University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Critical ambitious language pedagogy for cognitive academic language proficiency development in two-way immersion schools: teachers' ideologies and practices

(USC Thesis Other)

Critical ambitious language pedagogy for cognitive academic language proficiency development in two-way immersion schools: teachers' ideologies and practices

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 1

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY FOR
COGNITIVE ACADEMIC LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY DEVELOPMENT
IN TWO-WAY IMMERSION SCHOOLS:
TEACHERS’ IDEOLOGIES AND PRACTICES

by

Esther Shulamit Gross

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Esther Shulamit Gross
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 2
Table of Contents

Dedications 8
Acknowledgements 9
Abstract 10
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 11
Background of the Problem 12
Importance of High English CALP 14
Importance of High Partner Language CALP 15
Factors Impacting CALP Development in English and the Partner Language 17
Changing demographics 18
Low socio-economic status 19
Monolingual assimilation ideology 19
Assimilation ideology relating to language-minority students 21
Deficit ideology relating to language-minority students 21
Monolingual educational policies 23
Monolingual educational policies affecting language-minority students 24
Monolingual educational policies affecting language-majority students 24
Changes in educational policy for all learners 25
Language programs 25
Language programs for language-minority students 26
Early reclassification 28
Language programs for language-majority students 29
Quality of instruction 30
Teacher qualification and certification 31
Tracking and grouping practices 32
Testing policies and data analysis 33
Statement of the Problem 35
Purpose of the Study 36
Research Question 37
Significance of the Study 38
Limitations and Delimitations 40
Definition of Terms 41
Organization of the Study 45
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 46
TWI Programs: Equitable Education in the U.S. 47
The History of TWI Programs in the U.S. 48
TWI Common Criteria 49
TWI Model Variations 49
Concerns and Benefits related to Academic Language Development in TWI
Programs 50
Cognitive Academic Language Development 53
BICS vs. CALP 54
Operational Definition of CALP 55
Critical Ambitious Language Ideology and Pedagogy for CALP Development 56
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 3

Ideology for Developing CALP in Two Languages 57
Practice for Developing CALP in Two Languages 57
Equality: Social Constructivist Approach for Developing CALP in TWI 63
Ideology 66
Practice 67
Building background knowledge 67
Comprehensible input 68
Interaction 69
Output 70
Integration of skills 70
Authenticity 71
Grouping 71
Scaffolding interaction and tasks 72
Instruction of language form 73
Opponents of focus on form 73
Proponents of focus on form 74
Inquiry-based learning 75
Feedback and assessment 76
Meta-cognition strategies 77
Language use: Language-separation approach 78
Instructional models based on socio-constructivist perspectives 79
Cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA) 79
Sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) 80
Equity: Critical Perspective and Practices to CALP Development 82
Ideology 82
Practice 83
Critical background knowledge: Funds of knowledge 84
Critical authenticity 84
Critical interaction 85
Critical grouping 86
Critical scaffolding of interaction and tasks 86
Critical instruction on language form 87
Critical Inquiry-based learning 87
Critical language use: Translanguaging 88
Critical metacognition strategies 90
Critical feedback and assessment 90
Exemplary TWI Teachers 91
Conceptual Framework 93
Ideology 94
Practice 94
Summary 96
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 99
Research Question 100
Methods of Data Collection 100
Sample and Site Selection 101
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 4
Data Collection 103
Interviews 104
Observations 105
Artifacts 106
Data Analysis 107
Credibility and Trustworthiness 108
Limitations 109
Ethics 109
Self-Reflexive Coda: My Interest in Bilingual Education 110
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 112
Sites and Participants 114
XYZ School 114
XYZ Teachers 117
Theme One: Ideology and Practice, Is it Critical Ambitious CALP Pedagogy 119
Teacher #1: Maria, Kindergarten 120
Background 120
Ideology 121
Asset and growth mindsets 121
Funds of knowledge 121
Equality constructivist ideology 122
Learner-centered instruction 123
Metacognitive strategies 124
Practice 125
The instructional event 125
Activity one 125
Activity two 126
Activity three 126
Activity four 127
Analysis of the instructional event 127
Grouping 128
Interaction and output 128
Language use 129
Instruction focused on form and meta-linguistic
strategies 132
Summary and discussion 133
Teacher #2: Lucia, 1
st
Grade 134
Background 134
Ideology 135
Equality and equity mindsets 135
Funds of knowledge 136
Critical growth mindset 137
Grouping, inquiry-based learning and integration of skills 138
Critical Interaction 139
Practice 139
Instructional segment #1: English CALP development 140
Activity one 140
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 5
Activity two 141
Activity three 141
Analysis of instructional event #1 141
Missed opportunities to develop CALP 142
Instructional segment #2: Spanish CALP development 143
Activity one 143
Activity two 143
Analysis of instructional event #2 144
Funds of knowledge, emerging critical authentic
interaction 145
Grouping 145
Language use 146
Language use, grouping, interaction, and output 146
Summary and discussion 147
Teacher #3: Sofia, 4
th
Grade 148
Background 148
Ideology 149
Practice 151
Language use 152
Comprehensible input, scaffolding, and integration of skills 152
Funds of knowledge and metacognition strategies 153
Instruction focused on form 153
Missed opportunity to develop CALP 155
Metacognitive strategies 155
Instructional segment: English CALP development 157
Analysis of instructional event 157
Critical feedback, assessment and translanguaging 158
Summary and discussion 159
Teacher #4: Jenny, 6
th
Grade 160
Background 160
Ideology 160
Asset thinking and growth mindset 162
Equality mindset 163
Funds of knowledge and grouping 164
Practice 164
Interaction 164
Critical comprehensible input and scaffolding 165
Integration of skills 166
Interaction and output 166
Instruction focused on form 166
Scaffolding and metacognition strategies 168
Missed opportunities to develop CLAP 168
Critical Scaffolding 169
Critical authenticity and interaction 170
Language use 171
Instructional segment #1: developing English CALP 173
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 6
Analysis of instructional event #1 173
Translaguaging 174
Instructional segment #2: developing Spanish CALP 175
Activity one 175
Activity two 175
Activity three 175
Activity four 176
Analysis of instructional event #2 176
Missed opportunities to develop CALP 177
Summary and discussion 178
Theme One: Summary 178
Theme Two: Challenges and Assumed Causes in Developing Spanish CALP 179
Challenge: Low CALP in Spanish 180
Assumed Causes for Low Spanish CALP 182
Lack of quality textbooks and authentic resources in Spanish 182
Lack of sufficient contact time 184
Shortage in bilingual teachers 184
Lack of systematic integration of language form in context 185
Lack of common standards and standardized assessments 187
Theme Two: Summary 189
Theme Three: Collaborative Professional Communities 190
Collaboration Within and Across Grade-level Teams 190
Collaboration with Teacher Educational Programs 192
Administrative Support 193
Theme Three: Summary 193
Summary 193
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 196
Discussion of Findings 197
Theme One: TWI Teachers’ Ideology and Practices about CALP
Development 197
Theme Two: Challenges and Assumed Causes related to Spanish CALP
Development 199
Theme Three: Collaborative Professional Learning Community 200
Implications for Practice 200
Teacher Preparation and Ongoing Professional Learning 201
Repertoire of Practices and Assessments 202
A Collaborative Professional Community 203
Future Research 205
Critical Ambitious Language Pedagogy for CALP in TWI Settings 206
Language Use: Translanguaging 206
Students’ Voice: Agents of CALP Development 207
Conclusions 207
References 209
Appendices 229
Appendix A: Email Request to Conduct Study 229
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 230
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 7
Appendix C: Classroom Observation Protocol 235
Appendix D: Consent Form 237

List of Tables
Table 1.1 Monolingual English-Only Education to Bilingual Modalities 27
Table 2.1 TWI Model Variations Based on Instructional Time in the Partner Language
and in English 50
Table 2.2 Critical Ambitious Language Pedagogy for CALP Development 61
Table 4.1 California, District, & XYZ School K-8 Student Demographics 116
Table 4.2 XYZ Teachers’ Profiles 118

List of Figures
Figure 2.1 CALP Pedagogy Continuum 54
Figure 2.2 Critical Ambitious Language Pedagogy for CALP Development in TWI
settings 95

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 8

Dedications

This dissertation is dedicated to
my dear husband Nir and my loving sons, Liam and Ely,
who witnessed me work tirelessly and passionately to fulfill my dreams. May it inspire them to
follow their dreams and aspirations with all their being.

I would also like to dedicate this work to
my grandparents who instilled in me the love of learning and supported my educational journey.

I want to thank my brother Zev and my dearest girlfriends for
always being there for me and believing in my potential.

Lastly, I dedicate this dissertation to all my teachers who genuinely cared for me, positioned me
as powerful and set high expectations for learning.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 9
Acknowledgements

This dissertation is the result of the collaborative work of many people. I am especially
grateful for my committee chair, Dr. Jenifer Crawford, for her valuable guidance and unwavering
encouragement throughout this journey. I would also like to thank my other committee
members, Dr. Paula Carbone and Dr. Ekaterina Moore, for their academic expertise and critical
feedback. I am also very humbled by the dedication of the teachers and administrators at the K-8
school site. I am forever grateful to them for opening their hearts, minds, and classrooms.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 10
Abstract

With the continuous growth of language-minority students in the U.S., along with the importance
of developing high literacy in English and in several of the world’s languages and cultures in
order to succeed in the 21
st
century, bilingual education is considered one promising educational
solution for the collective socio-cultural well-being and schooling of all U.S. children. While
research on Two Way Immersion (TWI) schools has suggested positive cognitive and academic
outcomes, as well as increased cross-cultural competency for all students and is gaining
popularity in the U.S., not much is known about the classroom practices focused on developing
cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in two languages. Attending to one
exemplary
1
TWI school in California as the unit of analysis offers a nuanced portrait to explore
TWI teachers’ ideologies and practices relating to CALP development of all their emergent
bilingual
2
learners within an integrated setting through semi-structured interviews and classroom
observations. Socio-constructivist and critical learning theories and second language research
guided the interview questions and analysis. Recommendations are suggested in the areas of
further research and pedagogies in the field of bilingual education in order to provide a greater
proportion of the U.S.’s youth with the opportunity to acquire valuable languages, cultural, and
academic knowledge and skills that would benefit them in their future personal and professional
lives and, in turn, develop a more democratic and liberal society.

1
The term exemplary is used in this dissertation interchangeably with effective, high quality, and high performing to
describe teachers and schools that promote measurable student outcomes such as average to high scores on
standardized tests, as well as meet other criteria described in the literature for effective teachers such as attainment
of teaching certification and completion of content knowledge courses (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Goldhaber, 2015).
2
Emergent Bilinguals (EBs) is the term used by Garcia and Kleifgen (2010) to reject the deficit mindset when
measuring language-minority students in comparison to their English language attainment. In this dissertation, I
expand the term to include native English speakers who attend TWI programs and are also becoming bilingual and
biliterate. Thus, to reflect the notion of language as an asset and to reflect an inclusive multicultural perspective, this
term will be used throughout this dissertation to address both language-minority and language-majority students
learning together in TWI programs.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 11
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Two Way Immersion (TWI) schools are growing rapidly in response to the need for high
quality education for all U.S. learners and especially for the growing population of language-
minority students (Kim, Hutchison, & Winsler, 2013; Li, Steele, Slater, Bacon, & Miller, 2016).
This type of educational setting helps students develop linguistic and cultural literacy, including
academic knowledge and academic proficiency in English and in several of the world’s
languages and cultures that are essential in order to succeed in the 21
st
century (New London
Group, 2000). Academic language proficiency in English and in other world languages plays a
central role in accessing equitable and high quality educational opportunities and achieving high
academic outcomes (ACT, 2005; Greenberg Motamedi, 2015; Hill, Weston, & Hayes, 2014;
Kim & Herman, 2012; NCES, 2015). Cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), also
referred to as academic language proficiency or academic discourse, is associated with
academically demanding subject matter where, typically, there is a great deal less contextual
support and acquisition is a much longer process, usually five to nine years, than conversational
language proficiency which usually requires one to two years.
While research on TWI schools has suggested positive social and academic outcomes for
all students and is gaining popularity in U.S. schools, researchers have argued that rigorous
empirical research is needed to elucidate how teachers perceive and develop their students’
(language-minority and language-majority) cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP)
(Cummins, 2000) in two languages within this integrated setting. More to the point, there is no
well-developed picture of what the broad principles for CALP development in TWI settings look
like in practice (Howard, Lindholm-Leary, Rogers, Olague, Medina, Kennedy, Sugarman, &
Christian, 2018; Kim et al., 2013; Li et al., 2016; Martínez-Álvarez, Bannan, & Peters-Burton,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 12
2012). Thus, the aim of this study was to capture teachers’ ideologies, as well as to report and
observe instructional practices relating to CALP development in English and in Spanish for all
learners in one exemplary K-8 TWI school in Los Angeles, California.
Rooted in the sociocultural theory of Vygotsky and in the cognitive developmental theory
of Piaget, social constructivism has emerged in recent years as a dominant paradigm in education
and has had a major impact on the development of CALP pedagogy in the field of second
language acquisition (SLA) (Kaufman, 2004). Furthermore, academic language is also
embedded in real-world social justice, cultural and political issues and goals (Luke, 2012; Moje,
2007; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2002). It follows, then, that this study was informed by socio-
constructivist and critical learning theories, and SLA research.
In the following parts of this chapter, I explain the background of the problem in order to
set the context for the study. I then elaborate on the purpose and significance of this study for
CALP development in both the dominant societal language (i.e., English) and the partner
language, Spanish. The chapter concludes with the limitations and delimitations for this study.
Background of the Problem
Improving educational outcomes in K-12 public schools in the United States for all
learners, and especially for those whose primary language is not English, is a persisting
challenge (Ball & Forzanni, 2009; Carter & Welner, 2013; Collier & Thomas, 2004; Darling-
Hammond, 2007; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014; Mehta, 2013; Parkay, Anctil, & Hass,
2014; Thomas & Collier, 2002). Academic language proficiency in English and in another world
language play a central role in achieving high academic outcomes (ACT, 2005; Greenberg
Motamedi, 2015; Hill et al., 2014; Kim & Herman, 2012; NCES, 2015). More importantly,
developing academic linguistic proficiency and cultural literacy in English and in several of the
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 13
world’s languages and cultures is essential in order to succeed in the 21
st
century (New London
Group, 2000). A world language, also referred to as partner language or target language (L2), is
the second or foreign language a person is learning or intends to learn; for example, learning
Spanish for native English speakers (Christian, 1994). Bilingualism is the ability to speak
fluently in two languages. Biliteracy is the ability to read and write effectively in two languages
(CAL, 2016). However, biliteracy involves much more than simply switching between
languages in the same way that bilingualism is much more than the sum of two languages. It
requires, for instance, cultural knowledge to interpret texts and the ability to communicate across
a range of contexts, both socially and academically, in two or more languages (Wright, Boun, &
García, 2015).
In order to become truly bilingual and biliterate, students need to develop sophisticated
abstract functioning in both languages. That means that classroom activities involving higher
order thinking skills to develop English literacy such as synthesis, analysis, and evaluation need
to also be provided in classes where content is taught in the partner language. Such equitable
language pedagogy is promoted in bilingual programs and especially in the two-way immersion
model.
Growing research in the field of bilingual education shows that TWI programs provide all
students, minority and majority-language speakers, with high quality instruction and, in turn,
produce graduates with higher academic achievements and critical thinking skills including
bilingual and biliteracy competencies and cross-cultural awareness that prepare them for the
demands of the 21
st
century (Christian, 1994; Collier & Thomas, 2004; de Jong & Bearse, 2011;
Thomas & Collier, 2003). In this study, I extend the definition and importance of academic
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 14
language proficiency to include not only academic English proficiency but also academic
Spanish proficiency for both language-minority and language-majority students.
Importance of High English CALP
The development of a high level of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in
the dominant societal language, such as English in the U.S., is imperative for all leaners and
especially for language-minority students. High CALP proficiency ensures access to high-
quality equitable education as well as successful life beyond school (ACT, 2005; Callahan,
Wilkinson, & Muller, 2010; Carter & Welner, 2013; Cummins, 1981; 2000; Garcia & Kleifgen,
2010; Genesee, 2004; Ginorio & Huston, 2002; Hill et al., 2014; Kim & Herman, 2008; Milner,
2013; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Rueda, 2005; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). More specifically, English
CALP plays a central role in academic development and meeting the standards of the content-
areas of math, science, social studies, and English language arts (Callahan et al., 2010; Cummins,
1981, 2000; Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Kim & Herman, 2008).
Conversely, limited CALP in English negatively affects students’ academic access and
outcomes (ACT, 2005). Children who do not learn to read fluently and independently in the
early grades in English have few opportunities to catch up to, and virtually no chance to surpass,
their peers who are reading at or beyond grade level (Milner, 2013). Low literacy levels in
English, mainly due to low vocabulary levels, hampers access to grade-level instruction and may
impede attainment of the academic English language and grade-level performance standards in
all content areas (Kim & Herman, 2008). The ability to fully function in mainstream classrooms
allows students access to instruction that is targeted at meeting national or state standards and
thus is key to students’, particularly language-minority emergent bilinguals’, overall educational
success (Gandara, 2010; Ginorio & Huston, 2002; Kim & Herman, 2008).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 15
However, the majority of U.S. students graduate high school with low levels of English
literacy (ACT, 2005). While 82% of high school seniors receive a diploma, less than half of
those students are able to proficiently read or complete math problems (The U.S. Education
Department, 2015) beyond 7th or 8th grade levels of literacy (ACT, 2005). The National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the largest standardized test administered in the
United States, reported that fewer than 40% of graduating seniors have mastered reading and
math, and are poorly equipped for college and real-world life. Students with low literacy
proficiencies who are passed to the next grade are at a serious disadvantage and have an
increased chance of falling behind and dropping out of college (ACT, 2016).
When data are disaggregated, evidence revealed that language-minority students are at a
bigger disadvantage in comparison to their native English-speaking peers (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004; 2015). According to the NCES (2015), 75% of the 4.6 million language-
minority EBs have exhibited low levels of academic English proficiency. The data revealed that
a small portion of language-minority students are becoming English proficient, which will allow
them access to mainstream instruction and thus an equitable opportunity to graduate high school
and enter college. English proficient students outperform language-minority students by 39
points in reading and 36 points in math on a 500-point scale across the nation (Garcia, Kleifgen,
& Falchi, 2008).
Importance of High Partner Language CALP
In addition to developing high levels of CALP in English, developing academic
proficiency in several of the world’s languages and cultures is also crucial in order to succeed in
school and beyond in the 21
st
century (New London Group, 2000). Current scholarship in the
field of bilingual education demonstrated that being biliterate can increase students’ social
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 16
tolerance, bilingual and biliterate abilities, academic outcomes and critical thinking skills
(Christian, 1994; Cummins, 1981; 2000; Genesee, 2004; Kerfoot & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015;
Kim et al., 2013; Marian, Shook, & Schroeder, 2013; Stewart, 2005). Cummins’s (1981; 2000)
research showed that high levels of bilingual proficiency and biliteracy are usually associated
with cognitive and academic advantages for both groups. Another research study found that
students in high-achieving countries outside the U.S. are bilingual or trilingual (The Nuffield
Languages Inquiry, 2000). Furthermore, changes in the modern world are presenting new
incentives for learning additional languages. While globalization of the market place often
beckons English domination, it also increases the demand to do business in other world
languages (Genesee, 2004). Thus, the ability to communicate socially and academically in two
languages and cultures is an asset for students as they enter an increasingly globalized world and
become members of a multicultural society (Marian et al., 2013).
Limited linguistic access and opportunity for language-minority and language-majority
learners to become fully bilingual and biliterate in the U.S. public school system places both
groups of learners at an academic, economic, and social disadvantage. Cummins’ studies
showed that English only (EO) students in mainstream schools achieved lower scores on
standardized math and literacy tests than their peers in bilingual settings. Monolingual native
English speakers are also at risk of becoming disadvantaged in the job market. Research has
suggested that American businesses could be losing business to overseas competitors because of
a lack of foreign language skills and cultural awareness amongst their staff (Trimnell, 2005). It
is estimated that about 25% of contracts in the US are lost annually because employees are
unable to conduct business in a language other than English. While English has been a globally
dominant language and the language of the most powerful economies in the world (the U.S. and
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 17
the U.K.), the global position of English as the language of economic power has been declining
(The Nuffield Languages Inquiry, 2000). The shift in economic power to countries in the Far
and Middle East such as China, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates, as well as the growing
markets of Latin America suggests that learning Mandarin, Japanese, Arabic, Spanish, and
Portuguese is becoming advantageous.
Despite America’s highly multilingual and multicultural society and the academic,
cognitive and social advantages of being bilingual and multicultural, U.S.’s legislation and
schools remain relatively monolingual and continue to show low bilingual and biliteracy abilities
(Genesee, 2004; The Nuffield Languages Inquiry, 2000). As a country we have failed to tap into
the valuable resources within the estimated 4.6 million students who come to school already
speaking a variety of home languages, most commonly Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabic, or
Hmong (Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014). Concurrently, native English-speaking students in
U.S. schools are also limited in their ability to fully communicate in a foreign language.
According to the 2006 General Social Survey, only 25% of American adults self-reported
speaking a language other than English. Of those who know a second language, only 43% said
they could speak that language very well (Smith, Marsden, & Hout, 2016). Outside-of-school
and in-school factors affect students’ access to becoming bilingual and biliterate and, in turn,
limit their academic and future success (Milner, 2013; Tate, 2008).
Factors Impacting CALP Development in English and the Partner Language
In an effort to understand the complexity of CALP development in two languages for all
learners and especially for language-minority students, this section explores the key educational
issues surrounding overall academic access and achievement, and their intersection with abilities
or, lack thereof in two languages. Some of the variables may include: demographic changes,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 18
different social structures and economic status, high-stakes testing, tracking, inadequate teacher
training, low-quality instruction practices (Carter & Welner, 2013; Johnson, 2006; Pekel, 2016;
Tate, 2008), low academic language proficiency development (Kim et al., 2013), deficit
ideologies, and monolingual educational policies programs and practices (New London Group,
2000). Most of the variables pjrimarily affect CALP development for language-minority
students while some factors affect both groups of students in different ways.
Changing demographics. Changing demographics is considered a contributing factor
for the U.S.’s overall low academic rates (Genesee, 2004) and particularly low English CALP.
The U.S. public school system has experienced an increase in ethnic, cultural, and linguistic
diversity (Genesee, 2004; Kim et al., 2013; Kim & Slapac, 2015; Parkay et al., 2014).
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the fall of 2016, about 50.4 million
students were expected to attend public elementary and secondary schools. Of these, 9.9 million
students, 20%, were language-minority students (NCES, 2015). Students whose home language
is not English are projected by the U.S. Census Bureau to be 40% of the school-age population
by the 2030s, and 57% by 2050 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996 in Howard, 2003) and
their distribution will not be concentrated in certain areas, but spread all over the country with
the majority being Spanish speakers (Diaz-Rico & Weed, 2006). As the number of students with
diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds increases, teachers in the United States are
increasingly challenged with teaching language-minority EBs in mainstream classes (Lucas,
Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008; Parkay et al., 2014; Thomas & Collier, 2002). Managing
the tension between the need to respect and leverage students’ home cultures and languages,
while socializing them to the dominant culture and language, serves as one of the greatest
challenges facing 21st-century educators (Moje, 2007; Smagorinsky, 2013).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 19
Low socio-economic status. Poverty is also associated with academic performance and
specifically with English literacy (Carter et al, 2014; Milner, 2013). Language-minority
students in particular, due to the increased probability of living in poverty (75%) without an
English-speaking adult (80%) and having low parental education (50%), often struggle in the
U.S. educational system, and perform lower than their English-speaking peers in academic areas
and on standardized assessments of math and reading (Carter & Welner, 2013; Garcia &
Kleifgen, 2010; Milner, 2013). Low academic achievements correlates with low linguistic
proficiency in Academic English (Callahan et al., 2010; Ginorio & Huston, 2002; Hill et al.,
2014; Kim & Herman, 2008).
Monolingual assimilation ideology. Despite America’s highly multilingual and
multicultural society and the academic, social advantages of being bilingual and multicultural,
the U.S.’s legislation and its schools remain relatively monolingual (Genesee, 2004; The
Nuffield Languages Inquiry, 2000). The central notion that emerges when looking critically at
U.S. educational policies, programs and practices over the years is that educational policy is
driven from a deficit monolingual ideology when it comes to language education of language-
minority children (Bensimon, 2005; Connor, 2009; Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Iverson, 2007;
Gorski, 2008; Landson-Billings, 2006; Reynolds & Pope, 1991; Samad, 2009), as well as
language-majority students (Cummins, 2013). Jonson (2006) further argued that the diversity
liberalist discourse of individual rights and freedoms actually promotes color and ethnic
blindness.
A growing scholarship on social equity related to race and ethnicity in the U.S., examines
U.S. society by applying Critical Race Theory (CRT) (Bennett, 2001). Application of CRT
examines the intersection of race, law, and power (Samad, 2009). In the context of education,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 20
CRT unveils and illuminates new understandings of systemic inequalities in the educational
system in the United States (e.g. Bensimon, 2005; Connor, 2009; Iverson, 2007; Gorski, 2008;
Reynolds & Pope, 1991; Samad, 2009). Drawing on CRT for critical inquiries in the field of
language studies, Crump (2014) introduces an emerging theoretical and analytical framework,
which she calls LangCrit, or Critical Language and Race Theory. LangCrit looks for ways that
race, racism, and racialization intersect with issues of language, belonging, and identity
formation.
Hegemony is advanced through discourses such as spoken ideology, written expressions,
theoretical foundations, and the language of the dominant culture. These are implanted within
networks of political and socio-linguistic control, which function to legitimize what can be said
and who has the authority to speak (Miller, 2003). The first step to “unpacking the knapsack of
privilege” (Blumenfled, 2006 p. 196) is to become aware and to develop critical consciousness of
its existence and how it impacts the daily lives of both those with and those without this privilege
(Lopez, 2003).
The practice of denying the importance and value of other languages and their use is to
deny the human rights of certain linguistic groups and their ability to speak and be heard. Their
voices are silenced, their home language marginalized, and their potential power is diminished
(Miller, 2003; Shohamy, 2006). In an attempt to add further dimensions and elaborations to the
concept of sociolinguistic hegemony, Skutnabb-Kangas (2002) used the term “linguistic
genocide” to describe the attempt to destroy other languages through forced compliance and
assimilation to the cultural and linguistic norms of the majority. This linguistic genocide works
through the invisible process of subtractive bilingualism which Masgoret and Gardner (2003)
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 21
describe as the educational process of destroying a people’s culture and language and replacing it
with a new one.
Assimilation ideology relating to language-minority students. Assimilation ideology
stipulates that language-minority students need to assimilate into the dominant societal language
and culture. Language-minority students are seen as though they need to be cleansed of their
home languages and cultures (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010). A home language, also known as
mother tongue or native language is the primary language a person learns as a child at home. A
partner language is referred to as the target language (L2), and is the second or foreign language
a person is learning or intends to learn (Christian, 1994). Consequently, language-minority
groups are experiencing a loss of proficiency in their home languages or subtractive bilingualism
(Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Kibler, Salerno, & Hardigree, 2014; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Subtractive bilingualism is a situation in which the second language is added at the expense of
the home language and culture and results in the first language’s usage being diminished
(Cummins, 1981; 2000).
Subtractive bilingualism affects language-minority EBs in two detrimental ways.
Premature reclassification fails language-minority students from experiencing success in their
overall academic courses (Wang, 2016). Equally important, the loss of their first language
affects student’s English language attainment and consequently their overall academic success
(Cummins, 2000; Parrish et al., 2006). Language-minority EBs are likely to fall behind in core
subject areas if they are not able to continue learning grade-level content in their primary
language, while acquiring proficiency in English (Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014).
Deficit ideology relating to language-minority students. Assimilation ideology closely
relates to deficit views of language-minority students. In the context of acquiring the English
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 22
language, a deficit perspective implies a lack of proficiency in English that is either self-inflicted
or a natural outcome of socioeconomic and educational background (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010).
In another words, language-minority students are measured in comparison to their English
language attainment (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010) and their lack of progress is regarded as a
problem without a solution (Bensimon, 2005). Take, for example, assessing language-minority
students’ achievement in terms of their attainment of English proficiency: English language
learners (ELLs), limited English proficient (LEP) or long-term English learners (LTELLs).
Teachers often have not engaged in critical reflection upon their own beliefs about
teaching language-minority students or about their possible deficit-thinking towards them and
their families (Howard, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2006). Critical reflection entails questioning the
moral and ethical dimensions of decisions related, directly or indirectly, to the classroom
situations they encounter, and the broader social, political, and economic forces that influence
those events (Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000, p. 40). Since research has shown that
critical reflection is key to providing equitable education but is usually absent, language-minority
students are generally not educated in a way that will promote their social and academic success
(Ladson-Billings, 2006; Lucas et al., 2008).
Monolingual educational policies. In most political entities, Language Policy (LP) is
the primary mechanism for organizing, managing, and manipulating language behaviors
(Shohamy, 2006; Spolsky, 2004). Language policy acts as a manipulative tool in the continuous
battle between different ideologies (Ginorio & Huston, 2002; Iverson, 2007; Miller, 2003;
Shohamy, 2006; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). These manipulations occur on various political and
social arenas, but schools are key institutional mechanism by which social norms are maintained
and reproduced (Shohamy, 2006). School structures and policies are primarily representative of
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 23
the White dominant culture (Iverson, 2007; Johnson, 2006; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Miller
(2003) and Shohamy (2006) claimed that certain policies are merely artifacts used to maintain
White power. State and local educational systems that do not promote the continued
development of the native–home language in order to graduate bilingual students limit those
students’ educational, social, and economic mobility (Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Stanton-Salazar,
1997). In other words, instructional policies that are English-only are in essence creating
opportunity gaps for emergent bilinguals to succeed in school and in the future thus, perpetuating
the achievement gap between language minority students and their White peers (Carter, et al.,
2013; Kim, et al, 2015; Milner, 2012). Studies found that U.S. educational policies for language-
minority EBs have become more inflexible over the last two decades aiming at linguistic
assimilation, such as English-Only practices, rather than favoring bilingualism (Garcia &
Kleifgen, 2010; Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006). 2006; Garcia & Kleifgen,
2010; Lopez, 2003; Miller, 2003; Milner, 2012; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Samad, 2009; Skutnabb-
Kangas, 2002; Soto, 2002).
Monolingual educational policies affecting language-minority students. Parish et al.
(2006), for example, argued that California’s Proposition 227 that passed in 1998 had a salient
implication on language-minority EBs’ students’ opportunites to maintain and enhance their
bilingual and biliteracy abilities, and, in turn, their future academic achievement. Proposition
227 required all EB students to be mainstreamed into traditional classes where instruction is
provided only (or largely) through the societally dominant language (Lindholm-Leary &
Genesee, 2014). In other words, language-minority EBs students are taught primarily in English
after a maximum of a one-year transition period. which essentially reclassified many EBs as
English proficient too quickly with minimal academic English proficiency. Proposition 227
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 24
sought to integrate students into programs that minimized their instruction in Spanish so that they
would mainly receive instruction in English. The reclassification of EBs too quickly into
English learning programs hinders their access to academic content.
Garcia and Kleifgen (2010) provided another more recent instance of the silencing of
bilingualism found in Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act which passed in 2002. They
claimed that this policy shifted the goal from trying to provide greater access to educational
resources for EBs for the purpose of achieving bilingualism to that of closing the achievement
gap through English Immersion programs that in essence promote subtractive bilingualism.
Subtractive bilingualism is a situation in which the second language is added at the expense of
the first language and culture. Consequently, the first language is diminished (Cummins, 1981).
Fully bilingual students achieve better overall academic outcomes than English Learners
does, with bilingual students sometimes outperforming monolingual native English speakers
(Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Parish, 2009; Hill, Weston, & Hayes, 2014). Thus, students who are
able to function linguistically, culturally, and educationally in two languages have twice the
power (Miller, 2003). In fact, this is exactly what policy makers and educators that nurture
mono-lingualism do not want and fear (Asato, 2003; Miller, 2003). This critical analysis
framework of various language experiences, language policies, and language education programs
unveils the struggles for power through language (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Kim & Herman,
2008; Miller, 2003).
Monolingual educational policies affecting language-majority students. White
hegemonic ideology not only affects language-minorities, but also affects language-majority
students (New London Group, 2000). The U.S. has not had a nationwide foreign-language
requirement at any level of education (Rhodes & Pufahl, 2009). Rhodes and Pufahl (2009)
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 25
found that public elementary and secondary schools were negatively affected by the federal No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. NCLB required annual “high stakes” testing of all
students in reading and math but not in foreign languages. Schools who failed to meet the grade
requirements faced serious consequences. Thus, schools and teachers were under immense
pressure to raise tests scores in these particular subject matters which in turn, required an
increased focus on covering test-related content while neglecting non-tested subjects such as
social studies, music, and foreign languages.
Changes in educational policy for all learners. Due to the projected increase in the
number of culturally and linguistically diverse learners in U.S. classrooms, along with the
importance of second language acquisition for promoting cross-cultural understanding and
academic success for all U.S. students, recent changes in educational policy have taken place
(Kibler, et al., 2014; Kim et al, 2013; Steele et al., 2013; Wang, 2016). In November 2016,
California voters approved Proposition 58, the California Education for a Global Economy
Initiative, also referred to as the California Multilingual Education Act of 2016. This act repeals
most of the 1998 English-only requirement of Proposition 227, the English in Public Schools
Initiative, thus effectively allowing languages other than English to be used in public educational
instruction. Although it gives school districts more control over biliteracy programs, the
proposition does not come with additional funding to ensure the prevalence of these program for
all of California students (Wang, 2016).
Language programs. Consistent with the U.S.’s homogeneous and monolingual
viewpoint, U.S. public school programs are monolingual (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Kibler, et al.,
2014). While research consistently shows the importance of building on the children’s first
language or learning another language as they develop English language proficiency, U.S.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 26
educational policy and educators have often ignored these research findings (Parrish, Perez,
Merickel, & Linquanti, 2006). Instead, officials and educators have promoted top-down
monolingual instructional programs.
Language programs for language-minority students. Language programs for language-
minority EBs have been primarily representative of the assimilation ideology present in the
White dominant culture and language (Iverson, 2007; Johnson, 2006; Stanton-Salazar, 1997),
and as a result have perpetuated inequities in their education (Alsop, 2002; Garcia & Kleifgen,
2010; Francis et al., 2006; Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Lopez, 2003; Miller, 2003; Milner, 2012;
Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Samad, 2009; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2002; Soto, 2002). Critical analysis
unveils a wide range of assimilation programs that seem to aim at serving emergent bilingual
students, but in essence their goal is to “Americanize” language-minority students by eliminating
their linguistic and cultural differences (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Parrish et al., 2006; Parish,
2009).
In today’s U.S. public school system language programs range on a continuum from
monolingual English-only education to bilingual modalities (Garcia and Kleifgen, 2010; Kim et
al., 2013; Parrish, 2009) (Table 1). These programs include: (a) submersion, (b) English as a
second language (ESL), (c) early-exit or transitional bilingual education (TBE), (d) late-exist or
developmental bilingual education, and (e) two-way immersion (TWI). The first model, which is
called submersion, expects students to learn English by simply exposing them to it. Another
version of a submersion program is structured immersion, where students are provided with
instruction in their L1 for one year and then transitioned to an all-English classroom.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 27
Table 1.1
Monolingual English-Only Education to Bilingual Modalities
Submersion English as a
Second
Language
(ESL)
Early-exit or
transitional
bilingual
education
(TBE)
Late-exist or
developmental
bilingual
education
Two-Way
Immersion
(TWI).
All-English
mainstream
classroom or
structured
immersion: one
year instruction
in home
language. Then,
transition to all-
English class.
“Pulling out”
EBs from
mainstream
classroom for
individualized
instruction.
Phasing out
home language
by second or
third grade.
Language-
minority EBs
gain proficiency
in English and
maintain and
develop their
home language.
Language-
minority and
-majority
students learn
together and use
two languages
for gaining
academic
content.
Subtractive
bilingualism
Subtractive
bilingualism
Subtractive
bilingualism
Additive
bilingualism
Additive
bilingualism

