interestingly, this lack of student-specific con-
sideration in PSTs' instruction might have been due in part to its absence in the modeled sci-
ence lessons. Indeed, contextualization was often presented in modeled lessons through generic
connections to common life experiences, much like what was evident in the PSTs' own lessons.
In reflecting on our methods course instruction, we believe it would have been more beneficial
to provide case profiles of EBs to which modeled instruction could be tailored and whom PSTs
could consider as they observed and reflected on the modeled lessons.
However, another reason PSTs might not have integrated as much student-specific contextu-
alization might have stemmed from a lack of linguistic diversity in their learning-to-teach field
placements prior to their student-teaching placements. These placements aligned partially with
the coaching part of our intervention where PSTs had to develop lesson plans reflecting the
TELLIS-integrated science instructional methods with significant instructor feedback. Though
Rachel was working with linguistically diverse students at that time, Ana and Erin were not.
This might have made it more challenging to practice EB-specific contextualization during the
coaching stage and again points to the importance of authentic contexts for learning to teach.
At the same time, we recognize that for many teacher preparation programs, finding linguisti-
cally diverse classrooms for numerous PSTs, particularly across numerous learning-to-teach
opportunities, can be challenging. This is perhaps where case profiles could again be useful, to
provide PSTs the opportunity to consider their instruction in light of specific, linguistically
diverse student assets and needs.
Despite these positive findings, and PSTs' overall integration of many of the TELLIS prac-
tices at the Implementing level, there were also areas of struggle for all three PSTs that warrant
the attention of teacher educators and researchers. This is not surprising: instructional ability
(including behavior management) is an ongoing skill that teachers develop over many years of
instruction.
For example, one area of struggle for PST that affected their EBs' access to rigorous, age-
appropriate language- and literacy-focused science practices was their lack of support for their
students' linguistic output. While all three PSTs were effective at integrating strategies to
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 649
support students' language understanding (i.e., input), there were fewer supports for students'
language use (i.e., output). For EBs, this lack of support could have made engaging in the
numerous opportunities provided by PSTs for language-focused science activity more challeng-
ing, as was evident in the lack of EB participation in Ana's class discussions and the struggles
Erin's students had with scientific writing. This is an important oversight, because the opportu-
nity to use language is crucial for language development (VanPatten, 2003) and for engaging in
the meaning-making at the heart of the NGSS SEPs. The greater focus on support for input sug-
gests a more teacher-centered planning approach that focuses on what teachers are doing to
make language comprehensible, in contrast to a more student-centered orientation of language
use that focuses on how teachers can support students in engaging in the language use critical
for language development. This teacher-centered approach may have in part been responsible
for Ana's and Rachel's more frequent teacher-led, IRE sequences, which often provide fewer
opportunities for negotiation and meaning making than more student-centered approaches
(Anton, 1999).
Thus, not only did the lack of support for student output limit EBs' language use, but it also
watered down the potency of the very language-forward opportunities PSTs created for both dis-
course and literacy development. Indeed, all three PSTs expressed concern about their students'
ability to engage in the literacy-focused scientific activities they provided. Coupled with chal-
lenges with behavior that are common to new teachers, this made their opportunities for liter-
acy integration more challenging and less fruitful.
These findings point to the shortcomings of simply providing a “toolkit” of ESOL strategies,
even when modeled, if PSTs are unaware of or unable to implement the strategies in a congru-
ent and cohesive way that supports language use across domains (i.e., listening, speaking, read-
ing, and writing; De Jong & Harper, 2005). In reflecting on our intervention, we think it would
be useful to more clearly highlight the distinction between language supports for input and out-
put and provide structures during the coaching portion of our intervention to draw PSTs' atten-
tion to the extent to which they are addressing both. Future interventions and research should
also consider how to support PSTs in identifying and integrating output-specific strategies so
that all students can engage in discourse and literacy in their classrooms.
In addition to strategies for language use, another area of struggle for Rachel and Erin, and
perhaps the most obvious difference among PSTs' TELLIS integration, was their use of students'
multilingualism as an instructional support. While Ana consistently integrated her students'
multilingualism into her instruction, Erin and Rachel were not observed doing so even once.
This was despite all PSTs agreeing in their interviews that home language integration can be an
important instructional resource, suggesting an incongruence between language ideology and
action for Erin and Rachel. This is important to note because teachers play a critical role in cre-
ating space for translanguaging practices through the instructional decisions they make in their