The second approach is known as English as a second language (ESL) or English for
speakers of other languages (ESOL) instruction. This model usually involves “pulling out” EBs
from the mainstream classroom for individualized instruction with an ESL teacher for a portion
of the school day. The third approach is referred to as “early-exit” or TBE. This model focuses
on helping students acquire English quickly while phasing out the home language by second or
third grade. The fourth approach is known as “late-exist or developmental bilingual education,
and is specifically designed to support EB students, who are non-native English speakers, gain
proficiency in English and maintain and develop their home language (additive bilingualism)
(Kim et al., 2013). The fifth and most powerful bilingual education model is known as TWI,
where language-minority and language-majority students learn together and use the two
languages for gaining academic content throughout the school day. TWI bilingual education
strives to promote additive bilingualism, biliteracy, and cross-cultural competence while meeting
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 28
grade-level academic achievement for both majority and minority language students (Christian,
1994; Collier & Thomas, 2004; Genesee, 2004; Genesee, 2006; Howard & Sugarman, 2001;
Howard et al, 2007; Kerfoot & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015; Thomas & Collier, 2003). When
placed in programs informed by educational models that seek to assimilate language-minority
students into the hegemonic English language (i.e., Submersion, ESL or TBE), students are
denied access to equal educational opportunities as these approaches have not proven to increase
academic outcomes or academic English language development (Cummins, 2000; Genesee,
2004; Krashen, 2005). The time and goal of each program differs in their intention to promote
additive or subtractive bilingualism.
Early reclassification. Time is also a significant factor in the development of English
CALP for language-minority EBs (Cummins, 1981, 2000; Greenberg Motamedi, 2015; Parish,
2009). Time to reclassification is the time it takes to move language-minority EBs towards
becoming proficient in English (Parish, 2009). Cummins (1981) distinguished between
conversational and academic language proficiencies. Conversational proficiency, also known as
basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS), develops rapidly over a period of one to two
years through face-to-face social interactions where there is plenty of contextual support for
understanding, such as non-verbal cues. Cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), in
contrast, is generally referred to as the language of schooling, and is associated with
academically demanding subject matter with development varying from five to nine years.
Cummins (1981, 2000) raised an important idea for consideration with regards to
understanding how language-minority students learn. He underscored that educators should not
assume that non-native speakers who have attained a high degree of fluency and accuracy in
everyday spoken English have the same corresponding academic language proficiency.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 29
However, language-minority children are often offered additional help in school only until they
have developed conversational fluency (Greenberg Motamedi, 2015; Hill et al., 2014; Parish,
2009). In classroom activities involving literacy, such as synthesis, analysis, and evaluation,
which demand higher-order thinking skills, the absence of contextual support is likely to place
students operating in a second or third language at a disadvantage (Cummins, 2000). Thus, the
absence of a systematic, direct, and ongoing support for developing CALP excludes language-
minority students from high cognitive learning activities or ambitious learning that leads to
future academic success.
Misinformation about the important distinction between CALP and BICS, in turn, can
lead to deficit assumptions about language-minority EBs. That is, teachers who think that their
EBs are fluent in conversational English (BICS) may falsely assume that they are cognitively
deficient or lack content knowledge when in reality they have not fully developed their CALP in
English (Cummins, 2013). Therefore, early transition to mainstream classes can delay language-
minority EBs English CALP development and hinder their academic access and outcomes.
Language programs for language-majority students. Looking at the language programs
offered to language-majority students also unveiled limited opportunities to develop academic
language in a language other than English. A national survey of foreign language instruction of
more than 5000 secondary and elementary, public and private schools in 2008 (Rhodes & Pufahl,
2009) revealed a general decrease in foreign language instruction across grade-levels in
comparison to 1997. About 25% of elementary schools and about 58% of secondary schools
offered foreign language classes (a 6% and 17% decrease from 1997, respectively). Limited
linguistic access and opportunities to become bilingual and biliterate in the U.S. public school
system places learners at social and academic disadvantages (Trimnell, 2005).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 30
Quality of instruction. The common denominator in school improvement and student
success, and CALP development in particular, is the teacher (Grant, Stronge & Ward, 2011).
There is a positive correlation and direct causal relationship between the quality of instruction
and the academic success of K-12 students (Stein & Stein, 2016). Ambitious pedagogies aim to
teach all students not only to ‘know’ academic subjects, but also to be able to use what they
know while working on authentic problems (Lampert, Boerst, & Graziani, 2011). Ambitious
instruction includes a high level of questioning and problem-solving skills, innovative uses of
technology, collaborative work that affords interaction not only with the teacher but with peers,
and higher expectations for all learners (Ball & Forzanni, 2009; Heath, 1991; Lampert, Franke,
Kazemi, Ghousseini, Turrou, Beasley, Cunard, & Crowe, 2013). Such high-quality instruction
requires a sophisticated, professional knowledge that goes beyond simple rules, such as how long
to wait for students to respond. It requires pedagogical content knowledge, that is, subject-
matter-specific knowledge that bridges content knowledge and the practice of teaching, and
reflective practitioners (Shulman, 1987). Adding to that, teachers who teach language-minority
EBs need to be experts in SLA strategies in order to make the content knowledge accessible
when learned in the non-home language.
However, ample research in the field of education showed that many U.S. teachers do not
provide high quality instruction to meet the social and academic needs of all learners,
particularly language-minority EBs, and prepare them for college and life beyond school (Ball &
Forzanni, 2009; Mehta, 2013; Heckman, Montera, 2009; Tucker, 1997). The research confirmed
that the prevailing level of instruction across thousands of sample classrooms still focuses on
lower levels of knowledge and thinking instead of complex and ambitious instruction that asks
students to engage in deeper learning (Mehta, 2013, p. 476).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 31
Furthermore, most teachers lack the awareness of the equity perspective needed to
provide the pedagogical support for linguistically and culturally diverse learners (Gándara,
Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005; Kanaiaupuni & Ishibashi, 2003; Parish et al., 2006; Parish,
2009; Valencia, et al., 2002). Despite the changing demographics that make U.S. public schools
more culturally and linguistically diverse and the growing body of knowledge on issues of
diversity and difference, many teachers have not been exposed to multicultural pedagogies,
culturally relevant, responsive or sustaining pedagogies, or a curriculum design that incorporates
into the classroom learning students’ cultures and funds of knowledge. Funds of knowledge
refers to skills, ideas, practices, and bodies of knowledge accumulated from the students’ home
and cultures and are necessary for household or individual functioning and well-being (Paris,
2012). Quality of instruction is also related to teachers’ qualifications and certifications
(Gándara et al., 2005).
Teacher qualification and certification. Teacher qualifications and certifications are
also associated with overall students’ outcomes and CALP development in particular. Teachers
who are better prepared are more self-confident and have better results with students than those
teachers with little to no preparation (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Yet, language-minority EB
students are more likely than native English students to have inexperienced and unqualified
teachers who lack appropriate teaching credentials (Gándara et al., 2005; Kanaiaupuni &
Ishibashi, 2003; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Teachers of language-minority EBs are more likely
than other teachers teaching in mainstream classes and high achieving schools to hold an
emergency credential or have been asked to teach outside their subject matter area (Darling-
Hammond, 2007). For example, Gándara et al. (2005) found that while 14% of teachers
statewide were not fully credentialed, 25% of teachers of language-minority EBs lacked a
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 32
teaching credential. Although the percentage of teachers lacking credentials has continued to
decline each year (in part due to a redefinition of the term “credentialed”), EBs continue to be
disproportionately taught by under qualified teachers. In 2005, less than half (48%) of teachers
of EB students had an appropriate EL certification to teach them. The latest national data
showed that only about 11% of EB students received instruction from a bilingual teacher (Carter
& Welner, 2013, p. 157). Consequently, these teachers’ content and pedagogical content
knowledge tend to be poor (Hill et al., 2014; Torres-Guzmán, Etxeberria-Sagastume, & Intxausti
Intxausti, 2011). There is a however, a growing recognition that teaching literacy requires a
detailed knowledge of text, language, and reading process that goes beyond just being able to
decode and comprehend text proficiently (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Cummins, 1981; 2000;
2013).
Tracking and grouping practices. Another barrier that mainly impacts language-
minority students’ academic achievements is academic tracking and linguistic segregation
(Kibler et al., 2014). Studies found that language-minority students are placed in separate
classes and on specialized academic learning tracks and groupings based on their racial or ethnic,
linguistic, and socioeconomic status (e.g., Connor, 2009; Garcia and Kleifgen, 2010; Ginorio &
Huston, 2002; Kanaiaupuni & Ishibashi, 2003). These so-called support mechanisms promote
ethno-racial stratification that adversely affects language-minority learners’ educational
experience and academic performance (Ginorio & Huston, 2002). That means that these
practices lack the intent to provide access to quality instruction and courses (Bensimon, 2005;
Valencia, et al., 2002; Samad, 2009). Miller (2003), Milner (2012), and Shohamy (2006)
contested that these programs are derived from language policies that serve as barriers in an
attempt to control and limit the use of language to restrict socioeconomic advancement.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 33
Testing policies and data analysis. Accountability and testing policies also negatively
affect students from diverse socio-economic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds as they serve as
“gate-keepers” prohibiting students from future opportunities (Carter & Welner, 2013; Gandara
et al., 2003; Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Rueda, 2005). Often times educators view language-
minority students’ outcomes from a deficit mindset (Bensimon, 2005; Gorski, 2008; Milner,
2012; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). By focusing on measured academic achievement rather than
measured growth, the nation's policymakers have made little progress in addressing inequitable
opportunities (Carter & Welner, 2013; Rueda, 2005). These educators ignore or are uniformed
of the historical context or systematic social and institutional barriers that problematize and
impede the access of academic support and resources for underrepresented students (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997). They fail to assume responsibility for language-minority students’ low academic
English proficiency and low academic achievement. Instead, they tend to blame the students
and/or their socioeconomic and educational backgrounds for their deficiencies: lack of
preparation, innate ability, motivation, and study skills (Gorski, 2008). They ignore the fact that
the great majority of language-minority students are being taught each subject in a language that
they are still in the process of learning (Carter & Welner, 2013; Cummins, 2000; 2013).
For these reasons, it is common for students who were formerly classified as English
language learners (ELLs) to fail standardized tests in English language arts and math, even
though they are considered proficient based on language proficiency tests (Gandara et al., 2003).
In addition, standardized tests may not address the time it takes an EL student to understand
academic language, nor the cultural and linguistic funds of knowledge that they bring (Ladson-
billing, 2006) and therefore teachers may underestimate the actual content that the EL student
already knows and has learned (Cummins, 1981, 2000).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 34
In order to move toward the reversal of unequal educational outcomes, individuals who
occupy positions of power and authority, need to learn to think and analyze data from the
standpoint of equity (Bensimon, 2005; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). Providing access
to quality education for culturally and linguistically diverse learners is not the end goal. Rather,
analyzing their outcomes per race, language, and ethnicity and, in turn, finding organizational
and educational solutions to improve their outcomes is our social and moral obligation
(Bensimon, 2005).
In sum, contrary to the robust research that points out that bilingualism contributes to the
socio-cultural wellbeing and academic success of all learners (Christian, 1994; Collier &
Thomas, 2004; Cummins, 2000; Genesee, 2004; Howard & Sugarman, 2001; Howard et al.,
2007; Kerfoot & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015; Kim et al., 2014; Thomas & Collier, 2002), many
policymakers have viewed the maintenance of home language or the study of a second language,
as a useful but non-essential ingredient of an excellent education system (Parish et al., 2006;
Steele et al., 2013). The review above unveiled the significant relationship between out-of-
school and in-school factors which affect language-minority students’ access and academic
achievements. The review also showed the effects of low biliteracy for language-minority
students’ including academic language development of the dominant societal language and the
partner language, on their low academic outcomes as well as the disadvantages of monolingual
education for language-majority students. Together, these problems and system barriers may
account for the low academic achievements and low CALP of all U.S. public school graduates
and specifically language-minority students (NCES, 2015). The literature underscored the need
to shift from the narrow focus on one dominant language and culture, to a broader vision that
embraces cultural and linguistic diversity. Bilingual education, thus, has great value for both
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 35
language-minority and language-majority students’ academic growth “particularly in contexts of
increasing linguistic and ethnic segregation and academic tracking” with the ultimate goal of
developing a more democratic and liberal society (Kibler et al., 2014, p. 251).
Statement of the Problem
The educational problem addressed in this study is the limited access to and achievement in
cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in English and in another world language in
U.S. public school system for both language-minority and language majority-students. English
CALP is essential for high school and college success. In addition, in order to succeed in the 21
st

century, today’s students need to develop linguistic and cultural literacy, including proficiency in
several of the world’s languages and cultures (Kim et al., 2013; New London Group, 2000).
However, the majority of U.S. students graduate high school with only seventh or eighth grade
levels of English literacy (ACT, 2005) and with no or low social and academic abilities in a
language and culture other than English (New London Group, 2000). Growing research in the
field of bilingual education shows that TWI programs provide all students, minority and
majority-language speakers, with high quality instruction and, in turn, produce graduates with
higher academic achievements, higher critical thinking skills including, bilingual and biliteracy
competencies, and allows them to develop a cross-cultural awareness that prepares them for the
demands of the 21
st
century (Christian, 1994; Collier & Thomas, 2004; de Jong & Bearse, 2011;
Thomas & Collier, 2003).
While research on TWI schools has suggested positive social and academic outcomes for
all students and is gaining popularity in U.S. schools, researchers argue that rigorous empirical
research is needed to elucidate how teachers perceive and develop their students’ language-
minority and language-majority; cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 36
2000) in two languages within this integrated setting. Seldom are teachers invited to share their
experiences and their concerns with those who shape education policy (Gándara et al., 2005).
Moreover, most of the research has focused on developing CLAP for language-minority students
in English. The survey of the literature on bilingual education in general, and on TWI in
particular, revealed that little research has been done on how teachers conceptualize and help
both groups develop their CALP in English, as well as in the partner language (Cummins, 2000;
Martínez-Álvarez et al., 2012). It is essential to capture teachers’ ideologies and instructional
practices relating to CALP development for all learners, in both English and Spanish, in one
exemplary K-8 TWI school in California in order to add to the growing body of knowledge about
current CALP ideologies and pedagogical practices that may lead to high levels of academic
achievement for language-majority and language-minority students (Parkes, Anberg-Espinoza, &
De Jong, 2009).
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to learn about one exemplary TWI school and its teachers’
ideologies and instructional practices surrounding biliterate cognitive academic proficiency
development for both language-minority and language-majority emergent bilinguals. According
to the educational literature, an exemplary TWI school is a high achieving school serving at least
one third of language-minority students and at least one third of students from low SES
(Goldhaber, 2015). Exemplary teachers in language education programs, like those in
mainstream classrooms, should possess high levels of knowledge relating to the subject matter,
curriculum and technology, classroom management skills, instructional strategies and
assessment, as well as the ability to reflect on their own teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2007). As
teachers in a dual language education program they must also demonstrate proficiency in both
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 37
languages of instruction, English and the partner language (Christain, 1994; Genesee, 2004;
Howard, Sugarman, Christian, Lindholm-Leary, & Rogers, 2007).
By talking with TWI teachers about their practice and watching them in action, I sought
to better understand how they perceived their instruction and what they actually did to help all
emergent bilinguals (EB) in their classes to develop academic language proficiency in both
languages. By teacher ideology I refer to a teacher’s assumptions and perceptions about their
students’ diverse cultural, linguistic, and academic abilities, as well as their views on the most
conducive instructional approaches and strategies that drive their decision-making and actions in
the classroom. More specifically, this study sought to find out whether exemplary TWI teachers
demonstrated a deficit or asset habit of mind; how they perceived their role in the process of
teaching and learning CALP: (a) experts who transmit knowledge or co-constructors of
knowledge with their students; (b) what pedagogical epistemologies drive their instructional
decisions and actions: traditional teacher-centered or ambitious learner-centered and critical
instruction; (c) what language approach they employ in the classroom, for instance, language-
separation or translanguaging, and; (d) what were their grouping strategies and rationales. The
next chapter will explore these concepts in depth.
Research Question
To help guide this qualitative study, the following research question was addressed:
How do K-8 teachers in one exemplary TWI school conceptualize and help all their emergent
bilingual students, language-minority and language-majority, develop cognitive academic
language proficiency (CALP) in English as well as in Spanish in the same classroom? More
specifically, to what extent are the CALP instructional methods employed by teachers in the
classroom driven by critical ambitious pedagogy?
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 38
Because significant positive effects are difficult to find in a short time and since
developing academic language is not only a cognitive process, but also a socio-cultural
phenomenon (Smagorinsky, 2013), this study aimed to examine exemplary TWI teachers’
perceptions and instructional processes in practice, drawing from socio-constructivist and critical
learning theories and their intersection with Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research with a
focus on CALP development. A qualitative research paradigm affords the emergence of multiple
realities and explanations, rather than measuring outcomes on standardized academic tests
(Creswell, 2014). Exemplary teachers’ perceptions were revealed through individual interviews
and informal conversations. Teachers’ enactment of their perceived practices was explored
through classroom observations of teachers’ and students’ practices and interactions, as well as
didactic documents such as classroom charts, posters, and students’ work.
Significance of the Study
With the continuous growth of language-minority students in the U.S., along with the
importance of learning another language other than English due to globalization forces and
market demands, bilingual education is considered one promising educational solution for the
collective social-cultural well-being and schooling of all children (Genesee, 2004; Li et al., 2016;
Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014; Marian et al., 2013; Parkay et al., 2014). The call for an
increase in TWI programs is situated in the belief that many of the current educational structures,
practices, and philosophies that permeate schools have failed miserably when it comes to
educating both language-dominant and language-minority students to become prepared to meet
the challenges of the 21
st
century (Kerfoot & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015; Rueda, 2005). While
bilingual programs are growing fast in the country and drawing the increased attention of
researchers, little is known about how teachers perceive and teach academic literacy
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 39
development for both groups of students in both languages in an integrated setting (Lindholm-
Leary & Genesee, 2014; Moje, 2007; Parkes et al., 2009).
The low graduation rate (63%) of all language-minority students compared with their
native English Language peers (89%) and the total high school graduates (81%) in the U.S.,
along with the overall low biligual and biliteracy abilities of U.S. students’ highlights that U.S.
schools have not achieved the goal of graduating 100% of our students with the skills and
knowledge they will need to succeed in our interconnected world with the purpose of fostering a
democratic society (NCES, 2015). It is crucial to ensure that all of America’s youth are
equipped with the tools necessary to become members of a more democratic, socio-linguistically
inclusive, and liberal society. In order achieve this it is essential to add to the knowledge gap
about equitable and effective pedagogies for educating language-minority students in their home
language and developing academic English, as well as teaching language-majority students a
language other than English (Pekel, 2016). Teachers’ views have important implications for re-
shaping curriculum and pedagogy (Gándara et al., 2005; Milner, 2015; Rueda, 2005).
Understanding practices from the practitioners’ perspective can complement what research tells
us about effective TWI education (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Gándara et al., 2005; Gerena, 2010;
Kibler et al., 2014). Therefore, this study contributed to “the development of new
epistemologies of multilingual education” and new kinds of knowledge about effective and
equitable CALP development in TWI schools for educators working with linguistically and
culturally diverse learners (Espinosa, 2010; Esposito & Baker-Ward, 2013; Kerfoot & Simon-
Vandenbergen, 2015).

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 40
Limitations and Delimitations
This study was both limited and purposefully delimited. The salient limitations of this
study were time and sample size. The sample size included four teachers, one from each of the
following grades: Kindergarten, 1
st
, 4
th
, and 6
th
grades along with observations in each of their
classrooms ranging from 3-6 hours each. I was not able to conduct a longitudinal study with my
participants. I had the opportunity to interview each participant once for up to an hour.
Following each classroom observation, I completed a follow-up interview in-person, by phone,
or email. Since findings are gathered from a limited number of participants and sources, they
consequently cannot be generalized to other settings; results can only be generalized to readers
who find their context similar to this specific study context.
Given the limits of time and sample size, this study provides a brief glimpse into some of
the key features that appear to contribute to emergent bilingual students’ CALP development.
On the one hand, due to these limitations, it cannot be claimed that the selected school is
representative of all TWI schools, nor can it be claimed that this school is the best TWI school or
that its teachers are the most effective in teaching EB students. On the other hand, XYZ school
can be considered an exemplary TWI school because it meets the criteria of exemplary TWI
schools mentioned in the literature. XYZ is a high achieving school serving at least one third of
language-minority students and at least one third of students from low SES homes.
Eisner (1998) posited that “studying the particular can contribute something to the
horizontal accumulation of knowledge” (in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 258). Attending to one
exemplary TWI school and its teachers as the unit of analysis offers a nuanced portrait of how
TWI teachers conceptualize their role and practice as well as deploy their instruction to support
EBs’ CALP development in two languages. This study, in addition to supporting the existing
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 41
literature, can also add detail and substance to the practices for academic language development
that lead to high academic achievements and cross-cultural tolerance for all TWI learners across
multiple contexts.
Definition of Terms
Additive Bi/Multilingualism: A situation where a second language is acquired by an individual or
a group without detracting from the development of the first language (Cummins, 1981, 2000).
That is, using students’ language repertoires as additive resources for teaching and learning
(Wright, Boun, & García, 2015). This is the opposite of subtractive bilingualism (Cummins,
1981, 2000).
Bilingual Education: Formal schooling where more than one language is used as medium of
instruction for language arts and for content area instruction (Wright et al., 2015).
Bilingualism: The ability to speak fluently in two languages (CAL, 2016).
Biliteracy: The ability to read and write effectively in two languages (CAL, 2016). However, it
involves much more than simply switching between languages in the same way that bilingualism
is much more than the sum of two languages. It requires, for instance, the cultural knowledge
needed to interpret texts and the ability to communicate across a range of contexts, both socially
and academically, in two or more languages (Wright et al., 2015).
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP): Referred to as academic language
proficiency, academic discourse, or standard academic English (SAE), is associated with
academically demanding subject matter where, typically, there is a great deal less contextual
support and acquisition is a much longer process, with estimates varying from five to nine years.
Academic language acquisition is not just the understanding of content and content area
vocabulary. It refers to oral, written, auditory, and visual language proficiencies that are required
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 42
for effective learning in schools in order to communicate well later in life. CALP also includes
critical thinking skills such as comparing, classifying, synthesizing, evaluating, and inferring
(Cummins, 2000). In the context of this study, cognitive academic language proficiency
development refers to both academic English and academic Spanish for both groups of emergent
bilinguals.
Conversational Proficiency: Conversational proficiency is known as Basic Interpersonal
Communication Skills (BICS), and refers to language skills needed in social situations. It is the
day-to-day language needed to interact socially with other people. This usually develops rapidly
over a period of one to two years through face-to-face interaction where there is plenty of
contextual support for understanding in the form of non-verbal cues (Cummins, 2000).
Dual Language Education: A general term to cover a variety of labels including developmental
bilingual education, two-way bilingual education, one- and two-way immersion, dual immersion,
and enrichment and heritage education. It is used in the literature to refer to additive educational
programs that see multilingualism as an asset rather than a challenge or deficit. These various
models share the essential components of integrating language-minority and language-majority
students and using the two languages throughout the school day. This type of education strives
to promote additive bilingualism and biliteracy and cross-cultural competenc while meeting
grade-level academic achievement for all students (Christian, 1994; Collier & Thomas, 2004;
Genesee, 2004; Genesee, 2006; Howard & Sugarman, 2001; Howard et al., 2007; Kerfoot &
Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015; Thomas & Collier, 2002).
Emergent Bilinguals (EBs): Students who are developing as young, dynamic bilinguals. The
linguistic repertoire of these students taps into both their home language and partner language as
resources. Ultimately, these students are on the path to balanced or additive bilingualism. This
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 43
term is used as a way to reject the deficit-oriented terminology of English language learners
(ELLs), limited English proficient (LEP), or long-term English learners (LTELLs) (Garcia &
Kleifgen, 2010). In this study, I expand the term to include native English speakers who attend
TWI programs and are also becoming bilingual and biliterate.
English Language Learners (ELLs): The term used to refer to students who have not passed the
English language proficiency test or have not met academic standards in English that fulfill
California’s criteria for the definition of English language proficient (Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, &
Driscoll, 2005).
Exemplary TWI School: A school that meets TWI school characteristics and is high performing.
In particular, this means that instruction is delivered in the partner language for at least 50% of
the school day, at least 30% of the students are on free or reduced lunch, and 30% of its students
speak a language other than English as their L1 (Christain, 1994; Genesee, 2004). To qualify as
high performing for this study, the TWI school needed to successfully graduate biliterate
students with high academic scores in core academic subjects or achieve one of the national or
state awards granted for high-achieving bilingual schools.
Exemplary TWI teacher: Per this study, a teacher who is recognized by the school administrators
as demonstrating the characteristics distilled in the literature to describe effective bilingual
teachers. Effective teachers in language education programs are driven by an asset perspective
about their learners, possess high levels of knowledge relating to the subject matter, curriculum
and technology, classroom management skills, instructional strategies and assessment, as well as
the ability to reflect on their own teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2007). They must also
demonstrate proficiency in both languages, English and the partner language (Christain, 1994;
Genesee, 2004).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 44
Ideology: TWI teacher’s ideology refers to the perspectives, viewpoints, attitudes or positions
that drive teachers’ knowledge and pedagogies. In this study, TWI teacher’s ideologies to
developing CALP for EBs in TWI settings include the value they place on their language-
minority and majority EBs everyday experiences, and linguistic and cultural background
knowledge and abilities (Heller, 2007) and their views on language use in the classroom
(Spolsky, 2004) (i.e., equality-mainstream or equity-critical mindset).
Immersion Programs: Programs where instruction is conducted completely in the target
language (Wright et al., 2015).
Language-Majority Students: Students who speak the societally dominant language as their first
language (L1) (Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014). In the U.S., language-majority students are
students who speak English as their first language, also referred to as native English speakers or
English-only (EO) students (Steele et al., 2013).
Language-Minority Students: Students who speak the partner language such as Russian or
Spanish, as their first language (Steele et al., 2013).
Mainstream Class or Program: A term used to refer to the typical, traditional class in which
students participate if they are not enrolled in a language immersion program. In these
mainstream programs instruction is provided only (or largely) through the societally dominant
language (Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014).
Partner Language: A partner language is referred to as the target language (L2), and is the
second or foreign language a person is learning or intends to learn (Christian, 1994).
Subtractive Bilingualism: Subtractive bilingualism is a situation in which the second language is
added at the expense of the first language and culture. Consequently, the first language is
diminished (Cummins, 1981).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 45
Translanguaging: A pedagogical practice using both languages in an integrated and coherent
way to mediate content learning, in contrast with unplanned and reactive code-switching, which
may leave learners with a partial or fragmented understanding of the content (Makalela, 2015).
Two-Way Immersion (TWI): A distinctive model of dual language education in which balanced
numbers of language-majority and language-minority students are integrated for instruction so
that both groups of students serve in the role of language model and language learner at different
times. The structure of TWI programs varies, but in essence they all provide at least 50% of
instruction in the partner language at all grade levels beginning in pre-K, Kindergarten, or first
grade and running at least for five years (preferably through Grade 12) (CAL, 2016).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. The first chapter outlines the problem of
practice and the background of the problem. The second chapter first discusses the efforts
towards equitable bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural education in the U.S. The second part of
Chapter Two provides a synthesis of the key literature related to socio-constructivist and critical
learning theories, and SLA research with a focus on CALP development. The third section of
Chapter Two defines the conceptual framework that helped with understanding the ideologies
and practices of teachers in one exemplary TWI school in a school district in California. Chapter
Three describes the methodology of the study, the sample and population, and the data analysis
methods. The key findings of this study are reported in chapter Four. Lastly, Chapter Five
summarizes the findings and their implications for current practice and future research.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 46
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The two-way immersion (TWI) educational model is one promising way to transform the
U.S. public school system into educationally, culturally, and linguistically rich learning
communities for all learners. Whereas most of the existing bilingual programs are often
associated solely with language-minority students and are aimed at assimilating them into the
White hegemonic culture and language, the social values embodied in TWI programs reflect an
inclusive socio-linguistic environment. They seek to integrate language-majority and language-
minority students throughout the school day with the hope of improving relationships between
majority and minority groups by enhancing cross-cultural understanding and appreciation (Carter
& Welner, 2013; Collier & Thomas, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Thomas & Collier, 2002;
Torres-Guzmán et al., 2011; Wang, 2016). Furthermore, TWI programs are additive models that
see multilingualism as an asset rather than a challenge or deficit (Howard & Sugarman, 2001;
Howard et al., 2007; Kerfoot & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015; Torres-Guzmán et al., 2011). By
acquiring and learning in the partner language and in English, both language-minority and
language-majority students have an equal opportunity to change the sociocultural practice in
their class, school, and later in society (Kerfoot & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015). As for the
academic outcomes, in a longitudinal research called “The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual
Language Education for All,” Collier and Thomas (2004) found that the TWI model is the only
program for language-minority learners that fully closes the gap in contrast to remedial models
which only partially close the gap. Their study and many others also showed that native English
speakers in TWI outperform their monolingual peers in mainstream programs (Christian, 1994;
Cummins, 2000; Genesee, 2004). Thus, this study focused on TWI educational models.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 47
Yet, despite the growth of TWI programs, many questions remain unanswered about TWI
teachers’ ideology and actual practices associated with cognitive academic language proficiency
(CALP) development in two languages. The overarching findings in this review of the literature
stress that much of the research on CALP development in TWI programs has focused on
students’ outcomes rather than focusing on the processes leading to those outcomes (Kerfoot &
Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015; Li et al., 2016; Makalela, 2015).
In an effort to understand how CALP in both English and Spanish is developed in the
promising TWI programs, this literature review starts with a description of the equitable
educational efforts in the U.S for developing CALP for both groups of students. Following this,
I highlight some of the concerns associated with CALP development in TWI programs. Next, I
provide different definitions of CALP and suggest an operational definition for this study. There
are many factors influencing CALP development in both languages in a TWI setting. In order to
narrow the scope of this study and develop a deeper understanding into this phenomenon, this
study focused on teacher-level variables: teachers’ ideologies and pedagogical practices related
to CALP development. Thus, the third section of this chapter examines how CALP is developed
from traditional, progressive, and critical orientations and their intersection with SLA. By
drawing from the social-constructivist and critical learning theories and second language
acquisition (SLA) research I formed this study’s conceptual framework. This section also
includes a summary of the key pedagogical practices that can help all of America’s youth
become bilingual and biliterate.
TWI Programs: Equitable Education in the U.S.
Multicultural and multilingual education is as important for middle-class White language-
majority students as it is for underserved language-minority students (Gay, 2010). Paris (2012)
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 48
argued that, “a pluralistic society needs both the many and one to remain vibrant” (p. 95). This
section explores two-way immersion models that promote equitable socio-linguistic
sustainability as well as inclusivity along with high academic achievements for language-
minority and language-majority learners. First, I provide a historical context to the increase in
TWI programs in the U.S. Next, common criteria and various TWI models are presented.
The History of TWI Programs in the U.S.
Two-Way Immersion (TWI) programs have existed since the 1960s in the United States,
with the first being established in Miami, Florida, in 1962 and in Las Cruces, New Mexico, in
1967. TWI programs increased at a slow and steady rate until the 1990s, when their popularity
soared due to the greater availability of funding, the inclusion of White middle- to upper-class
students, and the increased importance of second-language attainment post–September 11
(Torres-Guzmán et al., 2011). According to the Center for Applied Linguistics’ Directory
(2016), there were about 260 TWI programs operating in U.S. schools in 2000, 372 in 2010, and
it was estimated that the number has reached 2,000 in 2011. A joint U.S. Department of
Education and American Institutes for Research report showed that 39 states and Washington,
D.C. were offering TWI education during the 2012-13 school year (Boyle, August, Tabaku, &
Cole, 2015). California was cited with the highest percentage of middle and high school
programs, 19%, of all the state’s TWI programs (Howard, & Sugarman, 2001). Furthermore,
Spanish and Chinese programs were found as the most commonly used languages (Boyle et al.,
2015; Center for Applied Linguistics, 2016; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Torres-Guzmán et al.,
2011). This study focuses on an English-Spanish TWI school in California.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 49
TWI Common Criteria
There are specific guidelines articulated in the literature as to what constitutes a two-way
dual-language program (Genesee, 2004; Howard et al., 2007; Lindholm-Leary, 2001). In order
to be considered a two-way immersion program, the model must adhere to the essential criteria
of: (1) integrating language-minority and language-majority students for at least 50% of the
school day at all grade levels, (2) using the two languages for content and literacy instruction for
all students, content-based instruction, and (3) language-minority and language-majority students
are balanced, with each group making up one third to two thirds of the total student population
(Collier & Thomas, 2004; Howard & Sugarman, 2001). The promising TWI bilingual model is
associated with concerns as well as empirical benefits for language-minority and language-
majority students. The next sections elaborates on these issues as they relate specifically to
academic language development for both groups of students.
TWI Model Variations
There are three most common models of TWI: “90:10”, “50:50”, and “90:50” listed in
Table 2.1. In the first model, also known as “full immersion,” both language-minority and
language-majority students study in the partner language from kindergarten through second
grade for 90% of the school day. From the third grade on, both groups receive half of their
instruction in English and the other half in the partner language, namely, transitioning to a 50-50
model. Alternatively, with the 50:50 model, also called “partial immersion,” students learn half
of the instructional time in English and half in the partner language from kindergarten and on
(Kim, et al., 2013). In the third model students gradually transition from the partner language
every school year until a 50-50 model is reached in the 4
th
grade. This study focused on the first
model, “full immersion”.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 50

Table 2.1

TWI Model Variations Based on Instructional Time in the Partner Language and in English
Full immersion “90:10” Partial immersion “50:50” Partial immersion “90:50”
K-2
nd
grade 90:10 K and on 50:50 K
1
st
grade
2
nd
grade
3
rd
grade
4
th
grade and
on
90:10
80:20
70:30
60:40
50:50
3
rd
grade and
on
50:50

Concerns and Benefits related to Academic Language Development in TWI Programs
Studies of TWI programs from the past four decades point to the effectiveness of
educating non-Native-English-speaking students and English-speaking students (Christian, 1994;
Collier & Thomas, 2004; Cummins, 2000; Genesee, 2004; Howard & Sugarman, 2001; Howard
et al., 2007; Kerfoot & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015; Lindholm-Leary, & Genesee, 2014; Thomas
& Collier, 2002). However, some parents and policy makers fear that early L2 learning for
language-majority and maintenance of home language for language-minority students may have
detrimental effects on both groups’ academic language proficiency in English which, in turn,
may impede their future academic and professional success (Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014).
These assumptions are disputed in extensive empirical research (Collier & Thomas, 2004;
Cummins, 1981; 2000; 2013) that has shown that emergent bilinguals were not negatively
affected from exposure to, and use of, two languages during the early developmental years. In
fact, quite the contrary is true (Genesee, 2004; Wright et al., 2015). A comprehensive review on
early childhood education and dual language learners found that younger learners typically take
longer to become proficient in a second language (Castro, Garcia & Markos, 2013); EBs in TWI
programs demonstrate low performance compared to their monolingual majority-language
speaking students before Kindergarten. This finding shows that while EBs are developing two
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 51
languages from birth to age five, they may need additional time to reach proficiency in their two
languages. Although, EB kindergarteners in TWI may appear behind their monolingual English-
speaking peers, with time, quality exposure and multiple opportunities to use both languages, the
study showed that not only will they acquire bilingual proficiencies but also catch up to their
monolingual peers in regard to English language and literacy achievement (Wright et al., 2015).
Studies investigating phonology, grammar, vocabulary, and pragmatics found strong
evidence indicating that young bilingual learners know how to differentiate between the two
languages from very early on in life (Steele et al., 2013). Moreover, research showed a positive
transfer of linguistic and conceptual skills across languages (Cummins, 1981; 2000; 2013).
Learning another language can mutually enhance knowledge of English and of the partner
languages’ structure and vocabulary. Given the right bilingual environment and high-quality
instruction of CALP in both languages, children can exhibit higher levels of cognitive and
academic abilities in both languages (Cummins 1981; 2000). Students from ethnic, cultural,
linguistic, and socio-economic underrepresented backgrounds make the greatest proportional
academic gains from bilingual education (Garfinkel & Tabor, 1991).
Other studies showed that the strongest predictor of L2 achievement is the amount of
formal L1 schooling. Strong academic language skills in the native language—usually, the result
of formal schooling in that language—are associated with successful second language learning
and academic achievement for both groups (Thomas & Collier, 2002). Conversely, lower levels
of cognitive and academic abilities are associated with knowing one language or cutting off the
learning of another language, such as in the case of children being schooled in L2 in ESL settings
(Genesee, 2004; Cummins, 2000).
Continuing to learn in TWI in middle school and high school years has resulted in high
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 52
bilingual and biliterate competencies for both groups in comparison to students in monolingual
schools (Thomas & Collier, 2002). More specifically, language-majority students develop
average and advanced levels of proficiency in English, although not a native-like level of
proficiency in the partner language. Language-minority students in TWI programs are as, or
more likely to be proficient in English, and they acquire such proficiency almost as quickly as
their peers in mainstream programs. Additionally, they develop higher levels of proficiency in
their primary language than their peers in mainstream programs. Conversely, the same study
showed that language-minority learners, who were immersed in English mainstream programs
due to their parents decline of bilingual services, showed large decreases in reading and math
achievement by fifth grade, equivalent to almost 3/4 of a standard deviation, when compared to
students who received bilingual services. Furthermore, the largest number of dropouts came
from this group, and those remaining in school finished 11
th
grade at the 25
th
NCE (12
th

percentile) on the standardized reading test (Collier & Thomas, 2004). Finally, more exposure to
English does not necessarily result in higher language proficiency or achievement, for either
minority language or majority language students; however, more exposure to the minority
language often results in higher levels of proficiency in that language for both groups of students
(Collier & Thomas, 2004; Genesee, 2004; Cummins, 2000). In sum, there is a positive
relationship between bilingualism and high academic achievements, particularly in CALP
development in two languages for both language-minority and language-majority students.
In addition to enhanced second language acquisition and increased academic
achievements, TWI schools resolve some of the persistent sociocultural concerns that have
resulted from tracking and segregating linguistically and culturally diverse EB students (Rueda,
2005). Often, negative perceptions have developed among their native English-speaking peers
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 53
assuming that those students assigned to the transitional bilingual classes were those with
“problems,” resulting in social distance or discrimination and prejudice expressed toward the
student enrolled in the bilingual classes. Two-way bilingual classes taught by sensitive teachers
can lead to a context where students from each language group learn to respect their fellow
students as valued partners in the learning process with much knowledge to teach each other
(Collier & Thomas, 2004).
By acquiring and learning in the partner language and in English, both language-minority
and language-majority students have an equal opportunity to change the sociocultural practice in
their class, school. and later on, in society (Kerfoot & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015). De Jong
and Bearse (2011) argue that one of the purposes of TWI programs is, “to equitably negotiate
both agendas for all students, resulting in high levels of bilingualism and biliteracy, academic
achievement, and biculturalism for all” (p. 118-119). It is with these collective positive
outcomes in mind that I turn to review relevant research and best practices found in the literature
for informing effective TWI instruction, focusing specifically on ideologies and instructional
practices that promote cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in both languages.
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency Development
Developing CALP in the dominant societal language, academic English proficiency in
the U.S., is imperative to ensuring students’ access to high-quality equitable education (Carter &
Welner, 2013; Callahan et al., 2010; Cummins, 1981; 2000; Gee, 2001; Genesee, 2004; Hill et
al., 2014; Moje, 2007; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Rueda, 2005; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). For much
of the history of SLA, languages have been thought of as distinct, bounded, and autonomous
codes consisting of phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexis. However, this fundamental
conceptualization has recently been called into question (García & Wei, 2013).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 54

Figure 2.1. CALP Pedagogy Continuum
Applied linguists have taken a social turn and begun to theorize that language is also a social
construction and not just a cognitive condition (Cummins, 2013; García & Wei, 2013; Gee,
2001). Other applied linguistics theorists working within a critical perspective, conceptualize
language development as key to socio-political activism (Moje, 2007; Luke, 2012) (Figure 1).
BICS vs. CALP
Cummins (1981) distinguished between conversational and academic language
proficiencies. Conversational proficiency, also known as basic interpersonal communication
skills (BICS), develops rapidly over a period of one to two years through face-to-face social
interactions where there is plenty of contextual support for understanding such as non-verbal
cues. Cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), in contrast, is associated with
academically demanding subject matter where, typically, there is a great deal less contextual
support and acquisition is a much longer process estimated to vary from five to nine years. It
includes oral, written, auditory, and visual proficiencies, as well as critical thinking skills such as
comparing, classifying, synthesizing, evaluating, and inferring (Cummins, 2000).
Similarly, Chamot and O’Mally (1987) defined academic language as “the language that
is used by teachers and students for the purposes of acquiring new knowledge and skills,
imparting new information, describing abstract ideas, and developing conceptual understanding”
(p.40). Academic language literacy, thus, is not just the understanding of content area
Traditional
CALP
Pedagogy
Mainsream
Equality CALP
Pedagogy
Critical Equity
CALP
Pedagogy
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 55
vocabulary, punctuation and sophisticated grammar and syntax. Academic language is also a
social practice (Smagorinsky, 2013). CALP is enhanced in “school language environments in
which students interact intensively with adults and more capable peers and experience
cognitively challenging talk and texts on sustained topics and in different genres of oral and
written language” (Gee, 2001, p. 724).
Moje (2007) agreed that academic language –oral and written– differs from everyday
language and is a cognitive act in terms of the following linguistic features: (a) the density of
information presented, (b) the level of abstraction of concepts, (c) the technical nature of concept
presentation, (d) the use of multiple semiotic systems, (e) the structural or rhetorical conventions.
She also expanded the previous definitions by adding a critical dimension. According to a
critical perspective, language and text offer the potential to develop socially just subject-matter
instruction. More importantly, this perspective of CALP instruction can produce social justice
(Figure 2.1).
Operational Definition of CALP
Definitions for cognitive academic language proficiency stem from various ideological
perspectives which, in turn, provide different facets for understanding academic language
proficiency development and hence for instruction. For the purposes of this study, CALP is the
language of schooling and is associated with academically demanding subject matter. Academic
language is not just the understanding of content and content area vocabulary. Rather, it is the
interaction between language features and higher-level thinking skills (Cummins, 1981; 2000)
embedded in real-world social, cultural and political contexts that can range from personal to
social and from normative to social justice-oriented goals (Luke, 2012; Moje, 2007).
In this study, I extend the definition of CALP to include not only academic English
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 56
proficiency but also academic Spanish proficiency for both language-minority and language-
majority EBs. In order to become truly bilingual and biliterate, students need to develop
sophisticated abstract functioning in both languages (Cummins, 2013; New London Group,
2000). That means that classroom activities involving higher order thinking skills to develop
English CALP such as synthesis, analysis, and evaluation also need to be provided in classes
where content is taught in Spanish. Such equitable language pedagogy is promoted in bilingual
programs and especially TWI models. The third section of this chapter examines how CALP is
developed by drawing from the social-constructivist and critical learning theories and second
language acquisition (SLA) research that together formed this study’s conceptual framework.
This section includes a summary of the key pedagogical practices that can help all of America’s
youth become bilingual and biliterate.
Critical Ambitious Language Ideology and Pedagogy for CALP Development
Research on language and literacy development of emergent bilinguals (EBs) in both
languages in dual-language programs is relatively new in comparison to the research that exists
on language and literacy development of monolingual language users (Wright et al., 2015).
There are some basic things that are known about EBs’ cognitive academic language proficiency
(CALP) development in a second language and some that are yet to be resolved (Cummins,
2013; Genesee, 2004; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014; Howard, et al., 2007). In this study, I
examine the ideologies and linguistic practices related to CALP development in a community.
According to Spolsky (2004), ideology encompasses beliefs, attitudes, intentions and values of a
community concerning a language and its use. Language practice represents an individual's
decisions about one’s linguistic choices as they manifest in the uses of a language in daily
practices, whether done intentionally or subconsciously.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 57
Ideology for Developing CALP in Two Languages
To reject the deficit-oriented terminology stemming from deficit and assimilation
ideologies, Garcia and Kleifgen (2010) coined the term emergent bilinguals (EBs) signaling an
asset-based thinking and a growth mindset to educate language-minority students. Following
this mindset, EBs are students who develop as young, dynamic bilinguals. The linguistic
repertoire of these students taps into both their home-language and partner language as resources.
Ultimately, these students are on the path to a balanced or additive bilingualism. Additive
bilingualism is situation where a second language is acquired by an individual or a group without
detracting from the development of the first language (Cummins, 1981, 2000). In this
dissertation, I expand upon the term emergent bilinguals to include native English speakers who
attend TWI programs and who also become bilingual and biliterate. Thus, to reflect the notion of
language as power and to reflect an inclusive multicultural perspective, the term EB is used
throughout this dissertation to address both language-minority and language-majority students
learning together in TWI programs.
Practice for Developing CALP in Two Languages
Espinosa (2010) posited that there is an overlap between effective practices for TWI
programs and effective practices for all students in mainstream classes. That is, most
instructional approaches and strategies that were developed for meeting the learning needs of
students learning English as a second language in U.S. schools, can be extended to develop
CALP for all students learning academic content in another language, including native-English
speakers learning academic content in a partner language (Howard, et al., 2007). Such effective
pedagogy is regarded as “ambitious” pedagogy (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Lampert et al., 2011).
According to Lampert et al. (2011) ambitious pedagogy aims to teach all students to not
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 58
only to ‘know’ academic subjects, but also to be able to use what they know when working on
authentic real-life problems and situations. Ambitious instruction includes high levels of
questioning and problem-solving skills, innovative uses of technology, collaborative work that
affords interaction not only with the teacher but with peers, and higher expectations for all
learners. This general definition for ambitious teaching aligns with socio-constructivist learning
theories and practices for developing CALP in TWI settings (Cummins, 1981, 2000; Genesee,
2004; Lindholm-Leary & Genessee, 2014). The literature reviewed next, however, expands this
definition of ambitious instruction by adding that pedagogy stemming from and focusing on
social justice can enhance CALP development even more (Luke, 2012; Moje, 2007).
Empowering students by giving them the abilities to read, critique, and produce texts of various
forms in two languages both orally and written, allows students to become active participants
rather than ‘sophisticated consumers’ in a multi-mediated culture and society (Edwards, 2015).
Lindholm-Leary (2001) underscored that effective ambitious instruction is even more
complicated in dual language programs because of the added goals of bilingualism, biliteracy,
and bicultural competences, and, in TWI programs in particular, because of the constant
necessity to integrate and balance the various cultural and linguistic needs of two or more
groups. Lyster and Ranta, (1997) cautioned that, “Subject-matter teaching does not on its own
provide adequate language teaching” (p. 41). Immersion programs cannot be regarded as a “two
for one” approach, where through learning content students automatically learn to produce
accurate language as an incidental by-product. Some students learning in immersion programs
develop levels of receptive skills such as listening and reading, that are equal to native speakers
but they are typically not native-like in the productive skills. They demonstrate low quality
speaking and writing outputs even after hundreds of hours of instruction in the target language
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 59
(Lightbown & Spada, 2006).
Instruction that aims to increase CALP in TWI schools is influenced, similarly to
mainstream schools, by school-level factors: collegiality and professionalism, curriculum, parent
involvement, and administrative support; student-level factors: background knowledge, home
environment; and teacher-level factors: ideology, instructional strategies, and curriculum design
(Howard et al., 2007). In order to provide students with access to optimal conditions for CALP
development in both languages, many scholars have suggested that adherence to dual language
principles is important for the TWI program effectiveness (Howard et al., 2018; Lindholm-
Leary, 2001). While there were several attempts in the literature to extract key influences and
principles for effective education for language-minority EB students (e.g., Lucas et al., 2008;
Pliner & Johnson, 2010), I found that the framework suggested by The Center for Applied
Linguistics (CAL) was the most comprehensive and detailed for classroom teachers as well as
teacher educators and administrators (Howard et al., 2018). The Guiding Principles for Dual
Language Education framework
3
synthesizes seven strands as essential in the overall
effectiveness of dual language pedagogy based on the broader consensus of sociocultural and
sociolinguistic learning theories. The framework addresses: accountability and assessments,
curriculum, instruction, staff quality and professional development, program structure, family
and community, and support and resources. However, it is beyond the scope of this present
discussion to unfold each strand. Instead, I focus on effective CALP instruction.
In order to understand what a comprehensive ambitious equitable TWI ideology and
pedagogy for developing CALP may look like, the next part of the literature review draws from

3
This document was funded by the U.S. Department of Education‘s Office Of English Language Acquisition,
through a contract with the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. It can be downloaded at
www.cal.org/twi/guidingprinciples.htm
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 60
social constructivist and critical theories and pedagogies and their intersection with Second
Language Acquisition (SLA) research on CALP development. While the learning theories and
instructional principles and practices described next are presented separately and in a linear
order, they are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are complex and interwoven. Furthermore, it
is by no means suggested that effective TWI instruction or that effective TWI teachers should be
driven by one single static ideology; rather, effective instruction in the post-method era should
draw upon all instructional methods and curricular traditions and develop relevant strategies
from each to best fit the educational situation at hand (Parkay et al., 2014). Similarly, recent
research on SLA called for a more fluid hybrid approach that encompasses multiple ways of
teaching and learning (Ortega, 2012). In the next section I extract 13 key elements for CALP
development in TWI setting from various paradigms (e.g., ACTFL, 2012; Howard et al.’s
Guiding principles for dual language education, 2018; Lucas et al., 2008; Pliner and Johnson’s
UDL, 2010). Each of the 13 elements are defined and accompanied by pedagogies that stem
directly from the mainstream equality socio-constructivist ideology and then from the critical
equity ideology (Table 2.2).

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 61
Table 2.2

Critical Ambitious Language Pedagogy for CALP Development: 13 Elements at a Glance

Key Elements
For CALP
Pedagogy

Critical Ambitious Language Pedagogy for CALP Development

Equality
Apolitical
Diversity
Equity
Social Justice
Critical
Examples of
Critical Ambitious
Language Pedagogy
Building
background
knowledge
Prior knowledge:
Put learner’s lived
experiences, strengths,
and needs at the center
of instruction;
traditional dominant
school culture and ways
of being and learning.

Funds of knowledge:
Use students’ unique
linguistic, cognitive,
and cultural resources,
skills, ideas, practices,
and bodies of
knowledge beyond
what students learn in
school, that are
essential for the
smooth running and
wellbeing of a
household
(Moll et al., 1989).
Manage tension
between students’
home cultures and
languages, while
socializing them to
dominant culture and
language.
Ask students to
provide their own
examples for
geometric shapes from
objects they have at
home.
Ask students to share if
they had visited other
places or countries
where the weather
there was cold like in
the artic or try to
engage in a discussion
about when and why in
their lives it might be
important or
challenging for them or
other people to stay
warm in the winter.

Comprehensible
input

Provide clear and
adjusted (within ZPD or
i+1), interesting and
relevant, sufficient in
quantity, and
challenging (Krashen,
1984).

Use visuals and
examples that are
culturally and socially
relatable to students’
lives.
Use visuals and
gestures (e.g., TPR).
Pre-teach key
unfamiliar vocabulary
using examples that
orbite around students’
places of residence,
parents’ jobs when
learning about “my
family and
community.”
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 62
Solicit real-life
examples relating to
“oppression” and
“starvation” in today's
society.
Interaction

Collaborative
interactions between
teacher-student and
student-student and
through negotiation of a
shared understanding in
meaningful activities
and real-life discourses
(Gee, 2001; Teemant et
al., 2005).
Teacher serves as
facilitator (Ellis, 2008).

Engage students in
critical dialogue
around broader social
justice issues and goals
relating to language,
race, class, and gender.
Interaction and
communication extend
beyond teacher and
peers to outside
community by
incorporating service
learning and
technology (UDL
framework) (Lucas et
al., 2008; Pliner &
Johnson, 2010) and
formal linguistic codes
(Stanton-Salazar,
1997).
Adjust classroom
management routines
based on differences in
students’ culture to
meet diverse
interactional norms.
Interview other native
Spanish speakers in the
school or out-of-school
community on their
jobs and how their role
contributes to the local
community.
Students can interview
community members
about their challenges
and then draw
conclusions relating to
reoccurring community
or individual
challenges and discuss
practical ways to
reverse them and even
take collaborative
action to realize them.

Output

Multiple opportunities to
produce meaningful,
extensive academic
language orally and in
writing (Swain, 2005).
Output involves
linguistic features and
action related to socio-
political issues.
Revolutionary
speaking and writing is
the foundation of social
transformation.
Teachers help students
materialize their ideas
into action (Morrell,
2008).
Rich conversations
about text.
Students communicate
with administration to
change school’s
grouping or tracking
practices.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 63
Integration of
skills

A systematic cyclical
integration between
receptive and productive
skills and technology
(ACTFL, 2012).
Reading, critiquing,
and producing texts
allows students to
become active
participants rather than
‘sophisticated
consumers’ in a multi-
mediated culture and
society (Edwards,
2015).
Following a discussion
about a text, co-
construct a critical
response via clip or
email.
Authenticity Center on student voice.
Provide content and text
from authentic sources
including news report,
newspapers, and other
oral and written
discourses (Cadiero-
Kaplan, 2004).
Real-life purposeful
tasks and functions that
encourage meaningful
output (ACTFL, 2012)
Multicultural authentic
sources to promote
critical analysis (i.e.,
counter narratives) of
social, political and
historical issues to
empower students to
work towards the
resolution of social
problems (Au, 1998;
Ladson-Billing, 2006;
Luke, 2012; Moje,
2007).
Students dictate their
own stories. Students’
personal stories, in
turn, form the basis of
the written content for
discussion.
View commercials on
household chores from
different time periods
and countries around
the world and discuss
the changes in
women’s role in the
home, family, and
society.
Grouping

A combination of
heterogeneous and
homogeneous grouping
by language background
to model a democratic
society.
Accountability for all
group members;
(Howard et al., 2018).
Socio-cultural equity;
Heterogeneous
grouping to bring
awareness to, and an
understanding of
culturally diverse
views, to facilitate
balanced power
relationships, and for
modeling and getting
support from more
knowledgeable peers.
Flexible intentional
grouping strategies that
represent diversity of
gender, languages,
CALP abilities,
cultural background
and/or interest.
Heterogeneous
grouping when writing
and speaking.
Homogeneous for
vocabulary and
grammar, reading and
math with assigned
roles.
Scaffolding

Balance between
structured and
unstructured learning
Flexible process of
learning to allow
access for all through
Provided each student
with an appropriate
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 64
experiences (ACTFL
2012);
Use of explicit
instruction and sheltered
techniques (Howard et
al., 2018).
individualized
accommodations rather
than modification of
expectations.
leveled text with the
same content.
Provide sentence
starters and paragraph
formats.

Instruction of
language form

Purpose and meaning of
communication take
precedence over form
and accuracy (ACTFL,
2012).
Controversy: study of
form can make only a
limited contribution to
accuracy (Krashen,
1984) or build CALP
systematically and
integrate language study
in meaningful content
(Swain, 2005).
Balance between the
basic literacy skills and
technical knowledge
and the moral and
ethical real-life
dimensions related to
the classroom and to
the broader social,
political, and economic
forces that influence
those events (Moje,
2007).
Patterns, grammar
rules and vocabulary
are extracted from a
mentor text and
reinforced through the
productive skills –
speaking and writing.
Questions focusing on
how the selection of
specific grammatical
structures and word
choices attempts to
manipulate the reader
(i.e., critical discourse
analysis) (Luke, 2012).
Inquiry-based
learning

Develop in-depth
knowledge of subject-
matter, gain higher-order
thinking skills, construct
new knowledge and
understanding, and
effectively apply
knowledge to real-world
situations.
Apolitical usually
involves students
transforming the natural
world, that is, gardening
or laboratory
experiments
(Li, et al., 2016).
Critical discussion and
analysis, that result in
newfound socio-
cultural, political
awareness and
collective action aimed
at solving political and
social problems
(Peterson, 2003).

Provide text on the
same historical event
from different authors
and times. Analyze a
textbook or media
representation of
political or economic
life to uncover
dominant views and
counter-narratives by
using SHOWeD
(Peterson, 2003).
Discuss when and why
it might be important
or challenging for
students or other
people to stay warm in
the winter. Discuss
whether everyone has
the same opportunity
to go to school and the
different ways one can
learn.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 65
Probe students to draw
connection from
mathematics class
(e.g., multiplication) to
their own lives can
promote awareness to
future political and
economic
empowerment (Moje,
2007).
Feedback &
assessment

Provide meaningful and
timely feedback from
teacher and peers and
opportunities for self-
assessment and
reflection; inclusive and
flexible assessments
(Ambrose et al., 2010).
Focus on equity of
outcomes and growth.
Analyze outcomes per
race, language, and
ethnicity and find
solutions to improve
outcomes (Bensimon,
2005).
Translanguaging:
allow students to read
the text on the test in
English and write their
opinion first in their
home language and
later in English or vice
versa.
Metacognition
strategies

Metacognitive strategies,
metacognitive
knowledge,
and social/affective
strategies.
Awareness of one's own
beliefs about learning
CALP in L2, bilingual
strategies (transfer),
capacities, and
difficulties in L2
(Cummins, 2013).
Reflect on the nature of
two languages and
cultures through
comparisons (ACTFL,
2012).

Ask: “How does this
work in English? in
Spanish?”
Teach strategies for
figuring out a word
meaning independently
using context clues,
stem and suffixes, and
dictionary use.
Utilize “Stop and Jot”
while reading in
lessons taught in L1
and L2.
Language use

Language-separation
approach: monolingual
lesson delivery (Howard
et al., 2007; Steele et al.,
2013).

Translanguaging:
develop a third space,
where primary and
secondary discourses
are merged in a
deliberate manner
(Garcia & Kleifgen,
2010; Kerfoot, &
Simon-Vandenbergen,
2015; Makalela, 2015).
A TA and/or native
Spanish speaking
student translate
complex multistep
activities in K during
first semester.
Reading in L1 and
taking notes in L2;
writing in L1 and
discussing in L2.
Reflect on learning in
L1 at home.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 66
Equality: Social Constructivist Approach for Developing CALP in TWI
Sociocultural practices for developing CALP work with all students, language-minority
as well as language-majority, because they provide strategies for becoming both effective (able
to help each individual student learn what is essential) and equitable (able to ensure that all
students experience learning success) (Howard et al., 2018). While socio-constructivist ideology
and pedagogy are considered less ambitious and inclusive than critical approaches, they are more
effective than the traditional ways for developing all students CALP in two languages,
particularly for language-minority EBs (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Peterson, 2003). CALP
instruction that is teacher and text centered and includes lecture and repetition of the technical
aspects allows for little discussion and reflection. In contrast, equality or mainstream ambitious
social-constructivist pedagogy aims to teach all students not only to know academic content and
improve their CALP in two languages, but also be able to use what they know in working on
authentic problems in academic domains (Lampert et al., 2011).
Ideology. According to a traditional teacher-centered instructional model the teacher's
task is to impart or transmit knowledge or skills to students who do not yet have them. Freire
(1993) posited that teachers who follow traditional practices are taking part in the “banking
system of education” where students are regarded as passive consumers waiting for knowledge
to be deposited by the expert instructor. In contrast, social constructivism or progressive
education places the students and the ways in which they construct knowledge at the center of
learning (i.e. learner-centered pedagogy) (Peterson, 2003). Rooted in the sociocultural theory of
Vygotsky and in the cognitive developmental theory of Piaget, social constructivism has
emerged in recent years as a dominant paradigm in education and has had a major impact on the
development of CALP pedagogy in the field of SLA (Kaufman, 2004).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 67
Both sociocultural theory and constructivism, when applied to academic language
learning, are concerned with the activities that children engage in to learn academic language
both socially and personally (Lantolf, 2011). Sociocultural theory is more concerned with the
ways in which learning academic language is a social act of enculturation, while constructivist
theory has suggested one should attend to the cognitive learning processes and mental
representations of the individual. Many learning situations attempt to accommodate both
(Kaufman, 2004), resulting in the progressive social constructivist paradigm that puts its
emphasis “on the process of knowledge construction by the social group and the intersubjectivity
established through interactions of the group” (Au, 1998, p. 299).
Practice. Drawing from cognitive developmental theory of Piaget and Vygotsky’s
(1978) sociocultural theory, I suggest that the following 13 principles are important for academic
language development in a bilingual setting.
Building background knowledge. At the heart of the constructivist paradigm is a view
that promotes learner-centered instruction (Ellis, 2008). Learner-centered instruction puts the
learner’s lived experiences, strengths, and needs at the center of instruction to make the academic
language development meaningful and relevant to the learner. This type of instruction focuses
on using what the learner already knows about his own language and culture and adding new
understandings about the second language to co-construct meaning that is applicable in new real-
life situations outside of school. In this type of linguistic interdependence students’ L1 can be a
powerful intellectual resource for CALP development in L2 (Cummins, 2013). Teachers’
planning and instruction are, therefore, informed and shaped by the diverse social and linguistic
backgrounds and lived experiences of students. Teachers are challenged to develop tools to
inquire and learn about their students’ existing linguistic and cultural knowledge, their evolving
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 68
understanding and knowledge base in subject matter areas, as well as about their preferences,
experiences, successes, and challenges both inside and outside of the classroom as they relate to
CALP development in two languages (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010).
Comprehensible input. According to Krashen (1984) Input hypothesis, in order to
acquire a first or second language, students need to be exposed to comprehensible natural and
authentic input, both auditory and written. According to this hypothesis, learner improve and
progress when they receive second language 'input' that is one step beyond their current level of
linguistic competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place
when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that is compatible to level 'i + 1'. Krashen
(1984) added that input also needs to be highly contextualized and accompanied by gestures and
visuals in order to be comprehensible and to ensure low anxiety. According to
Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis, certain emotions, such as anxiety, self-doubt, and mere
boredom interfere with the process of acquiring a second language. However, Krashen’s
hypotheses have not been tested and his assertions have been challenged in recent years. The
objections center on the underlying nativist assumptions that view language learning as distinct
from other kinds of learning. Nativist perspectives of language learning stipulate that language
acquisition is an innate ability. In other words, that the stages of development that are required
for children to develop their cognitive abilities in other areas do not apply to learning a language
(Omaggio-Hadley, 2001).
Lindholm-Leary (2001) pointed out that optimal language input has four characteristics:
clear and adjusted to the comprehension level of the learner, interesting and relevant, sufficient
in quantity, and challenging. Providing optimal input requires careful planning in the systematic
integration of language instruction and subject matter presentation to ensure that EBs have
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 69
access to the core curriculum. In the early stages of second language acquisition, input is made
more comprehensible though the use of slower, expanded, simplified, and repetitive speech
oriented to concrete everyday life situations. One example of making CALP in another language
comprehensible, is Asher’s (1960) Total Physical Response (TPR) method that is based on the
coordination of language and physical movement. It is popular with beginners and with young
learners particularly when teaching verbs, although it can be used with students of all levels and
all age groups.
To further make academic input accessible for both language-minority and language-
majority EBs learning in the same classroom, differentiated materials such as authentic and
adapted text, methods, and assessment alternatives are considered and created in advance with
the full range of students' differences in mind (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). For example the
teacher may provide audio and other alternatives to reading materials that are of high interest and
multiple levels of difficulty. In addition, EBs need sufficient, meaningful, and diverse ways to
repeatedly engage in academic language for CALP to become partially settled, and at the same
time available for new, dynamic, and novel language uses (Lindholm-Leary, 2001).
Interaction. Learning is a social activity (Teemant, Smith, Pinnegar, & Egan, 2005;
Vygotsky, 1978). In the learner-centered approach, also referred to as reciprocal interaction
model, teachers participate in genuine dialogue with their students and facilitate, rather than
control, student learning. Students construct personal understandings and CALP abilities by way
of positive cooperative interactions between teacher-student and student-student and through
negotiation of shared understanding in culturally and linguistically meaningful activities and
real-life discourse (Gee, 2001; Teemant et al., 2005).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 70
One salient approach in current SLA research drawn from the socio-constructivist
approach, is called the interaction hypothesis. Interaction hypothesis states that the development
of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and extensive oral
communication between teacher and students and among students (Long, 1989). Thus, teachers
need to create authentic learning environments and experiences that promote collaborative
learning and socialization to develop CALP in the all language skills: reading, listening,
speaking, and writing.
Output. Swain (2005) who developed the comprehensible output (CO) hypothesis
underscored that input alone is insufficient for language development and that in order to acquire
a language, learners need to interact using oral or written language to decipher meaning. She
stated that learning takes place when a learner encounters a gap in his or her linguistic
knowledge of the second language. By noticing this gap, the learner becomes aware of it and
may be able to modify the output and by that she or he learns something new about the language.

Thus, students need multiple opportunities to produce language, not simply consume it.
Producing language can take the form of facilitating rich conversations about text that would
allow students to bring meaning to text and use the sophisticated academic vocabulary in a
meaningful way (Au, 1998).
Integration of skill. Developing CALP is not done in isolation, but rather in an
integrated and systematic manner between receptive and productive skills (ACTFL, 2012).
Equal emphasis should be given to the promotion of the four language skills: listening, reading,
speaking, and writing; as well as viewing in three modes of communication: interpretive,
interpersonal, and presentational. CALP learning process is cyclical through which the learners
encounter quality input through listening, reading, and viewing (Krashen, 1984), are involved in
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 71
interaction whether oral or written interaction, or in a presentation, and receive feedback as they
produce spoken and written output (Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Swain, 2005).
Authenticity. In striving to promote meaningful interaction and engagement, students’
choice of tasks and learning strategies need to be embedded in situations that are authentic,
interesting, and motivating for learners. Progressive CALP education stresses the importance of
a curriculum that is based on child development, interest, experiences, and talents (Eisner, 2004;
Kaufman, 2004). Moreover, authentic communicative processes according to progressive
perspectives center on student voice. As students’ contributions are valued as part of the
language learning process, they can dictate their own stories. Students’ personal stories, in turn,
form the basis of the written content for discussion. Content and text are further derived from
authentic sources including news report, newspapers, and other oral and written discourses
(Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004).
Grouping. Intentional grouping practices are also important for CALP development
(Howard et al., 2018). Although considerable empirical evidence and meta-analysis studies
demonstrated the success of cooperative learning in promoting positive student outcomes in
CALP development, the type of grouping is even more significant in TWI contexts. One major
socio-linguistic consideration for developing CALP in the TWI classroom involves decisions
about heterogeneous or homogeneous grouping for instruction due to different levels of language
proficiency of native speakers and second language learners. The argument in favor of
heterogeneous grouping is that native speakers of a language can serve as language models for
each other as more-capable others and provide assistance within the learner's zone of proximal
development (ZPD). ZPD is the range between unassisted, independent and assisted, dependent
successful performance.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 72
In this type of lesson, for example, the teacher, as well as the Spanish language-minority
students would be assisting their S0panish000 emergent bilingual peers when reading a text
during a social studies class conducted in Spanish. In the same token, language-minority EB
would rely on their native English peers for assistance during a social studies class conducted in
English. The counter constructivist argument, in favor of homogeneous grouping by language
background, is that each group’s needs can be better met, by providing second language learning
strategies for the language learners (Howard et al., 2018). There is no research suggesting that
one grouping strategy is more effective than the other. In successful dual language programs,
there is often a combination of strategies, including some times when students are separated by
native language or proficiency and others when students are integrated (Howard & Sugarman,
2001).
Scaffolding interaction and tasks. In addition to assisting learners by using
comprehensible input and providing opportunities for individual and collaborative interaction
and output, teaching CALP consists of carefully structured social learning activities and tasks.
Scaffolding learning may involve elements of explicit instruction wherein students receive
explicit description and explanation of content, observe teachers modeling thinking and language
use, and memorize key vocabulary. This type of modeling relies on specific elements including
the logical sequencing of skills, the breaking down of complex skills and strategies into smaller
instructional units, step-by-step demonstrations, providing a range of examples and non-
examples, and well-designed instructions and prompts (Naraian, 2016). Teachers assisting
students with CALP can provide their learners with personalized completions (e.g., I love to
eat___), sentence-builders (i.e., a chart with subject-verb-predicate), sentence starters,
vocabulary charts or graphic organizer, among other strategies. Since the explicit instruction
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 73
approach to CALP development may be regarded as reductionist yet effective for some students,
TWI teachers need to foster a balanced approach of structured and unstructured, meaningful and
productive learning experiences and offer diverse and frequent opportunities for self-expression
and meaningful spontaneous and creative output (ACTFL, 2012).
Instruction of language form. Instructional models that aim to teach CALP and grade-
level content in a linguistically and culturally diverse classroom from a socio-cognitive learning
perspective integrate language-specific objectives into the curriculum (Howard et al., 2018).
That is, CALP instruction in TWI classrooms should focus on building the vocabulary and
grammatical structures that students must use to participate in context-rich academic discourse.
While there is a wide agreement that purpose and meaning of communication take precedence
over form and accuracy (ACTFL, 2012), debates on whether to teach language form or not to
teach it at all, remain.
Opponents of focus on form. Many studies focused specifically on developing bilingual
and biliteracy competencies reject the linear models of language development focused on
learning language forms. They presume that knowledge of academic English or any second
language is acquired implicitly rather than through explicit instruction (Krashen, 1984). One of
the strongest opponents of explicit grammar instruction is the linguist, educational researcher,
and political activist Stephen Krashen (Swain, 2005). Krashen holds a firm view that study of
form can make only a limited contribution to accuracy; he posited that our ability to consciously
learn the rules of grammar was very limited. In his publications over the decades, Krashen
provided research on the relationship between formal grammar instruction and performance on
measures of writing ability which consistently show that there was no relationship between
grammar study and writing (Krashen, 1984). Krashen claimed that one can become an excellent
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 74
writer with very little formal instruction in grammar. Following Krashen’s input hypothesis,
comprehensible input provided through reading has the most impact on social and academic
language acquisition and accuracy. Krashen based his view on Noam Chomsky’s Universal
Grammar theory (Omaggio-Hadley, 2001).
Universal Grammar theory posits that there are basic grammatical elements or fixed
abstract principles that are common to all human languages and are thought to be innate. While
each language has its own unique elements (i.e., peripheral grammar), all human languages
consist of core grammar rules congruent with universal principles. Thus, making language
acquisition relatively easier to acquire than a new skill or content. However, Universal Grammar
is still a subject of much debate and controversy in the field of second language acquisition
(Ellis, 2008).
Complexity theory is another more recent theory that suggests that language emerges
over time with no explicit rule teaching. It further claims that learning a language is a chaotic
and dynamic process which is not a step by step linear process (Larsen-Freeman, 2012).
Krashen’s ideas, whose input hypothesis theory was the most influential of its time, continue to
shape new ideas and beliefs even today (Swain, 2005).
Proponents of focus on form. At the same time, other studies demonstrated opposite
results and conclusions about explicit instruction on form. There is a growing consensus among
researchers that teachers need to learn how to build academic language systematically, and this
has become a feature of many interventions targeted to low achieving English-only students and
ELLs (Swain, 2005). Fred Genesee (2004), who specializes in second language acquisition and
bilingualism research, argued that instruction with an explicit focus on form is more effective
than instruction with an implicit focus on form. Swain and Lapkin (1989) suggested that
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 75
“grammar should not be taught in isolation from content. But, then neither should content be
taught without regard to the language involved. A carefully planned integration of language and
content, however, holds considerable promise (p. 153).” They remind teachers, nonetheless, to
be patient and understand that emergent bilinguals will construct meaning using imperfect
language, even when provided with explicit attention to and instruction on linguistic form and
function.
Based on these socio-constructivist theories and models, a lesson that promotes CALP in
a TWI classroom would focus on vocabulary that is reflective of the life of the community in
which students live and have a need to function, rather than on isolated vocabulary or grammar
that is not contextualized within real-life setting (Krashen, 1985). Instead of copying words and
definitions, progressive CALP practices can be seen when children attempt to write their names,
create illustrations, symbols and metaphors to represent new words and complex concepts and
use inventive spelling to convey their thoughts in writing (Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004). Additionally,
conversation can take place between students, or between the teacher and a small group of EBs,
on understanding a story’s key themes and concepts deliberately focusing students’ attention on
using the key academic vocabulary and grammatical structures.
Inquiry-based learning. According to Lampert et al. (2013) ambitious teaching is
instruction that helps students develop in-depth knowledge of subject-matter, gain higher-order
thinking skills, rather than just recall of academic vocabulary, grammatical structures or facts,
construct new knowledge and understanding, and effectively apply knowledge to real-world
situations. For ambitious CALP teaching to take place in a TWI classroom, as in mainstream
classes, TWI teachers need to engage their EBs in inquiry and ask a variety of questions to
stretch their thinking as well as their CALP development in the two languages. Questions should
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 76
be more open-ended inviting not only factual, literal, or one word answers. Rather, questions
should promote interpretative and analytical thinking skills that require elaborate responses about
the lesson’s concepts, both content and linguistic (Li, et al., 2016). Students should be
encouraged to compare and contrast language structures, cultures, and perspectives
(metalinguistic) (ACTFL, 2012). Teachers should be attentive listeners and flexible instructors
in anticipation of addressing learners’ questions and challenges (Ball & Forzanni, 2009; Lampert
et al., 2011). Lastly, teachers in TWI settings need to be more mindful of providing adequate
wait time for students output or application of learning than in mainstream classes. EB students
need time not only to organize their thoughts, but also to make appropriate and accurate language
choices to be able to produce high quality CALP (Li, et al., 2016).
Feedback and assessment. In addition, effective CALP instruction, as with any subject
matter learning, focuses on the explicit needs of learners for meaningful and timely feedback and
opportunities for self-assessment and reflection (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman,
2010). EBs need to be “pushed towards the delivery of a message that is … conveyed precisely,
coherently, and appropriately” (Swain, 2005, p. 249). In order to achieve that, teachers need to
provide regular qualitative feedback on their students’ output that addresses content and work
habits as well as language.
More specifically, when activity is focused on fluency and meaning teachers are advised
not to interrupt for correction. When an activity is focused on accuracy, a two-step correction is
suggested: alerting and correcting. To alert students to errors, teacher can ask the student to
repeat, ask clarification questions, use appropriate facial expressions or gestures, hint at the
correct answer by using metalanguage cues, like is it plural or singular, by echoing, saying the
inaccurate sentence again, or reformulating the student’s sentences in the correct form. The
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 77
second step involves correction: self-correction or peer correction. Students may self-correct if
they realize their error and know how to reformulate in the correct way or ask for help from their
peers (Celce-Murcia, 2014). Ultimately, teachers should establish a fit between teacher’s and
students’ expectations on error correction and feedback (Omaggio-Hadley, 2001).
Tyler (2013) further suggested that assessments should be planned jointly by teachers and
students. EB students can co-construct a rubric that addresses content and organization,
language style and use, and accuracy. Students can also receive peer feedback based on that
rubric, as well as self-assess their own CALP progress.
Meta-cognition strategies. To ensure that appropriate CALP strategies are being utilized
for developing various aspects of CALP, learners also need to develop awareness and control of
their own cognitive and metalinguistic processes (Baker, 2006; Dembo & Eaton 2000). The
types of learning strategies, similarly to those advocated for monolingual settings, include
metacognitive strategies, metacognitive knowledge, cognitive strategies, and social or affective
strategies. Metacognition in the context of CALP development refers to knowledge about one's
thinking and awareness of one's own beliefs about learning CALP in L2, bilingual strategies,
capacities, limitations and awareness of difficulties when they appear during learning content
and language in L2 (Cummins, 2013). Metacognitive knowledge means that students need to
develop an understanding of their own CALP learning processes such as vocabulary and
grammatical concepts, and the comprehension of various genres. Utilizing metacognitive
language allows the student to understand the nature of the learning task, and effective strategies
for accomplishing the task. Cognitive strategies refer to manipulating the material to be learned
through modeling, rehearsal, organization, or elaboration. Social and affective strategies involve
interacting with others for learning, cooperative learning, or using affective control for learning
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 78
(Chamot & O'Malley, 1994). Piaget's theory stresses that peer discussion and collaboration can
help students monitor their own understanding and build new strategic capabilities (Baker,
2006).
Language use: Language-separation approach. One salient aspect of CALP instruction
for both language-minority students and language-majority students concerns language use, that
is, the integration and use of students’ native language and partner language during class time.
In general, teachers in TWI programs do not spend time teaching the partner language, per se,
but instead follow a content-based approach to CALP instruction. They deliver instruction in
math, science, social studies, or other subjects using the partner language exclusively (Steele et
al., 2013).
One of the key characteristics that bilingual experts distilled from their meta-analysis of
effective CALP instruction was the principle of “monolingual lesson delivery.” According to
this principle, teachers should use the target language of English or the partner language,
exclusively during the designated instructional times throughout the school day (Howard et al.,
2018). This feature that upholds strict separation in language use is based on the rationale that
language-minority and language-majority students often have difficulty producing native-like
academic speech in the second language. Part of this difficulty stems from a lack of opportunity
to speak with fluent speakers of the language they are learning (Davison, 2006; Dubiner, 2010).
Furthermore, some students in immersion programs have developed the strategy of looking
confused when they have to respond in the second language due to well-meaning teachers and
peers who translate for them. According to this approach, instructors who allow for translation
or code-switching between two languages in essence, discourages students from developing
listening strategies and oral competencies in the second language (Howard et al., 2018). Based
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 79
on these findings, many researchers and bilingual educators conclude that promoting highly
developed CLAP in two languages requires fidelity or adherence to a strong monolingual
language policy (ACTFL, 2012; Li et al., 2016). In recent years, however, an alternative view
of translanguaging has emerged. I will further explore this pedagogical language use strategy
when discussing critical practices to CALP development.
Instructional models based on socio-constructivist perspectives. Following the social
constructivist approach to CALP development, the SLA literature suggested various instructional
models such as project GLAD (Guided Language Acquisition Design, Brechtel, 2001), SDAIE
(Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English), QuEST (Quality English and Science
Teaching, August, 2009), SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol, Short & Echevarria,
1999), and CALLA (Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach, Chamot & O’Malley,
1986) (Johnston Nelson, 2015). This review, however, expands on the following two models:
CALLA and SIOP which seem to stem from different, yet not mutually exclusive,
epistemologies and, in turn, emphasize specific strategies for developing CALP.
Cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA). Many applied linguists and
educators share the understanding of academic language development as emerging from complex
socio-cognitive practices in which students comprehend language used in academic contexts and
communicate widely about new thematically interconnected topics (ACTFL, 2012).
CALLA is one systematic instructional model for developing CALP that was developed by
Chamot and O'Malley (1994) drawing from cognitive learning theory and from related concepts
such as language across the curriculum, second language acquisition, and cooperative learning.
The types of learning strategies that CALLA uses, similarly to those advocated for in
monolingual settings, include metacognitive strategies, metacognitive knowledge, cognitive
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 80
strategies, and social or affective strategies. This approach emphasizes meta-cognitive strategies
to learning, which are situated in a broader socio-cognitive learning perspective for effective
CALP learning. By contrast, the next approach draws mainly but not exclusively, from the
sociocultural paradigm.
Sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP). Another prevalent approach to
teaching CALP is through the sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) (Johnston
Nelson, 2015). SIOP advocates for a classroom setting that offers reciprocal interactive
exchange and includes various activities as alternatives to the traditional transmission, teacher-
centered approach. Sheltered techniques include using visual aids such as pictures, vocabulary
charts, graphs, and semantic mapping. SIOP also supports explicit instruction that incudes
modeling of expectations and interactions. This type of model also encourages students to
negotiate meaning and make connections between course content and prior knowledge, affords
students to act as mediators and facilitators. Teachers who follow this instructional modal also
use alternative assessments, such as portfolios, to check comprehension and provide
comprehensible speech, scaffolding, sentence starters, and supplemental materials using a wide
range of presentation strategies. Echevarria and Short (2004) found that numerous school
districts across the U.S. serving large numbers of language-minority students, have adopted the
SIOP with positive academic results. Their study of middle and high school language-minority
EBs revealed significant gains in written and spoken academic English assessments in
comparison to similar learners whose teachers had not been trained in SIOP.
Socio-cultural learner-centered practices based on the above principles have been
previously confirmed in a Canadian study specifically focused on developing bilingual and
biliteracy competencies in bilingual settings. Evidence of the importance of learner-centered
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 81
instruction comes from research that compared two types of late immersion programs in
Montreal: one that was teacher-centered and one that was student-centered (Thomas & Collier,
2002). In the teacher-centered program, native English-speaking students spent 80% of their
school day immersed in French, while in the student-centered program students spent 50% of
their school day in French. Findings showed that despite the time advantage of the students in
the teacher-centered program, students in the student-centered program scored as well on a
variety of French language measures. Students in the student-centered program achieved such
impressive French language skills relative to students in the more extended program because
their program permitted more active use of French and because learning was more
individualized. In particular, students in the 50% program were given the opportunity to choose
what they would study and how they would meet curricular objectives.
The above sociocultural practices work with all students, language-minority as well as
language-majority, because they provide strategies for becoming both effective (able to help
each individual student learn what is essential) and equitable (able to ensure that all students
experience learning success) (Howard et al., 2018). The importance of following the suggested
strategies is evident from the frequency and consistency with which they are found in TWI
programs that produce bilingualism and biliteracy, grade-level academic achievement, and
multicultural competence for all students (Howard et al., 2018). At the same time, program
administrators and educators must keep context in mind as they think about the design,
implementation, or refinement of their own program (Genesee, 2004; Howard et al., 2018; Lucas
et al., 2008; Pliner & Johnson, 2010). Furthermore, while the socio-constructivist models and
practices for developing CALP that are described above seem comprehensive and inclusive of all
learners, pedagogies stemming from the critical race theory (CRT) framework extend CALP
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 82
teaching and learning a step further (Greenwood, Whyte, & Harkavy, 1993; Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy,
2006).
Equity: Critical Perspective and Practices to CALP Development
A growing scholarship on social equity related to race and ethnicity in the U.S., examines
U.S. society by applying critical race theory (CRT) (Bennett, 2001). Application of CRT
examines the intersection of race, law, and power (Samad, 2009). In the context of education,
CRT unveils and illuminates new understanding of systemic inequalities within the educational
system in the United States (e.g. Bensimon, 2005; Connor, 2009; Iverson, 2007; Gorski, 2008;
Landson-Billings, 2006; Reynolds & Pope, 1991; Samad, 2009). Crump (2014) introduced an
emerging theoretical and analytical framework, which she calls “LangCrit,” or critical language
and race theory by drawing on CRT for critical inquiries in the field of language studies.
LangCrit looks for ways that race, racism, and racialization intersect with issues of language,
belonging, and identity formation. With this broader sense of critical perspective, I now address
the ideologies and practices related specifically to CALP development in TWI setting.
Ideology. Au (1998), in her analysis of CALP education for students from diverse
cultural and linguistic backgrounds, pointed to the epistemic difference between mainstream or
equal social constructivist approaches and the critical or equity social constructivist perspective.
While both are concerned with the student and the socio-cultural aspects of learning, the first
orientation is considered neoliberal and apolitical (Apple, 2006; Peterson, 2003) while the latter
“centers classroom instruction in multiethnic cultural frames of reference” drawing from CRT
(Gay, 2010, p. xxiii emphasis in the original). The first orientation is also referred to as equality
mindset (Bensimon, 2005) which focuses on the diversity of representation of backgrounds in the
student body with regards to gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion. Teachers
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 83
who possess an equality mindset use discourse that promotes the celebration of diversity, cross-
racial relationships and color-blindness, enhancing access, and social and cognitive benefits of
having a diverse student population. In contrast, equity mindset from CRT aims to reflect on and
critique existing inequities in access as well as outcomes (Crump, 2014). Teachers who possess
equity mindset see themselves as co-constructors of new understandings with their students for
the purpose of engaging them in social actions that would generate cognitive change and action
against societal injustices (Bensimon, 2005; Moje, 2007; Luke, 2012; Peterson, 2003).
Practice. When applied to the context of educational practice, various critical pedagogies
such as culturally relevant (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2006), responsive
(Garcia, 2009; Gay, 2010), and sustaining (Paris, 2012) pedagogies have emerged. These
pedagogies add a critical notion to the ambitious social constructivist pedagogy (Au, 1998). That
is, they are driven by political and social justice ideology that seeks to empower, emancipate, and
democratize culturally diverse and underserved learners by advocating for instructional
approaches that support students as they make sense of new knowledge through their own
cultural frames, (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Freire, 1993; Hoy et al., 2006; Luke, 2012; Moje, 2007)
as well as students’ salient everyday experiences (Paris, 2012). Culturally responsive practice
attends to the funds of knowledge (Moll, Veléz-Ibañéz, & Greenberg, 1989) and discourses
(Gee, 2001) of the youths’ home; ethnic, racial, or geographic communities; youth culture; and
popular culture, school culture, classroom culture, or discipline-specific culture (Ladson-
Billings, 2006; Paris, 2012). In adding clarity to the process of CALP development in TWI
classrooms based on critical ideology, the following section addresses the key principles and
strategies that stem from the socio-constructivist lens and further extend them.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 84
Critical background knowledge: Funds of knowledge. One example of the difference
between the two epistemologies is the point of contact between the critical concept of funds of
knowledge and the mainstream, pluralistic view of students’ prior knowledge (Edwards, 2015).
In educational settings that follow a mainstream social constructivist outlook, the teacher needs
to tap into students’ prior knowledge. From a critical or “equity” perspective, the teacher needs
to possess knowledge, skills, and sensitivity to tap into students’ funds of knowledge. The term
funds of knowledge refers to students’ unique linguistic, cognitive and cultural resources, skills,
ideas, practices, and bodies of knowledge essential for the smooth running and wellbeing of a
household (Moll et al., 1989). Teachers who are driven by a critical ideology incorporate their
students’ funds of knowledge into classroom learning and leverage them to provide culturally
responsive and meaningful CALP instruction. Teachers also need to possess the knowledge,
skills, and sensitivity to mitigate between the students’ funds of knowledge and the traditional
dominant school culture and ways of being and learning (Smagorinsky, 2013; Stanton-Salazar,
1997). Applying the natural approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983) to critical CALP development,
teachers begin a lesson by placing the students’ lives and language skills at the center of the
instruction. They use real-life personal, social, cultural, and political issues to encourage
conversation and dialogue.
Critical authenticity. Teachers who follow a critical ideology for teaching CALP also use
multicultural authentic literature to promote critical analysis of social and historical issues to
empower students to work towards the resolution of social problems (Au, 1998; Luke, 2012;
Moje, 2007). In such a classroom, students select reading materials, create text, and engage in
active dialogue and deconstruction of texts and their meanings to find counter narratives to the
dominant societal narrative (Moje, 2007). By extension, students develop their CALP as they
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 85
examine how the text is told from the perspective of the dominant culture and they also explore
alternative views from the historical and cultural contexts of other ethnic and racial groups in
society. In addition to critiquing the text, students’ interactions revolve around the actions they
might take based on what they have learned (Ladson-Billing, 2006).
Critical interaction. Cadiero-Kaplan (2004) posited that the communicative approach in
SLA research that underscores meaningful communication as the goal and heart of teaching, is
an early form of critical literacy due to its focus on learners’ voices. A communicative approach
to CALP, therefore, has the potential for social empowerment. Such forms of CALP
development can be extended further to engage students in critical dialogue around broader
social justice issues and goals relating to language, race, class, and gender and encompasses all
the language skills, including listening, speaking, reading, writing and viewing. In a critical type
of interaction, the teacher becomes the facilitator, posing probing questions to help the students
build on the CALP and content knowledge they already know and are in the process of acquiring
to critique the text and the world around them (Choudhury & Share, 2014). The teacher also
adjusts their classroom management routines on the basis of differences in students’ cultures to
meet diverse community values and interactional norms (Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004).
The universal design for learning (UDL) framework adds that interaction and
communication should extend beyond teacher and peers (Meyer et al., 2014). This model
suggested bringing the community to the classroom and the classroom to the community by
incorporating service learning and technology into lessons (Lucas et al., 2008; Pliner & Johnson,
2010). Moje (2007) pushes educators to fuse the moral and intellectual to produce a subject-
matter instruction that is not only socially just but also produces social justice.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 86
Critical grouping. An additional important aspect of the critical CALP instruction
revolves around providing opportunities for youth to practice navigating across the different
cultural or linguistic communities (Moje, 2007). Following this logic, teachers driven by critical
ideology also provide multiple opportunities for language-minority and language-majority EBs
to interact with and collaborate in order to bring awareness to, and understanding of culturally
diverse views (Au, 1998). At the same time, having language-minority and language-majority
EBs together in the same classroom does not guarantee equal participation or language use.
Teachers need to use well-designed cooperative learning structures to encourage peer
interactions to support cross-cultural understanding and second language development (de Jong
& Howard, 2009). Researchers cautioned that successful grouping in any setting requires
students to work interdependently, with clearly conceived individual and group accountability
for all group members and with social equity in the group and in the classroom (Lindholm-Leary,
2001).
Critical scaffolding of interaction and tasks. While tasks and assessments should be
inclusive and flexible and allow for accommodation or modification, teachers must set and
encourage high expectations for all learners (Parkay et al., 2014). Teachers preconceptions of
students influence their teaching including curriculum design, instruction, and expectations; and,
in turn, impact students’ opportunities to learn and achieve future success in life beyond school.
Following this logic, misguided assertions and stereotypes about learners’ abilities to increase
their CALP by lowering expectations and overly scaffolding input and output can result in
seriously destructive consequences for underrepresented students (Milner, 2010). Thus, teachers
need to be sensitive and flexible enough to balance between scaffolded and open-ended activities
to ensure not only equitable access but also equitable outcomes (ACTFL, 2012).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 87
Critical instruction on language form. Research on SLA cautions that affording
students ownership, autonomy, and choice, in creating their own texts for example, are necessary
but not sufficient in promoting biliteracy or academic language proficiencies in both languages
(Cummins, 2000; Howard et al., 2018). Research on English literacy learning for students from
a critical orientation (Au, 1998; Luke, 2012; Moje, 2007), similarly to the socio-constructivist
perspective, underscored the importance of systematic and explicit instruction of the technical
aspects of language and the cognitive processes for reading and writing development. Luke
(2012, p. 6) in his discussion of critical literacy approaches argued that,
While Freirian models provide a pedagogical approach and a political stance, they
lack specificity on how teachers and students can engage with the complex
structures of texts, both traditional and multimodal. The acquisition of language,
text and discourse requires the developmental engagement with levels of
linguistic and discourse complexity and access to multiple discourses and
affiliated linguistic registers.
In other words, critical literacy instructional models should attend to the ideological and
hegemonic functions of texts while also providing students with technical resources for
analyzing how texts work (Moje, 2007). In this sense, the instructional process may include in
addition to questions of how the text might reflect the author’s views, the learners’ own views
and life experiences, questions focusing on how the selection of specific grammatical structures
and word choices attempts to manipulate the reader (i.e., critical discourse analysis) (Luke,
2012).
Critical Inquiry-based Learning. Social action related inquiry activities that stem from
the apolitical socio-constructivism stance usually involve students transforming the natural
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 88
world, that is, gardening or laboratory experiments. Freirian critical approach to inquiry, on the
other hand, defines practical education activities as critical discussion and collective action
aimed at solving political and social problems (Peterson, 2003). CALP instruction should
include revealing and critiquing cultural practices and orientations while also focusing on
cognitive strategies to support comprehension and composition of complex texts, rhetorical and
linguistic analysis and practices. Critical approach to questioning can also entail, for instance,
the analysis of a textbook or media representation of political or economic life that uncovers
dominant views as well as counter-narratives.
Critical language use: Translanguaging. More recent understandings of the fluid and
dynamic nature of multiculturalism and multilingualism have led to corresponding developments
in pedagogy that reject the traditional rigid language-separation standard (Anya, 2016; Garcia, &
Kleifgen, 2010; Kerfoot, & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015; Makalela, 2015). For much of the
history of SLA research, languages have been thought of as distinct, bounded, and autonomous
codes (Garcia & Wei, 2013). Following this assumption, in early formulations of bilingual
education great emphasis was placed on the separation of languages (Cummins, 2000; 2013).
Twentieth-century literature on bilingual education shows that bilingual programs separate
instruction by language and sort emergent bilingual students by language proficiency levels
(Wright et al., 2015). This approach appears to persist today as is evident in the Guiding
Principles for Dual Language Education publication (Howard et al., 2018). However, traditional
insistence on the use of certain languages in certain contexts is gradually giving way to
acceptance on the part of teachers and students of the use of different languages in the classroom
(Wright et al., 2015), thus mirroring more closely the everyday realities of multilingual speakers
(Anya, 2016). Translanguaging is premised on the recognition of a full account of speakers’
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 89
discursive resources, and it underscores that languages are not “hermetically sealed units with
distinguishable boundaries nor are they capable of being placed into boxes” (Makalela, 2015, p.
202) of specific times in the school schedule.
Constructed as a critical social theory of language, translanguaging offers a rigorous,
theoretically and linguistically grounded framework for pedagogies which seek to democratize
classrooms, enabling all learners regardless of linguistic background to perform at the same high
level and to modify relations of power in the classroom through the collaborative construction of
knowledge and CALP (Makalela, 2015). Recent researchers (e.g., Esquinca, Araujo, & de la
Piedra, 2014; Kerfoot, & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015; Makalela, 2015) have advanced the idea
that educators work to develop a third space in which students' primary discourses, those used in
the home, community, and informal social interactions, and students' secondary discourses, those
uses in school and other formal institutions, intersect to form this third space, where primary and
secondary discourses are merged.
Translanguaging is a pedagogical practice using both languages in an integrated and
coherent way to mediate content subject learning, in contrast with the more prevalent, unplanned,
brief, and reactive code-switching which may leave learners with a partial or fragmented
understanding of the content (Canagarajah, 2011; Makalela, 2015). To further connect theory to
practice, Garcia and Kleifgen (2010) suggested reading in one language and taking notes in the
second language, as well as writing in one language and discussing in another. The focus here is
on ways in which learners can draw on their linguistic and cultural resources in order to access
academic content and develop their CALP in both languages (Canagarajah, 2011). In a
classroom driven by a critical ideology, as opposed to the dual language guidelines stemming
from a mainstream socio-constructivist view, students’ first language is valued not only as a
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 90
metacognitive linguistic resource, but it can be used to negotiate meaning of critical issues
(Kerfoot, & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015).
Makalela (2015) argued that a methodology that encourages translanguaging has the
potential to overcome historical separations between groups and promote transformative
pedagogies. However, much further work is needed to advance these emerging pedagogies
(Garcia, & Kleifgen, 2010; Wright et al., 2015). Emerging critical educational literature
provides several yet insufficient examples of the positive effects critical pedagogy has on
underserved emergent bilinguals. Such positive effects include increased self-esteem and sense
of pride in their community, greater interest in school and desire to learn, and deeper levels of
critical thinking (e.g., Choudhury & Share, 2014; Souto-Manning, 2009). Therefore, one of the
aims of this study is to find out about the language use practices in one exemplary TWI school.
Critical metacognition strategies. In addition to the meta-cognition strategies suggested
from a socio-constructivist perspective, critical meta-cognition related to CALP also includes
language and cultural comparisons. EB students investigate, explain, and reflect on the nature of
the two languages and cultures (ACTFL, 2012).
Critical feedback and assessment. Teachers driven by critical ideology to CALP should
promote equity of CALP outcomes for all their learners (Bensimon, 2005). That is, providing
access to quality education for culturally and linguistically diverse learners is not the end goal.
Rather, analyzing their outcomes per race, language, and ethnicity and, in turn, finding
organizational and educational solutions to improve their outcomes is our social and moral
obligation (Bensimon, 2005). Critical inclusive and flexible assessments may also use
translanguaging as a strategy. Translanguaging offers an analytical framework which can enable
principled, formative, and equitable forms of assessment, applicable across languages and
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 91
language varieties (Kerfoot & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015). In practice, students may be
provided with a text in the partner language and be able to respond in their native language, a
process that in essence allows for the development of all students’ CALP in two languages.
One thing should be noted at this time: while both “equity or critical” and “equality or
mainstream” socio-constructivist ideologies and pedagogies strive for inclusivity, the underlying
emphasis, lens or consequence may differ. That is, teachers guided by critical socio-
constructivist epistemology intentionally aim to support marginalized ethnic groups (Gay, 2010;
Luke, 2012). Putting the language-minority EBs in the center may, in turn, neglect the language-
majority EB’s needs and ways of learning. In contrast, mainstream socio-constructivist teachers
may adopt a color-blind approach when educating culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Thus, it would be interesting to find out: what CALP ideologies drive exemplary TWI teachers
and how they integrate and apply them in practice. That is, how they perceive the ways in which
they integrate the cultural and linguistic funds of knowledge, interests, and needs of both groups
of EBs for CALP development in two languages. Equally important, would be to find out to
what extent their CALP instruction is driven by, and promoting social justice.
Exemplary TWI Teachers
School transformation depends on multiple external factors but is contingent upon highly
motivated and competent teachers and even more in TWI schools that aim at achieving multiple
goals: high linguistic, cognitive, and cultural outcomes for both language-minority and majority
student (Wright et al., 2015). Developing CALP for culturally and linguistically diverse learners
learning in two or more languages requires highly qualified and sensitive teachers to construct
and negotiate their own dynamic hybrid approach (Valencia, et al., 2002). Therefore, it is greatly
important for TWI teachers to possess asset-thinking, critical pedagogical knowledge and skills,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 92
academic content expertise, pedagogical content knowledge (Darling-Hammond, 2007;
Shulman, 1987). The construct of pedagogical content knowledge should be expanded to
include not only pedagogical practices for teaching content, but also pedagogical practices for
teaching the linguistic, cognitive, and cultural text-based practices and processes associated with
a discipline (Moje, 2007).
In addition to that, the most successful TWI teachers are bilingual or multilingual in the
languages spoken by their students, understand learning patterns associated with bilingual and
second language acquisition, demonstrate a mastery of appropriate instructional strategies such
as cooperative learning, sheltered instruction, differentiated instruction, and strategic teaching,
and have strong organizational and communication skills (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Howard et
al., 2018; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014; Parish, et al., 2006; Wright, et al., 2015).
Accomplished TWI educators need to possess this knowledge of multilingual pedagogies so that
they can be equipped to negotiate on their own the ideal instructional strategies and curriculum
instead of adhering to one strict top-down policy or methodology (Davison, 2006; Lucas, et al.,
2008; Pliner & Johnson, 2010; Umansky & Reardon, 2014).
Equally important is for TWI educators to possess an equity mindset and the knowledge
of, and experience with critical pedagogy. Teachers may then gain a deeper, more holistic
understanding of the role the partner language and English play in their students’ lives and future
aspirations (Soto, 2012). Thus, teachers of EBs are ideally more open to the creation of
classrooms that embody the ideals of a multicultural inclusive liberating pedagogy when
promoting CALP for all learners (Gorski, 2008).