classrooms (Poza, 2018). If PSTs do not take actionable steps to enact their translanguaging ped-
agogies in the science classroom, their students might be less willing to take them up.
As noted in the results, and detailed more thoroughly in another manuscript (see Rutt &
Mumba, under review), context might have played a key role in PSTs' willingness to implement
multilingualism as an instructional support. In particular, all three PSTs received or perceived
pushback about using students' other languages in the classroom. For Erin, it was her percep-
tion that classroom expectations dictated English use. For Rachel, it was students' vocal
pushback to using their multilingualism coupled with her MT's sudden dismissal of multilin-
gual options for assignments that caused her to adopt an English-only policy for instruction.
|
650 RUTT AND MUMBA
Only Ana bucked the larger expectations, negotiating with her EBs to use Spanish and English
for meaning-making.
These results suggest that language ideologies alone do not dictate PST action. In determin-
ing how to integrate students' multilingualism into the classroom, PSTs must navigate complex
classroom contexts. If they are to support PSTs' enactment of language-inclusive and trans-
languaging ideologies, teacher educators and researchers need to consider how to support PSTs
in fostering language inclusiveness even in contexts where it seems contradictory to larger, heg-
emonic expectations, a point we pick up in another manuscript (see Rutt & Mumba, under
review). We therefore join other researchers in calls for additional research considering not only
what PSTs' language ideologies are, but how those ideologies inform (or do not inform) their
instruction in linguistically diverse science classrooms (Lemmi et al., 2019). Given the role that
Ms. Smith and Ms. Raymond's actions on multilingualism played in Rachel and Erin's imple-
mentation of multilingual repertoires as an instructional support, we also echo the call for
teacher educators to identify or train MTs in translanguaging pedagogy so that they can serve
as models for PSTs' own transfer of knowledge from theory to praxis in linguistically diverse
classrooms (Deroo et al., 2020). As the disillusionment with the idea of a “correct” way of using
language in classroom communication grows (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Lemmi et al., 2019), it is
possible that PSTs can be on the forefront of a wave of more language-inclusive instruction
(Lemmi et al., 2019).
One other important note about integrating students' multilingualism into instruction was
that both Ana and Rachel felt uncomfortable engaging in students' multilingualism when the
language was not one with which they were familiar. This echoes research showing that
teachers tend to use multilingualism less in their instruction when many different languages
are present (Okebukola et al., 2013). Given the growing linguistic diversity of US public school
populations and the largely White, monolingual teaching force, this suggests that teacher prepa-
ration programs need to do more to make translanguaging and inclusive language pedagogies
palatable and accessible for teachers of all linguistic backgrounds. Furthermore, more work
should be done to consider why it is that some PSTs, such as Ana, are willing to pick up and
integrate EBs' linguistic resources into their instruction (i.e., Heineke et al., 2019), while others,
such as Rachel, are more hesitant. In particular, additional research is needed to understand
how PSTs perceive and respond to the contexts in which they are attempting to use students'
multilingualism, particularly given the larger monolingual narrative in US school systems
(Palmer & Martínez, 2016).
7 | CONCLUS I ON S A N D I MPLI C A T I O NS
As classrooms become more linguistically diverse, science teachers need to be ready to imple-
ment rigorous, age-appropriate science instruction in a way that supports content and language
development for students who are still learning the language of instruction. Though the small
number of participants in this study makes generalization challenging, we believe our results
suggest that teacher education programs and field experiences structured from a cognitive
apprenticeship perspective can provide important opportunities for growing PSTs' understand-
ing and implementation of language- and literacy-integration science instruction. Given the
lack of preparation most PSTs receive for teaching science in linguistically diverse classrooms
(NASEM, 2018), these findings join others as a viable option for how teacher preparation pro-
grams can support PSTs' preparation for linguistically diverse science classrooms using
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 651
language- and literacy-integrated science instructional models like TELLIS, and should be stud-
ied further in additional contexts using increased numbers of participants. Research should also
consider the long-term impacts of such training on PSTs' eventual instruction as teachers in
their own classrooms, as well as on how that instruction impacts student learning. Considering
the complexity and contextual nature of PST instruction, mixed-methods approaches like ours
might help to provide a more nuanced look at in what ways PSTs choose to take up or leave
behind particular instructional strategies.
While results from our study were positive, the struggles highlighted above also suggest that
teacher support should not end with the completion of language-focused teacher education pro-
grams. Rather, we believe it is critical that PSTs be supported beyond their student-teaching
experiences into their first years of teaching and beyond with opportunities for professional
development related to effectively integrating language and literacy into science instruction,