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 93
Conceptual Framework
Various epistemological and ideological underpinnings shape acts of cognitive academic
language proficiency (CALP) teaching and learning (Moje, 2007; Cummins, 2013). Since
developing CALP in two languages is not only a cognitive process, but also a socio-cultural
construction (Smagorinsky, 2013), this study examined TWI teachers’ ideologies and
instructional practices from critical and social-constructivist lenses and their intersection with
SLA research and practices. To help guide data collection and analysis, this study drew from Au
(1998) and Peterson’s (2003) distinction between traditional, progressive, and critical ideologies
and practices. A traditional perspective refers to the "banking" method of education, whereby
the teacher puts periodic deposits of knowledge into the students' heads. Such CALP instruction
is very teacher and text centered and includes lectures and repetition while little discussion and
reflection take place. The focus remains on the technical aspects of CALP. In contrast, equality
or mainstream ambitious social-constructivist pedagogy is inclusive and centers around the child.
Social-constructivist pedagogy seeks to teach all students to not only to know academic content
and improve their CALP in two languages, but also to be able to use what they know in working
on authentic problems in academic domains (Lampert et al., 2011). According to a critical
orientation, CALP education is more than just relevant and student-centered; it involves cultural
and linguistic recognition, and responsiveness. An equity approach means moving beyond
thoughts and words to applying academic knowledge and language to solve authentic social and
political problems, ultimately resulting in social action (Peterson, 2003).
As can be seen, each of these perspectives emphasizes different aspects of CALP
pedagogy. “While cultural recognition and relevance remain crucial preconditions for academic
learning, they alone will not ensure intended learning unless coupled with inspired, ambitious
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 94
pedagogies” (Stillman et al., 2013, p. 143). Equally important is the inverse relationship. That
is, while inspired, ambitious pedagogies remain crucial preconditions for academic learning; they
alone will not ensure intended CALP development unless coupled with cultural recognition and
relevance (Choudhury, & Share, 2014; Luke, 2012; Moje, 2007). Thus, taken together these
worldviews create a conceptual framework to recast our thinking about, and examination of TWI
teachers’ ideologies and enactment of practices for developing CALP in one English-Spanish
TWI school in California (Figure 2.2). I define such a multidimensional complex approach to
CALP instruction as critical ambitious language pedagogy for CALP development in TWI
classrooms, and, in short, CALP for CALP.
Ideology
The first construct that helped with understanding the characteristics of CALP instruction
is ideology. Ideology encompasses beliefs, attitudes, intentions and values of a community
concerning a language and its use (Spolsky, 2004). For this study, TWI teacher’s ideology refers
to the perspectives, viewpoints, attitudes, or positions that drive teachers’ knowledge and
pedagogies in developing CALP for EBs in TWI settings. More specifically, TWI teacher’s
ideologies include the value they place on their language-minority and majority EBs everyday
experiences, and linguistic and cultural background knowledge and abilities (Heller, 2007). In
the analysis of the findings, I attempted to decipher whether the teacher ideology reflected an
equality-mainstream or equity-critical mindset.
Practice
The second construct is practice. Language practice represents an individual's decisions
about one’s linguistic choices as they manifest in the uses of a language in daily practices,
whether done intentionally or subconsciously (Spolsky, 2004). Furthermore, actions reveal
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 95

Figure 2.2 Critical Ambitious Language Pedagogy for CALP Development in TWI settings.
commitment to one’s ideology (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). A teacher’s ideology surfaces
through classroom activities and interactions (Heller, 2007; Horn, et al., 2015). Thus, by
practice, I refer to the actual instructional actions that include both talk and moves that can be
heard and seen, in classroom observations and in the reflective accounts from the interview that
Construti
vism
Social
Justice
Socio-
cultural
Key Elements of CALP for CALP
1. Funds of knowledge
2. Comprehensible input
3. Interaction
4. Output
5. Integration of skills
6. Authenticity
7. Grouping
8. Scaffolding
9. Instruction of language form
10. Inquiry-based learning
11. Feedback & assessment
12. Metacognition strategies
13. Language use

Ideology Practice
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 96
specifically address instructional strategies for the development of CALP. In sum, this
conceptual framework can help analyze whether TWI teachers’ educational ideologies and
practices stem from a combination of socio-constructivist philosophies, as well as critical and
equitable social justice perspectives and strategies. At the same time, I have made an intentional
effort to remain open to emerging data and themes.
Summary
Evaluations of the outcomes of students in TWI over the past four decades have
consistently shown that both language-majority and language-minority students benefit from
participation in quality TWI programs (Genesee, 2004; Kibler et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2013;
Lindholm-Leary & Genessee, 2014). TWI programs are associated with desirable student
outcomes, including the promotion of higher level cognitive skills, academic achievement, the
development of increased English language proficiency and biliteracy skills, cultural tolerance
for all learners (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Esquinca, et a., 2014; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee,
2014; Marian et al., 2013), as well as the promotion of social justice transformative pedagogies
(Kibler et al., 2014).
While much of the research on CALP development in TWI programs has focused on
students’ outcomes, the emphasis has begun to shift toward focusing on the processes which lead
to those positive outcomes (Kerfoot & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015; Makalela, 2015). While the
socio-constructivist ideology and practices for developing CALP seem comprehensive,
democratic, and inclusive of all learners, in actuality they prevent the feasibility of a truly
democratic and inclusive education. Since definitions of a democratic education are based on
possessive individualism, such as learner-centered instruction, collective gain and social altruism
are abandoned (Apple, 2006). In other words, educators perpetuate societal and educational
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 97
inequities by maintaining an apolitical view that supports the status quo without questioning the
current economic, social, and political arrangements and their effects on language-minority
emergent bilinguals in and out of the classroom (Ladson-Billing, 2006).
Evolving from the intersection of socio-constructivism, critical theory and SLA research,
the literature review highlighted ideologies and practices that promote high levels of CALP for
both language-minority and majority students. Such CALP pedagogy incorporates (a) learner-
centered instruction, (b) social interaction, and (c) critical social justice orientation. This
multidimensional synthesis of instructional approaches to developing CALP in TWI settings can
be considered critical ambitious language pedagogy for CALP instruction (CALP for CALP).
Although many TWI schools are inherently driven by critical and socio-constructivist
ideologies as part of their mission (Genesee, 2004), the current dual language literature provides
little information about how TWI teachers perceive and engage their emergent bilingual students
in activities that support their CALP development in both first and second languages (Kibler, et
al., 2014). More to the point, we need a “more carefully detailed archaeology” of CALP
practices in TWI classrooms, “one that mines both the cognitive processes and the cultural
practices that mediate those processes” (Moje, 2007, p. 35). Furthermore, this review also
pointed out two dilemmas facing the current field of SLA research and instruction in the areas of
language use, language separation verses translanguaging, and the instruction of language form,
explicit verses implicit instruction of language form. In each of these areas of controversy,
ideology has influenced instructional practice at least as much as empirical evidence (Cummins,
2013).
Given the dichotomous data and perceptions, and the gap in the literature on CALP
development in TWI settings for all learners, it would be beneficial for the field of dual language
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 98
instruction to determine how practitioners in exemplary TWI settings conceptualize CALP
instruction and describe their instructional actions. It is critical to attend to perceptions and
beliefs as well as the practices of teachers in an exemplary TWI school. It is important to add
detail and substance to emerging critical pedagogies for emergent bilinguals in TWI settings in
order to ensure that both language-minority and language-majority students are, “equipped with
the tools necessary to become thriving members of U.S. society” (Kim et al., 2013, p. 2).
Capturing exemplary teachers’ attitudes and knowledge about a particular educational
approach, practice, or group of students can inform current research and teacher educators on
developing programs that help to shape an equitable outlook and effective practices for pre-
service and in-service teachers in their journey to becoming highly qualified and critically
reflective to help all learners develop high levels of CALP in two languages (Espinosa, 2010;
Esposito & Baker-Ward, 2013). Thus, this qualitative study explored teachers’ ideologies,
reported and enacted practices through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations.
Critical and social constructivist theories, as well as SLA research guided data collection, and the
analysis and interpretation of the findings.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 99
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Two-way immersion (TWI) programs are attracting attention as an effective way
to educate both language-minority and majority emergent bilingual (EB) students, and thus have
the potential to close the historical equity and access gap for language-minority students, as well
as meet the goal of additional language learning for native English-speakers that are crucial to
succeed in the 21
st
century (CAL, 2016; Christian, 1994; Collier & Thomas, 2004; Genesee,
2004; Gold, 2006; Howard & Sugarman, 2001; Howard et al, 2018; Kerfoot & Simon-
Vandenbergen, 2015; Thomas & Collier, 2002). Although great importance is attributed to many
variables in cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) development, this study puts the
teachers’ experience, insights, and pedagogy at the center. Educational research underscores the
teacher, the quality of classroom instruction and the learning experiences, as the salient in-school
predictor of students’ overall academic success, literacy skills, and attainment of another
language (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Davison, 2006; Dubiner, 2010; Gándara et al., 2005;
Ladson-Billings, 2009; Stein & Stein, 2016). Teachers are seldom invited to share their
experiences and their concerns with those who shape education policy (Gándara et al., 2005).
By encouraging teachers from an exemplary TWI school to explicate their ideologies and
practices, along with observing the enactment of their worldviews and perceived practices, we
may advance our collective knowledge about educating EBs (Gándara et al., 2005). By
describing teachers’ perceptions and actions, current dual immersion schools may learn how to
improve their existing literacy programs, learn the steps to required to implement TWI, and may
add to the knowledge base of bilingual teacher education, pre-service as well as in-service, in
order to help all of America’s students succeed.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 100
Research Question
Therefore, the question that guided the research study was: How do teachers in one
exemplary K-8 TWI school conceptualize and help all their EB students, language-minority and
language-majority, develop cognitive academic language proficiency in English, as well as in
Spanish in the same classroom? More specifically, to what extent are the CALP instructional
methods employed by teachers driven by critical ambitious pedagogy? Given the nature of this
research question, this study is of qualitative design and grounded in critical and socio-
constructivist worldviews and second language acquisition (SLA) research.
Methods of Data Collection
A qualitative approach grounded in a constructivist worldview for data collection was
used in order to capture TWI teacher’s ideologies and practices relating to CALP development.
Most of the research on TWI programs has focused on the linguistic, academic, and sociocultural
outcomes using quantitative methods, especially at the K-3 level. Wright, Boun, and Garcia
(2015) have underscored the need to move from focusing on products to understanding
pedagogical processes and practices of teachers in TWI programs. While a quantitative method is
a convenient process for obtaining statistical data for generalizability purposes, the closed-ended
questions leave minimal opportunity for the voices of the participants to be heard “in their own
terms” (Patton, 2002, p. 348), consequently missing the real story (Weiss, 1994). A qualitative
approach, constructivism, in contrast, attempts to enter the other person's unique perspective
about the world and at the same time gain understandings that are beyond the, “temporal and
spatial horizon of the immediate occasional interaction” (Erickson, 2004, p. viii). Therefore,
qualitative methods in this study included semi-structured interviews to capture TWI teachers’
orientations and thought processes relating to biliteracy competency development. Classroom
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 101
observations and didactic artifacts were used to collect data about instructional practices
(Merriam, 2009).
Sample and Site Selection
The process of identifying the participants and the site school was purposive (Maxwell,
2013) following specific TWI criteria for the site school and the teacher participants. Exemplary
K-8 grade teachers were studied within a high performing Spanish-English TWI school located
in California. These teachers were selected not only because they taught in a high performing
program, but also because they were identified as exemplary according to their administrators.
Site
For the purposes of this study, the TWI school selected was considered exemplary
because it served students from low SES, and successfully graduated biliterate students with high
academic scores in core academic subjects. The school was selected because it met all the
following criteria:
1. The school was a TWI school.
2. The school was public or charter.
3. The school had at least 50% of the student population on free or reduced lunch.
4. The school’s student population was comprised of at least 30% language-minority students,
as determined by language testing done upon school entry.
5. The school shows academic improvement in core academic areas for at least two years
(AYP, API).
I chose to learn from four teachers in one exemplary TWI school rather than individual
teachers from several schools because I wanted to “elucidate local processes, meaning, and
contextual influences in particular settings” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 99, emphasis in the original).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 102
Maxwell (2013) also suggested that considerable knowledge of the setting and establishing good
relationships with the teacher participant would best enable the researcher to elicit candid and
informative responses to answer the research questions. Indeed, spending more time in one
school with a group of 4 teachers allowed me to develop positive relationships and to better
understand the emerging K-8 TWI phenomenon as a whole.
Participants
Certain teacher characteristics have been linked to high CLAP development in TWI
schools. Teachers in language education programs, like those in mainstream classrooms, should
be certified and possess high levels of knowledge relating to the subject matter, curriculum and
technology, varied instructional strategies (i.e., cooperative learning, sheltered instruction,
differentiated instruction, and strategic teaching), and assessment, strong organizational and
communication skills, as well as an asset mindset and the ability to critically reflect on their own
teaching (Jay & Johnson, 2002). As teachers in a language education program they must also
demonstrate proficiency in both languages being taught such as English and the partner language
(Darling-Hammond, 2000; Christian, 1994; Genesee, 2004; Howard et al., 2018; Wright et al.
2015).
Based on these characteristics, four teachers were invited to participate because they were
regarded as highly effective according to their administrators. I chose to focus on exemplary
teachers for various reasons. First, there is limited research on exemplary teachers working
within TWI programs to develop biliteracy for both language-minority and language-majority
emergent bilinguals. Research indicated that many teachers educating language-minority
students possess a deficit mindset and demonstrate traditional pedagogies. Second, Maxwell
(2013) posited that exemplary teachers not only would be less defensive about discussing their
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 103
teaching, but may be even more eager than less proficient teachers to share what they know and
do.
I also purposefully invited teachers from various grade levels to better capture and
understand the ideologies and practices of a wide spectrum of teachers who were involved with
EB students from Kindergarten through Middle School. I selected teachers from Kindergarten,
1st, 4th, and 6th grades. I wanted to see whether teachers’ perceptions about challenges, needs,
strategies, as well as actual instructional practices are consistent across grade levels or change
throughout the grade levels and why that may take place. A teacher was invited to participate in
the study because she or he met all of the following criteria:
1. Bilingual (i.e., proficient in both English and the partner language).
2. Fully credentialed.
3. Regarded as an exemplary teacher by their administrators.
Data Collection
The use of a combination of interviews, observations, and didactic artifacts allows
researchers to gain a greater depth of understanding of the different aspects of the phenomena
they are interested in studying (Maxwell, 2013; Meriam, 2009). Following this logic, four TWI
teachers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview format and each was observed in
their own classroom when teaching a subject matter such as language arts, social studies, or
Math in Spanish and also in English. Classroom observations and didactic artifacts extended my
understanding of TWI pedagogy as well as triangulated with the information gained from the
interviews and students’ work. The observations allowed me to see how the participants’
espoused ideology and practices for CALP development were enacted in practice.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 104
Interviews
Qualitative interviews can help capture how participants view their world, learn about
their goals, terminology, and judgments, and shed light on the complexities of their individual
perceptions and experiences (Patton, 2002). Guided by critical and social-constructivist
worldviews, the semi-structured interview protocol (see Appendix B for the Teacher Interview
Protocol) included three sets of predetermined questions relating to the study’s research
questions. The first set of questions related to a participant’s background information. The
purpose was to understand who these teachers were in terms of their academic and professional
experience (Maxwell, 2013). The next set of interview questions were open-ended and focused
on teacher’s definitions of academic language and espoused instructional ideology. As advised
by Maxwell (2013), open-ended questions prompt a conversation-like discourse and afford more
detail about academic language development. The purpose of the last set of questions was to
link teachers’ ideology to practice; that is, to see how teachers perceived the enactment of their
role, beliefs, and pedagogies in practice. Towards the end of each interview, I asked if there was
anything we had not discussed that the teacher would have liked to added in order to help me
better understand the nature of their practice. As Patton (2002) suggested this type of question
can extend my understanding beyond my preconceived ideas.
Since I do not have first-hand experience in TWI programs and instruction, my first pilot
interview was with the school’s special education teacher who provided me with an extensive
overview of the TWI program at the school. I also asked her to suggest additional important
questions that I might have neglected in planning the interview format and questions. Her
perspective also served as another resource for understanding CALP development and for
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 105
triangulating with the data gathered from interviews with, and observations of the four classroom
teachers.
Each teacher was interviewed once prior to the classroom observation for about one hour.
Each interview was audio recorded and then transcribed for accuracy. Following each classroom
observation, a short follow-up conversation in person, by phone, or through email
correspondence took place in order to get a deeper understanding of the activities, strategies and
decision-making during the lesson as well as to learn about the teachers’ plans for the following
class to capture a holistic understanding of the teaching and learning process and intended
outcomes.
Observations
Observations are most valuable not only for confirming the data gathered from the
interviews, but also for providing divergent perspectives from the settings, behaviors, and
processes and thus creating a more complex understanding of the phenomena studied (Maxwell,
2013). Observations offer a firsthand account of the situation under study and when combined
with interviews allow for a holistic interpretation of the phenomenon being investigated
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Observations were particularly important for this study because
there is little qualitative research describing how academic language development is taught in
TWI classroom settings (Cummins, 2013).
To help close the gap in the literature, I captured the teacher’s and students’ actions and
nonverbal communication such as activities, gestures, and facial expressions, as well as
interactions and speech using my phone to transcribe what I saw and heard (see Appendix C for
the observation protocol). In order to examine whether the teachers allowed for translanguaging
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 106
or followed a language-separation approach, adhering to one language exclusively, I indicated in
my notes when the teacher or student switched to the partner language.
Each teacher was observed for at least 3 lessons where at least one was conducted in
Spanish and one conducted in English. Multiple observations of the same teacher, as opposed to
brief glimpses into various classrooms yielded rich and reliable data. The observations allowed
me to determine whether the classroom methodologies and strategies were reoccurring and
habitual practices, or perhaps enacted especially for my benefit and not representative of the
ordinary learning process that actually takes place every day. In addition, observing the same
teacher teach a lesson in English and another lesson in Spanish allowed me to see if there was a
transfer of strategies or content (Cummins 2013). During and immediately after each
observation, notes were written connecting observation data with literature related to academic
language (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Notes also highlighted instances where new insights
emerged.
Artifacts
Artifacts such as: manipulatives, books, handouts, posters on classroom walls and student
work, were also part of the data collection. These artifacts served to expend my understanding of
CALP development and were also used for data triangulation. To capture the linguistic
landscape of each class, I took photos of the classroom walls, the teacher and students’ notes on
the whiteboard with my cellphone either during or after class, depending on what seemed
appropriate at the time of the observation (See Appendix D for Classroom Photos). The detailed
verbal description of setting, people, activities, and teachers’ speech as well as photos of the
artifacts “should transport the reader to the site” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 152) as well as
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 107
allow for expected and unexpected patterns and interpretations to emerge. The reader and I can
also decipher for ourselves how teachers implemented their instructional ideology in practice.
Data Analysis
In order to understand individual perspectives and explore the various themes of a
phenomenon as a whole, Harding (2013), Lichtamn (2014), Merriam, (2009) and Patton (2002)
suggested employing Glaser and Strauss’s constant-comparative method (1967) for data analysis.
The three-step analysis starts with open coding, continues with axial coding, and ends with
selective coding. Using the constant-comparative method for a case study analysis enables
researchers to preserve the complexity of a single case while making comparisons across cases
(Lichtamn, 2014). Merriam (2009) further explained that a case study, which is an intensive
holistic description and analysis of a single bounded unit, can be analyzed in two recursive steps.
The first step is within case analysis; it is meant to create “portraits” of individual case studies (p.
234). Once completed for each case or simultaneously, researchers can engage in the second
step, which is a cross-case analysis, or synthesis for generalization purposes.
Following this process, I coded, analyzed, and summarized each interview and each
observation while trying to find emerging patterns and themes across interviews and
observations and arranged them in three themes. I also investigated the alignment between
ideologies and their enactment in practice. The first phase of the analysis involved close reading
of the first interview transcript, while consciously employing critical and socio-constructivist
lenses. I tried to stay open to the ideas and directions the data provided, mostly using
participants’ exact words for the initial empirical codes that emerged from the data themselves
(open coding). From reading the comments and the empirical names on the margins, tentative
abstract groupings of the open-code categories were derived (axial coding). Simultaneously,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 108
while conducting the subsequent interviews and observations, data was compared to the existing
literature for the overarching codes (selective codes). In other words, the ongoing interpretation
of findings across all transcripts of the interviews and observations allowed for the emergence of
recurring patterns and themes that were in alignment with constructs of the conceptual
framework (i.e., critical and social constructivist learning theory and SLA research). This
combination of a priori and empirical codes seemed the appropriate balance for analyzing and
understanding the nuances of the ideologies and practices that are associated with effective
CALP instruction.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Maxwell (2013) advised that the influence of the researcher on the individuals studied
cannot be controlled or eliminated, but rather the researcher needs to understand it, use it
productively, and take various steps to ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings.
(Maxwell, 2013). To avoid researcher bias or researcher subjectivity, I made sure to examine
each data component so not to force existing terminology and concepts to it (Maxwell, 2013).
During the open coding stage, I used the actual words of the participants rather than using my
own names or the terms offered by the literature (In-Vivo Codes) (Miles, Huberrman, & Saldaña,
2014). Moreover, in my analysis memos, I wrote my possible biases and jotted down alternative
explanations or interpretations (i.e., rival hypotheses) (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, I
counted the amount of times certain key words or phrases were mentioned throughout one’s
interview and across interviews, to see how participants choose to describe their ideology and
practices. Furthermore, participants’ responses were triangulated with other sources of data such
as observations, informal conversations, artifacts as well as the literature (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles et al., 2014). Moreover, providing sufficient and rich quotes,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 109
relevant photos, and specific events from the observations can help the readers evaluate and
decipher for themselves whether my conclusions were plausible or, conversely, allow the readers
to draw their own conclusions. The final step included a peer review of the completed draft to
ensure that the findings were plausible and indeed answered my research question (Maxwell,
2013).
Limitations
At the same time, the data collected were limited. Long-term involvement as well as
interviewing more participants (e.g., conducting more or longer observations and interviews with
teachers) would have provide a complete and in-depth understanding and, in turn, would have
afforded higher credibility and trustworthiness to my conclusions. However, I was able to reach
saturation and redundancy in order to draw trustworthy and credible conclusions.
Ethics
In order to ensure that the study was done ethically, as Glesne (2016) suggested,
participants were made aware of my role, the purpose of the research, the expected duration and
procedures of the interview and classroom observations, while emphasizing that their
involvement was voluntary and would not harm them in any way. I also tried to be a listener in a
conversational partnership without making any judgment (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Miles et al.,
2014). In addition, researchers should think about confidentiality in terms of data sharing
boundaries as well as possible ways for reciprocation (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). As suggested, I
did not share my observations about teachers with the administration or other teachers at the
school. To reciprocate, my dissertation chair and I provided professional development sessions
for the staff on a topic that was of particular interest to the school. Lastly, pseudonyms were
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 110
used to protect the confidentiality of the organization and its teachers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Miles et al., 2014).
Self-Reflexive Coda: My Interest in Bilingual Education
Growing up in Israel with deaf parents and a Jewish, yet ethnically diverse extended
family, I was exposed to multiple languages and cultures. I heard my paternal grandparents
speak Yiddish, Polish, and English while my maternal grandparents spoke Persian and Hebrew.
Although I did not become proficient in all of these languages, I became bilingual and biliterate
in Hebrew and English, and I am able to communicate in a blended mixture of Israeli and
American Sign Languages because of the need to communicate with my diverse family
members. Reflecting back on my own CALP development in Hebrew and in English, I realize
now that I have employed translaguaging as a prominent strategy when learning academic
content in English as reflected in this literature review. In fact, I still do that even now. In
essence, I believe that my fascination with language acquisition is not a mere coincidence, but
rather an inevitable manifestation inherent to who I am.
As I look back at my academic choices and professional journey, my passion and
dedication to language pedagogy have had a salient imprint throughout my life. In Israel, I
taught English as a second language. When I first arrived to the US in 1998, I became a Hebrew
teacher. Earning a B.A. in English Linguistics along with a teaching credential in TESOL
(Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) afforded me the opportunity to support my
fellow Hebrew colleagues as a K-12 Hebrew studies director, and later as an educational
consultant to schools in the Former USSR, Australia, USA, and Canada. Earning a Master’s
degree in Educational Leadership with a focused research emphasis on Russian youth
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 111
immigrants’ linguistic experiences and identities, enhanced my understanding of the importance
of languages as a powerful key to collective identity formation.
I see myself as a change agent committed to professionalizing the field of Hebrew
education in the diaspora. To that end, I currently serve as a teaching professor for Hebrew
methodology to pre-service teachers and a Hebrew consultant. I am also a co-founder of the
newly formed National Association of Hebrew Teachers (NAHET) in North America and serve
as the organization's deputy director. In recent years, I became interested in exploring ways to
contribute and extend my impact beyond the area of second language acquisition in the private
Jewish school system to support culturally and linguistically diverse learners. It is with this
passion and desire to give back to my educational community that I found myself eager to learn
from exemplary TWI teachers in the public-school system.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 112
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The first three chapters of this dissertation offered an introduction to the stated problem
of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) development for language-minority and
language-majority emergent bilinguals (EBs) learning two languages in the same classroom.
The chapters outlined the perceived gaps in CALP for all learners and especially for language-
minority EBs, reviewed the academic concerns and benefits as well as instructional practices
associated with learning in two languages for both groups of EBs in a two-way immersion (TWI)
setting, and presented the methodology plan for this study. In Chapter One, I explained the
background of the problem in order to set the context for the study. I then elaborated on the
purpose and significance of this study for CALP development in both the dominant societal
language, English, and the partner language, Spanish. The chapter concludes with limitations
and delimitations for this study.
Chapter Two provided a literature review of the academic language research from
traditional, progressive, and critical orientations and their intersection with SLA. The
overarching findings in this review of the literature stressed that much of the research on CALP
development in TWI programs has focused on students’ outcomes rather than focusing on the
processes leading to those outcomes (Kerfoot & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015; Li et al., 2016;
Makalela, 2015). Evolving from the intersection of socio-constructivism, critical theory, and
SLA research, the literature review highlighted effective mainstream and critical ambitious
ideologies and practices to promote high levels of CALP for both EBs. Such CALP pedagogy
incorporates (a) learner-centered instruction, (b) social interaction, and (c) critical social justice
orientation. At the same time, the current dual language literature provides little information
about what such instruction in TWI actually looks like; how TWI teachers perceive and engage
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 113
their emergent bilingual students in activities that support their CALP development in both first
and second languages (Kibler, et al., 2014). Furthermore, this review also pointed out two
dilemmas facing researchers and TWI teachers in the areas of language use; language separation
or translanguaging, and instruction of language form, explicit or implicit vocabulary and
grammar instruction.
Chapter Three presented the methodological design that was utilized for the study. A
qualitative approach grounded in critical socio-constructivist worldviews to collect data was used
in order to capture TWI teacher’s ideologies and practices relating to CALP development. Data
was collected from classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, and diadactic documents
from four teachers in one K-8 TWI school in Los Angeles, California. Pseudonyms for the
school site and faculty participants were created to ensure that all participants’ identities are kept
private. All findings presented sought to answer the following research question for this study:
How do teachers in one exemplary K-8 TWI school conceptualize and help all their EB students
– language-minority and language-majority – develop Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency in English as well as in Spanish in the same classroom? More to the point, to what
extent are the CALP instructional methods employed by teachers driven by critical ambitious
language pedagogy?
This chapter describes the participants and the site school and presents the findings of the
study. All four teachers taught both the English and the Spanish part of the day, incorporating
content and language goals. The observational data shared here were collected during English
and Spanish language arts blocks, social studies or math lessons conducted in Spanish to align
with the study’s purpose of capturing teachers’ perceptions and practices about the development
of CALP in two languages. The analysis will address teachers’ CALP ideology and pedagogies
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 114
and the extent to which they exhibit features of socio-constructivist, critical social justice
pedagogy, or critical ambitious language pedagogy for developing CALP in two languages.
The themes that surfaced addressed the research question, corresponded with the
literature on CALP development, and elaborated upon using supportive data and analysis.
Three overarching themes emerged when exploring the research question through interviews,
classroom observations and didactic documents: (a) teachers’ ideology and instructional
practices, (b) challenges and assumed causes, and (c) collaborative professional learning
communities. Although some findings overlapped within themes, the data were placed under the
theme where it was most prominent.
The next section presents the school site and the participants in the study. First there is a
description of the school involved. Then, an account is given about the four teachers who
participated in the research with reference to their ideology and practice as it emerged from the
interviews, classroom observations, and classroom artifacts. Teachers’ accounts are presented in
a sequential order based on the grade-levels they taught (K-1-4-6) to allow for a holistic view of
the instruction provided at XYZ school.
Sites and Participants
XYZ School
As mentioned in Chapter Three, the site selection for this study was based on a
purposeful sample whereby the school chosen had to be a two-way immersion school, show
academic improvement in core academic areas for at least two years, and be comprised of at least
30% language-minority students, and at least 50% on free or reduced lunch. The XYZ school
serves predominately Hispanic families in their local neighborhoods and also attracted families
outside their school boundaries who could enter a lottery system, and if selected, could transfer
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 115
school districts. In addition, school faculty were culturally diverse and had varied years of
professional training and experience in working with emergent bilinguals. The majority of
teachers provide instruction in both English and Spanish. On occasion a strong monolingual
teacher will teach in one language and be partnered with another teacher, in the same grade level,
to provide instruction in the other language. This can only occur in the upper grades where the
percentages of language instruction are more balanced (e.g. 60/40 or 50/50). Elementary school
teachers teach the same group of kids 90% of the day in Spanish, and 10%, about 30 minutes of
their time, is spent teaching English language arts to another group of kids. Middle school (MS)
teachers teach the same group of students in at least two subjects. For example, students
typically have one teacher for Spanish, English language arts, and history, and another teacher
for math and science. This allows middle school teachers to create interdisciplinary connections
required by Common Core standards, and is a cornerstone of the XYZ philosophy (XYZ School
Renewal Submission report October 2015).
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and XYZ School in particular, are
reflective of the surge in the Hispanic and EB population in California (CDE, 2015). There have
been systematic increases in the percentage of Hispanic students and a fairly high percentage of
economically disadvantaged, and EB students in the district; XYZ School has a greater
representation in most of these four groups than the state has as a whole, as can be seen in Table
4.1. At the time of the study, XYZ School served a total of 400 students from Transitional
Kindergarten through eighth-grade, drawing from over 80 different neighborhood schools. To
accommodate for the growing student population, the MS moved to a new campus starting in the
2017-2018 academic year. The school is expected to reach 400 students in the ES division and
250 students in the MS division by 2020 (personal communication, principal).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 116
Table 4.1
California, District, & XYZ School K-8 Student Demographics
California Los Angeles District XYZ School
% Ethnic-Minority 75 91 78
% Hispanic 53 74 82
% Emergent
Bilinguals
23 27 32
% Disadvantaged
(Free/Reduced Lunch)
59 77 57
Source: CDE Ed-Data Website (2015-16)
As of the 2015-2016 academic year, 23% of the students’ population are Euro-American
and 78% are ethnic minority students: 82% Hispanic, 8% African American, 4% Asian
American, and 2% of two or more races or ethnicities. In addition, 57% are economically
disadvantaged and 32% were EBs; there is considerable overlap in these populations, with 41%
of students meeting all three of these demographic conditions, and 62% meeting at least two of
these characteristics. The average student at XYZ School is Hispanic and EB or Hispanic and
economically disadvantaged. Furthermore, close to half (47%) of the students entered school as
EB. Close to a third (34%) of the entering EBs were reclassified fluent English proficient
(RFEP) students. As for special education, XYZ School has seen recent increases in percentages
of students in special education. For several years the school averaged 10% of students who
were special education with an increase in 2011-2012 to 13%, and up to 15% in 2014-2015. In
addition, XYZ school has been identified by CCSA as falling in the top 2% of charter schools in
closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities (XYZ School Renewal Submission
report October 2015).
According to a comprehensive 2014-2015 LAUSD Charter Renewal Evaluation report on
XYZ students’ outcomes, by the time students leave XYZ School in 8
th
grade, their skills are
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 117
comparable in English to those of their peers in the English mainstream schools, and they
achieve close to grade level in Spanish as well. Furthermore, by grades four through eight, 69-
76% were proficient in English; that is, they had been classified as R-FEP or they were at early
advanced or advanced on the CELDT. They also closed the achievement gap with native English
speakers in the district in both reading and math as measured by the CELDT, CST, STS,
DRA/EDL, and MAP.
XYZ Teachers
Key participants in this study were four K-6 teachers. A careful description of the
teachers’ profiles as they emerged from the interviews offers important contextual understanding
of the ways they conceptualized bilingualism and the kind of CALP instruction they
implemented in their classrooms. Table 4.2 presents an overview of their profiles. All teachers
were certified and three took one or two classes specifically on bilingual education. Three of the
four teachers were elementary school (ES) teachers: Maria was the Kindergarten teacher, Lucia
was the first grade teacher, Sofia taught

fourth grade, and Jenny was the middle school (MS)
teacher for Grade 6 students (all names are pseudonyms).
The ES teachers’ teaching experience in dual immersion programs ranged from 12 years
to 22 years and the middle school teacher had taught two years at XYZ out of four years of
experience teaching in this type of setting. All four teachers were bilingual in Spanish and
English. The three ES teachers spoke Spanish as their first language, whereas English was the
dominant language for the MS teacher. They all saw themselves serving as models of bilinguals
to their students. They were all regarded by their administration as exemplary teachers despite
the range in their years of teaching experience.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 118
Table 4.2
XYZ Teachers’ Profiles
Teach
ers

Years
teach
ing
L1 Gr Ideology Based
on Interview
Instructional
Approach
Based on
Observations
Additional Relevant
Information
1.
Maria

16 Spanish K Critical socio-
constructivism
Mainstream
socio-
constructivism;
Emerging CALP
for CALP

2.
Lucia

22 Spanish 1 Critical socio-
constructivism
Apparent
CALP for CALP
Reminds students to
speak in Spanish.
Most students do.
3.
Sofia

12 Spanish 4 Equality
Socio-
constructivist
“socially just”
Multicultural
tolerance /
acceptance
compassionate
humanistic.
Mainstream
socio-
constructivism;
Emerging CALP
for CALP

New to the school.
Taught English in Dubai
and Brazil in multilingual
private schools. In SF and
NY similar TWI in
Grades 1-4.
Mom: Bolivian
Dad: Irish-American
Grew up in Bolivia.
Studied at an
international American
school.
4.
Jenny

4 English
But
learned
S. at
age 13
immigr
ant in
Spain
6 Multicultural
Critical and
socio-
constructivism
= Critical
Ambitious
Pedagogy

Mainstream/
Critical socio-
constructivism;
Emerging-
Apparent
CALP for CALP

Multilingual.
Taught English in Spain
for 2 years.
Credential in FL+ general
teaching credential in US.
Researcher in
intercultural and
multilingual education.
Grew up in Britain,
Canada and Spain.
Students speak in English
in Spanish blocks.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 119
I now turn to examine teachers’ ideologies and practices for developing CALP in two
languages. The data revealed that all teachers in this study viewed bilingualism as an asset. One
teachers possessed a “mainstream” or equality ideology while three teachers demonstrated
critical or equity social-constructivist worldviews in educating both groups of EBs. A closer
look revealed that teachers’ pedagogy for developing CALP mainly incorporated features of
explicit instruction and mainstream socio-constructivism with some instances of critical social
justice pedagogy.
Theme One: Ideology and Practice, Is it Critical Ambitious CALP Pedagogy?
Actions reveal a commitment to one’s ideology (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) and a
teacher’s ideology surfaces through classroom activities and interactions (Horn, et al., 2015).
The first theme addresses ideologies and practices related to CALP development as perceived
and enacted by the four exemplary XYZ teachers using a case study approach. For this study,
TWI teacher’s ideology refers to the perspectives, viewpoints, or positions that drive teachers’
knowledge and pedagogies to develop CALP for EBs in TWI settings. More specifically, a TWI
teacher’s ideology includes the value they place on their language-minority and majority EBs’
everyday experiences, linguistic and cultural background knowledge, and linguistic and
academic abilities. In the analysis of the findings, I attempted to decipher whether the teacher
ideology reflected an equality or equity mindset. The second construct is practice. By practice, I
refer to the actual instructional actions that include both talk and moves that can be heard and
seen (respectfully), from classroom observations and reflective accounts from the interview that
specifically address instructional strategies for developing CALP.
Each case study begins with relevant background information about the teacher and then
captures representative and significant thoughts and instructional events of each of the four
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 120
teachers related to supporting their EBs CALP development in English and in Spanish. The rich
and elaborate interview excerpts and instructional segments (i.e., a description of what occurred
and said during a typical instructional exchange) are aimed at supporting the analysis and
allowing the readers to decipher for themselves the plausibility of the suggested interpretation.
The descriptions highlight the most persistent features to instantiate how CALP development
was perceived and implemented in Kindergarten, first grade, fourth grade, and

sixth grade
classrooms. The analysis will address teachers’ CALP ideologies and pedagogies, and the extent
to which they exhibit features of socio-constructivist, critical social justice pedagogy, or critical
ambitious pedagogy. The analysis will also address the limitations, missed, or potential
opportunities for EBs’ CALP development in either Spanish or English. I now present each
teacher’s individual case starting from starting from Kindergarten through first grade, and fourth
grade through sixth grade.
Teacher #1: Maria, Kindergarten
Maria’s educational ideology was driven by a critical social justice orientation. She
possessed asset thinking and a growth mindset; she valued her students’ diverse linguistic and
cultural funds of knowledge and lived experiences. However, she explicitly announced that she
follows a socio-constructivist approach to developing her Kindergarteners’ CALP in Spanish and
her reported, as well as enactment of practice revealed her mainstream socio-constructivist
pedagogy. I concluded, therefore, that Maria’s instruction was an early or “emerging” form of
critical ambitious language pedagogy for developing CALP.
Background. Despite her academic background in and passion for child psychology,
and her desire to become a family therapist, Maria decided 20 years ago to change her career
path and pursue a career in teaching. Serving as an assistant teacher at XYZ and witnessing the
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 121
value of learning, and becoming bilingual and biliterate convinced her to become a teacher,
particularly in a TWI school.
Ideology. At XYZ Maria saw herself as “planting a seed for them. Kindergarten, first
grade, hopefully they're going to take into the world and become the leaders that will change the
future.”
Asset and growth mindsets. Throughout the interview, she conveyed asset thinking and a
growth mindset when it concerned her students’ intelligence and capabilities: “their brains are
just so flexible.” She believed that all her students, whether language-minority or language-
majority, were capable of growth and success at their own pace:
…a full range. We have kids who really understand and kids who are still developing for
one reason or another… a lot of times I am pleasantly surprised that someone would
choose to do it [write a hypothesis] on their own and they do. So I really don't like to
underestimate them. Because kids are amazing and they surprise you all the time.
Funds of knowledge. Moreover, she stated that every student brought cultural and
linguistic funds of knowledge and everyday experiences, albeit different, to class. She
recognized that some native Spanish speaking students may lack the academic and cultural funds
of knowledge of the white middle-class society. Yet, she did not think that language-minority
students were less capable than their native English peers. She stated:
Every child has different background knowledge. So, the more background knowledge
they have, the more they understand. The more life experiences they've had, the easier it
is for them to understand things and even know what things are. Some kids might not
know some of the academic language that we're using simply because they haven't been
exposed to a lot. So, every child is in their own little world of experiences already, and
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 122
every child understands according to their level… And a lot of it has to do about how
much parents have done with them. A child who's been read to a lot, has a lot of easier
time understanding and just learning in school than a child who has not been exposed to
much. Then a lot of things are new for them. Everything becomes important.
Equality constructivist ideology. While Maria’s stated goal for her EBs and recognition
of her students’ diverse funds of knowledge denoted a key aspect of critical ideology, when
asked how XYZ school was different than the public school where she first worked 20 years
before, Maria’s reply revealed a different ideology. Her response, while rejecting the traditional
non-exciting, banking approach, illustrated that the school’s educational orientation as well as
hers were mainstream constructivist rather than driven by critical worldviews:
Well, mainly the language... be bilingual… that is the most important thing, but in
addition to that the way we teach is different. We are very constructivist, we do hands-
on. We teach to a higher level. We differentiate for the kids. So, I think that in general
just makes us very different than public school where everything is following a guide and
very regimented. We have freedom to be creative here and to develop, we've developed a
curriculum following the standards.
Mainstream socio-constructivist orientation emerged not only because Maria explicitly named it
in the above excerpt, but also because of the absence of any implicit or explicit reference to
critical aspects of social justice pedagogy throughout the interview and later in her classroom
practice. Consider, for example, Maria’s report of a typical Kindergarten science class
conducted in Spanish:
We did an experiment on how animals keep themselves warm in the arctic. So we go
through the whole process of putting their hands in ice, how does it feel? We do
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 123
everything hands-on. And then we go and write about it. So we go through the whole
process, hypothesis, what do you think would happen? And using that vocabulary:
“hypothesis,” “materials,” “procedure,” and then “conclusion.” And we go through the
whole process and we do it together. So everything is charted, charted. This is kinder.
The above excerpt highlights one of the hallmarks of CALP development drawn from
constructivism, that is, teaching abstract academic vocabulary and concepts through experiential
inquiry-based learning that is relevant to students lives (Ellis, 2008). Yet this inquiry is not
considered critical as she failed to draw from students’ funds of knowledge and past experiences.
Critical inquiry in this instructional instance can involve asking students to share if they had
visited other places or countries where the weather there was cold like in the artic, or try to
engage them in a discussion about when and why in their lives it might be important or
challenging for them, or other people to stay warm in the winter.
Learner-centered instruction. Another major characteristic of constructivism is flexible
and individualized instruction. Being responsive to each individual child’s CALP learning
process while also being attentive to their current situational mindsets, readiness, and emotional
needs was reflected in the seemingly unimportant choices Maria deliberately offered her students
as they developed their academic writing skills:
We teach every child at their level… If you see here [shows me two students’ writing
products], so for this child, I give them a choice. “What kind of paper do you want?”
Even that. This child [student A] chose this paper. Actually, it was a little longer, I just
cut it down…This child [student B] chose the longer paper because she knows that she's
going to need more room. And she happened to need some more… And sometimes they
surprise you. This child who you might think is not going to write a lot today, he writes a
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 124
whole beautiful thing and you’re like, "Oh wow." So, I try not to tell them, but “choose
for yourself what paper that you need today,” because I don't want to limit…So they
surprise you, the kids always surprise you by what they do.
This excerpt reflects Maria’s growth mindset and reaffirms her earlier assertion that children’s
capabilities are ever-changing rather than fixed. It also demonstrates Maria’s efforts to engage
her students in metacognition awareness of their own learning.
Metacognitive strategies. Another example of such metacognitive efforts is when Maria
encouraged her students to self-assess their readiness level and self-select their own groupings:
"If you think you can write your hypothesis on your own, go work on your own. If you
need more guidance, more support, stay with me and we will do it together." And the kids
are pretty good about assessing…. And sometimes I see someone get up that I think
might need to stay, and I just keep an eye on them. If they really can't do it and just got
up and I say, "Okay, please come back." And someone who might have stayed, but they
can, and I'm like, "Can you try it?" And they go…So it's always kind of like what they
want but at the same time I don't just disregard that they might have made the wrong
choice. But a lot of times I am pleasantly surprised that someone would choose to do it
on their own and they do. So I really don't like to underestimate them. Because kids are
amazing and they surprise you all the time.
Constructivism underscores the learners’ need to develop an awareness and control of their own
cognitive learning processes (Baker, 2006). Metacognition, in the context of CALP
development, refers to knowledge about one's thinking and awareness of one's own beliefs about
learning CALP in L2, bilingual strategies, capacities, limitations, and awareness of difficulties
when they appear during learning content and language in L2 (Cummins, 2013). Numerous
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 125
elements of the above mainstream socio-constructivist strategies for developing EBs Spanish
CALP manifested in a typical enactment of instruction.
Practice. While Maria’s educational ideology was driven by a critical social justice
orientation, her commitment to promoting their Spanish CALP from a critical orientation seemed
passive. The strategies she described in her interview, as well as their enactment in practice,
illustrated a combination of direct explicit instruction reflecting traditional pedagogy as well as
social and learner-centered strategies driven by mainstream socio-constructivist pedagogy.
Rather than presenting and analyzing separate features of Maria’s enactment of her perceptions
and goals in practice, I chose a typical instructional interaction that emerged from observing
Maria for a full school day.
The instructional event. The following hour-long Spanish language arts lesson provided
a “more carefully detailed archaeology” of CALP practices in TWI classrooms, “one that mines
both the cognitive processes and the cultural practices that mediate those processes” (Moje,
2007, p. 35). Furthermore, this account also pointed out two dilemmas facing the current field
of second language acquisition research and instruction in the areas of language use (language
separation versus translanguaging) and instruction focused on form.
Activity one. After welcoming the kids into the classroom in Spanish, Maria begins with a
review activity of the Spanish alphabet and vocabulary in a systematic way: naming the letter in
Spanish, sounding it out, and chanting a short rhyme that begins with that letter. For example,
“pato sapato” (“duck shoe” in English) for the letter P. One student, an English native speaker,
stands in front of the class next to the teacher and accompanies the chants with funny yet
matching gestures. Maria prompts her students to repeat the rhyme several times as a whole
class (“todos”/everyone). Some students also mimic the girl’s gestures while chanting. Next,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 126
students share other examples of small and tall animals, first in English and then they try with the
help of their peers to name the animal in Spanish. Throughout this instructional event, Maria
provides constant positive feedback (e.g. “muy bien”/ very good), as well as academic feedback
all while speaking Spanish. For example, when a student says that “flor” sounded like “flower”
in English, Maria acknowledges the meta-cognitive linguistic comparison with a “muy buena
conexión” (very good connection). Following the oral activity, Maria transitioned to practicing
students’ writing skills.
Activity two. To make the vocabulary words they are about to write: flor, gato, araña,
oruga (flower, cat, spider, caterpillar) comprehensible, Maria draws sketches of their images on
the whiteboard. She then encourages her students to help her spell out the words. To scaffold
the writing assignment, Maria adds blank lines that correspond with the number of letters in the
word under each sketch and also directs students to a colorful huge poster with similar images
and corresponding written words. At this time, Maria asks a native Spanish speaker to explain
the directions in English to the class. After completing the spelling, Maria asks her students to
help come up with a sentence and write it. (e.g., “jiji va a la escuela”). Students spell the letters
out loud and Maria writes them on the board. Once completed, Maria underlines the syllables
and asks the class to sound them out. In the next activity, students name a body part of the
animals and Maria writes the corresponding word next to it (e.g., cabeza/head, ojos/eyes).
Activity three. Following the 30-minute guided practice and modeling of expectations,
Maria explained the independent activity in Spanish. She asks her students to draw their favorite
animal and name its body parts in writing using the help of the various colorful word charts on
the wall, and their peers. Prior to transitioning from the rug to their desks which were arranged
in clusters, the teacher assistant translates Maria’s directions into English. During the
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 127
independent work time, some students walk up to the charts on the classroom walls searching for
spellings or names of certain body parts. Some students sound out the spellings and words to
themselves. Maria circulates around the room offering support and feedback “Muy bien
palabras,” and handouts which are blue tickets for a job well done. She asks individual students
to share their drawing and writing with her. To alert students to finish their activity, Maria calls
out: “dos minutos para limpiar” (two minutes clean up). She then gives instruction in Spanish
followed by the TA’s translation.
Activity four. Students transition back to the rug and Ofelia presents her drawing and
words. Maria encourages her students to: “aplaude por Ofelia (clap for Ofelia).” Kids
immediately understand and respond with clapping. Next, a Spanish speaking boy comes up and
describes his drawings using complete sentences. Maria asks kids to repeat certain keywords.
Another English-speaking girl shares her drawing using words. Hands shoot up with excitement
and eagerness to share. Maria calms the students down and reassures them that they would have
additional opportunities to share later in the afternoon.
Analysis of the instructional event. The above instructional event captures a number of
strategies typical to instructional models based on traditional teacher-centered, as well as the 13
CALP elements featuring the socio-constructivist perspective, such as sheltered instruction and
project GLAD (guided language acquisition design). Traditional teacher-centered strategies
evident in Maria’s teaching included choral repetition, focus on pronunciation, and whole group
discussion that focused on basic knowledge and recall. Learner-centered pedagogy advocates for
a classroom setting, similar to the one exhibited in the instructional account above, that offers
reciprocal interactive exchange and includes various activities as alternatives to the traditional
transmission in a teacher-centered approach. Sheltered techniques include using visual aids such
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 128
as pictures, vocabulary charts, graphs, and semantic mapping. Modeling instruction allows
students to negotiate meaning and make connections between course content and prior
knowledge; which allows students to act as mediators and facilitators. Teachers use alternative
assessments, such as portfolios, to check comprehension. Providing comprehensible speech,
scaffolding, sentence starters, and supplemental materials using a wide range of presentation
strategies and integration of skills are all part of the above mentioned sheltered techniques
(Nelson, 2015). Indeed, in her interview Maria mentioned that:
I was lucky to be sent to training, GLAD and GLAD strategies. We apply them, we have
so many strategies but there's names for them, or people have different names for them.
I'm like "I'm already doing that." So it just kind of reinforced what I was doing… I love
it [GLAD] because of the different ways of enriching the language and using vocabulary.
So through pictorials, they love them and we can organize that information and focus and
repeat and the kids are really engaged, they really enjoy that.
Grouping. When I asked Maria after the lesson about her pairing and grouping practices,
she explained that in her class of 26 Kindergartners, she intentionally leveraged her 12 native
speakers of Spanish linguistic knowledge. She made sure to have at least one native Spanish
speaker in every pair or group. She regarded her students as valuable peer models for language
input and output. Peer support was mainly focused on how to say or write a certain word in
Spanish. This practice, as well as asking a native Spanish speaker to explain instructions to the
whole class, manifested a substantive aspect of critical pedagogy of building on, and leveraging
language-minority EBs’ linguistic funds of knowledge (Au, 1998; Paris, 2012).
Interaction and output. An additional important aspect of socio-constructivist CALP
instruction that aims to develop CALP, particularly in a new language, revolves around
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 129
providing multiple and varied opportunities for output through reciprocal and meaningful
interaction between teacher and students and among students themselves (Swain, 2005; Teemant
et al., 2005). Maria’s instructional account above demonstrated positive interaction between
teacher and students, as well as an opportunity towards the end of the lesson for three students to
share their drawings orally. However, the goal is not just to lower students’ anxiety or make
learning fun, interesting, and engaging (“So through pictorials, they love them and we can
organize that information and focus and repeat and the kids are really engaged, they really enjoy
that.”). Rather, these are some of the essential conditions to facilitate the important goal of
developing EBs’ CALP in Spanish.
To afford all her 26 students the opportunity to interact and produce oral output (not just
auditory and written Spanish CALP), and in turn, develop their oral CALP, Maria could have
encouraged her students to describe their drawing to their partner and then within the small
group. By interacting among peers from culturally diverse backgrounds, Maria’s students not
only build on the Spanish CALP and content knowledge they already know and are in the
process of acquiring, but also become aware of the various ways of seeing the world around
them (Choudhury & Share, 2014). Furthermore, the critical universal design for learning (UDL)
framework adds that interaction and communication should extend beyond teacher and peers
(Lucas et al., 2008; Pliner & Johnson, 2010). However, her instruction and interview did not
allude to any such interactions with other native Spanish speakers in XYZ school, or with the
out-of-school community.
Language use. A salient and controversial aspect of CALP emerged from the classroom
observation – language use. The language use, which manifested in this account, provided a rich
and nuanced understanding of the tension between the prevalent language-separation approach,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 130
and the emerging translanguaging pedagogy for developing CALP in a TWI educational setting.
Although sheltered instructional models (e.g., GLAD) that guided XYZ school’s language policy
underscore adherence to a monolingual lesson delivery, during the first semester of Kindergarten
year, translanguaging was officially and deliberately implemented as a strategy.
Translanguaging was regarded as a natural developmental phase in the process of acquiring a
new language. As demonstrated in the instructional event and later explained to me by Maria, an
English-speaking TA was assigned to every Kindergarten classroom for the duration of the first
semester and the native Spanish speaking students’ linguistic knowledge was leveraged to
translate some of the complex multistep activities to the whole class.
This practice of translation stands in contrast to the language-separation approach and to
Krashen’s comprehensible input approach where input should be made comprehensible through
gestures and visuals while remaining in the target language. As Maria later shared with me, the
idea behind the school’s decision to have simultaneous translation was twofold. The first and
most important purpose was to reduce language-majority EBs’ anxiety when encountering
Spanish CALP for the first time, due to their limited conversational Spanish, let alone abstract
academic language. Making Spanish CALP understandable through translation, in turn, ensured
an inclusive learning environment.
To further ensure inclusivity, students’ use of English during lessons conducted in
Spanish was also accepted:
In kindergarten, we really just want them to express ideas because I also want to make
sure are they understand me, 'cause if they're able to answer, then okay they understand
what I'm saying but it's just taking them time to express it. So they will say it in English,
I'll repeat it in Spanish, then I'll break it down, have them repeat it in Spanish.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 131
Krashen (1984) in his natural hypothesis for SLA posited that responding in the native language
is developmentally appropriate, and is considered the first stage in the language acquisition
process (i.e., the silent phase). The silent period, or preproduction, is a stage in
second language acquisition where learners do not attempt to speak, or in Maria’s case, respond
in their native language, English.
The second reason, while at first may seem to stem from translanguaging ideology, in
actuality reflected adherence to the monolingual lesson delivery policy. Maria explained that it
was important for the kids to think that she could only speak and thus understand Spanish to
guarantee that students made continuous effort to communicate with her only in Spanish. She
added that to ensure that her students only associate Spanish with her:
They go to another teacher [for the 10% of English instruction] because we want to keep
the language pure and for them to see us and be... we should be the cue that it's Spanish
time. When we do English, they physically go to another room and do English time in
another room. So that they have a different environment.
In essence, this support mechanism of translation is not a sign of the new emerging critical socio-
linguistic strategy of translanguaging that advances the idea that educators work to develop a
third space in which students' primary discourses and students' secondary discourses intersect to
form this third space, where primary and secondary discourses are merged (Esquinca et al., 2014;
Kerfoot, & Simon-Vandenbergen, 2015; Makalela, 2015). Rather, translanguaging at XYZ
appeared to be a means to maintain the two languages apart in order to immerse and eventually
assimilate EBs into Spanish. Some studies show that such language purity orientation actually
has an adverse effect on language maintenance in some Native American communities (personal
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 132
communication with Dr. Moore, 2018). This language separation approach is further enforced in
the second semester of Kindergarten.
To encourage her young learners to move onto the next developmental language
acquisition phase, Maria seemed less welcoming of translanguaging as a strategy for developing
her EBs’ Spanish CALP. Maria shared that according to the school’s policy, around January
teachers start to deliberately shift their students’ language use to follow the monolingual
language approach; English use during classes conducted in Spanish was purposefully pushed
away:
Sometimes I'll say something basic that I know that we've taught and really repeated and
I'm like "No, by now you should know how to say this [in Spanish], try. Okay, go ask a
friend." And they'll ask a friend and then they come and tell me, and I'm like "Okay."
Yeah, because in the beginning there's a lot of support in that, but at a certain point at the
end of the school year it's like "No, you should know."
While the above instructional excerpts reveal features of critical language use, the analysis of the
reflective interview after the lesson in actuality revealed a strong adherence to the language
separation approach.
Instruction focused on form and meta-linguistic strategies. Another salient and
controversial aspect of CALP emerged from the classroom observation: instruction focused on
form. The instructional segment reflected the ideology of the natural approach to second
language acquisition advocated by Krashen (1984), as well as a main feature of Cognitive
Learning Theory (Anderson, 1983). According to Krashen (1984), grammar should not be
taught formally as young speakers of a language do not learn to speak the language through
rules, but rather from natural comprehensible speech. While Maria agreed with this approach,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 133
Maria clarified that, “But we teach patterns of how to structure a sentence. So we don't
necessarily break it down into these other rules.” This meta-linguistic strategy is also supported
by Swain (2005) who argued that teachers need to build academic language systematically
especially for developing CALP for EBs and that grammar should not be taught in isolation from
content.
Summary and discussion. In sum, when examining closely Maria’s ideology and
practice for developing her emergent bilinguals’ CALP in Spanish, a tension between her
ideology and practice emerged. It was apparent, on the one hand, that her educational ideology
was driven by critical social justice orientation. She possessed asset thinking and a growth
mindset; she valued her students’ diverse linguistic and cultural funds of knowledge and lived
experiences. On the other hand, her commitment to promoting their Spanish CALP from a
critical orientation seemed passive. The strategies she described in her interview, as well as their
enactment in practice illustrated a combination of direct explicit instruction stemming from
traditional ideology as well as social and learner-centered strategies driven by mainstream socio-
constructivist pedagogy.
Perhaps the absence of the features of critical pedagogy was due to a lack of exposure to
critical pedagogy and how it could manifest in educating young EBs. I have suggested some
practical ideas on how to extend the CALP instruction to include CALP strategies driven from a
critical perspective. Alternately, perhaps Maria conceptualized her instruction as critical,
similarly to a fourth grade teacher in Naraian’s (2016) study who explicitly shared that “the
biggest way you can promote social justice is that you teach somebody how to read and write”
(p. 2). Naraian (2016) argued that this type of eclectic approach is a form of inclusive equitable
pedagogy.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 134
Indeed, in recent years, some scholars working toward equitable bilingual education have
begun to acknowledge that explicit instruction, constructivist pedagogy, and critical need not be
mutually exclusive and that each can benefit a range of learners (Luke, 2012; Moje, 2007;
Naraian, 2016). Therefore, despite the absence of explicit critical CALP strategies, and due to
Maria’s critical orientation, her focus on learners’ voice, communication, and systematic
approach to developing their Spanish CALP, it could be argued that Maria’s instruction was an
early or “emerging” form of critical ambitious language pedagogy for developing CALP.
Cadiero-Kaplan (2004) posited that this type of CALP instruction has the potential for social
empowerment.
Teacher #2: Lucia, 1
st
Grade
Lucia added a step beyond Maria. She connected her critical and socio-constructivist
ideologies with her practice, resulting in what I call apparent critical ambitious language
pedagogy for CALP development. She also exhibited asset thinking and growth mindset when
addressing issues related to developing CALP for her EBs in both languages.
Background. Lucia was born in the U.S. to Spanish speaking parents. She attributed her
conversational English proficiency or English basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS)
to her Korean neighbors and her cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in English to
her beloved 1
st
grade ESL pull-out teacher, Ms. Robinson and other ESL teachers who valued
her native language. Valuing bilingualism and multiculturalism, Lucia taught at LAUSD as a
support teacher in English and Spanish for first grade native Spanish speakers. After
volunteering at XYZ as a parent and “falling in love with the school,” she was offered a teaching
position at the school and she has been at XYZ “ever since and I think it was just fate.”
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 135
Ideology. Lucia’s ideological identification encompassed two frames of mind. She was
driven by an equality framework that promotes multilingualism and multiculturalism as well as
by the critical orientation that promotes equity of outcomes. These two ideologies coexisted yet
the equity ideology seemed to be more dominant as a whole.
Equality and equity mindsets. When I asked her about her view on the importance of
being bilingual and biliterate, she replied:
It's valuing my language; you should value my language. I don't want children to feel
that way [that their language is not important] and I want them to see the love for another
language, it doesn't matter what language. I think the more you know, the better you are
in the world. Open the doors to different opportunities, that's why I say "Girls [her two
daughters] you can do so many things knowing a different language. If you can learn
another one, great.”
The above excerpt reveals Lucia’s views about the value of knowing a language other than
English. Her values alluded to the equity critical ideology of maintaining your native language
(“you should value my language”). However, the equality discourse of inclusivity of linguistic
and cultural diversity (Bensimon, 2005) seemed more dominant (“it doesn't matter what
language. I think the more you know…”). This ideological duality appeared to be consistent
when addressing her goals for her 1
st
graders:
So to me that opens so many opportunities and not only that, but also learning from other
cultures. There's so much to learn even from Spanish speaking countries you learn
because we're not all the same. To me I want the children to love the language, embrace
the language, to cultivate it, to do something with it productive. Apply it, be mindful and
respectful of other cultures, other ideas. That's why I like it here, we have kids from
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 136
everywhere, mixed children of every races and to really look at that, that we're all
different.
In the above excerpt, Lucia used words and phrases such as: “love”, “embrace”, “respectful of
other cultures, other ideas,” and “kids from everywhere, mixed children of every races and to
really look at that, that we're all different.” These quotes signal ideological identification with an
equality framework that promotes multilingualism and multiculturalism.
At the same time, Lucia’s goals for her 1
st
graders were not only driven by equality and
celebration of diversity, but also from a critical orientation that promotes equity of outcomes.
Her goal for her 1
st
grades CALP development was for them to become doctors, lawyers, and the
country’s presidents:
Well my little ones, I want them to learn to read right. Apply what we're learning, to be
able to love learning and not "Why school? Why do we come to school, why is that
important?" And to see that they have a place in the world, they have a responsibility… I
want them to understand that. My goal for them is know that they play a role versus not
someone that's here, it's they have a purpose and whatever that purpose is gonna be, that
they can, even with difficulties that come, they can persevere and know they can do that.
So that's why I tell them, "You're gonna take care of me when I'm old." Or "If you
become a doctor and I get sick I can go to you. If I need a lawyer. Maybe you'll be the
next president."
Funds of knowledge. Lucia viewed high levels of English and Spanish CALP not only
as cultural assets from an equality mindset, but also regarded them as cognitive academic assets
that promote equity: “if you have a very strong base, in either language, you are going to be able
to transfer that to the other language. Her equity mindset also emerged when I asked her about
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 137
grouping practice: “But it doesn't matter the language… I could also have a native Spanish
speaker and an English only speaker in a high group.” This excerpt described Lucia’s opposite
thinking to the prevalent deficit grouping and tracking practices described in the literature
(Carter & Welner, 2013; Johnson, 2006; Pekel, 2016; Tate, 2008). Furthermore, Lucia’s remark
about the benefits of linguistic transfer across languages to her students CALP development
exhibited not only her asset thinking but also her knowledge about the positive benefits of
exposure to, and use of, two languages during the early developmental years as confirmed in
extensive empirical research (Cummins, 1981; 2000; 2013).
Critical growth mindset. Similarly, to Maria, Lucia also demonstrated a growth mindset
about her student: “even the child that struggles, there's a little growth. There's always growth.”
Lucia took an added step; she posited that in addition to the importance of teachers possessing a
growth mindset, a teacher’s responsibility was also to help their students, as well as their parents
obtain a growth mindset. According to Lucia, teaching CALP included helping students change
their own mindsets and perceptions about themselves and their abilities as learners; “I've had
students that have been very reluctant to learn another language… ‘Well I'm not gonna learn it
because I don't want to learn it, it's hard for me.’ And it's how to take them away from that
mentality.” Ambrose et al. (2010) suggested that effective teachers help learners adjust their
own beliefs about intelligence, capabilities, and learning.
Her growth mindset continued to surface in the next excerpts when we talked about
grading practices and assigning students a numeric score ranging from one through four to
represent their academic knowledge and abilities on a report card. Lucia shared that during a
parent-teacher conference, she tried to redirect parents’ attention to their child’s individual
progress rather than on the numerical outcomes; she wanted parents to see their own children as
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 138
capable of growing academically rather than from a deficit and fixed mindset. To do that she
repeatedly used key words and phrases that alluded to the possibility of change, process, and
movement: “they're moving towards meeting the goal or the standard,” “they're progressing,”
“weren’t really there yet,” “maybe they're not yet here, but look from where they were in the
beginning to now,” “but look when they started, and look at now, so let’s look at that,” and “but
look at how they're performing with what they are learning.” Lucia’s word choice or discursive
language (Gee, 2001) illuminated the importance she placed on helping parents develop a growth
mindset.
She also owned the responsibility for students not meeting the expectation yet: “they still
need that support” and “with standardized testing, unfortunately they start in third grade and
haven't really had formal, formal English instruction.” Rather than placing the sole
responsibility or blame on the students or other adults or using deficit discourse (e.g., they don’t
know), she acknowledges that their low outcomes on standardized testing stems from a lack of
exposure to English CALP and formal instruction. In conclusion, the quotes thus far, and the
asset thinking that emerged from them, stand in stark contrast to the prevalent deficit thinking
about language-minority EBs’ linguistic assets and abilities described in the literature concerning
language-minority EBs in monolingual schools (Carter & Welner, 2013; Johnson, 2006; Pekel,
2016; Tate, 2008).
Grouping, inquiry-based learning and integration of skills. When I asked her how she
helped her students develop their CALP, Lucia referred to her students’ socio-emotional and
psychological readiness which are features of socio-constructivist ideology:
The pressure to get them ready. I mean it's sad that kinder's now more academic because
some students still need that social interaction to play…So we try, we really do, to
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 139
incorporate math and manipulation, they love that. The science exploration with writing,
even in kinder we do the how to. How to in steps, so we cook, we do fruit salad, a
vegetable soup… So they can get that hands-on experience to then be able to express it.
'Cause I think also with that they need to experience something to be able to talk about it.
As evident from the above passage, Lucia, similar to Maria, employed an inquiry-based
experiential learning for CALP development in the target language, as well as an integration of
skills (ACTFL, 2012).
Critical interaction. Unlike Maria though, Lucia’s espoused practice deliberately drew
from critical ideology. When she spoke about instilling a responsibility for their community in
her students’, she provided a specific example of what that looked like in practice within the
context of her young learners: “We start with first graders, we look at their community and the
role they play in their community. I want them to understand that they have a responsibility.”
This combination of learner-centered and critical pedagogy, that is, critical ambitious CALP
instruction, was also evident in her instruction in practice.
Practice. While Lucia’s ideology and espoused practices draw from a critical ideology,
her commitment to critical CALP pedagogy, however, was more evident in the academic lessons
that were conducted in Spanish. The strategies she described in her interview, as well as their
enactment in practice in the math, language arts, and social studies classes conducted in Spanish
illustrated a synthesis of the 13 elements of CALP instruction driven by critical as well as socio-
constructivist pedagogy. At the same time, the English language arts class seemed to encompass
elements of mainstream or equality socio-constructivist pedagogy.
Observing Lucia teach her first graders math, language arts, and social studies delivered
in Spanish, as well as one English language arts class, with another group of first graders, for an
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 140
entire school day demonstrated the alignment between her ideology, conceptualized strategies,
and her actual practice. Similarly, to Maria, various elements of explicit and learner-centered
instruction were detected: choral repetition, comprehensible input using gestures and abundance
of visuals, modeling, scaffolding, vocabulary charts, metacognition strategies (e.g.,
categorization of vocabulary), integration of skills, heterogeneous grouping (by gender, Spanish
CALP and academic abilities), and monolingual language delivery.
I now share two separate descriptive instructional accounts which further reveal the
extent to which Lucia’s CALP pedagogy aligned with her critical and socio-constructivist
worldviews. While Lucia shared that she used the same approach and strategies to develop her
students’ CALP in either English or Spanish, I noticed that this perception did not manifest as
such in her enactment. Therefore, I chose to present two instructional accounts. The first
account is from an English language arts class followed by a social studies lesson conducted in
Spanish. Each account includes the actual actions and talk, as well as an analysis.
Instructional segment #1: English CALP development. Consider the following
instructional segment from an English language arts class that demonstrated two types of social
interaction to promote students’ English CALP in all 4 language skills in an integrated manner.
Activity one. After engaging students in reading a story aloud as a class, Lucia started this
instructional segment with modeling her expectation of oral output: “My favorite part of the
story is when Annie was…” Next, she announced, framed, and modeled the pair interaction: “I
want you to tell your partner what was your favorite part in the story and why you liked it.
Maybe you liked it when the teacher was reading a story because you like to hear your teacher
read a story to you.” After four additional examples, Lucia reminded her students once again to
reference the story and make a personal connection.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 141
Activity two. Following the pair-share, students went back to the rug for a whole-class
time of sharing. Lucia called on Johnny, a native English speaker who was pretty quiet in the
previous class activities. She then called on another native English speaking boy. At this time,
Lucia reviewed with the class the rules of attentive listening: “Eyes on the speaker. Hands to
yourself, sitting nicely” and reminded students to follow the sentence frame: “my favorite part
is… because…” After two native Spanish speaking EBs , a boy and a girl, shared with the whole
class, Lucia transitioned to an activity that was aimed to promote students’ English CALP.
Activity three. Lucia asked her students to “get a sheet with a title ‘Annie’s School’. In
this area you will draw your favorite part.” At the end of the lesson, Lucia noticed that students
had not completed their drawing and informed the class that they would have an opportunity to
draw, write, and then share with their group the next day.
Analysis of instructional event #1. The above instructional account demonstrated that
Lucia afforded her students with opportunities to develop their overall English CALP in an
integrated manner: reading, speaking, and writing. She made learning relevant by choosing a
book about a girl in their age going to school and offered students opportunities to make
meaningful connections between the story and their own lives. Moreover, Lucia’s efforts to
engage her learners in social interaction went beyond those of Maria’s. Lucia constantly asked
her students to share their thoughts and work with a partner and in small groups, not only in front
of the whole class. Thus, interaction and output were not always controlled. These practices
align with bilingual scholarship that has advocated for fostering a balanced approach of
structured and unstructured, meaningful and productive social learning experiences, and offering
diverse and frequent opportunities for scaffolded, as well as meaningful spontaneous and
creative output (ACTFL, 2012).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 142
Missed opportunities to develop CALP. Still, even though her instruction incorporated
varied and multiple opportunities for social interaction and connecting the text to students’ own
lives, it incorporated features of explicit direct instruction which could have been more learner-
centered and thus maximize students’ English CALP development. For example, had Lucia
moved her students’ examples to the center of the instruction instead of providing five examples
of her own about the parts she liked about the story. Trying to engage her students early on in
discussion about what and why they liked the story, she would have been poised to actually
respond to and leverage in the interest of CALP development the cultural and linguistic
knowledge students’ brought with them into the classroom.
Another instance where Lucia failed to make the interaction more meaningful and
substantial in quantity of output had to do with the whole group interaction towards the middle of
the lesson. While social interaction should be structured and students should learn the social
behaviors appropriate in an academic setting in order to succeed in the dominant White
hegemonic society, the passive attentive listening protocol could have been expanded. Instead of
serving solely as a social tool to monitor behavior, students can be encouraged to become active
interlocutors. The teacher can assign them an authentic role as an audience with a purpose for
listening and responding and, as a result, the students will develop not only their social skills but
also their auditory and oral CALP (ACTFL, 2012; Celce-Murcia, 2014). For example, students
could use hand gestures to signal that their friend’s response was similar or different than theirs.
Consequently, sharing would not merely be reporting but would encourage a natural authentic
exchange similar to turn-taking outside the classroom.
Furthermore, similar to Maria’s lesson, this lesson did not exhibit features of critical
pedagogy. In order to extend the lesson, Lucia could have asked her students to share how their
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 143
school (e.g., classroom, resources, yard, teachers, students, etc.) and school routines are similar
and different from Annie’s. Also, discussing whether everyone has the same opportunity to go
to school or the different ways one can learn, can serve to promote multiple perspectives on
schooling around the world. This type of discussion increases students’ awareness of different
ways of living and learning, and could be leveraged for social action. Yet, it would be an
inaccurate representation of Lucia’s instruction if I did not share the following instructional
segment that clearly demonstrated Lucia’s implementation of her socio-constructivist, as well as
critical worldviews in practice.
Instructional segment #2: Spanish CALP development. The following is a description of
a 40-minute social studies lesson conducted in Spanish which is part of a thematic unit about the
neighborhood. While this lesson was similar in its progression and type of interaction to the
instructional segment in the English class, it responded more authentically to students’ lives
outside the classroom.
Activity one. The lesson started with a whole group discussion that deliberately
encouraged students to use previously learned academic vocabulary involving: school,
neighborhood, and work in context. The words were added onto a chart; Lucia asked the
students to direct her to write each word under the correct category: vista, gusto, oido, tacto,
olfato (sight, taste, hearing, touch, smell). To explain the concept of categorizing, Lucia pulled
from students’ prior knowledge: “perros, gatos…estos son animals” (dogs, cats…. these are
animals). Then, she added a quick sketch next to each of the categories to ensure the input is
comprehensible to all. She asked the students to repeat the words out loud.
Activity two. After that, she handed out authentic colorful pictures of places and local
businesses in their area and proceeded to explain and model the task. To promote meaningful
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 144
oral output, Lucia scaffolded the interaction by writing four questions on the chart paper. After
modeling the expected type of interaction with a student, Lucia asked for student volunteers to
explain the steps of the task to the class in their own words in Spanish. Students then walked
over to their desks and began to describe the picture. As I circulated around the room I heard
students speak in Spanish even when teacher was not looking. Perhaps they adhered to Spanish
because Lucia kept reminding them to speak in Spanish as she walked around the room. Lucia
stood next to a pair of students and encouraged them to ask each other questions by guiding them
to refer to the chart paper. The lesson ended shortly after.
Analysis of instructional event #2. This lesson, similarly to the previous one in English
Language Arts, exhibited the elements of GLAD, guided language acquisition design, (Brechtel,
2001), or sheltered instruction strategies (Short & Echevarria, 1999), meta-cognitive approach
(Chamot & O’Malley, 1986) with an emphasis on collaboration and peer oral interaction
grounded in the socio-constructivist approach to CALP development. Lucia’s sheltered
techniques included using visual aids such as sketches and real-life pictures, vocabulary charts,
graphs, and semantic mapping. Modeling instruction and allowing students to negotiate meaning
with their peers and make connections between content and their prior knowledge. She provided
comprehensible speech and guiding questions. She also utilized meta-cognitive strategies by
manipulating the material to be learned through modeling, rehearsal, and categorization of
words.
Funds of knowledge, emerging critical authentic interaction. What made this lesson
critical were the examples and materials that orbited around students’ actual places of residence
and the authenticity of students’ interaction. In a critical type of interaction, the teacher becomes
the facilitator, posing probing questions (e.g., four guiding questions) to help the students use
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 145
their CALP to critique the world around them (Choudhury & Share, 2014). As Lucia later
explained, her goal for this unit of study was for her students to know:
What resources exist in their neighborhoods; how they and their families benefit from
these services, what do they bring to the table, how can they be a good neighbor and that
ties into being a good citizen and how the neighborhood changed over the years and how
neighborhoods are different in different parts of the country, rural verse urban. At the end
of the year they do a fair and they become a community worker. A whole fair at school
and to their parents.
Lucia’s efforts to create opportunities for authentic meaningful interactions not only between
students in the classroom but also with students and parents outside the classroom is considered
critical. To make this unit even more critical, the universal design for learning (UDL)
framework adds that interaction and communication should extend beyond teacher and peers.
That is, teachers should arrange to bring the community to the classroom and the classroom to
the community, by incorporating service learning and technology into lessons (Lucas et al.,
2008; Pliner & Johnson, 2010). Otherwise, instruction remains socially just but does not
promote social justice (Moje, 2007). Following this line of thought, instead of having students
become community workers for a day, parents can also share about their jobs and roles, and how
through their roles they contribute to the community.
Grouping. Like Maria, Lucia’s grouping rationale and strategies were intentional and
represented diversity of gender, languages, and CALP abilities, as well as verbosity:
At their table boy-girl. Front two tables are the students who struggle and one high
students. Back tables Jack is verbal and Isy is more quiet. Shawna and Dale are both EOs
and Ron. is quiet and she is the more spoken one and Manny is also talkative. They serve
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 146
as models for Raffi. L and M are verbal. The two students in the front are lower so I go
back and forth. They speak Spanish but their Spanish CALP is lower. So, I pair up verbal
and quiet together. I just go check on them. The red table I need to focus on.
As evident from this excerpt, Lucia’s grouping decision-making is complex and stems from a
mainstream equality ideology that is socially just rather than social justice oriented. Teachers
driven by critical ideology group language-minority and language-majority EBs in order to
promote interaction and collaboration to bring awareness to, and understanding of culturally
diverse views (Au, 1998). At the same time, although this rationale was not evident in Lucia’s
explanation of her grouping decisions, the result of her grouping practices can certainly be
critical.
Language use. Another similarity between the two teachers involved a strict adherence to
a monolingual lesson delivery. As Maria shared, after the first semester of Kindergarten, no
formal support, provided by a TA existed in the form of English translation of instruction, but
peer translation was allowed. Throughout the various academic classes, Lucia provided
directions in Spanish only, using abstract academic vocabulary such as: “supervisor”
(supervisor), “un informe” (report), “reportero” (reporter), “secretario” (secretary). Students
followed her instructions with no apparent difficulty suggesting that their CALP, namely their
receptive skill (listening comprehension) had increased in comparison to Maria’s kindergartners,
as expected from completely novice language learners (ACTFL, 2012).
Language use, grouping, interaction, and output. To ensure that students also
communicated with her and amongst themselves only in Spanish, Lucia reminded them to speak
only in Spanish and use complete sentences during the morning opening routine, and as they
walked back into class after recess. She also reminded them to do so right before they broke out
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 147
to pair or group work. While circulating around the room during group work, I noticed that most
of the students most of the time did speak or make a constant effort to speak in Spanish. Their
Spanish output increased in comparison to Maria’s Kindergarteners’ output; they were able to
produce complete sentences on their own.
This progress in students’ Spanish CALP, auditory, oral, and written, can be attributed to
numerous factors, such as: exposure, time, relevancy of the language, use, aptitude, quality
programs and instruction, students’ and parental attitudes, and students’ motivation.
Nevertheless, researchers on second language acquisition agree that one of the main contributing
factors is exposure to the language, more specifically, the time and quality of the exposure to the
target language (Dubiner, 2010). Research on SLA drawing from the socio-constructivist theory
and pedagogy suggested that quality CALP instruction encompasses comprehensible input
(Krashen, 1984), multiple opportunities for structured interaction, and meaningful output (Swain,
2005) in an integrated and cyclical manner through thematic units (ACTFL, 2012). Indeed,
throughout the day Lucia provided her students with multiple opportunities to read, write, and
share their work and thoughts with a partner, with their small group, and in front of the whole
class whether it was a class that was aimed to promote their Spanish CALP or their English
CALP.
Summary and discussion. When examining Lucia’s ideology closely and practice for
developing her emergent bilinguals’ CALP in Spanish and in English, it was apparent that her
educational ideology was driven by a critical social justice orientation. She possessed asset
thinking and a growth mindset, as well as a deep sense of responsibility to change her students’
and their parents’ deficit cognitive frames; she valued her students’ diverse linguistic and
cultural funds of knowledge and lived experiences and held herself accountable for helping
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 148
students improve their CALP development and overall academic outcomes. Her commitment to
critical CALP pedagogy, however, was more evident in the academic lessons that were
conducted in Spanish. That is, the strategies she described in her interview as well as their
enactment in practice in the math, language arts, and social studies classes conducted in Spanish
illustrated a synthesis of direct explicit instruction stemming from a traditional ideology, as well
as social and learner-centered strategies driven by critical and socio-constructivist pedagogy. At
the same time, the English language arts class seemed to encompass elements of mainstream or
equality socio-constructivist pedagogy. Perhaps this lesson is an outlier given that I observed
Lucia teach only one academic lesson in English for 35 minutes. All in all, it appeared that
Lucia took an added step beyond Maria and connected her socio-constructivist and critical
ideologies with her practice, resulting in what I call apparent critical ambitious language
pedagogy for CALP development.
Teacher #3: Sofia, 4
th
Grade
Sofia conceptualized her role and her instruction of CALP in two languages from a
neutral apolitical socio-constructivist orientation. She valued her students’ diverse linguistic and
cultural prior knowledge from a diversity or equality point of view. A close alignment between
her ideology and practice for developing her emergent bilinguals’ CALP in Spanish and in
English emerged. It was apparent that her educational ideology was driven by a mainstream
socio-constructivist orientation, albeit traditional and critical at times. I, thus, argued that she
demonstrated emergent CALP for CALP.
Background. Sofia was raised in Bolivia by a native Spanish speaking mother and an
Irish-American father where she studied in a private international American school. She later
taught English in international schools in the United Arab Emirates and Brazil. Sofia saw herself
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 149
as “an example of a bilingual model, right? I was that student that learned Spanish first and, then,
learned English.”
Ideology. With that sense of identification, Sofia shared that her “main goal is to really
make sure that they celebrate both languages.” She thought that knowing two languages was a
“beautiful thing” and that it benefited students’ brain development:
I show the kids videos of what your brain does when you know Spanish. When you
know two languages. I have them talk about what that means, but to really know the
benefits of it, I think it's going to ... when they become adults, they'll be like, all right, I'm
proud to speak both languages.
At other points throughout the interview, Sofia added a social goal that went beyond the
benefits to the individual. To celebrate diversity and promote a socially just society, she talked
with her students about:
How awesome it is to meet kids from all over the world… I think that's where
you start building compassion… and become more tolerant… Right now, right now, my
immediate goal is for them to know how to work with one another and to talk to each
other in a nice way... my sister works with the Dali Llama fellowship program, so I went
to the celebration he had when he was 80 years old and there was a session on education
and compassion. I attended that and my teaching philosophy just enlightened by that.
Towards the very end of the interview, while it seemed that Sofia touched on the critical purpose
for educating EBs in two languages, she reverted yet again to socially just pedagogy that
emphasized apolitical inclusiveness and empathy. Notice how she addresses broader socio-
political contexts when talking about her EBs: “They know what's going on in the world. There's
a lot of problems right now. I have the kids do current events every week for both languages and
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 150
they inform each other…” Yet, she reverted again to socially just discourse that emphasized
apolitical inclusiveness and empathy:
But I really want them to have that compassion for one another. Not talk to each other in
a mean tone. There's so many opportunities they have in a day to help each other out and
I want them to transfer that outside of these doors, you know?
The above quote, then, revealed a discourse of diversity (Iverson, 2007) or diversity cognitive
frame (Bensimon, 2005). In other words, Sofia was deeply driven by an equality mindset that
focused on the representation of differences (in this case, cultural and linguistic) from a diversity,
rather than critical, standpoint. Although Sofia identified Spanish as her first language, she
perhaps did not regard herself as oppressed, underrepresented, or underprivileged as other
language-minorities in the U.S. and, thus, conceptualized her role and the knowledge of CALP in
two languages from a neutral apolitical orientation.
Ogbu and Simons (1998) distinguished between autonomous, voluntary and non-
voluntary minorities based on the minority’s history. Autonomous (e.g., Amish, Jews,
Mormons) are immigrants who are not totally dominated or oppressed. Voluntary immigrants
are those who seek better opportunities, as opposed to involuntary immigrants who came to the
U.S. against their will (e.g., Native Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans) or enslaved (Black Americans in
the U.S.). The last two groups tend to do poorly in school.
Following this logic, and knowing Sofia’s background (e.g., studying at a bilingual
private international American school and being a “global bilingual teacher”), it could be argued
that she did not experience discrimination in the U.S. or in her home country which, in turn, did
not negatively shape her perceptions or promote her awareness of the social and political aspects
associated with language, identity, and power, particularly when it comes to educating language-
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 151
minority EBs in the U.S. By extension, this diversity cognitive mindset can result in color
blindness. Iverson (2007, p. 1) warned that, “well-intentioned attempts to create a more
inclusive campus may unwittingly reinforce practices that support exclusion and inequity.”
Practice. Sofia’s mainstream socio-constructivism ideology continued to surface when
the interview moved on to discuss her conceptualization of her CALP pedagogy and her
enactment of practice. Her interview yielded rich and elaborate information on her espoused
mainstream socio-constructivist pedagogy. Followed by her reported practice, I present one
instructional segment in a math class conducted in English.
In the following reported excerpt, features of learner-centered, as well as social learning
appeared:
One of the skills as a strong reader is first, obviously, you try to figure it out as you’re
reading. Look at the clues in the text. If that doesn’t work, ask a friend. If that doesn’t
work, then your last resort is to check your dictionary.
Another feature of CALP instruction from a socio-constructivist perspective relates to soliciting
students’ feedback and suggestions on how to solve challenges collaboratively. In the following
instance, Sofia struggled with implementing the monolingual lesson approach and she turned to
her students:
…asking them for suggestions. So, for example, after the first week, I was like, okay, this
isn't working for me because they were speaking English during my Spanish block. So,
instead of me giving reminders like “can you guys help me out?”, so I involve them in the
process so they help each other out. They invented a symbol. So, they chose this one for
some reason. I don't know. If you see this in the classroom, it's like they're reminding
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 152
other kids to speak in Spanish to kind of help, holding us accountable for it so it's not just
me.
In addition to confirming her inclusive ideology, this account revealed Sofia’s adherence to a
language-separation approach.
Language use. She later explained her rationale, which follows the logic described in the
literature (ACTFL, 2012): “Looking back…if I hadn't pretended that I didn't know English, those
kids would have never tried to speak Spanish.” So far, it became apparent that three teachers not
only complied with but also believed in the benefit of a monolingual lesson delivery for
developing their students’ Spanish CLAP. However, Sofia’s encouragement to draw
connections between two languages revealed a sign of translaguaging: “I would say 98% are
more proficient in English. So, anytime I can make that connection, I ask them: ‘¿en inglés
Cómo?’ (How is it English?) and, even though they're telling me the word in English, they're
making that connection.” Deliberately and systematically helping her students develop meta-
linguistic awareness and allowing use of English as means to develop their CALP showed that,
while unintentionally, Sofia was giving way to the acceptance of the use of different languages in
the classroom (Wright et al., 2015). Thus, mirroring more closely the everyday realities of
multilingual speakers (Anya, 2016). This goes in contrast to her two colleagues, Maria and
Lucia who gradually and deliberately pushed the use of English away.
Comprehensible input, scaffolding, and integration of skills. In addition to monolingual
language use, Sofia mentioned, similarly to Maria and Lucia, common socio-constructivist
practices for developing CALP, such as: rich context, realia, visuals, graphic organizers, and
adapted and authentic texts. Sofia also saw vocabulary development as embedded in context and
integrated with other language skills:
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 153
I see it really like more integrated with the context so, if we're introducing new content
that we're reading in Science in Spanish, we would pause and stop to think about
vocabulary words that might be new to them. And, even if they're not new to them, I like
to have them either highlight or write their own sentence with that word. “Where else did
you hear that word?” So, definitely trying to connect to what the kids are learning.
Funds of knowledge and metacognition strategies. The above segment demonstrated
that Sofia drew from her students’ funds of knowledge. That is, she did not limit their previously
acquired knowledge to experiences gained in school. Instead she asked, “Where else did you
hear that word?”
Instruction focused on form. Developing CALP, specifically new vocabulary and
grammar was also practiced through class discussions or table groups. However, the following
excerpt revealed that this is not always the case:
Right now, we're doing homophones. And, so, when I did the homophones, we write the
definition. I guide them through that and, then, the practice is always pictures that they
can reference. So, right now, this lesson was perfect because there's two words that
sound the same. “Ola” (wave), “hola” (hello) but they have a different meaning. So,
then, they look at the picture. We talk about ... and, then, I had them and that was one
example they were working in groups. They have dictionaries so, the first thing they do
is, try to figure it out on their own and that was good for me, too, to see are they using the
dictionary correctly.
When I asked her whether students then transferred that new knowledge into their own writing or
speaking later on, Sofia responded:
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 154
No, it's isolated. We teach based on the standards. So, when we do the year-long plan,
the standards, what the fourth grade have to know and then we just ... a lot, like this
month, we're going to focus on these two or these three and I would address it if I see that
it's in their writing.
While Maria and Lucia teach vocabulary and grammar implicitly, always embedded in context,
Sofia follows this approach with new words or grammatical concepts that emerge from the text
(i.e., incidental) while reading subject matter content. At the same time, when teaching linguistic
knowledge deliberately (i.e., based on standards and in a designated lesson), it is taught without
meaningful context, but rather in isolation or in limited context. Sofia explained the importance
of having a separate word study block as a means to help individual students. In the following
excerpt it was evident that she was trying to reconcile between learner-centered instruction and
teaching form in an integrated manner which was in her perception two conflicting strategies:
So, I guess I could integrate it, but even then it would start to address the whole class
when I think that should be with just that group. There are some kids that I have here, one
or two, where I can't read their writing because they're not putting any vowels in their
words. If I start to do that whole group with them and introduce four words, I think that
would be way over their head. So, what's good about that word study time is that they
are studying words, but words that they are able to do independently because they know
that spelling stage already. Or that spelling pattern already. I think writing would
definitely be one. Even science… But, it is cool to hear when I do hear vocabulary that
one or two kids are using, I do stop and the whole class has to look at that person. Give
them a shout out. Little praises like that do help, but it's not formal.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 155
This excerpt showed that Sofia valued teaching linguistic knowledge deliberately even if it was
taught without meaningful context, but rather in isolation or in limited context. While critical as
well as socio-constructivist perspective, underscored the importance of systematic and explicit
instruction of the technical aspects of language and the cognitive processes for reading and
writing development, Swain and Lapkin (1989) suggested that “grammar should not be taught in
isolation from content. But, then neither should content be taught without regard to the language
involved. A carefully planned integration of language and content, however, holds considerable
promise,” (p. 153). Following this assertion, the value Sofia places on a separate designated
block for teaching language form as means to improve CALP is unjustifiable.
Missed opportunity to develop CALP. Based on socio-constructivist theories, a lesson
that promotes CALP in a TWI classroom would focus on vocabulary that is reflective of the life
of the community in which students live and have a need to function, rather than on isolated
vocabulary or grammar that is not contextualized within real-life settings (Krashen, 1985).
Instead of copying words and definitions, progressive CALP practices can be seen when children
attempt to create illustrations, symbols, and metaphors to represent new words and complex
concepts to convey their thoughts in writing and when speaking (Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004).
Critical CALP adds that the instructional process may also include questions focusing on how
the selection of specific grammatical structures and word choices attempts to manipulate the
reader (Luke, 2012).
Metacognitive strategies. Sofia, like Maria and Lucia, also shared that the strategies they
used to develop CALP in both languages were similar and that they applied them across
languages and academic disciplines. Sofia provided a concrete recent example of a cognitive
reading strategy to develop CALP: “Right now, they're doing stop and jotting while they're
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 156
reading and I use this strategy with my Spanish group and my English group.” At the same time,
Sofia shed a new light on this blanket statement:
Trying to be more creative with the Spanish and not as much with the English because
they're already so strong in English. I guess that's something that I haven't really thought
of. It's actually good to stop to think. Am I really putting in the same effort? But I think
it's based on the need. The kids don't need me to explain certain words in English that
they would in Spanish.
In the above reflective account, Sofia alluded to a nuanced newfound understanding that
developing students’ Spanish CALP required additional attention and support even when it
involved educating language-minority students in their home language. This finding goes in
contrast to the common belief that most instructional approaches and strategies that were
developed for meeting the learning needs of students learning English as a second language in
U.S. schools, can be extended to develop CALP for all students learning academic content in
another language, including native English speakers learning academic content in a partner
language (e.g., Howard, et al., 2018). In other words, this finding supports the notion that there
are some basic things that are known about EBs’ cognitive academic language proficiency
(CALP) development in a second language, and some that are yet to be resolved (Cummins,
2013; Genesee, 2004; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014; Howard et al., 2018).
I observed Sofia teach a social studies class in English about the continents, a math lesson
in English on multiplication, and a writing lesson in Spanish with her homeroom group on a
descriptive narrative using vocabulary words to describe emotions. Consistent across these three
lessons, it was evident that Sofia’s instruction aligned with her inclusive, yet neutral socio-
constructivist worldview, that places the learner in the center of the learning experience. For
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 157
example, each of the lessons incorporated background music to signal the type of expected
learning and engagement. When Sofia wanted kids to interact with a partner or transition
quickly from the rug to their desks, she played a bustling sounding music. When she wanted
them to work quietly and individually on a quiz, on a Math warm-up or on their writing, soft
music would be playing in the background.
Instructional segment: English CALP development. Ambitious pedagogy involves
eliciting student thinking during interactive teaching (Lampert et al., 2013). Indeed, Sofia
promoted her students’ CALP as well as their complex thinking skills. Take, for example, the
following instructional exchange that took place in Math class during which questioning ranged
from a single numerical answer to multiple opportunities for students to share their thinking and
strategies using academic vocabulary related to math. Such academic vocabulary included:
product, multiplication, sum, factor, divisor, divide, and digit. Students felt excited and
confident to volunteer and explain their thinking process to the class. Sofia posed open-ended
questions (e.g., “Can you share how you got to this product?”) and provided positive academic
feedback throughout: “Great. So you gave us the product”, “great question”, “great explanation”,
“Well done Sury” giving him a high-five, “Yes, that's a shortcut we can use,” “If you are paying
attention to pattern you can solve multiplies in the millions and billions.” One student exclaimed
excitedly: “Really?” Following the whole group, high-level discussion, students transitioned to
working on additional problems on their own.
Analysis of instructional event. This instructional exchange demonstrated many features
of CALP ambitious teaching (Lampert et al., 2013) that aligned with socio-constructivist
learning theories and practices for developing CALP in TWI settings (Cummins, 1981, 2000;
Genesee, 2004; Kim, et al, 2013; Lindholm-Leary & Genesee, 2014). Yet, Sofia failed to
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 158
ultimately connect students’ learning to real-life experiences or to make the learning critical.
Sofia helped her students develop in-depth knowledge of multiplication, gain higher-order
thinking skills, like strategies and patterns, construct new knowledge and understanding through
interaction, and cooperation while using common core fourth grade math vocabulary (California
Department of Education, 2012) in context. At the same time, Sofia did not use realia (objects
and material from everyday life) and real-world examples to introduce the new concept; she only
wrote on the chart paper. Furthermore, at no point in the 45-minute lesson did she facilitate
connections or application of the new knowledge to students’ lives nor to real-world situations.
Had Sofia tried to engage her students in a discussion about when and where it would be
important to “solve multiplies in the millions and billions”, for example, learning could have
been more meaningful and useful beyond the confines of the classroom. Probing students to
draw connection from mathematics class to their own lives can promote an awareness to future
political and economic empowerment (Moje, 2007).
Critical feedback, assessment and translanguaging. Sofia’s socio-constructivism
ideology also came to life in a social studies block conducted in English. Grounded in
constructivism, Sofia was sensitive and responsive to her students’ varied CALP needs and
provided support and feedback that was meaningful and timely (Ambrose et al., 2010). She
conducted several conferences with individual students while others worked independently.
Consider Rafael, for example, whose reading level in English was level C which is first grade
level:
He writes without vowels. He writes poorly even when I point to the word in the article.
In Spanish is reading level is a bit higher but still below grade 4 expectation. I need to
read out loud for him. He also gets support once a week for one hour.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 159
Sofia also accommodated for students who needed extra time: “with quizzes. Kids who didn't
finish will get a chance to finish tomorrow but it gives me a sense of who still needs additional
support even after the scaffolding of the group review.”
The above excerpts illustrated that Sofia made accommodations that would support all
her students to perform at high levels; she did not lower her expectations. Instead, she read
aloud to Rafael so he could show his knowledge of the continents in Spanish despite his
challenges with reading and writing in English. She also allowed her students to complete the
quiz instead of reducing or simplifying the questions. This type of support is regarded as
translanguaging and thus considered critical. According to Kerfoot and Simon-Vandenbergen
(2015), translanguaging offers an analytical framework which can enable principled, formative,
and equitable forms of assessment. In practice, similarly to Sofia’s support strategies, students
may be provided with a text in the partner language and be able to respond in their native
language, a process that in essence allows for the development of all students’ CALP in two
languages.
Summary and discussion. Examining Sofia’s interview data, as well as the classroom
observation revealed that Sofia conceptualized her role and her instruction of CALP in two
languages from a neutral apolitical orientation. She valued her students’ diverse linguistic and
cultural prior knowledge from a diversity or equality point of view “it's a beautiful thing to speak
both languages.” Furthermore, findings showed a close alignment between her ideology and
practice for developing her emergent bilinguals’ CALP in Spanish and in English. It was
apparent that her educational ideology was driven by mainstream socio-constructivist orientation
albeit traditional (e.g., linguistic knowledge in isolation) and critical at times (e.g., when
assessing Rafael in Spanish during an English social studies block). The strategies she described
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 160
in her interview, as well as their enactment in practice in the math, language arts, and social
studies classes illustrated features of ambitious social and learner-centered strategies yet not to
the full extent. She consistently failed to draw from students’ past experiences and to life outside
of school. At the same time, I found two consistent deliberate instances of translanguaging in the
area of assessment and when connecting between languages. Makalela (2015) argued that a
methodology that encourages translanguaging has the potential to overcome historical
separations between groups and promote transformative pedagogies. Therefore, Sofia’s eclectic
pedagogy was an emerging critical ambitious language pedagogy for CALP development.
Teacher #4: Jenny, Sixth Grade
Jenny conceptualized her role and her instruction of CALP in two languages from a
critical social justice orientation. Yet, her espoused instructional strategies for developing
CALP, as well as classroom observations showed a close alignment with mainstream socio-
constructivist orientation albeit traditional and critical at times. She valued her students’ diverse
linguistic and cultural funds of knowledge but did not always tap into them. At the same time, I
found deliberate instances of the critical pedagogy. Therefore, Jenny’s pedagogy seemed an
emerging-apparent critical ambitious language pedagogy for CALP development.
Background. Jenny was raised in Britain and moved to Spain at the age of 13 where she
spent her teenage high school years living with her Spanish speaking aunt. She regarded herself
as multilingual in English, Spanish, and Italian. She taught English in Spain for two years. Prior
to becoming a teacher, she worked as a researcher in intercultural and multilingual education.
Ideology. Similarly, to Maria and Lucia, Jenny also saw her role in developing students’
CALP in two languages as part of a larger educational purpose of promoting students’ socio-
cultural identities and social justice:
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 161
I see my role as facilitating language acquisition but in an academic sense, not just in the
conversational and functional stuff…, but I really want to push my kids to develop
academic language and also to have a positive sense of identity around being bilingual,
whether they're not native Spanish speakers or not. Just like to improve the positivity so
it encourages them to use that language outside of the school. And then obviously not
just language related stuff, like to prepare them for their career and things, but also to
prepare them to have an impact, a positive impact in their communities. I think that's
something specific to XYZ and that's why I see myself at XYZ ... The reason I'm at XYZ
is because it has that very strong community focus and kids translate what they learn in
school to their communities, and I see myself as ... That's central to my role as teacher ...
Trying to help them apply their school things to the community.
The discursive segment above indicated that Jenny was driven by a critical worldview. Notice
her choice of words when describing the purpose of obtaining high CALP: “positive sense of
identity,” “prepare them to have an impact, a positive impact in their communities.” Her critical
orientation to promoting her students’ CALP surfaced again when I asked specifically what
academic language meant to her: “academic language is precise and non-colloquial. Meaning it's
not subject to dialect, it's comprehensible by everyone, so it's standardized… and a precise way
to observe and describe the world.” Jenny’s definition of CALP as it emerged from the above
excerpts coincided with the definition of CALP for this study. Similarly, to this study’s
definition, Jenny’s conceptualization of CALP is a synthesis of various ideological perspectives:
socio-cultural, cognitive, and constructivist (Cummins, 1981; 2000); driven by or embedded in
social justice (Luke, 2012; Moje, 2007).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 162
Asset thinking and Growth mindset. Jenny’s interview also revealed her asset thinking
when it concerned students’ diverse linguistic funds of knowledge. Jenny emphasized that it
was:
Really important to be non-judgmental about whatever dialect and whatever way of
speech they're coming to the school with, and to use that, whatever their base language is,
to leverage that towards academic language. Don't say academic language is better than
your home dialect or whatever you're speaking outside, but just that it's ... Help them
understand what the purposes are but without passing judgment on it.
Research has indicated that many teachers educating language-minority students possess a
deficit mindset about their student’s academic abilities (Bensimoen, 2005; Ladson-Billings,
2006); however, the above excerpt and the following ones demonstrated Jenny’s belief that both
language-minority and language majority students can possess high levels of CALP or
conversely have an individualized educational plan (IEP) to meet their special needs, regardless
of their cultural or linguistic background:
I had two students last year who, one of them was a heritage language and one of them
had no English at all at home, and they were both, by far, the highest level of Spanish,
meaning that they could do a lot more in Spanish and understand a lot more and write a
lot more complex ways… Those were two kids who read a lot in Spanish in their free
time… Their level of writing and oral proficiency Spanish is so correlated with how
much they read in Spanish even if they are native speakers of Spanish or native English
speakers.
As can be seen from the above segment, Jenny believed that developing high levels of CALP in
the partner language was not fixed or inherent to your home language but rather to the amount of
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 163
effort and practice students invest. However, when examining the above quote in isolation, it
may be construed as signaling an equality frame of mind stemming from a meritocracy
perspective (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). That is, Jenny’s believed that high CALP and mastery can
be achieved by all her students (equity perspective), but that these accomplishments rely solely
on their internal motivation, effort, and merit (equality perspective). Stanton-Salazar (1997)
warned that such an equality way of viewing language-minority children ignores social divisions
and structural barriers that still exist in the wider society. These mechanisms operate to
problematize language-minority students’ access to opportunities and resources. Such a color-
blind view takes for granted products of middle-class family, community, and school networks.
Take for example, the following account about her students’ reading comprehension abilities:
I think it's probably because most of them come from English-only and middle or upper
middle-class homes, that they're doing a lot of reading in English, and that reading in
English, those skills obviously can transfer over to Spanish in some ways and that just
helps them to follow the text more, even if they don't understand all the vocabulary in it
or the structures.
Equality mindset. This account demonstrated Jenny’s knowledge of the correlation
between CALP abilities in L1 and L2 (Cummins, 2013), as well as an awareness of the
advantages her language-majority EBs had over her language-minority students due to their
socio-economic status (Tate, 2008). Yet, she still believed that everyone has the time and
resources to read at home. Her lack of awareness of the inequities that may prevent some of her
students from investing more time and effort in reading at home can be interpreted as color-
blindness that may result in equity of access and outcomes (Bensimon, 2005).