particularly in schools with a high level of linguistic diversity. In doing so, science teacher edu-
cators and researchers can better learn how to most effectively train the future science teacher
workforce to ensure that all students have access to the language-rich, rigorous SEPs outlined
in the NGSS.
ORCID
Alexis A. Rutt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3900-2762
Frackson Mumba https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4166-0617
R EF E RE N C E S
Adescope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of
the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80, 207–245. https://doi.org/10.
3102/0034654310368803
Amaral, O. M., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English learners increase achievement through
inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 29, 213–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.
2002.10668709
Anton, M. (1999). A learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher–learner interaction in the
second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 303–318.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Braden, S., Wassell, B. A., Scantlebury, K., & Grover, A. (2016). Supporting language learners in science class-
rooms: Insights from middle-school English language learner students. Language and Education, 30, 438–
458. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1134566
Bravo, M. A., Mosqueda, E., Solís, J. L., & Stoddart, T. (2014). Possibilities and limits of integrating science and
diversity education in pre-service elementary teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25,
601–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9374-8
Brenner, M. E. (2006). Interviewing in educational research. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.),
Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 357–370). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18, 32–42.
Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in
the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37, 298–341. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0091732X12461772
Buxton, C. A., & Lee, O. (2014). English learners in science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 204–222). Routledge.
Charamba, E. (2020). Translanguaging in a multilingual class: A study of the relation between students' lan-
guages and epistemological access in science. International Journal of Science Education, 42, 1779–1798.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing,
and mathematics. Technical Report No. 403.
|
652 RUTT AND MUMBA
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and
teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
De Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: Is being a
good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32, 101–124.
Deng, Q., Kiramba, L. K., & Viesca, K. M. (2020). Factors associated with novice general education teachers' pre-
paredness to work with multilingual learners: A multilevel study. Journal of Teacher Education, 72, 489–503.
Denzin, N. (1978). Sociological methods: A source book (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Deroo, M. R., Ponzio, C. M., & De Costa, P. I. (2020). Reenvisioning second language teacher education through
translanguaging praxis. In Z. Tian, L. Aghai, P. Sayer, & J. Schissel (Eds.), Envisioning TESOL through a
translanguaging lens (pp. 111–134). Springer.
Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues. Language Teaching,
40, 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004508
Duff, P. A., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language acquisition: Social,
cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to
second language acquisition (pp. 107–128). Routledge.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2016). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model.
Pearson.
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in edu-
cation. Harvard Educational Review, 85, 149–171.
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Basil Blackwell.
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language learners in
U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 363–385.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327671espr1004_2
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the main-
stream classroom (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know—And don't yet know—
About effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4–39.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communi-
ties, and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Gonzalez-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2016). Learning in a community of practice: Factors impacting English-
learning students' engagement in scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 527–
553. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21310
Gonzalez-Howard, M., & Suarez, E. (2021). Retiring the term English language learners: Moving toward linguis-
tic justice through asset-oriented framing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(5), 749–752.
Grapin, S. E., Llosa, L., Haas, A., & Lee, O. (2021). Rethinking instructional strategies with English learners in
the content areas. TESOL Journal, 12(2), 1–12.
Heineke, A. J., Smetana, L., & Sanei, J. C. (2019). A qualitative case study of field-based teacher education: One
candidate's evolving expertise of science teaching for emergent bilinguals. Journal of Science Teacher Educa-
tion, 30, 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1537058
Hernandez, A. C. (2016). The professional development of PSTs in an integrated science and language acquisi-
tion curriculum with third-grade students. In A. W. Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher prep-