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 164
Funds of knowledge and grouping. Another aspect of CALP practice involves grouping
practices. Much like Maria, Lucia, and Sofia, Jenny also leveraged her students’ linguistic and
academic funds of knowledge to construct varied, deliberate, and strategic student grouping to
facilitate balanced power relationships and for modeling and support from more knowledgeable
peers. Jenny took an added factor into account in her decision making about grouping:
Kids who have different ways of looking at problems. Some kids are very "big picture"
and some kids like to nitpick details. I always try to include that, especially with group
work, trying to get a mix of those types of kids when we're doing collaborative work.
Looking at Jenny’s whole reflective account, it suggested a deep knowledge of students and a
desire to meet and leverage their unique individual cognitive skills to promote their own CALP
as well as their peers’ CALP. In other words, it is evident that Jenny was consistently driven by
a complex combination of critical, socio-cultural, and cognitive orientations to developing
CALP. To examine alignment between ideology and practice, analysis of Jenny’s enactment of
her CALP ideology was based on classroom observations as well as segments in her reflective
interview that specifically addressed strategies for developing English and Spanish CALP.
Practice. Jenny’s espoused and enacted practice seemed to be a combination of socio-
constructivist pedagogy as well as critical; however, there were instances of reductive traditional
teaching. Much like Sofia, Jenny’s interview yielded rich and elaborate information about her
espoused mainstream socio-constructivist pedagogy. Followed by her reported practice, I
present two instructional segments: one in English and one in Spanish.
Interaction. When asked to give advice on how to accelerate CALP development in the
two languages, Jenny first underscored the importance of collaboration and interaction among
students: “provide lots of opportunities for kids to learn from each other, like collaboration
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 165
between students would be another huge thing ... Because obviously one teacher can't at all be
speaking to 28 kids. That limits their opportunity for communication.” Later in the interview,
she provided a more concrete example of what that collaborative process might look like in her
class:
We do a lot of text-based discussion. So they'll all be reading the same or appropriately
leveled versions of the same text, and then they come together and analyze it…an
example of one assignment might be that kids have gone off to different stations to learn
about a historical figure and they're all learned different things and then they come
together and they each write a sentence about that person based on a very specific
prompt, and they try to put the sentences in order in a way that makes sense and make it
join together to have a collaborative writing paragraph. That might be a really typical
collaborative thing, but they didn't all come knowing the same knowledge about it. They
had to share and communicate and be like, "Oh, I don't think that is relevant", or, "I don't
think you should put that there”.
The above instructional account encompassed more than one aspect of socio-constructivist
learner-centered CALP pedagogy. Both sociocultural theory and constructivism, when applied
to academic language learning, are concerned with the activities that children engage in to learn
both personally and socially (Kaufman, 2004).
Critical comprehensible input and scaffolding. As seen from the example above, Jenny
provided each student with an appropriate leveled text with the same content and then engaged
them in the co-constructing of new outputs through speaking and writing together. Giving each
student access to the same content knowledge through differentiated comprehensible input
illuminated that Jenny has high expectations from all of her learners. It was also evident that she
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 166
was knowledgeable about the benefits of the integration of language skills into CALP
development and implemented that in her practice.
Integration of skills. Developing CALP is not done in isolation, but rather in an
integrated and systematic manner between receptive and productive skills (ACTFL, 2012).
In addition to the importance of interaction, collaboration, integration of skills, and providing
comprehensible input to ensure equity of access, Jenny also underscored the value of oral and
written outputs:
Another thing would be to give way more opportunities for the kids to use that language,
whether in speaking or in writing than just hear it. You need to have the input obviously,
but I think it's more important to have them try it out and then analyze.
Interaction and output. Interaction hypothesis, drawing from the socio-constructivist
approach, states that the development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-
face interaction and extensive oral communication between teacher and students, and among
students (Long, 1996).
Instruction focused on form. As for instruction focused on language form, Jenny
emphasized that language form was not taught in isolation; rather, patterns, grammar rules, and
vocabulary were extracted from a mentor text and reinforced through the productive skills –
speaking and writing:
With grammar, I've used this whole-to-part approach to teaching grammar, so we'll have
a mentor text and then we break it down and look for specific things and sort of, "Can
you recognize patterns?" I do a lot of ... Because their levels are so ... There's such a
large gap between the level the kids have, grammar is a hard thing to teach unless you're
dividing them into small groups, and I usually do at learning centers. We'll all do the
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 167
same mentor text but they'll each be looking for different grammatical elements and well,
I was about to say I always do this, but I try to always do this where immediately after
grammar, so after we've broken down a text, we've found the pattern, we've found the
rule, then I'll have them practice with writing. So let's write your own text and use three
examples of this thing. As far as vocabulary, I use a lot of different strategies for
vocabulary. We use a word wall. It's an interactive word wall where they have to create
anything with that vocabulary and then they have to take it down and use it a couple
times a week when they speak and write. We do a lot of word analysis, so looking at
affixes and root words ... Greek ... Latin ... and for Spanish, we use indigenous root
words. We study those too because they're very important to Latin American Spanish.
We also do lots of game-based vocabulary instruction and I do a lot more written and
reading in vocabulary instruction than oral. I'd say a lot of the game-based ones would
tie in oral with writing, like learning a vocabulary. But with grammar ... I use a lot of
oral activities for teaching grammar as well. So when I'm doing the ... Introducing this
grammatical thing, I'll use equally listening, like a listening in mentor text or a written
text.
This long narrative provides elaborate examples of the various metacognitive as well as engaging
learner-centered games and communicative activities Jenny used to develop her EBs’ academic
language. Language form instruction focused on vocabulary, accuracy, and sophistication of
language use in Spanish and in English. To make language form instruction more meaningful,
Jenny shared that she used audio recordings of:
Several repositories of songs and poems that I use for it, and then I also send recordings
of my friends in Spain just speaking into WhatsApp and then I'll play those. That was an
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 168
idea I got from another teacher. It was a really cool idea.
As suggested by the constructivist learner-centered approach to CALP development, students
should be encouraged to use new vocabulary and grammar to construct their own text (“so after
we've broken down a text, we've found the pattern, we've found the rule, then I'll have them
practice with writing. So let's write your own text.”). Furthermore, students should be
encouraged to compare and contrast language structures, to promote metalinguistic awareness
(ACTFL, 2012).
Scaffolding and metacognition strategies. While in the younger grades Maria and Lucia
used strategies based on Project GLAD (Guided Language Acquisition Design, Brechtel, 2001)
that underscores the use of pictures, vocabulary charts, graphs, and semantic mapping, Jenny
utilized meta-cognitive strategies suggested in the cognitive academic language learning
approach (CALLA) for vocabulary and grammar development (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994).
These two models stem from different, yet not mutually exclusive, epistemologies and, in turn,
emphasize specific strategies for developing CALP. The instructional strategies indeed align
with Cummins (1981) distinction between the abstract nature of CALP and the social language
known as basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS). This excerpt also showed a feature
of social learning and integrated instruction of all four CALP skills. Jenny utilized technology to
connect the outside native speaking community with her students.
Missed opportunities to develop CLAP. At the same time, the meta-cognitive strategies
and the social communication seemed limited to mainstream socio-constructivist pedagogy that
advocates for input that is authentic and relevant but lacks the notion of social awareness that
leads to social action. In other words, while providing students with technical resources for
analyzing how language works, the instructional process may include in addition to word
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 169
analysis, a discussion on specific grammatical structures and word choices and how they attempt
to manipulate the reader (i.e., critical discourse analysis) (Luke, 2012). Furthermore, none of
these pedagogical recommendations referenced or promoted CALP development through
authentic and meaningful content or contexts (ACTFL, 2012).
Critical scaffolding. When asked about struggling students, Jenny shared that there were
six students out of 45 who have been at the school since kindergarten but barely understood or
spoke any Spanish even in the 6
th
grade. Two of them were special education students and they
had other auditory processing disorders. When I asked her what she did to support their CALP
development, her reply aligned with sheltered instruction scaffolding strategies:
You have to scaffold a lot and provide a lot of language support. For writing, you have to
provide a lot of sentence frames for their writing and a lot of repetition in structures. For
reading,…I add the accompanying image to some to help provide visual clues... This is
for the benefit of all students. Students with low reading level or language delays would
usually receive a significantly reduced text that focuses on the main idea as well.
And then for speaking, just make sure it's really predictable structures they have to use
with speaking. And pre-teach vocabulary, obviously. And in that way, I mean, it's not
like they don't know what's going and they don't participate, it's just very clear.
This support practice aligned with her written reflection (personal email) following a classroom
observation of her Spanish language arts class:
The texts are taken from our curriculum resource History Alive!. I do adapt them… I
adapt them predominantly for sentence complexity, since that is a major struggle for our
students, both Spanish and English speaking. In addition, I modify the academic
vocabulary to a more manageable amount of words needing to be pre-taught.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 170
These excerpts showed that Jenny’s pedagogy was a step closer to critical CALP pedagogy.
Changing pedagogical practices to provide students with more access to optimal cultural and
linguistic conditions in two languages is one step towards reversing the educational experiences
and outcomes of students. However, a socio-constructivist pedagogy without a critical
perspective can result in superficial changes that may not affect in any substantive way the life
changes of students who have been sorely mis-educated (Li et al., 2016). What is needed is
committed and purposeful political activity, both within the classroom and outside of it, to ensure
that the stated ideals of critical multicultural and multilingual education for a democratic society
are realized (Nieto, 2004).
Critical authenticity and interaction. Consider Jenny’s next example that made evident
that she in fact employed critical pedagogy. In order to raise her sixth grade students’ awareness
about issues in their community that may result in action for change, Jenny facilitated the
application of:
… community history, so we did these big oral history projects last year where they went
out in the community and they interviewed ... Particularly bilingual members of their
community about the role they play and the history of Los Angeles, things like that. And
I know that teachers at other grade levels do those type of things. But bigger than that,
we do a lot of environmental programs trying to have kids choose an environmental issue
and then act on it.
Universal design for learning (UDL) framework grounded in critical paradigm emphasizes that
interaction and communication should extend beyond teacher and peers to the local or global
communities while incorporating service learning and technology into lessons (Lucas et al.,
2008; Pliner & Johnson, 2010). To make Jenny’s idea for interaction with the community even
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 171
more critical, students can draw conclusions from the interviews relating to reoccurring
community or individual challenges and discuss practical ways to reverse them and even take
collaborative action to realize them.
Language use. Despite Jenny’s critical orientation, her espoused approach to language
use stemmed from mainstream socio-constructivist views – i.e., language separation. Below are
two reflective accounts that reflect Jenny’s monolingual lesson delivery pedagogical ideology:
Last year, for the whole first week, I only spoke to them in Spanish. I didn't do their
English classes for the first week, because we wanted to set the tone and get them in the
habit, because obviously they're going to prefer English. So that whole first week, I only
spoke to them in Spanish, and they thought I only spoke Spanish, especially because I'm
Hispanic. They know I'm not American, so it was easier to trick them. But then, in the
second week, when I spoke English, then they thought, "What?", and a lot of them didn't
know I spoke English.
In the above excerpt, Jenny not only exhibited her strong belief in the benefits of adherence to a
monolingual lesson, she also alluded to a school-wide challenge, particularly in the upper grades
when it comes to students speaking Spanish:
In Spanish-medium classes, I only speak in Spanish, even if there's an administrative
thing or someone cries or whatever... It's only in Spanish. And then in English classes,
it's only in English. Now, the language you'll hear them speaking in English class, you'll
hear them speaking English, although you occasionally... It depends on the kids...
Occasionally, that kids who will speak in Spanglish more than anything, and by that, I
mean they code-switch during English class, or in Spanish class, but I didn't have very
many kids who did that last year, but I have seen in other classes kids do that. And then
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 172
in the Spanish Language class, it depends on the kid. When they're speaking to me, 90%
of them will speak in Spanish. When they're speaking to each other, maybe only a
quarter of them will speak in Spanish, and it's only when they're very text-driven
activities, like if they're reading, trying to solve a problem that's presented to them in
Spanish and they're doing it for Spanish... like to write or speak in Spanish, then they'll
do it. But other than that, they will translate... They'll have the strongest kid in Spanish
go look and translate what they need to do into English… To be perfectly honest ... if
they try to speak to me in English, I redirect them into Spanish. If they're speaking to
each other, I might walk by and ensure they're doing something in Spanish but it's not
much. I don't want them to translate for each other, so I'll divide them but I can't stop
their little conversations in English, sadly.
By the time students get to the upper grades, students are expected to fully adhere to the
language separation approach. However, this expectation was not evident in the students’
language use nor in the middle school teachers’ practices when it came to encouraging or
directing students to use only Spanish. The fact that student did not or were unable to follow this
policy seemed to frustrate Jenny and left her feeling powerless (“I can't stop their little
conversations in English, sadly”). Interestingly, however, from an observation of her English
Language Arts class, I noticed elements of translaguaging pedagogy in action.
I observed Jenny teach a social studies class in English about ancient civilizations and a
Spanish language arts on human evolution. I chose to present an instructional account from
each of these lessons. The first lesson manifested numerous features of socio-constructivist
pedagogy as well as critical strategies. The second which was conducted in Spanish seemed
reductive rather than mainstream or critical ambitious teaching.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 173
Instructional segment #1: developing English CALP. From a classroom observation in
Jenny’s English language arts class where the objective was to write a persuasive paragraph,
Jenny not only developed her students written CALP but did so while promoting their speaking
and vocabulary development. She started the lesson with a 15-minute whole class discussion
that deliberately introduced a new word claim, and encouraged authentic and natural dialogue as
they discussed evidence from the text they all read the previous day. Students’ prior knowledge
and own theories constructed from the text were leveraged to develop their writing of a
persuasive paragraph:
I know there are a lot more theories. I liked your theories. Because you use theories based
on evidence when it comes more credible or believable. Another word for theory is
“claim”. You will find 2 pieces of evidence to support your theory or claim and 2
against.
She then directed students’ attention to the poster on the wall that stated the objective of their
lesson (“Goal: By the end of class you will write your argument…”). During the discussion
around claims, Jenny directed students to use previously learned key academic vocabulary words
such as: raid, indigenous, theories, dehydration, starvation while ensuring that others knew the
meaning of these words. The following short exchange is typical of the discussion that took
place:
Student: I have another theory. They raided them.
Teacher: I don't think everyone knows what that means. Tell me more.
Student: Indigenous people attacked them.
Analysis of instructional event #1. This short exchange is quite telling. It demonstrated
that Jenny enacted her mainstream socio-constructivist belief that CALP development was most
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 174
effective through social interaction and meaningful use of new academic vocabulary. Her
instruction drew from students’ prior knowledge and she regarded students as valuable peer
models for language (academic vocabulary), as well as for content and skills development.
Asking students to theorize based on evidence and to elaborate on their ideas with deliberate
attention to language use, are also features of ambitious CALP pedagogy. However, throughout
the lesson there was no evidence of critical pedagogy. She failed to view students’ prior
knowledge as something beyond what students have learned in school. Had she also asked her
students about their own views and life experiences relating to oppression and starvation, for
example, in addition to questions of how the text might reflect the author’s views, this interaction
could have been more critical (Luke, 2012).
Translanguaging. Interestingly, despite her strong principled belief in the language-
separation approach, her language use in practice showed features of translanguaging that is
considered a critical strategy to developing CALP in TWI settings. Jenny allowed and even
encouraged her students to use Spanish and English strategically to help develop their CALP.
For example, one of her 6
th
grade native Spanish EB students wrote his argument paragraph in a
mixture of Spanish and English even though it was an English language arts class.
When I asked her after the lesson what she would do next to help him produce the
expected outcome, Jenny said that when she would see him the next day she would work with
him individually and provide him with sentence starters in English. Her decision was intentional
and strategic. She preferred that he first had a chance to form his ideas “in whichever language
or languages he felt most comfortable” and then worked on conveying his own formed thoughts
in English rather than asking him to translate word for word to English. Makalela (2015) argued
that a methodology that encourages translanguaging has the potential to overcome historical
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 175
separations between groups and promote transformative pedagogies. I now present another
account of Jenny’s instruction during a lesson conducted in Spanish. I found it essential and
critical to share this account as it stood out in contrast to Jenny’s perceived, as well as enacted
pedagogy.
Instructional segment #2: developing Spanish CALP. Similarly, to the lesson
conducted in English, this lesson also aimed at content, as well as Spanish CALP development in
the areas of reading comprehension and vocabulary development. Unlike the ELA lesson,
however, the 45-minute classroom observation in Jenny’s Spanish social studies class on human
evolution, did not exhibit features of ambitious socio-constructivism or critical pedagogies. Her
consistent effort to promote oral interaction and output, high level of questioning and problem-
solving skills was noticeably absent. In addition, she did not make efforts to engage her learners
in critical learning. Instead, features of traditional instruction emerged.
Activity one. On the board an informative text was projected with a picture of a
chimpanzee. All around the classroom walls Jenny hung various informative texts with a picture
of a skull and other skeletal figures. Students worked quietly and individually on their word
organizer handouts.
Activity two. After 10 minutes, Jenny explained five key words she had previously
written on the board. The interaction was limited to single word answers or a short sentence
response. For example, “Jenny: Michael, que es capacidad? “Michael: ability.” With the help
of her students, Jenny then added synonyms in Spanish on the board in different colors.
Activity three. Next, students walked around the room reading the informative texts and
filling out a graphic organizer. Students worked in pairs or groups and spoke in English among
themselves:
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 176
Pair 1. Student 1: Wait, where did he live?
Student 2: He lived in Africa.
Pair 2. Student 3 (boy): Where did he live?
Student 4 (girl): Is reading quietly, but the boy walked away looking at a world
map that was hung next to the informative text. He was waiting for the girl to
finish reading.
Activity four. A few minutes before the end of class, students returned to their seats to
check their answers as a whole class. Again, responses were limited to one word or phrases.
From an email correspondence after the lesson, Jenny explained that students were paired
or grouped “on a heterogeneous basis of Spanish vocabulary knowledge or independent
acquisition strategies. Therefore, those students with low vocabulary, undeveloped vocabulary
strategies have the partner there to support as they talk through it.” Yet, as seen from the account
above, little conversation took place in Spanish. Communication mainly revolved around a
translation of words. She also shared in her email response that the purpose of the lesson was to
“use the technique of skimming to identify they key characteristics and capabilities that
distinguish the five hominids. The unit’s purpose was to explain development of early hominids
and their interaction with their environments.”
Analysis of instructional event #2. While this account may be regarded as an outlier for
Jenny, it is important to present and discuss its limitations as well as suggest opportunities for
making it more critical and ambitious. This account aligns with a typical traditional lesson,
whereby the teacher puts periodic deposits of knowledge into the students' heads (five
vocabulary words, their synonyms, and content information about hominids from text). Such
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 177
classrooms are very teacher- and text-centered (Peterson, 2003). While Jenny did not lecture or
encourage meaningless repetition of words, little discussion and reflection took place.
Missed opportunities to develop CALP. In fact, this lesson revealed numerous missed
opportunities for the reinforcement of academic vocabulary and oral CALP through meaningful
social interaction. Such activities may involve students retelling the information they have
learned while using the key academic vocabulary. Peterson (2003) suggested SHOWED as a
strategy for developing oral interaction and output from a critical perspective:
S What do you See (facts, content knowledge, comprehension)?
H What is Happening to your feelings?
O Relate to your Own lives (text-to-self).
W Why do we face these problems (multiple perspectives, counter narrative)?
E
D What can we Do about it (action; social agents, real authentic learning)?
This type of talk about text can serve as a step towards a critical authentic output and action.
According to a critical orientation, academic knowledge should be applied to solving authentic
social and political problems, and ultimately lead to social action (Peterson, 2003). Following
this logic, to effectively develop Spanish CALP in Jenny’s class and transform it into critical
ambitious language pedagogy, the goal of the unit could move beyond reporting on “the
development of early hominids and their interaction with their environments.” Rather, learning
should lead to critical insights about society and the implication for today’s society. For
instance, one conclusion could be that Humans evolved the power to alter their environment so
as to protect themselves from its abiotic pressures. This means that students have the power and
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 178
responsibility to alter their own selective pressures. This realization can lead to a sophisticated
discussion that may result in social action, whether environment, social or political.
Summary and discussion. Examining Jenny’s interview data revealed that Jenny
conceptualized her role and her instruction of CALP in two languages from a critical social
justice orientation. Yet, findings from the interview related specifically to instructional strategies
for developing CALP, as well as classroom observations showed a close alignment to
mainstream socio-constructivist orientation albeit traditional and critical at times. She valued her
students’ diverse linguistic and cultural funds of knowledge, but at times failed to draw from
students’ past experiences and did not always help them make connections to life outside of
school. The lesson conducted in Spanish demonstrated reductive traditional exchange between
Jenny and her students and amongst themselves. Perhaps this is due to their low productive
CALP in Spanish in comparison to their receptive skills; listening and reading. At the same
time, I found deliberate instances of the critical pedagogy. The first, when learning about
community history extended to interactions with parents and other adults in the community. The
second instance involved the critical strategy of translanguaging when it came to helping her EBs
with academic writing skills. Therefore, Jenny’s pedagogy presented as “emerging-apparent”
critical ambitious language pedagogy for CALP development.
Theme One: Summary
In the first section, I provided examples that make evident the important link between
teachers’ ideology and pedagogical practices related to CALP development in two languages. In
addition, the analysis of teachers’ pedagogy also addressed limitations, missed or potential
instructional opportunities for EBs CALP development in either Spanish or English blocks. The
data revealed that all teachers in this study viewed bilingualism as an asset. One teacher
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 179
possessed a “mainstream” or equality ideology while three teachers demonstrated critical or
equity social-constructivist worldviews in educating both groups of EBs. A closer look revealed
that teachers’ pedagogy for developing CALP mainly incorporated features of explicit
instruction and mainstream socio-constructivism with some instances of critical social justice
pedagogy. The data also demonstrated that the four teachers used varied, deliberate, and
strategic student groupings to facilitate balanced power relationships and leveraged modeling,
and the support of more knowledgeable peers. Findings also showed a strong adherence to a
monolingual lesson delivery when teaching academic content in either English or Spanish with
some deliberate use of translangauging to promote CALP in two languages. Both groups of EB
students tended to revert to speaking English amongst themselves during lessons conducted in
Spanish. At the younger grades this was due to their new encounter with Spanish and acquisition
of BICS; while at the upper grades, this was due to their insufficient command of CALP. As for
language-focused instruction, the teachers explicitly instructed students using academic language
practices in both languages; however, observation in the upper grades revealed less systematic
instruction on reinforcing language form (i.e., vocabulary and grammar) in classes conducted in
Spanish.
Theme Two: Challenges and Assumed Causes in Developing Spanish CALP
The second theme that emerged related to a significant challenge and its assumed causes
associated with language-minority, as well as language-majority Spanish CALP development.
The assumed causes surfaced from interviews, from conversations following the classroom
observations, and from informal conversations with another middle school teacher (Emma).
While the literature on bilingual educations acknowledged these causes for impeding CALP
development for EBs, it usually related them to CALP in English and particularly to language-
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 180
minority EBs (Baker, 2006; Cummins, 2013). However, this study illuminated the challenges
TWI teachers, particularly the upper grade teachers, experienced when trying to help both groups
of EBs develop their CALP in Spanish. The following sections attempt to provide an analysis of
the participating teachers’ assumed causes for the low CALP in Spanish for both groups of EBs.
The causes centered around resources, contact time, instruction focused on language form,
standards and assessments, and bilingual teachers.
Challenge: Low CALP in Spanish
Three upper grade teachers: fourth, sixth, and seventh through eighth stressed that their
main challenge was that students did not have sufficient academic language to learn academic
content in Spanish. Jenny, the sixth grade teacher, and Emma who taught seventh and eighth
grades used the word “shocking” to underscore the magnitude of the phenomenon.
I have had quite a few kids who'd gone through since kindergarten who barely
understood or spoke any Spanish…. Because I had never even been in an American
school before I moved here to work in this school, and I was told I'm working in a
bilingual school and so I expected the kids to be at a certain level and I was so shocked
the first week. (Jenny)
Due to students’ lack of proficiency in academic Spanish, there was a time when instruction
could not be conducted in Spanish. Consider Emma’s account below:
US history was supposed to be completely in Spanish, but for a lot of reasons… they
didn't have very much Spanish. I switched to English pretty often and most of US
History was done in English. But it was surprising… They didn't know how to talk in the
past tense… they don't know how to conjugate in a past tense or the future tense or
anything, you know? They barely know how to talk in the present.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 181
When I asked her if this phenomenon was more evident with language-majority or language-
minority students, she responded that
Well, Spanish speaking kids had conversational Spanish. But when they wrote, some of
them were great, some of them it was the same level of, "What?" Not very clear. And to
me, it was shocking. It was shocking coming into this eighth grade classroom, and I tried
to have the debate of, "Was the exploration of the Americas genocide or discovery?" And
in the middle of the debate, they had done all of their research in Spanish. I had presented
the whole thing in Spanish, this was at the beginning of the year, and in the middle of the
debate, a girl raised her hand and said, "If we're not gonna do this in English, we're not
gonna do it.”… That was the eighth grade response of kids who had been in this program
since kindergarten being like, "We cannot express our opinion about this in Spanish."
The above excerpt makes evident that upper grade students lacked proficiency in Spanish CALP
to be able to learn, discuss, and produce academic content. Emma provided another example to
demonstrate how she knew that Spanish CALP was an issue of concern:
I had a kid last year who was not a native Spanish speaker, and when you want to run for
student council, you have to write and read your speech in Spanish, and I was with him in
the class and he hands his English speech to another native speaker to translate it for him.
Emma’s frustration was summed up in one sentence: “I would say in Spanish, everything is
lacking.” This section shed light on a particular, yet significant concern associated with low
academic proficiency in Spanish for language-majority EBs, as well as native Spanish speaking
students studying in a two-way immersion setting.
A survey conducted among all XYZ faculty provided more specific details to the
challenge of XYZ’ EBs’ low CALP in Spanish (personal communication, August, 2017). Low
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 182
CALP in Spanish manifested in students’ inabilities to form complete sentences, insufficient or
improper vocabulary to convey an academic message, inaccurate oral and written outputs (e.g.,
grammatical errors in verb conjugation and sentence formation), and difficulty with fluency (e.g.,
unable to communicate in the moment). As shown, students low Spanish CALP challenged the
teachers’ abilities to conduct instruction completely in Spanish and, as result, limited the
opportunities to further promote Spanish CALP. XYZ teachers also mentioned what they
perceived as the causes for their EBs’ low Spanish CALP.
Assumed Causes for Low Spanish CALP
To better understand Spanish CALP development, or lack thereof, in TWI schools, I now
present XYZ teachers’ perceptions of the causes for students’ low CALP in Spanish. Although a
complete analysis would examine all stakeholders and various indicators (Clark & Estes, 2008),
the next sections focus on selected teachers’ concerns and assumed causes. The causes centered
around resources, contact time, instruction focused on language form, standards and assessments,
and bilingual teachers.
Lack of quality textbooks and authentic resources in Spanish. The upper grade
teachers underscored the lack of resources in Spanish while this challenge did not seem apparent
in the younger grades. Sofia, the fourth grade teacher stated that “in comparison to international
schools, I find that resources lack and that could be because I was spoiled over there and they
had resources… you're allowed to do your job because you have the resources.” This concern
continued to present itself in the middle school.
Jenny and Emma, the 7
th
and 8
th
grade teacher (informal conversation, September 2017)
echoed Sofia’s sentiment and explicitly connected the lack of quality resources to their students’
low CALP development in Spanish:
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 183
Especially at the middle school level and from what I've heard from fifth grade, just the
rigor of language that's used and comprehension that's demanded of kids is all over the
place across content areas. So we're expecting them to do these extremely complex
readings in science and history, and then when I've seen Spanish language arts, like when
I've looked at past Spanish language arts curricula for the middle school for anything,
they're very ... They're like folk tales and they're things that are just not preparing them…
as well as to adjust for the inept translations by the History Alive! program. As far as we
can tell, they use translation software to change their English content to Spanish, and then
have an editor revise its accuracy. This makes for often awkward and incorrect wording,
so I have to edit each text manually so it’s not so English-influenced. (Jenny)
Jenny’s narrative highlighted two assumed causes for students’ low Spanish CALP. Firstly,
although authentic materials were used, these were limited to one genre (folk tales) instead of
exposing students to various fiction and non-fiction texts. The second concern related to low
quality text due to “inept translations.”
Emma underscored Jenny’s connection between the low level materials and their effect
on students’ Spanish CALP: “the lack of resources has made it so that the Spanish history class
is not as academically demanding as the English class.” Emma’s quote also made it evident that
the concerns with students’ CALP were salient with academic subject-matter content taught in
Spanish, rather than in English.
Resources in Spanish, however, did not emerge as a challenge for Maria nor Lucia.
Perhaps this was due to the fact that their kindergartners and first graders were only emerging
readers and a lot of the reading was guided and carried as a whole class. Another explanation
might be that because Maria and Lucia were at XYZ for many years they have accumulated a
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 184
comprehensive inventory. Alternately, I noticed that Maria and Lucia used technology quite
frequently; they used the class projector and self-created posters. Perhaps that was their way to
mitigate the absence of resources. Regardless of how teachers’ problem solved this presumed
cause for their EBs low Spanish CALP, the lack of resources in Spanish emerged as a
noteworthy challenge, as well as cause for developing EBs’ Spanish CALP.
Lack of sufficient contact time. While part of the low CALP in Spanish could be
attributed to lack of adequate resources in Spanish, contact time is a significant factor for
developing CALP in another language. Sofia and Emma underscored this assumed cause for
their students’ low CALP in Spanish. Sofia mentioned that as a fourth grade teacher in a 60/40
(English/Spanish, respectively) model, she felt that students are not sufficiently exposed to
Spanish to have them become fully bilingual and bilterate. This is a structural barrier since in a
typical TWI model, instruction in the partner language is reduced starting in the 4
th
grade as
evident in XYZ school (Kim et al., 2008). While the finding was not supported in any of the
interviews or informal conversations I have had with other faculty members at the school,
researchers on language acquisition agree that one of the main factors impacting CALP
development in another language is exposure to the language. At the same time, they
underscored that time and quality of the exposure to the language are more critical to CALP
development (Cummins, 2000; Dubiner, 2010; Thompson, 1995). While exposure certainly
relates to quality materials and time, more importantly, it addresses teachers and the quality of
instruction students receive during instructional time.
Shortage in bilingual teachers. In the upper grades, a shortage of finding bilingual
instructors to specifically teach academic subject-matters in Spanish emerged as a salient factor
for middle school EBs’ low CALP in Spanish and, in turn, challenges the learning of academic
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 185
content in Spanish. Emma and Jenny both mentioned this issue in their interviews. I share here
Jenny’s narrative as it captured Emma’s sentiment as well:
I think part of that is because in fourth and fifth grade, for some reason, the group of kids
I had last year were only taught history in English, and that's not according to XYZ's
program. That's because the teacher did it. I think they had long-term subs and so these
kids came in having not learned history in English, or in Spanish, for a couple years, so
there was a huge problem with Spanish vocabulary in history.
This finding is supported in the literature. Exemplary teachers in language education programs,
like those in mainstream classrooms, should possess high levels of knowledge relating to the
subject matter, curriculum and technology, classroom management skills, instructional strategies
and assessment, as well as the ability to reflect on their own teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
In addition to all of these qualities, teachers in a dual language education program must
demonstrate proficiency in both languages of instruction (i.e., English and the partner language)
(Christain, 1994; Genesee, 2004; Howard et al., 2018). Yet, the literature on EBs also confirms
the challenge in finding such high quality teachers to educate EBs (Valencia, et al., 2002).
Absence of high quality teachers to educate EBs can impact EBs CALP development in Spanish.
Lack of systematic integration of language form in context. While all teachers in this
study taught vocabulary and grammar within a meaningful context and used word organizers and
semantic strategies to explicitly teach language form, instruction was not systematic and at times
isolated from academic content. That is, language form was not always reinforced across
disciplines or through other language skills. In general, teachers identified key words and
incidental grammatical structure as they emerged from the texts. Jenny shared that, “grammar
hasn't really been taught a lot, and because of that... I feel like once they get to the higher grades,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 186
the teachers assume they know it and then they're just really lost.” This quote not only revealed
the lack of a systematic deliberate focus on language form and its effects on their middle school
students’ Spanish CALP, but also indicated another issue. Jenny alluded that the upper grade
teachers assumed that the responsibility to teach language form relied solely on the shoulders of
the elementary school teachers: “I feel like once they get to the higher grades, the teachers
assume they know it.”
Yet, as has been shown in the previous section, Maria and Lucia stated that grammar is
not taught explicitly but rather in context while only drawing their young EBs’ attention to
linguistic patterns rather than to grammatical rules. Sofia, the fourth grade teacher, also shared
that she does not connect the language form learned with academic content. As a result, XYZ
EBs are left without formal deliberate instruction on language form in any grade level throughout
their studies at XYZ school. This gap in students’ knowledge may, or may not impact their
Spanish CALP development.
The review of the literature demonstrated two conflicting perceptions about explicit
instruction on language form. Linguists and educators who reject the linear models of language
development, presume that the knowledge of academic English or any second language is
acquired implicitly rather than through explicit instruction (Krashen, 1984; Larsen-Freeman,
2012). At the same time, there is a growing consensus among researchers that teachers need to
learn how to build academic language systematically, and this has become a feature of many
interventions targeted on low achieving EO students and ELLs (Swain, 2005). Although the
literature is inconclusive on the value of explicit instruction of language form, this sub-section
underscored the upper grade teachers’ perceptions of an additional cause that might hinder the
development of their EBs’ Spanish CALP. Furthermore, it became apparent that the
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 187
responsibility for instructing language form was unclear.
Lack of common standards and standardized assessments. All XYZ teachers
addressed the absence of standards and measures for academic subjects in Spanish. An effective
educational program for developing Spanish CALP in a TWI setting, as in all educational
programs, should include clear performance standards and a comprehensive system of
assessments that is aligned with performance standards - all for the purpose of improving student
achievements (Conley & Darling-Hammond, 2013). Yet, non-core subjects such as art, music,
and foreign language do not have national standards and standardized testing. Indeed, XYZ was
no different when it came to academic subjects taught in Spanish. Emma’s frustration also
touched on this aspect:
You would follow the California State standards, which would mean you would have to
apply those in Spanish, which would be kind of hard, because a lot of the California state
standards for history are, "Go look at the English standards." So it's not really applicable,
you know? You could have them do the similar things in Spanish, I guess, but we've
been told that pretty much for history since there's no state test, we can make up our own
units, which I love, that's part of the reason I'm here. Because I love that freedom…
It's a freedom, but it's also a responsibility. It's like a blessing and a curse type thing,
where it's like, "Okay, I have the freedom to do whatever I want." Then when I get into
one of these situations specifically in Spanish, it's like, "Oh my god, I have the freedom
to do whatever I want, and I don't know what I'm going to do."
While Emma’s account above reported what was absent, it made apparent her perception
of what was actually needed for an effective academic program in Spanish to promote EBs
Spanish CALP. Emma raised the importance of accountability measures, namely data-driven
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 188
performance standards (“You would follow the California State standards, which would mean
you would have to apply those in Spanish)” and standardized assessments to measure growth and
achievements (“there's no state test”) in academic content as well as language proficiency in
Spanish.
In a survey conducted with the entire XYZ staff, all 22 teachers reported that the school
did not employ a systematic approach to assessing students’ CALP development, particularly
students’ oral proficiency in Spanish, for determining graduation bilingual awards (informal
personal communication, August 2017). Teachers reported that assessments of students’ oral
proficiency were conducted informally based on students’ ongoing participation in class,
individual interviews, one-on-one conversations, or based on overall GPA scores. Teachers
along with the school administration acknowledged the need for a clear assessment framework
for assessing their students’ CALP proficiency in Spanish (informal personal communication
with school administrators, June, 2017).
An effective internal accountability system includes clear performance standards and a
clear and comprehensive system of assessments that is aligned with performance standards,
among other things, all for the purpose of improving student achievement (Conley & Darling-
Hammond, 2013; Elmore, 2002). In the absence of such standards and measures for academic
subjects in Spanish, teachers cannot accurately assess students’ acquisition of added linguistic
and content knowledge and skills, or the lack thereof, or offer appropriate and specific
interventions.
In this context, the above quote alluded to the positive and negative implications of
absence of such accountability measures as “a blessing and a curse” (Emma). On the one hand,
their absence was liberating for teachers: “I have the freedom to do whatever I want,” (Emma)
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 189
but on the other hand, the absence of measures may hinder teachers’ ability to educate their EBs
in the most effective way, such as described here: “I don’t know what I’m going to do” (Emma).
Emma, who similarly to the literature, pointed out to the importance of a clear framework such
as the common core standards for providing teachers with the autonomy to design their
instruction to meet the desired outcomes for all learners. In other words, having common
standards and assessments for academic subjects taught in Spanish can help ensure high levels of
CLAP in Spanish for all learners despite the associated negative effects that were also mentioned
in the literature.
The educational literature associates accountability and testing policies in a negative light
concerning students from diverse socio-economic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds as they
serve as “gate-keepers” from future opportunities (Carter & Welner, 2013; Gandara et al., 2003;
Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Rueda, 2005). At the same time, without clear and measurable goals,
an objective definition of proficiency in Spanish, and reliable and valid assessments, it is difficult
to design instruction, interpret and compare students’ performance, and deal with EBs’
challenges in an equitable way (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003).
Theme Two: Summary
XYZ teachers reported a significant challenge around CALP development in Spanish and
its assumed causes associated with language-minority and language-majority students’ Spanish
CALP development. The causes centered around resources, contact time, instruction focused on
language form, standards and assessments, and bilingual teachers. Absence of sufficient, clear,
and ongoing high quality mechanisms and resources for developing CLAP in actuality excludes
language-minority students from high cognitive learning activities or ambitious learning that
leads to future academic success.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 190
Theme Three: Collaborative Professional Communities
A collaborative and supportive professional culture is critical for ensuring high quality
CALP instruction in Spanish as in any mainstream program. XYZ teachers collaborated within
and across grade-level teams, and with outside teacher educational programs. While there are
many ways to collaborate within a school, and partner with the outside community (e.g., parents,
local and global businesses, academic institutions, and native speakers around the world through
technology), this section specifically addressed the collaborative efforts involving classroom
instruction that were already in place but could be further leveraged to solve some of the
assumed causes for the low CALP development in Spanish mentioned in the previous section.
Collaboration Within and Across Grade-level Teams
Collaboration emerged as key to teachers’ Spanish CALP instruction. All participants
stated that working with other educators in the planning process was very valuable to them.
More specifically, to address the challenge involving lack of standards, teachers took an active
role in developing Spanish language and content standards for kindergarten through fifth grade.
Maria, the first grade teacher, explained the process that took place in order to accomplish this
important yet cumbersome task:
There are subjects that we have extracted what academic language we want to teach, and
we have done lists that are hundreds of words long for science, for reading, for math, for
everything. So we have very specific targeted academic language that we want our
students to learn, always keeping in mind standards, common core standards and what we
are supposed to be teaching. So we're not just teaching something in one class, and we
are on the same page. So this is what we created, the staff, teachers, at our grade levels,
about five, six years ago. Because we were worried that not every grade level was
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 191
building up on the next level. So we said that we needed to see what was being taught in
the earlier grades, especially math, things like that that you have to have certain
vocabulary in order to move onto the next thing. If you have a gap or early on they don't
have that terminology it can be difficult. So with academic language we have been very
structured.
This account, in contrast to the middle school teachers’ experiences mentioned in the previous
theme, demonstrated teachers’ awareness of lack of standards and the need to create a clear
framework to develop their students Spanish CALP. The collaborative learning was facilitated
through a structured purposeful process. Teachers also showed responsibility and accountability
for their own grade-level students, as well as for the ones that would come before them or
continue on to the upper grades: “Because we were worried that not every grade level was
building up on the next level” (Maria).
While this type of systematic and deliberate collegial collaboration was absent at the
middle school division, a less formal collaboration effort took place at the MS. Emma, shared
that she felt lost when she had first arrived at the MS due to the lack of standards and resources
and students’ low CALP in Spanish. However, her eyes lit up when she spoke about Jenny’s
support: “So that's a big problem I'm having. Jenny, who you've spoken to, helps me a lot.
Lots... She's so willing.” (personal communication). According to Cochran-Smith and Lytle
(1999), and Rodgers (2002), such a participatory vantage point affords both new teachers like
Emma, and practicing teachers like Jenny to simultaneously experience, reexamine and reform
their own practices and create common professional discourse and pedagogies. Thus, as the
literature has indicated and confirmed in this study, collaboration among colleagues across grade
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 192
levels and among colleagues in the same grade-level can enhance teachers’ CALP instruction in
Spanish and in turn, the level of their EBs’ CALP in Spanish.
Collaboration with Teacher Educational Programs
XYZ teachers also valued the support they had received from outside educators. XYZ
offers various professional development opportunities for their teachers including full-day
workshops, on-site coaching, and support study sessions (XYZ Renewal Submission October 12,
2015). Teachers felt that they were provided with professional learning opportunities which
were ongoing and based on their students’ needs outside-of-school, as well in-school (e.g.,
GLAD, Reader’s and Write’s Workshop). To address the absence of a coherent standardized
assessment framework for assessing students’ CALP development and ability, the administrators
in collaboration with this study’s researchers (i.e., Dr. Crawford, the lead advisor to this study,
and myself) have provided a year-long professional learning opportunity on the implementation
of the nationally recognized American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages’
Proficiency Guidelines using the oral proficiency interview (OPI) protocol (ACTFF, 2012).
Instructional principles and strategies for promoting CALP, and for helping students move from
one proficiency level to another were also extracted from these proficiency guidelines, the five
Cs framework. By working with teacher educators, teachers will be able to interact with new
ideas and perspectives in ways that they are seldom afforded due to time and resources
(Anderson & Stillman, 2013). In the context of this study, XYZ teachers learning and
experimenting with USC teacher educators about ACTFL’s proficiency guidelines, the OPI, and
the implications for instruction that is aimed specifically at that promoting CALP in a second
language, together, may help improve XYZ’s EBs’ CALP development in Spanish.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 193
Administrative Support
Central to the collaboration efforts mentioned thus far to enhance teacher’s instruction,
and in turn, students’ CALP development, was the creation of a safe collaborative space and
collaborative planning time for the co-construction of a shared local knowledge. The director of
the school as well as the principal were always present and engaged in those professional
learning opportunities. “Such partnership must be anchored in trust and reciprocal learning”
(Anderson & Stillman, 2013, p. 58). Whether beginning teachers, experienced teachers, or
instructional leaders, they all function as fellow learners and researchers rather than experts
(Birmingham et al., 2013; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).
Theme Three: Summary
A collaborative and supportive professional culture at XYZ was a crucial aspect for
promoting CALP in two languages in XYZ school. Teachers collaborated within and across
grade-level teams, and with outside teacher educational programs. Teachers were also
appreciative of the support they received from their leadership.
Summary
The themes that surfaced from the analysis of the findings addressed the research
question, corresponded with the literature on CALP development, and elaborated upon the use of
supportive data and analysis. Three overarching themes emerged while exploring the research
question through interviews, classroom observations in academic lessons conducted in Spanish
and English, and in didactic documents. Findings directly related to teachers’ ideology and
instructional practices, challenges and assumed causes, and collaborative professional learning
communities.
All teachers in this study viewed bilingualism as an asset. While one teacher possessed a
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 194
mainstream or equality ideology, three teachers demonstrated critical or equity social-
constructivist worldviews in educating both groups of EBs. In addition, XYZ teachers’ practices
seemed to range between emerging to apparent critical ambitious language pedagogy for CALP
development. In addition, the analysis of teachers’ pedagogies also revealed and addressed
limitations, and missed or potential instructional opportunities for EBs CALP development in
either Spanish or English blocks. Consequently, to make evident the important link between
teachers’ ideologies and pedagogical practices related to CALP development in two languages, I
outlined and provided concrete examples of what I called critical ambitious language pedagogy
for CALP Development (CALP for CALP) that flows directly from critical and socio-
constructivist learning theories and SLA research.
There emerged significant challenges around CALP development in Spanish and its
assumed causes associated with language-minority, as well as language-majority Spanish CALP
development. The causes centered around resources, contact time, instruction focused on
language form, standards and assessments, and bilingual teachers. While the literature on
bilingual educations acknowledged these causes as significant factors in CALP development for
EBs, the discussion has usually revolved around English CALP and particularly on language-
minority EBs. However, this study illuminated the challenges TWI teachers, particularly the
upper grade teachers, experienced when trying to help both groups of EBs develop their CALP in
Spanish.
A collaborative and supportive professional culture at XYZ was a crucial aspect for
promoting CALP in two languages in XYZ school. Teachers collaborated within and across
grade-level teams and with outside teacher educational programs. While there are many ways to
collaborate within a school and partner with the outside community (e.g., parents, local and
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 195
global businesses, academic institutions, and native speakers around the world through
technology), this section specifically addressed collaborative efforts involving classroom
instruction that were already in place but could be further leveraged to solve some of the
assumed causes for the low CALP development in Spanish mentioned in the previous section.
In conclusion, findings showed how exemplary TWI teachers at XYZ school helped all
their EB students, language-minority and language-majority, develop and construct CALP in
English and Spanish. In addition, this study made evident that CALP instructional methods
employed by the teachers were driven by emergent and apparent critical ambitious pedagogy.
More specifically, teachers at XYZ school honored their students’ funds of knowledge and
language resources (Moll et al., 1989). Students’ diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds
were seen as assets, and their bilingual skills were an academic tool that allowed them to co-
construct their academic content knowledge, as well as CALP in two languages (Cummins,
2013; Genesee, 204; Howard et al., 2018). Although teachers’ pedagogies for EBs’ CALP
development in either Spanish or English blocks stemmed from mainstream and critical socio-
constructivist ideologies, their instruction in practice was multidimensional and varied, and drew
mainly from mainstream socio- constructivist strategies with some efforts to make learning more
socially just and critical. Findings also indicated the challenges associated with developing EBs’
CALP, particularly in Spanish, as well as the collaborative efforts that helped teachers support
their students in their journey to develop their CALP in two languages.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 196
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
A two-way immersion (TWI) educational structure and pedagogy is one promising way
to transform the U.S. public school system into educationally, culturally, and linguistically rich
learning communities for all learners. Yet, despite the growth of TWI programs, many questions
remain unanswered about TWI teachers’ ideology and actual practices associated with cognitive
academic language proficiency (CALP) development in two languages in this integrated setting.
Hence, one step to further develop our understanding on this research topic was to focus on how
teachers perceived and enacted instructional practices that maximized CALP development of
both language-minority and language-majority emergent bilingual students. This problem is
important to address because of the growing number of language-minority EBs in schools across
the U.S. (NCES, 2015), along with the importance of developing high literacy in English and in
several of the world’s languages and cultures in order to succeed in the 21
st
century (New
London Group, 2000). Providing equitable and effective pedagogies for educating language-
minority students in their home language and developing their academic English, as well as
teaching language-majority students a language other than English is crucial to ensure that all of
America’s youth are equipped with the tools necessary to become members of a more
democratic, socio-linguistically inclusive, and liberal society (New London Group, 2000; Pekel,
2016). Thus, the study analyzed the ideologies and practices related to CALP development in
two languages taught by a team of four, K through sixth grade teachers, in a TWI program in Los
Angeles, California. This study was designed to look at their perceptions and practices in order
to discover the underlying ideologies and repertoire of specific language instructional practices
that support CALP development, and describe those practices in ways that may be useful to other
teachers and teacher educators working with similar students in various educational contexts.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 197
Given the nature of this research, this study was of qualitative design and was grounded
in critical and socio-constructivist worldviews and second language acquisition (SLA) research.
Data were collected from classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, informal
conversations, and didactic documents (Merriam, 2009). All findings presented serve to answer
the following research question for this study: How do teachers in one exemplary K-8 TWI
school conceptualize and help all their EB students, language-minority and language-majority, to
develop cognitive academic language proficiency in English as well as in Spanish in the same
classroom? More to the point, to what extent are the CALP instructional methods employed by
XYZ teachers driven by a critical ambitious pedagogy?
Discussion of Findings
Three major themes surfaced in this study related to cognitive academic language
proficiency development within XYZ school: teachers’ ideology and practices, challenges and
assumed causes, and collaborative professional learning communities. The first theme described
exemplary TWI school teachers’ ideologies and reported and observed instructional practices for
developing CALP in two languages.
Theme One: TWI Teachers’ Ideology and Practices about CALP Development
Collectively, the interviews revealed that the four teachers believed wholeheartedly in the
mission of their TWI school. They demonstrated some commonalities when it came to sense of
purpose, attitudes and views of their students’ linguistic and cultural funds of knowledge, as well
as collaborative and inclusive learning climate. The interviews and observations revealed
features of equality as well as equity mindsets when it came to educating both groups of EBs.
That is, teachers’ worldviews about CALP development in two languages ranged between
multicultural tolerance, socio-constructivist, and compassionate humanistic instruction that
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 198
follows a socially just ideology (Sofia) while three teachers (Maria, Lucia, and Jenny) were
driven by critical social justice orientation. I find this very encouraging as the educational
research and particularly research on bilingual education indicated that many teachers
particularly those who educate language-minority students, possess a deficit mindset (Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Christian, 1994; Genesee, 2004; Howard et al., 2018; Wright et al. 2015).
This study also provided a glimpse into how one set of teachers reconciled competing
traditions in practice to accomplish a culturally and linguistically inclusive pedagogy for
developing their EBs’ CALP in two languages. Consider, for example, their adherence to a
monolingual lesson delivery while at the same time acknowledging individual students’
linguistic needs through deliberate and consistent translangauging pedagogy. Findings confirm
not only that “What is called for is not a teaching method, but a teaching repertoire” (Galloway
& Labarca, 1990, p. 115), but that teachers are more open to acceptance of the use of different
languages in the classroom as evidenced by the teaching philosophies of Sofia and Jenny. Thus,
mirroring more closely the everyday realities of multilingual speakers (Anya, 2016).
Findings also showed that teachers’ critical ideologies impacted their curricular planning
and curricular choices but not to its full potential. The pedagogical approach of this team
strongly reflected many elements of explicit instruction and socio-constructivist strategies with
some efforts to make the learning critical. Socio-constructivist pedagogy encompasses elements
of ambitious pedagogy. According to Lampert et al. (2013) ambitious teaching is instruction that
helps students develop in-depth knowledge of subject-matter, gain higher-order thinking skills
(rather than just recall of academic vocabulary, grammatical structures or facts), construct new
knowledge and understanding, and effectively apply knowledge to real-world situations. Despite
evidence of emergent, rather than prominent, critical pedagogy, this finding is also promising. It
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 199
stands in stark contrast to the ample research in the field of education showing that many U.S.
teachers do not provide high quality instruction to meet the social and academic needs of all
learners to adequqtely prepare them for college and life beyond school (Ball & Forzanni, 2009;
Mehta, 2013).
Furthermore, although their practice featured mainstream socio-constructivist strategies,
they were grounded in principles of social justice and equity. Choudhury and Share (2014)
argued that empowering EBs does not necessarily mean changing their lives as agents of change
rather,” by teaching them new words such as photosynthesis… (p. 93-95). Morrell (2008) added
that thinking, speaking and writing true words is a form of action. Revolutionary thinking or
speaking are the foundation of social transformation. While awareness is certainly a necessary
foundation, educators have the moral obligation and civil responsibility not only to help shape
their students’ intellectual critical minds, but also to help them turn their ideas into action. In
order for a critical social justice worldview to become truly internalized as part of the way that
students see the world, individual students need to experience what being a social agent feels and
looks like, and how he or she not only have the potential, but the actual power to make the world
a better place for others.
Theme Two: Challenges and Assumed Causes related to Spanish CALP Development
The second theme that emerged related to a significant challenge associated with
language-minority as well as language-majority Spanish CALP development. Teachers’
concerns and assumed causes centered around resources, contact time, instruction focused on
language form, pedagogical knowledge, standards and assessments, and bilingual teachers.
While the literature on bilingual education acknowledged these causes as significant factors in
CALP development for EBs, the discussion usually revolved around English CALP and
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 200
particularly, language-minority EBs (ACT, 2005; Callahan et al., 2010; Carter & Welner, 2013;
Cummins, 1981; 2000; Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010; Genesee, 2004; Ginorio & Huston, 2002; Hill
et al., 2014; Kim & Herman, 2008; Milner, 2013; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Rueda, 2005; Stanton-
Salazar, 1997). However, this study illuminated the challenges TWI teachers, particularly the
upper grade teachers, experienced while trying to help both groups of EBs develop their CALP
in Spanish.
Theme Three: Collaborative Professional Learning Community
A collaborative and supportive professional culture emerged as a critical aspect for
developing EBs’ CALP in both English and Spanish. XYZ teachers collaborated within and
across grade-level teams, and with outside teacher educational programs. While the literature
(Ladson-Billings, 2006; Paris, 20012; Howard et al., 2018) recommends many ways to
collaborate within a school and partner with the outside community, this study revealed the
power of the local professional community of teachers in co-constructing their own educational
solutions (Cochran-Smith & Lytle 1999). Collaborative efforts for improving classroom
instruction were already in place and could be further leveraged to solve some of the assumed
causes for the low CALP development in Spanish.
Implications for Practice
Although this study’s findings come from a small group of teachers and small number of
classroom observations, I anticipate that these findings will have some generality in informing
the practices of other teachers and educational leaders who seek to support their students’ CLAP
development in TWI and in other contexts where EBs are educated. Three main implications are
drawn from this study, and specifically applicable to teacher education and to TWI schools, but
also to most English monolingual mainstream settings serving diverse student populations. The
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 201
first implication has to do with the connection between teachers’ ideologies, knowledge, and
practices. The second implication relates to teachers’ using a repertoire of instructional practices
and assessments. The last implication that emerged from the findings involves teachers’
collaboration on developing standards and resources to support CALP development in Spanish.
Teacher Preparation and Ongoing Professional Learning
For critical ambitious language pedagogy for CALP Development (CALP for CALP) to
become more prevalent in TWI schools, it must be more widespread in teacher preparation and
ongoing professional learning. Teacher education programs must help new and veteran teachers
develop ideological clarity (Stillman et al., 2013) about developing CALP through two
languages. “Teachers must develop ideological clarity about teaching historically marginalized
youth and develop pedagogical clarity grounded in that ideological clarity (Lampert, Boerst, &
Graziani, 2011, p. 142).” The first step, is to provide opportunities for pre or in-service teachers
to engage in deep critical reflection as proposed by Jay and Johnson (2002). That is, teachers
should learn how to reflect upon their emotions, beliefs, and assumptions about instruction and
assessments by questioning their initial understandings, descriptive reflection, as well as through
listening to and offering alternative ideas and, in turn, reframing their views about CALP
development, comparative reflection. Then, reflect on the implications behind the decision or act
for the boarder ethical, moral, political, historical, social justice issues (i.e., Critical reflection).
As Yost et al (2000), as well as Gay and Kirkland (2003) posited, this holistic view of reflection
is crucial in shaping reflective practitioners who come to see themselves as change agents for
improving the schooling system.
Teacher education programs should also educate teachers on what social justice
pedagogy for CALP development through two languages looks like and sounds like in practice
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 202
(Moje, 2007). Teachers need to know that in order to impact CALP development, they need to
help their emergent bilingual students build on the technical and cognitive aspects of CALP,
move from discussion and awareness of big ideas or enduring understandings, to social and
political awareness and, in turn, action. Teachers need to internalize that instruction embedded
in social action within and outside the classroom and school boundaries helps develop their
emergent bilinguals’ CALP in two languages, as well as a strong sense of self (Choudhury &
Share, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 2006). Furthermore, teachers need to experience first-hand or
vicariously how critical pedagogy can be implemented in early ages and, in turn, realize that
young students are capable of this level and type of intellectual and moral engagement
(Choudhury & Share, 2014). Thus, teacher education programs need to expose preservice
teachers to the various educational lenses and equip them with practical manifestations for CALP
development in two languages. Teachers should be knowledgeable about the rationale, goals and
plethora of strategies that support CALP development and reflect critically on their effectiveness.
Repertoire of Practices and Assessments
Developing CALP for culturally and linguistically diverse learners, learning in two or
more languages, requires highly qualified and sensitive teachers to construct and negotiate their
own dynamic hybrid approach (Valencia, et al., 2002). Knowing various theories, approaches,
and methods for promoting CALP in two languages is “the foundation for building a beginning
repertoire in which repertoire is defined as [‘a variety of techniques, skills, and approaches in all
dimensions of education that teachers have at their fingertips’]’’ (Wasley, Hampel, & Clark,
1997, p. 45). Acknowledging the necessity for an eclectic approach, a teacher can more
effectively navigate the competing goals of student accountability mandates and their
commitments to equity (Naraian, 2016). For this eclectic post-methods pedagogy to be effective,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 203
teachers should be provided with adequate opportunities to employ the techniques and
perspectives of critical inquiry: investigate, experiment, consult, evaluate, and reflect critically
about the effectiveness of each approach and strategy to their students’ CALP development (Jay
& Johnson, 2002). Such critical refection on practice and for practice should be conducted
individually as well as collaboratively (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).
A Collaborative Professional Community
The last implication that emerged from the findings highlighted the need for and the
benefit of teachers’ collaboration around development of common standards and resources to
support CALP instruction in Spanish. A critical point for this collaboration to be effective is the
need for the group of teachers to possess or generate a common language or framework; “if there
is as yet no common language across education, there does need to be a common language
within a community of inquiry” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 246). The process of developing
comprehensive standards in areas outside the common core standards can impact instruction and
assessments; it strengthens teachers’ capacity to teach for deeper learning. Such involvement
results in a stronger understanding of what quality standards and instruction look like (Conley &
Darling-Hammond, 2013).
This goal can be achieved through professional learning communities. Grade-level teams
can co-construct a critical ambitious framework for teaching Spanish CALP, as well as help each
other implement it in practice through an inquiry stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) that is
grounded in socio-cultural, constructivist, and critical worldviews. Teachers who take an inquiry
stance work as partners within inquiry communities to generate local knowledge, envision and
theorize their practice, and interpret and interrogate the theory and research of others together
(Anderson & Stillman, 2013; Cochran-Smith & Lytle 1999). Furthermore,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 204
Following this logic, the first step of the collaborative work needs to revolve around
establishing a coherent framework of standards and goals. TWI teachers should take an active
role in developing content and language standards for teaching Spanish CALP. Teachers can use
the nationally recognized ACTFL’s proficiency guidelines as a resource for developing language
goals (National Governors Association, 2010) in combination with content standards from the
CCS. Like the CCS, ACTFL’s framework provides teachers with the autonomy to design their
instruction and assessments (ACTFL, 2012). This process will empower teachers and enable
them to measure student Spanish CALP performance and growth against national proficiency
standards (National Governors Association, 2010).
A professional learning community can also co-construct a critical ambitious inventory of
authentic and adapted texts and resources per grade-level in a systematic manner. The
curriculum for developing Spanish CALP should correspond with the themes, content goals, or
language skills of the other academic subject-matters that are taught in English. Such cross-
disciplinary integration affords not only the transfer of content knowledge, but also naturally
reinforces transferable strategies for developing CALP in two languages (Cummins, 20013;
Makalela, 2015). In sum, instruction that aims to promote emergent bilinguals’ CALP
development in two languages is not only about enhancing the individual teaching skills, but
rather about “forming and re-forming frameworks for understanding practice as a professional
community: how students and their teachers construct the curriculum, co-mingling their
experiences, their cultural and linguistic resources, and their interpretive frameworks” (Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 290-291).

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 205
Future Research
As TWI programs increase in popularity due to their positive outcomes and, thus, become
more widespread, there is a need to change the paradigm of research questions and move away
from product-oriented studies to understanding processes and practices associated with CALP
development through two languages. That is, rather than asking whether to use the home
language and for how long, the integration of students’ languages and cultures should be treated
as a given (New London Group, 2000). More important is to inquire how to use these home
languages and the second languages in the school, curriculum, classroom practices, and
assessments to enhance CALP development for all learners.
Research on the CALP development through two languages in TWI setting is relatively
new in comparison to the research that exists on the language and literacy development of
monolingual language users. In addition, the literature usually addresses language-minority
emergent bilinguals’ CALP development in English. Rarely does the research address CALP in
the other target language, that is, Spanish CALP for language-minority as well language-majority
EBs (Cummins, 2013). The study reviewed here has added substance to CALP processes and
practices; however, because this study’s findings come from a small group of teachers and small
number of classroom observations, the findings in this study can be extended through future
research. Such research needs to include a larger pool of exemplary TWI schools and teachers to
see if the patterns highlighted in this study are congruent across more TWI classrooms and
contexts. It will be important to conduct similar studies in the future to examine the robustness
of these practices and to find out about any additional strategies used by other exemplary TWI
teachers in other languages (i.e., Mandarin, Korean, French, Hebrew, etc.).
In particular, three main areas appear poised for further development: critical multilingual
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 206
pedagogies, language use, and students’ perceptions and practices. While awareness of the
importance of these areas is well established in the bilingual literature and the first two are
addressed in this study, much work remains to be done in terms of translating the theoretical
issues raised above into sound and concrete classroom practices.
Critical Ambitious Language Pedagogy for CALP in TWI Settings
Critical transformative pedagogy for multilingual classrooms has attempted to address the
issue of CALP development through the incorporation of students’ linguistic and cultural funds
of knowledge into classroom learning. While this study captured practical examples, and drew
attention to potential opportunities for effective critical pedagogy for CALP development, more
research is needed to provide substance to this type of pedagogy that transforms the standard-
based humanistic education to social justice constructivist instruction. It would be particularly
useful to explore what practitioners consider critical for novice young learners in TWI settings to
develop their CALP in two languages and how they actually enact their instructional aspiration
in practice (Moje, 2007).
Language Use: Translanguaging
This study also intended to contribute to the ongoing discussion of language use within
the classroom. Even though, the TWI school in this study followed a strict separation of
languages according to the current guidelines for effective dual language immersion programs,
what actually happened in the classroom was a very interesting orchestration of an emerging
phenomenon of translanguaging for promoting CALP development through two languages.
Educational research should continue focusing on these classroom-level, micro policies and
practices in order to better learn about the various manifestations and effectiveness of
translanguaging. There is need to conduct more research in other contexts and on a larger scale
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 207
where content areas are delivered in English and in Spanish in order to see if and how
translanguaging occurs and its effects on CALP development of two languages (Esquinca,
Araujo, & Piedra, 2014).
Students’ Voice: Agents of CALP Development
Lastly, this study privileged the voices and perspectives of teachers. Bilingual research
also alerts to the need to listen to the voices of students (Greenwood et al., 1993; Lindholm-
Leary, 2016; Milner, 2015); in order to learn from students’ own learning strategies for CALP
development inside and outside the classroom (Gerena, 2010; Rueda, 2005). Children’s
interpretations of their own processes of becoming bilingual and biliterate can help to illuminate
the necessary new directions for a post-monolingual education and, in turn, a democratic and
inclusive society (Soto, 2002). The involvement of the students themselves in the democratic
process of their own education is key to their liberation (Freire, 1993). More recently, in the
global transnational communication, students are adopting multiliteracies in their communication
with others around the world. In digital social spaces, popular media, and youth interactions,
students are adopting useful strategies and practices that can inform curriculum, instruction, and
learning environments that promote bilingualism and biliteracy (Choudhury & Share, 2014). In
fact, drawing from the practices students themselves use to develop their academic literacies is a
critical ambitious pedagogical strategy.
Conclusions
The best setting for educating linguistic minority pupils--and one of the best for
educating any pupil--is a school in which two languages are used without apology and
where becoming proficient in both is considered a significant intellectual and cultural
achievement (Charles L. Glenn, Principal, 1990 in Christian, 1994).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 208
While numerous studies have demonstrated positive outcomes of two-way immersion
education, this study provides a descriptive view of teachers’ ideologies and classroom practices
associated with CALP development across a sample of English and Spanish TWI immersion
classes within an exemplary K-8 TWI school in Los Angeles. More specifically, this study
sought to explore if and how CALP instruction is situated within the larger context of critical
literacy. It was not a comparative study, and was not intended to support or refute competing
claims about the relative effectiveness of bilingual education compared to other approaches.
Instead, the goal was to illustrate how exemplary TWI teachers promote the development of
cognitive academic language proficiency in two languages for diverse learners even when faced
with challenges such as a lack of resources in Spanish, and emerging students’ proficiencies in
English and or Spanish upon entering school.
Changing educational systems and pedagogical practices to provide students with more
access to optimal cultural and linguistic conditions and relevant pedagogy in two languages will
not likely, in and of itself, result in reversing the educational experiences and outcomes of
students (Li et al., 2016). That is, multicultural education without a critical perspective can
result in superficial changes that may not produce any substantive affect upon the lives of
students who were sorely mis-educated. It is important to remember that to develop a truly
liberating and social justice bilingual pedagogy means moving beyond an understanding of
culture and language as products, or as the static symbols of people (Freire, 1993; Kerfoot &
Simon-Vandenbergen; Moje, 2007; Nieto, 2004). What is needed is committed and purposeful
political activity, both within the classroom and outside of it, to ensure that the stated ideals of
critical multicultural and multilingual education for a democratic society are realized (Nieto,
2004). In short, “We must not only contemplate, we must act” (Morrell, 2008, p, 223).
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 209
References
ACT. (2016). The Condition of College and Career Readiness. Retrieved from
http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/CCCR_National_2016.pdf
ACT. (2005). Reading Between the Lines: What the ACT Reveals About College Readiness in
Reading. Iowa City, IA: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/reading_summary.pdf
Alsop, C.K. (2002). Home and away: Self-reflexive auto-ethnography. Forum Qualitative Social
Research, 3(3), Art. 10. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/823/1789
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines (3
rd
ed.). Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-
manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012
Anderson, J. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Anderson, L. M., & Stillman, J. (2013). Student teaching’s contribution to preservice teacher
development: A review of research focused on the preparation of teachers for urban and
high-needs schools. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 3-69
Anya, U. (2016). Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in
Brazil. Routledge.
Apple, M. W. (2006). Understanding and interrupting neoliberalism and neoconservatism in
education. Pedagogies, 1(1), 21-26.
Asato, N. (2003). Mandating Americanization: Japanese language schools and the federal survey
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 210
of education in Hawai'i, 1916-1920. History of Education Quarterly, 43(1), 10-38.
Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students
with diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(30) 297-319.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bensimon, E. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 99-111.
Blumenfeld, W. J. (2006). Christian privilege and the promotion of “secular” and not-so
“secular” mainline Christianity in public schooling and in the larger society. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 39, 195–210.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5
th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Boyle, A., August, D., Tabaku, L., & Cole, S. (2015). Dual Language Education Programs:
Current State Policies and Practices. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Cadiero-Kaplan, K. (2004). The literacy curriculum & bilingual education. New York: Peter
Lang.
California Department of Education (CDE). (1999). Educating English learners for the twenty-
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 211
first century: The report of the Proposition 227 Task Force. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Retrieved August 15, 2005, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr04/documents/sep04item03.pdf
California Department of Education (CDE). (2014, April 28). State schools chief Tom Torlakson
announces high school graduation rate tops 80 percent [CDE news release]. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr14/yr14rel42.asp
California Department of Education (CDE). (2015, April 28). state schools chief Tom Torlakson
reports record high graduation rate [CDE news release].
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015144
Callahan, R., Wilkinson, L., & Muller, C. (2010). Academic Achievement and Course Taking
Among Language Minority Youth in U.S. Schools: Effects of ESL placement.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 32(1), 84-117.
Camarota, S. A., & Zeigler, K. (2016). Immigrants in the United States: A profile of the foreign-
born using 2014 and 2015 Census Bureau data. Washington, DC: Center for Immigration
Studies.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies
of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401-417.
Carter, P. L., & Welner, K. G. (Eds.). (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must
do to give every child an even chance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Castro, D. C., Garcia, E. E., & Markos, A. M. (2013). Dual language learners: Research
informing policy. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter
Graham Child Development Institute.
Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) (2016). Dual Language Programs. Retrieved from
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 212
http://webapp.cal.org/duallanguage/
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive
academic language learning approach. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.
Choudhury, M., & Share, J. (2014). Critical media literacy: A pedagogy for new literacies and
urban youth. Voices from the Middle, 19(4), 39-44.
Christian, D. (1994). Two-way bilingual education: Students learning through two languages
(Educational Practice Rep. No. 12). Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC: National
Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.) (2014). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.).
Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2004). The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual Language
Education for All. NABE Journal of research and practice, 2(1).
Connor, D., & Baglieri, S. (2009). Tipping the scales: Disability studies asks “how much
diversity can you take?” In S. Steinberg (Ed), Diversity and multiculturalism: a reader.
(pp. 341-361). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. New London Group (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the
design of social futures. London, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.
Crump, A. (2014). Introducing LangCrit: Critical language and race theory. Critical Inquiry in
Language Studies, 11(3), 207-224.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 213
success for language minority students. Schooling and Language Minority Students: A
Theoretical Framework, 349.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2013). Current research on language transfer. Implications for language teaching
policy and practice. In Siemund, P., Gogolin, I., and Schulz, M. E. Hamburg Studies on
Linguistic Diversity: Multilingualism and Language Diversity in Urban Areas:
Acquisition, Identities, Space, Education. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.
Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know when
we are doing it right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 9(4), 454-475.
de Jong, E.J., & Bearse, C. (2011). The same outcomes for all? High school students reflect on
their two-way immersion program experiences. In D.J. Tedick, D. Christian, & T.W.
Fortune (Eds.), Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities (pp. 104–122).
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473-490.
Diaz-Rico, L. T. & Weed, KZ (2006). The crosscultural, language, and academic development
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 214
handbook. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Dubiner, D. (2010). The impact of incipient trilinguality on the socio-affective development
of Jewish elementary school children in Israel. The Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 31(1), 1-12.
Echevarria, J., & Short, D. (2004). Using multiple perspectives in observations of diverse
classrooms: The sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP). In Observational
research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic
diversity, ed. Hersh Waxman, Roland Tharp, and R. Soleste Hilberg. Boston: Cambridge
University Press.
Edwards, V. (2015). Literacy in bilingual and multilingual education. In The handbook of
bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 75-91). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Eisner, E. W. (2004). What does it mean to say a school is doing well. The Curriculum Studies
Reader, 2, 297-305.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/shanker/files/Bridging_Gap.pdf
Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Espinosa, L. (2010). Assessment of young English-language learners. In E. E. García & E. Frede
(eds.), Young English-language learners: Current research and emerging directions for
practice and policy (pp. 123-126). New York: Teacher's College Press.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 215
Esposito, A. G., & Baker-Ward, L. (2013). Dual-language education for low-income children:
Preliminary evidence of benefits for executive function. Bilingual Research Journal,
36(3), 295-310.
Esquinca, A., Araujo, B., & de la Piedra, M. T. (2014). Meaning making and translanguaging in
a two-way dual-language program on the US-Mexico border. Bilingual Research
Journal, 37(2), 164-181.
Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical
guidelines for the education of English language learners. In Presentation at LEP
Partnership Meeting, Washington, DC.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed (pp. 25-67). New York: Continuum
Galloway, V., & Labarca, A. (1990). From student to learner: style, process, and strategy. In
Birchbichler, D W. ed. New perspectives and new directions in foreign language education (111-
158). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co and ACTFL.
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language
learners: A survey of California teachers' challenges, experiences, and professional
development needs.
Garcia, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and
practices for English language learners. New York: Teacher College press.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2013). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education.
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Garfinkel, A. & Tabor, K.E. (1991). Elementary school foreign languages and English
reading achievement: A new view of the relationship. Foreign Language Annals, 24(5),
375-382.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 216
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714-725.
Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students.
In T.K. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism (pp
547- 576). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gerena, L. (2010). Student attitudes toward biliteracy in a dual immersion program. Reading,
10(1).
Ginorio, A., & Huston, M. (2002). Characteristics of communities affecting
participation/success. Jossey-Bass Reader on Gender in Education (pp. 543-583). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5
th
ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Gold, N. (2006) Successful bilingual schools: Six effective programs in California. San Diego,
CA: San Diego County Office of Education.
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive
school reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Goldring, E., Grisom, J. A., Rubin, M., Neumerski, M. C., Drake, T., & Schuermann, P. (2015).
Make room value added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of
teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 96-104.
Gorski, P. (2008) Peddling poverty for profit: Elements of oppression in ruby payne’s
framework. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(1), 130-148.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 217
Greenberg Motamedi, J. (2015). Time to reclassification: How long does it take English learner
students in Washington Road Map districts to develop English proficiency? Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Northwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Greenwood, D. J., Whyte, W. F., & Harkavy, I. (1993). Participatory action research as a process
and as a goal. Human Relations, 46(2), 175-192.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory
and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-366.
Grant, L. W., Stronge, J. H., & Ward, T. J. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-
case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement.
Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339-355.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Heath, S. (1991). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr,
M. Kamil, R. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research, (Vol. 3),
(pp. 3-25). White Plains, New York: Longman.
Heckman, P. E., Montera, V. L. (2009). School reform: The flat worm in a flat world: From
entropy to renewal through indigenous invention. Teachers College Record, 111(5),
1328-1351.
Heller, M. (2007). Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In Bilingualism: A social approach
(pp. 1-22). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 218
Hill, L. E., Weston, M. & Hayes, J. M. (2014). Reclassification of English learner students in
California. Public Institute of California. Retrieved from
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=1078
Horn, I. S., Kane, B. D., & Wilson, J. (2015). Making sense of student performance data: Data
use logics and mathematics teachers’ learning opportunities. American Educational
Research Journal, 52(2), 208-242.
Howard, R.E., & Sugarman, J. (2001). Two-way immersion programs: Features and
statistics. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Columbus, OH:
Eric Digest.
Howard, E. R., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., Rogers, D., Olague, N., Medina, J., Kennedy, D.,
Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2018). Guiding principles for dual language education
(3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for
student achievement. American educational research journal, 43(3), 425-446.
Iverson, S. V., (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university
diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 586-611.
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73-85.
Johnson, A. (2006). Privilege, power, and difference. New York, NY, McGraw Hill.
Johnston Nelson, J. (2015). Content-Based and Sheltered Instruction: Components for Success
[Webinar]. Retrieved from
http://www.k12.wa.us/MigrantBilingual/Webinar/CBIShelteredInstruction6-5-15.pdf
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 219
Kanaiaupuni, S., & Ishibashi, K. (2003). Left behind? The status of Hawaiian students in
Hawai’i Public Schools. PASE report 02-03-13, Kamehameha Schools, 1-36.
Kaufman, D. (2004) Constructivist issues in language learning and teaching. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24, 303-319
Kerfoot, C., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2015). Language in epistemic access: Mobilizing
multilingualism and literacy development for more equitable education in South Africa.
Language and Education, 29(3), 177-185.
Kibler, A., Salerno, A., & Hardigree, C. (2014). ‘More than being in a class’: Adolescents’
ethnolinguistic insights in a two-way dual-language program. Language and Education,
28(3), 251-275.
Kim, J., & Herman, J. L. (2008). Understanding patterns and precursors of ELL success
subsequent to reclassification (CRESST Report 818). Los Angeles, CA: University of
California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
(CRESST).
Kim, S., & Slapac, A. (2015). Culturally sustaining, transformative pedagogy in the
transnational era: Critical perspectives. Educational Studies, 51(1), 17-27.
Kim, Y. K., Hutchison, L. A., & Winsler, A. (2013). Bilingual education in the United States: An
historical overview and examination of two-way immersion. Educational Review, 67(2),
236-252.
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us. Language and
Society, 12(1), 61-64.
Krashen, S. (2005). Proposition 227 and skyrocketing test scores: An urban legend from
California. Educational Leadership, 62(4), 37- 39.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 220
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97, 47-68.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12
Lampert, M., Boerst, T., & Graziani, F. (2011). Organizational Resources in the service of
school-wide ambitious teaching practice. Teachers College Record, 113(7), 1361–1400.
Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., Cunard, A.,
& Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher
learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226-243.
Lantolf, J. P. (2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition: Sociocultural
theory, second language acquisition, and artificial L2 development. In D. Atkinson
(ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 24–47). New York:
Routledge.
Li, J., Steele, J., Slater, R., Bacon, M., & Miller, T. (2016). Teaching practices and language
use in two-way dual language immersion programs in a large public school district.
International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(1), 31-43.
Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. 2006. How languages are learned, 2nd, Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Dual Language education. Clevedon UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2016). Students’ Perceptions of Bilingualism in Spanish and Mandarin
Dual Language Programs. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(1), 59-70.
Lindholm-Leary, K., & Genesee, F. (2014). Student outcomes in one-way and two-way
immersion and indigenous language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 221
Language Education, 2(2), 165–180. doi:10.1075/jicb.2.2.01lin
Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawaii Working
Papers in ESL, 8(2), 1-26.
Lopez, G. P., (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 68-94.
Lucas, T., Villegas, A., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically sustaining teacher
education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(4), 361-373.
Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory Into Practice, 51(4), 4-11.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form
in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Makalela, L. (2015). Moving out of linguistic boxes: The effects of translanguaging strategies for
multilingual classrooms. Language and Education, 29(3), 200-217.
Marian, V., Shook, A., & Schroeder, S. R. (2013). Bilingual Two-Way Immersion Programs
Benefit Academic Achievement. Bilingual Research Journal 36(2), 167-186.