aration in content-based second language acquisition (pp. 59–77). Springer.
Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 78,
1010–1038.
Jung, K. G., & Brown, J. C. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of an academic language planning organizer as a
tool for planning science academic language instruction and supports. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
27, 847–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9491-2
Karlsson, A., Larsson, P. N., & Jakobsson, A. (2018). Multilingual students' use of translanguaging in science
classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 4, 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.
1477261
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 653
Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Guerrero, C., Huerta, M., & Fan, Y. (2012). The effect of an instructional
intervention on middle school English learners' science and English reading achievement. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 49, 987–1011. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21031
Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2013). Integrating science and English proficiency for English language learners.
Theory Into Practice, 52(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.743772
Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English-language backgrounds.
Educational Researcher, 27(4), 12–21.
Lee, O., Luykx, A., Buxton, C., & Shaver, A. (2007). The challenge of altering elementary school teachers' beliefs
and practices regarding linguistic and cultural diversity in science instruction. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 44, 1269–1291. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20198
Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Penfield, R., Leroy, K., & Secada, W. G. (2008). Science achievement of English lan-
guage learners in urban elementary schools: Results of a first-year professional development intervention.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20209
Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next
Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language
arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13480524
Lemmi, C., Brown, B. A., Wild, A., Zummo, L., & Sedlacek, Q. (2019). Language ideologies in science education.
Science Education, 103, 854–874.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in pres-
ervice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770327
Lyon, E. G. (2013a). Learning to assess science in linguistically diverse classrooms: Tracking growth in secondary
science preservice teachers' assessment expertise. Science Education, 97, 442–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sce.21059
Lyon, E. G. (2013b). What about language while equitably assessing science? Case studies of preservice teachers'
evolving expertise. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.12.006
Lyon, E. G., & Solís, J. (2016). Scientific discourse through scientific and engineering practices. In E. G. Lyon, S.
Tolbert, P. Stoddart, J. Solís, & G. C. Bunch (Eds.), Secondary science teaching for English learners: Developing
supportive and responsive learning contexts for sense-making and language development (pp. 103–129).
Rowman and Littlefield.
Lyon, E. G., Stoddart, T., Bunch, G. C., Tolbert, S., Salinas, I., & Solís, J. (2018). Improving the preparation of
novice secondary science teachers for English learners: A proof of concept study. Science Education, 102,
1288–1318. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21473
Lyon, E. G., Stoddart, T., Solís, J., Tolbert, S. Bunch, G. C., Roth, B., Salinas, I., Knox, C., Couling, J, & Butler, M.
(2016, April). Teaching English learners through science-language integration: Linking a conceptual framework
to secondary teacher preparation [Paper presentation]. National Association for Research on Science Teach-
ing annual conference, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Meier, V., Aminger, W., McLean, M., Carpenter, S. L., Moon, S., Hough, S., & Bianchini, J. A. (2020). Preservice
secondary science teachers' understanding of academic language: Moving beyond “just the vocabulary”.
Science Education, 104, 222–251.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.).
Sage.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children
and youth learning English: Promising futures. National Academies Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). English learners in STEM subjects: Trans-
forming classrooms, schools, and lives. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25182
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and
core ideas. The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
O'Hara, S., Pritchard, R., & Zwiers, J. (2016). Academic Language and Literacy in Every Subject (ALLIES): A
capacity building approach to supporting teachers in grades 4–8. In C. P. Proctor, A. Boardman, & E. H.
Hiebert (Eds.), English learners and emergent bilingualism in the common core era (pp. 197–214). Guilford
Publishing.
|
654 RUTT AND MUMBA
Okebukola, P. A., Owolabi, O., & Okebukola, F. O. (2013). Mother tongue as default language of instruction in
lower primary science classes: Tension between policy prescription and practice in Nigeria. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 50, 62–81.
Palmer, D. K., & Martínez, R. A. (2016). Developing biliteracy: What do teachers really need to know about
language? Language Arts, 93, 379–385.
Poza, L. E. (2018). The language of ciencia: Translanguaging and learning in a bilingual science classroom. Inter-
national Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21, 1–19.
Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdés, G. (2012, January). Language demands and opportunities in relation to Next Genera-
tion Science Standards: What teachers need to know [Paper presentation]. Understanding Language Confer-
ence, Stanford, CA, United States.
Richards, H. V., Brown, A. F., & Forde, T. B. (2007). Addressing diversity in schools: Culturally responsive peda-
gogy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64–68.
Roberts, S. A., Bianchini, J. A., Sook Lee, J., Hough, S., & Carpenter, S. L. (2016). Developing an adaptive disposi-
tion for supporting English language learners in science: A capstone science methods course. In A. W.
Oliveira & M. H. Weinburgh (Eds.), Science teacher preparation in content-based second language acquisition
(pp. 79–95). Springer.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2017). An introduction to qualitative research: Learning in the field. Sage.
Rutt, A., & Mumba, F. (2020). Developing secondary pre-service science teachers' instructional planning abilities
for language- and literacy-integrated science instruction in linguistically diverse classrooms. Journal of Sci-
ence Teacher Education, 31, 841–868. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1760431
Rutt, A. & Mumba, F. (under review). XXX.
Rutt, A., Mumba, F., & Kibler, A. (2021). Preparing pre-service teachers to teach science to English learners: A
review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58, 625–660. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21673
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.
Siegel, M. A. (2014). Developing PSTs' expertise in equitable assessment for English learners. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 25, 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9365-9
Solís, J., & Bunch, G. C. (2016). Responsive approaches for teaching English learners in secondary science class-
rooms. In E. G. Lyon, S. Tolbert, P. Stoddart, J. Solís, & G. C. Bunch (Eds.), Secondary science teaching for
English learners: Developing supportive and responsive learning contexts for sense-making and language devel-
opment (pp. 21–48). Rowman and Littlefield.
Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.
Stoddart, T., Bravo, M. A., Mosqueda, E., & Solís, J. L. (2013). Restructuring pre-service teacher education to
respond to increasing student diversity. Research in Higher Education Journal, 19, 1–19.
Stoddart, T., Pinal, A., Latzke, M., & Canaday, D. (2002). Integrating inquiry science and language development
for English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 664–687. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tea.10040
Swanson, L. H., Bianchini, J. A., & Lee, J. S. (2014). Engaging in argument and communicating information: A
case study of English language learners and their science teacher in an urban high school. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 51, 31–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21124
Thompson, J., Windschitl, M., & Braaten, M. (2013). Developing a theory of ambitious early career teacher prac-
tice. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 574–615. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213476334
Tinsley, H. E. A., & Weiss, D. J. (1975). Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgements. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 22, 358–378.
Tolbert, S. (2016). Contextualizing science activity. In E. Lyon, S. Tolbert, J. Solís, T. Stoddart, & G. Bunch (Eds.),
Secondary science teaching for English learners: Developing supportive and responsive learning contexts for
sensemaking and language development. Rowman and Littlefield.
Tolbert, S., Knox, C., & Salinas, I. (2019). Framing, adapting, and applying: Learning to contextualize science
activity in multilingual science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 49, 1069–1085. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11165-019-9854-8
Tolbert, S., Stoddart, T., Lyon, E. G., & Solís, J. (2014). The Next Generation Science Standards, Common Core
State Standards, and English learners: Using the SSTELLA framework to prepare secondary science teachers.
Issues in Teacher Education, 23, 65–90.
|
RUTT AND MUMBA 655
Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R., & Koch, J. (2014). Integrating literacy and science for English language
learners: From learning-to-read to reading-to-learn. The Journal of Educational Research, 107, 410–426.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.833072
Valdés, G., Capitelli, S., & Quinn, H. (2018, April). Talk and text: Affordances for the development of language for
science [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York
City, NY, United States.
VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher's guide to second language acquisition. McGraw-Hill.
Viesca, K. M., Strom, K., Hammer, S., Masterson, J., Linzell, C. H., Mitchell-McCollough, J., & Flynn, N. (2019).
Developing a complex portrait of content teaching for multilingual learners via nonlinear theoretical under-
standings. Review of Research in Education, 43, 304–335.
Villegas, A. M., Saizde LaMora, K., Martin, A. D., & Mills, T. (2018). Preparing future mainstream teachers to
teach English language learners: A review of the empirical literature. The Educational Forum, 82, 138–155.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University
Press.
Way, N. (1998). Everyday courage: The lives and stories of urban teenagers. New York University Press.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2018). Ambitious science teaching. Harvard Education Press.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices
and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96, 878–903. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21027
S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION

Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of the article at the pub-
lisher's website.
How to cite this article: Rutt, A. A., & Mumba, F. (2022). Pre-service teachers
enactment of language- and literacy-integrated science instruction in linguistically
diverse science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(4), 619–655.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21739

Rutt - Mumba - 2022 - Pre-Service Teachers Enactment of Language - and Literacy-Integrated Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rutt - Mumba - 2022 - Pre-Service Teachers Enactment of Language - and Literacy-Integrated Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10982736, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21739 by Frederick Talaue - Cochrane Philippines , Wiley Online Library on [14/01/2023].

Pre-service teachers enactment of

Alexis A. Rutt | Frackson Mumba

School of Education and Human

© 2021 National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

J Res Sci Teach. 2022;59:619–655. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea 619

language development, attention to discipline-specific linguistic structures and vocabulary,

4.1 | Research design

4.2 | Study context

4.3 | The TELLIS instructional framework

F I G U R E 1 Teaching English Learners Language- and Literacy-Integrated Science (TELLIS) instructional

4.3.1 | Opportunities for experiencing and using discourse inherent to

The communicative and collaborative nature of science (National Research Council

4.3.2 | Opportunities for literacy development

4.3.3 | Strategies for language understanding and use

4.3.4 | Contextualized science learning

4.3.5 | Multilingual repertoires as instructional supports

4.4 | Language- and literacy-integrated science teaching methods

4.6 | Data collection

T A B L E 1 Overview of PSTs' teaching performance assessment (TPA) units

Ana Erin Rachel

4.7 | Data analysis

T A B L E 2 Excerpt from TELLIS instructional integration scoring rubric

Practice 0: Not present 1: Beginning 2: Implementing 3: Extending

T A B L E 3 Extent to which PSTs enacted TELLIS instruction

Discourse Literacy Multilingualism Contextualization Strategies Rigor

Note: 0 = not present; 1 = beginning; 2 = implementing; 3 = extending.

5.1 | Rigorous, age-appropriate science instruction

5.2 | Discourse inherent to science

I think half of it is probably my fault from a behavior management standpoint,

5.3 | Opportunities for literacy development

5.4 | Strategies for language understanding and use

T A B L E 4 Rachel's strategies for language understanding and use: Lesson 1

5.5 | Contextualized learning

5.6 | Multilingualism as an instructional support

Rachel also reported an inability to integrate multilingual repertoires as an instructional sup-

S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION

You might also like