Martínez-Álvarez, P., Bannan, B., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2012). Effect of strategy instruction
on fourth-grade dual language learners' ability to monitor their comprehension of
scientific texts. Bilingual Research Journal, 35(3), 331-349.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Mehta, J. (2013). From bureaucracy to profession: Remaking the educational sector for the
twenty-first century. Harvard Educational Review, 83(3), 463-486.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative data analysis. Qualitative research: A guide to
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 222
design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and
practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.
Miles, Huberrman, & Saldaña (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3
rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Miller, A. P. (2003). Language and power. Multicultural Perspectives, 5(3), 33-38.
Milner, H. R. (2012). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in educational practice.
Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 1-26.
Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature
on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1-44.
Moll, L. C., Velez-Ibanez, C., & Greenberg, J. B. (1989). Year one progress report: Community
knowledge and classroom practice: Combining resources for literacy instruction (IARP
Subcontract No. L-10). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, College of Education and
Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology.
Morrell, E. (2008). A vision of critical literacy in urban education. S. Nieto, (Eds.). In Critical
literacy and urban youth: Pedagogies of access, dissent and liberation (pp. 205-224).
New York: Routledge.
Naraian, S. (2016). Teaching for “real”: Reconciling explicit literacy instruction with
inclusive pedagogy in a fourth-grade urban classroom. Urban Education. Advance online
publication. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085916648742
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2015). The Condition of Education. Washington,
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 223
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015144
Ogbu, J., & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological
theory of school performance and some implications for education. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
Omaggio-Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, Massachusetts:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Ortega, L. (2012). SLA after the social turn. In D. Atkinson (Ed). Alternative approaches to
second language acquisition, (pp. 167-180). London, UK: Routhledge.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: a needed change in stance, terminology, and
practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97.
Parkay, F. W., Anctil, E. J., & Hass, G. (2014). Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing
quality educational programs. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Prentice Hall.

Parkes, J., Ruth, T., Anberg-Espinoza, M., & De Jong, E. (2009). Urgent research questions and
issues in dual language education. publisher not identified.
Parrish, T., Perez, M., Merickel, A., & Linquanti, R. (2006). Effects of the implementation of
Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12: Findings from a five year
evaluation (Final Report). Palo Alto, CA and San Francisco, CA: American Institutes
for Research and WestEd.
Parrish, T. (2009). Educating English language learners at the high school level: A coherent
approach to district- and school-level support. National High School Center
Retrieved from
http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/EducatingELLsattheHSLevel_042209.pdf
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 224
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Pekel, F. O. (2016). Pisa results or x-ray films of education systems? Problems of Education in
the 21st Century, 1(74), 4-5. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015- results-in-focus.pdf
Peterson, R. E. (2003). Teaching how to read the world and change it: Critical pedagogy in the
intermediate grades. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres, (Eds.). The critical
pedagogy reader, (pp. 365-387). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Pliner, S. M., & Johnson, J. R. (2010). Historical, theoretical, and foundational principles of
universal instructional design in higher education. Equity and Excellence in Education.
37(2), 105-113.
Project GLAD. (n.d.). What is Project GLAD? Retrieved from
http://projectgladstudy.educationnorthwest.org/what-is-glad
Reynolds, A., & Pope, R. (1991). The complexities of diversity: Exploring multiple oppressions.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 70(1), 174-80.
Rhodes, N., & Pufahl, I. (2009). Report from the National K-12 Foreign Language Survey.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230-253.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative interviewing: The
art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2005). Student learning and assessment: Setting an agenda. Latino education: An
agenda for community action research, p. 185-200.
Samad, A. A. (2009). Post-raciality in education: Revisiting Myrdal's "American dilemma".
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 225
Human Rights, 36(4).
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London/ New
York: Routledge.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2002). Language, policies and education: The role of education in
destroying or supporting the world’s linguistic diversity. World Congress on Language
Policies 16(20).
Smagorinsky, P. (2013). What does Vygotsky provide for the 21st century language arts teacher?
Language Arts, 90(3), 192-204.
Smith, T. W., Marsden, P. V., & Hout, M. (1972-2016). General Social Surveys,.
Soto, I. (2012). ELL shadowing as a catalyst for change. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin
Press.
Soto, L. D. (2002). Young bilingual children's perceptions of bilingualism and biliteracy:
Altruistic possibilities. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(3), 599-610.
Souto-Manning, M. (2009). Negotiating culturally responsive pedagogy through multicultural
children’s literature: Towards critical democratic literacy practices in a first grade
classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 9(1), 50-74.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Stein, L. & Stein, A. (2016). Re-thinking america's teacher education programs, the clearing
house. A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(6), 191-196. doi:
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 226
10.1080/00098655.2016.1206427
Stewart, J. H. (2005). Foreign language study in elementary schools: Benefits and implications
for achievement in reading and math. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(1), 11-16.
Stillman, J., Anderson, L., Arellano, A., Wong, P. L., Berta-Avila, M., Alfaro, C., & Struthers,
K. (2013). Putting PACT in context and context in PACT: Teacher educators
collaborating around program-specific and shared learning goals. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 40(4), 135–157.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1989). Canadian immersion and adult second language teaching:
What's the connection? The Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 150-159.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. Handbook of research in second
language teaching and learning, 1, 471-483.
Tate, W. F. (2008). “Geography of opportunity”: Poverty, place, and educational outcomes.
Educational Researcher, 37(7), 397-411.
Teemant, A., Smith M. E., Pinnegar, S., & Egan, M. W. (2005). Modeling sociocultural
pedagogy in distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1675-1698.
The Nuffield Languages Inquiry (2000). Languages: the next generation. London: The Nuffield
Foundation.
Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority
students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on
Education, Diversity and Excellence.
Torres-Guzmán, M. E., Etxeberria-Sagastume, F., & Intxausti Intxausti, N. (2011). “El Euskera a
Mi Me Gusta”: Parental Attitudes of Basque Country Immigrants. The New
Educator, 7(1), 44-65.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 227
Trimnell, E. (2005). Why You Need a Foreign Language and how to Learn One: English-
speaking Professionals and the Global Challenge. Cincinnati, OH: Beechmont Crest.
Tucker, P. (1997). Lake Wobegon Where all teachers are competent (Or have we come to terms
with the problem of incompetent teachers?) Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 11(2), 103-26.
Tyler, R. W. (2013). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago press.
Umansky, I. M., & Reardon, S. F. (2014). Reclassification Patterns Among Latino English
Learner Students in Bilingual, Dual Immersion, and English Immersion Classrooms.
American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 879–912.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). Current population reports (Series P-20; Current Population
Survey, March 1990 through March 2005). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Attracting, Developing, and Retaining Effective
Teachers. Washington, DC: International Affairs Office.
Valencia, R., Menchaca, M., & Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, desegregation, and integration of
Chicano students: Old and new realities. In R. Valencia (Ed), Chicano school failure
and success: Past, present, and future (pp. 83-99, 104-109). New York, NY: The
Continuum Publishing Company.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the
Development of Children, 23(3), 34-41.
Wang, H. (2016). Equalizing educational opportunity: In defense of bilingual education—a
California perspective. CATESOL Journal, 28, 105.
Wasley, P., Hampel, R., & Clark, R. (1997). Kids and school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 228
Bass.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: The Free Press.
Wright, W. E., Boun, S., & García, O. (2015). The handbook of bilingual and multilingual
education. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 229
Appendix A

Email Request to Conduct Study

May 9
th
, 2017
Dear _____________,
My name is Esty Gross. I am writing to request permission to conduct a research study at your
school. I am currently a graduate student at USC pursuing my Ed.D. in Educational Leadership -
Teacher Education in Multicultural Societies. For my dissertation study, I am interested in
understanding how exemplary two-way immersion school teachers help their students reach high
levels of bilingual and biliteracy competences. In other words, I would like to learn from highly
effective teachers about their thoughts and practices in developing their students’ academic
language when teaching academic content in English and in the partner language.
My search for an exemplary TWI school has led me to your school. I am hoping that the school
administration will allow me to conduct 40-minute interviews with approximately 5 of your
exemplary teachers, as well as shadow them throughout one school day. My research is not
aimed at evaluating the teachers nor the school. If approval is granted, I will schedule the
interviews and classroom visits during the Fall semester of 2017-2018 school year. The study
will involve only teachers. The site and participants will remain absolutely confidential in the
dissertation report. No costs will be incurred by either your school or the individual participants.
In addition, should you accepts my request, I would be happy to provide a professional learning
workshop for your staff during one of your school’s Professional Development days together
with my advisor Dr. Jenifer Crawford.
Your approval to conduct this study will be greatly appreciated. I will follow up with a
telephone call later on this week and would be happy to answer any questions or concerns that
you may have. You may contact me at my email address: esthergr@usc.edu or on my cell: 818-
836-9097.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Esty Gross
cc: Dr. Crawford, USC

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 230
Appendix B

Interview Protocol

This study seeks to explore two way immersion (TWI) teachers’ perceptions and practice
relating to academic language development in a dual language school setting. Socio-
constructivist learning theories and academic language development research guide the interview
questions and study focus.

Introduction for Teacher Interview
4

Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with me. My name is Esty Gross. I am a
doctoral student at USC. I am interested in learning about academic language development
within a dual language program. I would like to explore how you, as an exemplary TWI teacher,
perceive academic language development within your dual language school site. I am especially
interested in how you perceive this development as the ____ grade teacher because you see the
students in their beginning/middle/final years of the dual language program. ___________
suggested that you might be a good person to talk to because of your exemplary work with your
students.
The information will be used only for my dissertation study. I will not use the name of
the school, your name or any other names you mention. The interview will take about 45
minutes. Is that OK with you? If at any time you would like to stop the interview or skip a
question, please feel free to let me know.
I’d like to record what you say so I don’t miss any of it or by mistake change your words
somehow. I want to be able to capture your perspectives as accurately as possible. I am the only one
who will have access to the recording. So if you don’t mind, I’d like to use my phone to record. If at any
time during the interview you would like me to stop the recording, please just tell me to stop recording
and I will. I will also use this paper. It has some questions to help me ensure that I remember to ask you
everything. Please answer the questions in as much detail as possible and remember that there are no
right or wrong answers. Again, thank you so much for taking the time to help me out.

Do you have any questions for me before we begin?

I am interested in learning about academic language development within a dual language program. So
let’s begin.

4
Introduction is adapted from Bogdan and Biklen (2007, p. 107) and Patton (2002, p. 381).

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 231
Interview # _____ out of _____
Teacher’s first initial _____ Pseudonym: ________
Date of interview: ___________
Location: __________________
Time of interview (start/end): __________________
Interview was conducted before/after classroom observation

Teacher Background Questions

1. How many years have you taught in an elementary school?
2. How many years have you taught within a dual language program?
3. What grade(s) do you currently teach?
4. What grades have you previously taught within a dual language program?
5. What kind of teacher preparation have you had in relation to dual language program
methodology?
6. What is your home language?

Summary of Key Points

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 232
Research and Interview Questions Table
Research Question #1: How do exemplary TWI teachers conceptualize their instructional stance
and practices in promoting EBs’ CALP?
Interview Questions Research Supporting the Questions
1. How and when did you learn the partner
language (English or Spanish)?
Follow up:
How would you describe your learning process?
Do you see any alignment with your learning and
what you know about language acquisition?
Profile of teacher
White, native English speaker or from
similar cultural and linguistic background
as the language-minority students;
Feeling Question (Patton, 2002, p. 350).
2. I’d like to understand your personal
involvement in this immersion program.
What led you to teach in this setting?
Follow up: what is it about you, your
personality, your desires, goals?
What is different in your opinion about this
setting from monolingual schools?
Educational Ideology

Critical stance, social activist
Values and goals questions (Patton, 2002,
p. 350);
Wording of question was adapted from
Patton, 2002, p. 365;
Also, Extending question (Weiss, 1994).
3. How do you perceive your role as an educator
in the TWI program?
Tag: What are your goals for your students?
Tag: For language-minority and language-
majority?
Tag: What do you think are their goals?
What is their role in the classroom?
Educational Ideology
To elicit details on teachers’ ideological
stance to their EBs’ education:
“mainstream” or “critical”/”diversity”
social constructivist worldview; teacher-
centered or learner-centered orientation
(Au, 1998).
4. What are your students home languages?
Follow up: How do you feel about students’
knowing and learning in various languages?
Language Ideology
Subtractive or additive bilingualism
orientation.
5. How do you define academic language
development?
CALP Pedagogy
Pedagogical content knowledge
(Shulman, 1987);
CALP development (Cummins, 1981,
2000).
6. If I was a new teacher, and I wanted to learn
how to teach academic language. What
pedagogical practices would you recommend I use
to accelerate academic language development?
In other words, are there specific instructional
strategies you feel contribute to academic
language development?

Pedagogy
Pedagogical content knowledge
(Shulman, 1987);
CALP development through
Sheltered Instruction strategies or
CALLA Meta-cognitive approach
(Chamot & O'Malley, 1994).
To link teachers’ perceptions to practice;
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 233
to see how teachers’ perceive the
enactment of their role, beliefs and
pedagogies in practice
(Gibbons & Cobb, 2006).
Share specific events to elicit information
(Maxwell, 2013, p. 101 & p. 103);
Hypothetical question to understand the
thought process, goals and intentions
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016);
Filling in Details question (Weiss, 1994).
7. In your experience, how is teaching CALP in
English similar or different from teaching
CALP in the partner language?
Tag: Is it the same process or strategies for native-
English and language-minority students? How
so?/ Why not?

Follow up: How does helping language-minority
students compare to helping native English
speakers develop CALP in English?
How does helping language-minority students
compare to helping native English speakers
develop CALP in the partner language?
Deficit vs. Asset mindset
CALP development in both languages
and for language minority and majority
students.
8. How do you assist with grammar and
vocabulary?
Grammar and Vocabulary
Explicit or implicit language instruction.
9. What language do you and the students use in
the classroom? When? Why?
Other way to ask: I see that you allow for various
languages/ adhere to English or Spanish in your
class. Can you please share with me your
rationale?
Tag: What language would I hear and see?
What language would I hear you speak? Write on
the board or on handouts?
What language would I hear your students speak
with you? With their peers (native English
speakers and language-minority speakers)?
What language would they read and write in?
Language Use approach
Adherence to
Monolingual language delivery/separation
or
fluid dynamic translanguaing approach.
10. How do you facilitate collaborative social
learning?
Follow up: Do students in your class work in pairs
or groups? If yes, how are they paired/ grouped?
Why?
Grouping
Homogeneous or heterogeneous language
grouping;
social constructivist learning, opportunities for
cross socio-cultural relationships or
separation and marginalization that reflect and
perpetuate divisive societal ethnic/social
structures.
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 234
11. What are some other factors you feel
contribute to academic language
development?
CALP development
12. Some students may struggle in becoming
proficient students in both languages.
Who are these students?
Do you think this setting is optimal for them?
How so?
How many would you say struggle?
Deficit vs. Asset mindset
Teachers are the salient in-school factor.
13. What kinds of challenges do you experience
with academic language development in your
class?
Tag: Do they have different challenges/needs?
What do you perceive are the needs of long term
English language learners in relation to CALP?
What do you perceive are the needs of native
English speakers in relation to academic language
development in Spanish?
Challenges - general
CALP development.
Equity or colorblind lens.

14. If you had a struggling language-minority
student, what would s/he be doing in your
class?
If you had a struggling native English speaker,
what would their class time look like?
Learner-centered instruction
Supporting struggling students.
Educating both language-minority and
language-majority students.
15. Suppose you are an advanced language-
minority student in your class, what does your
class time look like?
Suppose you are an advanced native English
student in your class, what does your class time
look like?
Learner-centered instruction
Equity or colorblind lens.
Supporting advanced students.

16. What do you do with students who join in the
middle of program and don’t have any
proficiency in the target language?
Learner-centered instruction
Instructional challenges and strategies to
educate all students.
17. That covers the things I wanted to ask. Is there
anything we have not yet discussed that you
would like to add to help me understand how
to better help students in TWI schools attain
academic language?
Patton, 2002, p. 379.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 235
Appendix C

Classroom Observation Protocol

Research Question #2: How is instruction that aims to promote CALP enacted in practice?

Teacher’s first initial _____
Pseudonym: __________

Observation #___ out of ___

Date: ________________ Start Time: ___________

End time: ____________
Describe classroom setting and the linguistic landscape.
Address students’ desk arrangement, learning centers, language of library/book resources,
evidence of students’ work and language use, type of visuals, language of visuals,
language used on white/blackboard).
Evidence of literacy development (reading, writing, grammar, and vocabulary
development).
Note seating arrangement of students by race/ethnicity (Latino=L, Asian=A, Black=B,
white=W).
Total number of students: _________

General notes about participants:

Summary of observation/Key insights:

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 236

Time
(Indicate
time of
each
new
activity).
Observations
(Transcribe teacher (T) and student (s)
talk verbatim; indicate language use:
English=E, Spanish=S; indicate gestures
and behaviors).
Research comments

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 237
Appendix D

Consent Form
University of Southern California
(Rossier School of Education-Ed.D. Program)

INFORMED CONSENT

EXEMPLARY TWI TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND PRACTICE ABOUT
ACADEMIC LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A DUAL LANGUAGE
PROGRAM

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by ESTHER GROSS at the University
of Southern California, because you are an exceptional dual language teacher. Your participation
is voluntary. Please read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. If you decide to
participate, you will be asked to sign this form, and you will be given a copy.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to investigate exemplary two-way immersion teachers’ perceptions
and practices about academic language development in the partner language for Latino English
language learners as well as for native English speaking students. I would like to learn from highly
effective teachers about their thoughts and practices in developing their students’ academic
language when teaching academic content in English and in Spanish. This study focuses on
exemplary dual language schools and teachers that despite serving Latino English language
learners in high poverty, are high performing.

Research Questions:
How do exemplary TWI teachers help all their EB students, language-minority and language-
majority, develop and construct CALP in the partner language?
This overarching question is further broken down into the following sub-research questions:
(1) How do exemplary TWI teachers conceptualize their instructional stance in promoting their
students’ CLAP in the partner language?
(2) How is instruction that aims to promote CALP for all learners enacted in practice?
More to the point, to what extent are the CALP instructional methods employed by
teachers driven by critical ambitious pedagogy?
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to describe your understanding of
academic language development, and the factors you feel contribute to the academic language
development of both groups of learners. This information will be captured over four weeks during
Fall, 2018. Each participant will be observed twice (either during English language block or the
CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 238
partner language block), and will be interviewed after the second observation. Interviews will take
approximately 45 minutes and will be audio recorded to ensure accuracy of information.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Participants may be adding to our understanding of academic language development within dual
language programs. Researcher may provide professional development workshops based on
school literacy needs.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect
the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored in a memory drive indefinitely and will remain confidential. Participants
have the right to review audio recording transcriptions for accuracy. Only the principal
investigator, the advisor, and transcribers will have access to all audio recordings. Personal
identities will be shielded using pseudonyms, and all data will be coded to ensure privacy of
participants. Confidentiality will be maintained through a secured laptop. Data collected will be
used for educational purposes, and will not be distributed to any other party.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study.

EMERGENCY CARE AND COMPENSATION FOR INJURY
If you are injured as a direct result of research procedures you will receive medical treatment;
however, you or your insurance will be responsible for the cost. The University of Southern
California does not provide any monetary compensation for injury.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Esther Gross,
at esthergr@usc.edu or (818) 836-9097.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272.

CRITICAL AMBITIOUS LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 239

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

Abstract (if available)

Abstract With the continuous growth of language‐minority students in the U.S., along with the importance of developing high literacy in English and in several of the world’s languages and cultures in order to succeed in the 21st century, bilingual education is considered one promising educational solution for the collective socio‐cultural well‐being and schooling of all U.S. children. While research on Two Way Immersion (TWI) schools has suggested positive cognitive and academic outcomes, as well as increased cross‐cultural competency for all students and is gaining popularity in the U.S., not much is known about the processes for developing cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in two languages. Attending to one exemplary TWI school in California as the unit of analysis offers a nuanced portrait to explore TWI teachers’ ideologies and practices relating to CALP development of all their emergent bilingual learners through semi‐structured interviews and classroom observations. Socio‐constructivist and critical learning theories and second language research guided the interview questions and analysis. Recommendations are suggested in the areas of further research and pedagogies in the field of bilingual education in order to provide a greater proportion of the U.S.’s youth with the opportunity to acquire valuable languages, cultural, and academic knowledge and skills that would benefit them in their future personal and professional lives and, in turn, develop a more democratic and liberal society.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms

PDF

Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

The role of teachers in academic discussion

PDF

A case study on the planning and implementation of a dual language immersion program in a K-12 school district

PDF

Examining dual language immersion program instructional practices with regard to cognitive load theory

PDF

Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation

PDF

The effect of opportunity gaps: the charge for culturally relevant pedagogy in middle school social studies classes

PDF

Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis

PDF

A case study of the roles of principals in dual language immersion programs

PDF

A case study on African American parents' perceptions of Mandarin Dual Language Immersion Programs and the role social capital plays in student enrollment

PDF

Puncturing discourse: Russian heritage learner language and identity in higher education

PDF

College academic readiness and English placement

PDF

Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement

PDF

Developing readers at a high-poverty elementary school: a study of factors that influence teacher performance

PDF

""Having the right info"": College readiness as college knowledge among minoritized students in an urban education setting

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

Civic engagement in American schools: an evaluation study

PDF

An analysis of reflective practices utilized to support the inclusion of K-5 students with disabilities

PDF

The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color

Asset Metadata

Creator Gross, Esther Shulamit (author)

Core Title Critical ambitious language pedagogy for cognitive academic language proficiency development in two-way immersion schools: teachers' ideologies and practices

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/16/2018

Defense Date 03/07/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic language development,bilingual education,CALP,dual language,OAI-PMH Harvest,two‐way immersion

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Crawford, Jenifer (committee chair), Carbone, Paula (committee member), Moore, Ekaterina (committee member)

Creator Email esthergr@usc.edu,estygg@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-493197

Unique identifier UC11266789

Identifier etd-GrossEsthe-6252.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-493197 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GrossEsthe-6252.pdf

Dmrecord 493197

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Gross, Esther Shulamit

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA